B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has ordered a Nanaimo beauty company to pay a bride $754 in damages after finding unwarranted extra charges for her wedding party makeup.
In a July 16 decision, tribunal member Jeffrey Drozdiak said Elanna Eagle signed a contract with Rachel Bethell, who was doing business as Enhance Beauty, for hair and makeup services at Eagle’s wedding.
Eagle claimed Bethell told her she would bring an assistant to help at no extra charge.
But, after signing a contract, Eagle said Bethell later told her an assistant would be an extra cost.
“Ms. Eagle alleges the respondent misled her and claims $754 for the return of her deposit,” Drozdiak said.
However, Bethell said she would lose money if she brought an assistant to complete the services. She said the contract said the deposit was non-refundable, and that Eagle was not entitled to its return.
The events
On Sept. 5, 2023, Eagle emailed Bethell asking about pricing for hair and makeup services for her June 2024 wedding.
The services requested included hair and makeup for Eagle, hair for two bridesmaids and Eagle’s mother and makeup for two bridesmaids.
“Later that day, (Bethell) responded with their pricing,” Drozdiak said.
On Sept. 13, 2023, Eagle emailed Bethell asking about the cost for bringing an assistant to help complete the services.
The next day, Bethell replied there would be no added charge for a team member to join them. After receiving that reply, Eagle booked Bethell for her wedding.
Bethell then provided Eagle with a price breakdown for the hair and makeup services, which totalled $1,508 and included a $754 deposit.
Eagle paid the deposit that day by e-transfer.
On Sept. 15, 2023, Eagle signed a contract for Bethell to complete the hair and makeup services. In the contract, Eagle agreed that the deposit was non-refundable.
On Jan. 10, 2024, Eagle emailed Bethell about the schedule for the hair and makeup services.
“After not receiving a response, Ms. Eagle followed up on Jan. 31, 2024, asking about a 10 a.m. start,” Drozdiak said. “(Bethell) told Ms. Eagle that they would need to start earlier, as they were not bringing an assistant with them.”
As the two exchanged several more emails, Eagle argued Bethell had told her that an assistant would be included in the price.
“(Bethell) informed Ms. Eagle that it would be $70 per person if they brought an assistant,” Drozdiak said.
“Eventually, Ms. Eagle asked (Bethell) to return her deposit, and (Bethell) refused,” he said.
Tribunal analysis
Drozdiak said Eagle specifically asked Bethell in the Sept. 13 email how much it would cost to bring an assistant as she wanted to start later but still get everything done.
“In response, (Bethell) wrote, ‘no additional cost for my team member to join me — I would bring her with me,’” Drozdiak said. “Since (Bethell) later told Ms. Eagle that it would cost extra for an assistant, I find this initial representation was untrue, inaccurate, and misleading.”
The tribunal member said Eagle acted reasonably by asking about an assistant and relying on Bethell’s response before booking the services.
“Since (Bethell) later told Ms. Eagle that it would be $420 for an assistant, and refused to return the $754 deposit, I find Ms. Eagle relied on the misrepresentation to her detriment,” Drozdiak said.
“Given this, I find (Bethell) negligently misrepresented their services.”
