A large B.C. family that stayed at a Vrbo short-term rental but found the holiday was “less enjoyable than expected” has been ordered to pay the hosts, according to a decision from the Civil Resolution Tribunal.
The dispute dates back to 2021, when Niloufar Mirzaei paid $3,435 for a vacation home to host a 19-person family reunion over Christmas.
The property owners, Andre Marc Savard and Sandra Mary Lopez, made a claim with the tribunal after Mirzaei successfully claimed a chargeback on their credit card, arguing the family was not entitled to the refund.
Mirzaie disagreed, telling the tribunal that the property was not as advertised and the family’s stay was disappointing citing insufficient cutlery, clogged toilets and the lack of a functioning oven in which to cook a Christmas Eve turkey as some of the issues.
Was the property misrepresented?
The decision said that Mizraie had the burden of proving that the property was misrepresented, meaning they had to demonstrate that the property owners “made a statement that was false, inaccurate, or misleading” and that Mizraie “reasonably relied on it in renting the property.”
Mizraie told the tribunal that the photos on the listing were “vastly different” that its actual appearance. However, the decision noted that no evidence was submitted to support this claim, and it was therefore rejected.
Another argument Mirzaei made was that the capacity of the rental to hold 20 people was “falsely advertised” because there were not “enough kitchen supplies.” Given that it was undisputed that 19 people stayed at the rental for the full four days, the tribunal rejected that claim.
“I find that the capacity of the property would be better measured by beds rather than cutlery and that the respondent has not proven that the property could not reasonably accommodate their guests,” Nyhuus wrote.
Claims that the property owners misled the renters with unkept promises of snow clearing and a functional oven were also rejected.
“I find that the applicants did not make any misrepresentations about the property and that a set-off is not justified on this basis,” the decision said.
A ‘peace of mind’ contract
Nyhuus’ decision said that the argument that the stay was underwhelming amounted to a claim the contract was breached – explaining that the terms of certain contracts involve an agreement to “provide pleasure, relaxation, or peace of mind.”
Damages for “disappointment, mental distress, inconvenience, and upset” are available and have been awarded in cases where so-called “peace of mind” contracts have been breached, the decision said, citing a “lost or spoiled holiday or a cancelled party” as examples.
The tribunal found the vacation rental agreement was a “peace of mind contract” because it was entered into so Mirzaei and their guests could have “a comfortable, relaxing, and safe family reunion over Christmas.”
Mirzaei had a range of complaints about the stay that the tribunal considered, including “non-operational bathrooms” and “serious electrical problems.”
The tribunal found the issues with the bathroom – specifically two clogged toilets – were reported by the guests and resolved by the host, who came to the property and unclogged the toilets using “readily available plungers.”
The owners argued that the bathrooms were functional, and the tribunal agreed.
“I agree with the applicants’ assessment and find the toilets were likely clogged by the guests’ activities rather than defective bathrooms,” Nyhuus wrote.
The tribunal did find that the electrical issue – even though it was unforeseen and despite the owners’ efforts to address it – was a breach of the contract because it rendered the oven in the home unusable on Christmas Eve, when the family planned to roast a turkey.
“I accept that a non-functional oven on Christmas Eve during a large family gathering caused the respondent disappointment, inconvenience, and distress. I find that the applicants’ failure to provide a functioning oven was a breach of contract,” Nyhuus wrote.
The decision noted that the property owners had previously offered to refund the guests $300 as compensation for the inconvenience cause by the electrical issue with the oven. Nyhuus found this was a fair amount and awarded Mirzaei $300 in damages.
Mirzaei was ordered to pay the owners $3,135.62 for the rental, as well as $354.35 in pre-judgment interest, $175 for CRT fees and $9.75 for dispute-related expenses.
