A decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal outlining the dispute and ruling in favor of the client was published online this week. There was no contract for the services, so court member Nav Shukla relied on the messages exchanged between the two parties involved to determine what their agreement was. It is not disputed, the court noted, that Anahita Moazami paid trainer Christine Wallace $1,320 for her services. The couple agreed to this price for two sessions a week for 12 weeks. However, only six training sessions ever took place between December 2021 and February 2022. “Ms. Wallace does not deny that Miss Moazami did not receive all of the personal training she had agreed to provide to Miss Moazami,” the decision states. “Ms Wallace says Miss Moazzami is not entitled to a refund because of the extra hours she allegedly spent monitoring Miss Moazzami’s phone calls and text messages.” Shukla said the evidence showed, on the balance of probabilities, that the deal involved actual training. “No additional fees were agreed upon for the time Ms. Wallace could spend providing Moazami with a meal plan or other support via phone, email or text,” he wrote. “Based on the aforementioned text messages, I find that the price of $1,320 included the additional time that Ms. Wallace would spend creating a home nutrition and exercise program for Ms. Moazami on days when they were not working out together. Ms. Wallace is not entitled to apply the balance of the $1,320 that was earmarked for training to the alleged ‘extra time’ she spent.” Initially, training was delayed due to the closure of gyms due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Wallace later offered online training, saying doing it in person “wasn’t in the cards” for the couple. It was at this point that Moazami demanded a refund for the 18 sessions that never took place. The court found that even though the two did not discuss a refund policy, Moazami was entitled to a policy under the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. Shukla found that Wallace was a “supplier” who “in the course of business engaged in a consumer transaction by supplying or offering to supply goods or services to a consumer.” The contract between the two, the court found, was a contract for continuing services. According to the ruling, the law says such contracts can be canceled by a customer “at any time” if there has been a “material change”. Shukla said not offering personal training constituted such a change, and the law entitled Moazami to a refund for “unused services.” Wallace was ordered to pay Moazami a total of $1,118.51, which includes the $990 refund, CRT fees and interest.
