2016 BCPC 258, 2016 BCPC 258

Citation: Zhang, Cen, Zhang v. Richmond Cruise et al. Date: 20160630 2016 BCPC 258 File No: S26238 Registry: Richmond IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Small Claims Division BETWEEN: AI YING ZHANG, JIAN HENG CEN, LI YING ZHANG CLAIMANT AND: RICHMOND CRUISE & TRAVEL INC. doing business as EXPEDIA CRUISESHIP CENTRES RICHMOND DEFENDANT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE K. ARTHUR-LEUNG Appearing on their own behalf: Ai Ying Zhang, Jian Heng Cen, Li Ying Zhang (with Interpreter) Appearing for the Defendants: C. Peterson, Owner Place of Hearing: Richmond , B.C.

Date of Hearing: December 4, 2015 and April 25, 2016 Date of Judgment: June 30, 2016 [ 1 ] This is a Claim by the Claimants against the Defendant for a refund of cruise fare, loss of wages for (Mr.) Jian Heng Cen and (Mrs.) Ai Ying Zhang, flight cancellation fee (Ms.) Li Ying Zhang, damages for “disappointment, frustration, upset and loss [sic] enjoyment”. The Defendant denies each and every allegation and puts the Claimants to the strict proof therein. [ 2 ] The Court heard testimony from Mrs.

Ai Ying Zhang that she is seeking the sum of $7,620.00 against the Defendant, which is a different sum than what is set out in the Notice of Claim. Ms. Zhang testified through an Interpreter that the Defendant provided “wrongful” information and caused her to suffer damages and that she suffered psychological pain. [ 3 ] She testified that friends told her about a cruise that they were taking to Japan from Vancouver. She does not speak English and she said that her friends said that they would assist her on the cruise.

This conversation occurred while she was swimming with friends at a community pool on September 9, 2014. [ 4 ] She testified that on September 9, 2014, at approximately noon, she went into the Defendant’s business premises with her sister, the other Claimant, that being Li Ying Zhang (Ms. Zhang). A woman named Karen assisted them (that being Karen Erickson who testified in this trial). Mrs. Zhang testified that she asked about cruises to Japan and that Ms.

Erickson told her, after inputting her and her husband’s names and dates of birth, that there was one cabin available on the same cruise that her friends were taking, but that it had to be booked by 2 p.m. that day. Ms. Zhang told her that she would have to call Mrs. Zhang’s husband (Jian Heng Cen) to see if he could get time off work. It is important to note that the bulk of this testimony is hearsay. Mrs. Zhang does not speak English and Ms. Erickson only speaks English, so none of this information was relayed directly to and from Mrs. Zhang and Ms.

Erickson, as directly between one another, therefore this Court is unable to accurately rely upon much of her testimony. She testified that her husband, Mr. Cen, advised that he was able to get time off of work, but needed final approval from his boss. The parties (Mrs. Zhang and Ms. Zhang) went back to meet with Ms. Erickson once Mr. Cen confirmed that he has the time off and Mrs. Zhang testified that her sister, Ms. Zhang, spoke to Ms. Erickson about the cruise details. Again, this would have been in English, therefore Mrs.

Zhang would not have known what was said, save and except for what she says her sister, Ms. Zhang, translated back to her. She says that her sister told Ms. Erickson that both she and Mr. Cen are in Canada only with a Chinese passport and a US Visa, and that her sister, Ms. Zhang, said that Ms. Erickson told her that this was fine for them to travel on the cruise. Again, this is hearsay and was not told directly to Mrs. Zhang by Ms. Erickson. Mrs. Zhang said that she heard her sister, Ms.

Zhang, interpret, however, again, without understanding any English, it is impossible to know what was said and what was, if at all, fully translated. Mrs. Zhang said that Ms. Erickson said that there was sufficient information for them to travel, however, keeping in mind that none of this was said directly to Mrs. Zhang and was through Ms. Zhang interpreting. Ms. Erickson photocopied both Mrs. Zhang’s and Mr. Cen’s Chinese passport and US Visa. Ms. Erickson said that they were booked, but that she was unable to process the ticket because the office who issues the ticket was then closed.

The ticket was picked up on September 10, 2014. [ 5 ] Mrs. Zhang testified through an interpreter that the cruise departed on September 11, 2014; however, it actually departed on September 12, 2014. Ms. Zhang drove the parties to the Vancouver cruise ship terminal, and they met friends whom she had chatted with earlier that week at the swimming pool, who said that they would assist them with English on the cruise. Ms. Zhang left for work. Mrs. Zhang testified that they lined up to board the ship and they were denied entry because they did not have the proper Visa to enter Japan and, therefore, she and Mr.

Cen were denied boarding. She testified that she was told that it takes one week to process a Visa and that she was scared because they were denied boarding. Again, with Mrs. Zhang not speaking any English, it was unclear to the Court during her testimony how she obtained this information, from whom, and if anyone translated it to her during the course of the events that unfolded at the cruise ship terminal in Vancouver. Mrs. Zheng phoned her sister, Ms.

Zheng who phoned the Defendant’s place of business and spoke to another travel agent who recommended that she go directly to the Defendant’s place of business. [ 6 ] It became unclear during Mrs. Zheng’s testimony how she got to the Defendant’s place of business that day, however, she and Mr. Cen attended and Ms. Peterson (the owner) told her to leave because they did not speak any English and that Ms. Peterson kept pointing to the piece of paper indicating that it is the responsibility of the traveller to ensure that he or she has all of the required travel documentation in place. They returned later with Ms.

Zheng, again meeting with Ms. Peterson who also pointed at the same piece of paper and Ms. Peterson spoke with Ms. Zhang. A dispute arose and the police were called and the parties were told to leave the Defendant’s business premises. [ 7 ] No wage loss information was produced. All that was produced was a documentation regarding work, however, nothing quantified lost time or wages. [ 8 ] No testimony was provided regarding any stress, psychological damages, or any damages that were suffered. No Certificate of Readiness was filed or produced. No medical documentation was produced.

No explanation of any loss was provided. [ 9 ] On Cross Examination, Mrs. Zhang testified that her sister asked her if any further Visas were needed, that Ms. Erickson physically gave a thumb up gesture and that her sister told her that no further Visas were needed. Again, because her sister, Ms. Zhang, would have spoken to Ms. Erickson in English, this remains hearsay and limited weight must be considered in much of the testimony of Mrs. Zhang. When pressed again on Cross, Mrs. Zhang then changed her testimony to stating that Ms. Erickson was asked by her sister in English if a Visa was needed, Ms.

Erickson gave a signal in the gesture of a fist, and that Ms. Zhang told Mrs. Zhang that nothing further was needed. She was asked if she was provided by the Defendant through Ms. Erickson with any documentation, and she acknowledged that she was provided information both about the ship and travel in Chinese, so that she would understand, and that this was furnished to her the day that the ticket was picked up. When asked, Mrs. Zhang acknowledged that she did not read the document, despite it being given to her in the Chinese language.

She said it was only about the destination; however, the Court has difficulty finding this to be truthful when she testified that she never read the document. She then changed her testimony to stating that she only read part of the document. That document is Exhibit 1 in these proceedings, which is the Chinese language document, dated September

10, 2014, wherein in the English language it states, “Visa Requirement/Information” on Page 1, and on Page 2 states, “Visa Central Contact Information”. Mrs. Zhang never read the document, despite it being provided to her in the Chinese language, nor did she take any steps to contact any Embassy or take any steps to determine if she required a Visa. Her testimony changed and changed often. She acknowledged that at no time did she return to the Defendant’s place of business before departure to ask questions about the document Exhibit 1, and said that she was in a rush and the time was very tight.

That tight deadline was by the very doing of the Claimants. [ 10 ] Mrs. Zhang did not produce any documentation to support any damages or loss. No Certificate of Readiness was filed or produced. No medical or psychological damage or care was documented, provided, or testified to. [ 11 ] The Court heard testimony from Li Ying Zhang (Ms. Zhang) who is the sister and sister in law of the other two Claimants. She testified that both she and her sister (Mrs. Zhang) were at the pool, and friends invited Mrs. Zhang and her husband to travel on a cruise with them. Of note, at no time did Mrs.

Zhang, in her testimony through an interpreter, testify that her sister was with her at the swimming pool or part of that conversation. Mrs. Zhang in her testimony testified that she was at the pool “with friends”. [ 12 ] Ms. Zhang testified that on September 9, 2014, at approximately 1:00 p.m., she went with Mrs. Zhang to the Defendant’s place of business to obtain information about the particular cruise and they met Ms. Erickson. Ms. Erickson advised her in English that there was one cabin left for the 15 day cruise and provided fare information and port information to her. Ms.

Erickson told her that the cruise would have to be booked by 2:00 p.m. that day. She testified that she asked Ms. Erickson if it was permitted for Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen to travel on a Chinese passport with a US Visa, and that Ms. Erickson told her that a US Visa was sufficient. She testified that her sister asked her in Chinese if it was okay and that she asked Ms. Erickson once again, and that Ms. Erickson said it was sufficient and gave what she referred to as a “positive hand sign”. [ 13 ] Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang returned to the Defendant’s premises later that day, and Mrs.

Zhang produced the Chinese passports and US Visa to Ms. Erickson, and Ms. Zhang paid for the trip on her Visa card. Ms. Erickson told her that the cruise office was closed and to return the next day to pick up the tickets and travel information in the Chinese language. [ 14 ] She testified that they returned to the Defendant’s business the following day, September 10, 2016 and that Ms. Erickson explained about the cruise. This was not testified to by Mrs. Zhang. She said that there was no mention of a Visa requirement. Exhibit 1 was provided to Mrs. Zhang in the presence of Ms.

Zhang, which is the Visa travel document in the Chinese language. [ 15 ] She testified that she booked the airline tickets on September 11, 2016 and purchased insurance. [ 16 ] On September 12, 2014, she drove her sister Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen to the Vancouver cruise ship terminal where they met the friends who were at the pool. She testified that her sister called her at 2:00 p.m. telling her that she and Mr. Cen were refused boarding because they did not have the correct Visa. Ms.

Zhang testified that she told her sister to get the friends to help her with the Visa; however, she was told that it was not possible to obtain the Visa. Ms. Zhang testified that she called the Defendant’s premises to speak to Ms. Erickson, however, was told that she was on the phone and that another agent said that there was nothing more that they could do. She then told Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen to go to the Defendant’s business premises and that she would meet them there. Ms.

Zhang testified that upon arrival the staff pointed out to her the clause in the documentation that was provided to them about parties being responsible for arranging their own Visas if required for travel. [ 17 ] When asked on Cross Examination, Ms. Zhang acknowledged that she had read the document that was in Chinese that was given to Mrs. Zhang, but denied that there was any notice that Visas were required. This is incorrect.

While Exhibit 1 is largely in the Chinese language, as already noted herein, in bold print on Page 1, it states “Visa Requirement/Information” and on Page 2, “Visa Central Contact Information”, both in bold print and in the English language. [ 18 ] Further, Ms. Zhang acknowledged on Cross that the amount that is being claimed is incorrect and that the sum of $594.84 was refunded on her credit card which was the taxes and gratuities. [ 19 ] Ms.

Zhang booked the flights on points and she acknowledged that when she did so that she did not ask that airline if a Visa was required, nor make any steps to inquire with an agent or online. This was booked without any involvement of the Defendant and, therefore, the Defendant cannot be held responsible for this portion. [ 20 ] Ms. Zhang did not file any documentation to support any damages suffered or any loss. No Certificate of Readiness was filed or provided. No medical or psychological documentation was provided to support any loss being claimed for damages. [ 21 ] The Court heard testimony from Mr.

Jian Heng Cen, who testified as the spouse of Mrs. Zhang, that he was unable to go on the cruise. He testified that he obtained time off work and that he is the sole person who does his job at work. He did not, however, produce any documentation to support a particular wage loss claim. He also did not support any documentation to support any damages suffered or any loss. The sole documentation provided by Mr. Cen about his time off from his employment did not support anything to indicate a wage loss, only his regular wage rate. [ 22 ] The Court heard testimony from Ms.

Karen Erickson who is an employee of the Defendant Company. She testified that on September 9, 2014, Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang entered and inquired about a particular cruise. She was aware of the cruise and had other passengers booked on it, so she inquired and there was only one cabin left and it required payment within one hour. She said that Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang confirmed that they would book the trip, so she told them that she needed their passport information. Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang returned the same day and she received their travel documentation including their Chinese passports.

She testified that Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang returned the following day for the ticket and to pick up travel documentation in the Chinese language. [ 23 ] She has been employed as a travel agent for the past 13 years. [ 24 ] She testified that she does not know all of the travel requirements for every country, for every Visa, for every passport and that each has different rules, and nor is it the responsibility of a travel agent to know each and every requirement.

[ 25 ] She testified that the next communication she received was from Mrs. Zheng telling her co-worker that they were unable to board. Again, this is hearsay. Ms. Erickson testified that she telephoned Celebrity Cruise Line and was told that Mrs. Zheng and Mr. Cen required a Visa from Japan. [ 26 ] On Cross Examination, Ms. Erickson testified that she specifically asked Ms. Zhang if Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen had the proper documentation for travel, was told “yes” and that she asked for their passports in order to enter their information into the system for the cruise.

She acknowledged that she took copies of their Chinese passports and testified that she “assumed” that the traveller would know what is required to travel abroad. She testified that it is neither her nor a travel agent’s responsibility to know who does and does not require particular Visas. She testified that she is a cruise and vacation consultant responsible for offering travel services, and that she recommends to customers that they check with particular embassies to determine what travel requirements are in place. She testified that she did not check with a co-worker or a computer to determine if Mrs.

Zhang and Mr. Cen required a Visa. [ 27 ] On Cross, Ms. Erickson testified that from the time the payment was made to the following day of providing the document in Chinese, and in total, there were only three days from departure, and she testified that had Mrs. Zhang, Mr. Cen, and Ms. Zhang read it and inquired to find out that they required Visas, that she may have been able to assist them. She acknowledged that the paper in the Chinese language was given the day after the booking, however, also testified that as a travel agent she does not give advice about Visas.

When pressed on Cross about the disclaimer on the document provided after payment, she repeated that had the Claimants made the inquiries that she “may” have been able to assist them. She testified that she made it very clearly known that the payment was a final payment and non-refundable because it was being booked mere days to the departure date. [ 28 ] The Court heard testimony from Ms. Carol Peterson, who is the owner of the Defendant company, who testified that she became aware of the issue when the parties were at the pier and unable to board because they did not have the proper Visas.

She testified that the sister arrived at her office and Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen arrived. Neither Mrs. Zhang nor Mr. Cen spoke English. She testified that she pulled the file, that she apologized that they missed the trip and that she refunded the port and taxes to Ms. Zhang. The parties refused to leave and so the police were called; the police told them to leave; Ms. Zhang refused to leave and the police had to escort them from her business premises. Ms. Peterson denied that she ever said that she or her business only deal with Canadian passports. Ms.

Peterson denied that she ever said that Chinese folks are troublesome. She testified that approximately 65% of her client base is Chinese and that the majority carry a Canadian passport. She testified that in her years of experience as a travel agent and owner of an agency that the traveller is always responsible for making the necessary inquiries with a consulate. [ 29 ] The Claimants summarized that the Defendant was not professional, that the Defendant did not do any searches to determine if Mrs. Zhang and Mr.

Cen required a Visa and that the document in Chinese with the disclaimer was provided after payment had been made. The Claimants testified that it was a painful experience with emotional distress. The Claimants seek to rely upon internet printouts from an Expedia website to support their claim that the travel agent or the Defendant, in this instance, is responsible for ensuring that the Visas are in place. I disagree.

The internet printout to which the Claimants are relying upon states in part: A travel agent is instrumental in helping an international traveler learn what she needs to do before traveling to another country. Most foreign countries require passports and some, depending on the reason for travel and length of stay, require a visa, immunizations and other documentation. The travel agent’s knowledge of this helps prepare the client so there are no unpleasant surprises at the airport or on the cruise ship. It was unclear if the internet printout was from which particular Expedia company.

However, nowhere in this does it states that the travel agent, (or in this instance, agency), will provide advice regarding the required travel documentation. It states, “a travel agent is instrumental in helping an international traveller learn [emphasis added] what she needs to do….” Ms. Erickson provided to Ms. Zhang and Mrs. Zhang Exhibit 1 in the Chinese language about Visa requirements and Visa contact information. One Claimant testified that it merely contained travel information and another Claimant testified at one point that she never read it because she was pressed for time.

However, Exhibit 1, in more than one place in English, provides information in bold print about “Visas”. They chose not to follow up on the document nor make any inquiries. The other pieces of internet papers that the Claimants seek to rely upon the Court cannot consider. One is a partial page about a job description for a travel agent in Ireland and the other is Page 2 of 9 of an unidentified internet document, the source not being identified.

The Claimants also seek to rely upon a further internet print out from Expedia, again not identifying if it is from the Defendant’s place of business or where it is from wherein it states, “Depending on the ports of call you’re visiting you may require travel visas along with the rest of your travel documents. Your Cruise Consultant is a valuable resource for any questions regarding travel documents, as well as, you may contact your local embassies for more information.” The Claimants rely upon this additional document to support that the Defendant broke a promise to them that they were travel experts.

I disagree. There is no clear evidence or meeting of the minds as to whether or not Ms. Erickson told the traveller that a Visa was not required. I accept that she photocopied the passport and did so in order to input the booking for the cabin on the cruise. This additional unidentified internet printout puts the Claimants on notice that they should have and could have contacted an embassy and failed to do so. That would have or could have avoided all of this. In addition, Mrs. Zhang testified that she never took the time to read the document, despite it being provided to her in the Chinese language, and Ms.

Zhang is not credible when she testified that Exhibit 1 had no information about Visas when twice in the English language, in bold print, it clearly contained travel information about Visas. [ 30 ] The Defendant summarized that there is neither obligation nor any requirement for an agent to know every single country’s requirement for travel with passengers travelling on a multiplicity of passports and Visas. The Claimants did not produce any travel agent or cruise consultant to refute this or to testify that indeed it is the responsibility of a travel agency or agent to provide advice regarding Visa requirements.

This Court then is left to rely upon the testimony of both Ms. Erickson, who has been in the travel business for 13 years, and that of Ms. Peterson. The Defendant produced an English language equivalency of Exhibit 1 and in such English language document it states in bold print: Caution: The requirements described below are government regulations and policies. They are subject to change without notice. It is the sole responsibility of the guest [emphasis added] to identify and obtain all required travel documents and have them available when necessary.

Further, on Page 1 the document states: Guest who does not possess the proper documentation may be prevented from boarding their flight or ship or from entering a country…. Page 1 of that document states: International Cruise Travel A valid passport book is required; visas are required where they apply. This includes Europe, Asia… Please contact the Embassy (Consular Services) of each country on your sailing itinerary or the visa service of your choice for specific visa requirements, information, forms and fees for your nationality. Of, if you prefer, contact VisaCentral for this information.

Of particular note, on Exhibit 1, that being the Chinese language document, all of the contact information for VisaCentral is provided and highlighted in bold prints. The Claimants chose not to read it nor take the necessary and reasonable steps to determine if they required a Visa. The Defendants also seek to rely upon the Invoice that was in the possession of the Claimants wherein at the bottom in bold print it states: Documentation Requirements: Valid travel documentation is required for entry into the countries listed in your itinerary.

Disclaimer: Expedia CruiseShipCenters is acting as intermediary and agent for suppliers (“principals” identified on the attached or accompanying documents) in selling services, or in accepting reservations or bookings for services which are not directly supplied by this agency (such as cruises, air carriage, hotel accommodations, ground transportation, meals, tours, etc.). [ 31 ] The Claimant seeks to rely upon the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision of Bratty v Lloyds World Travel Service of Canada Co,

(1984) Carswell BC 3691 , (hereinafter referred to as “ Bratty ”), wherein the British Columbia Court of Appeal found that the travel agency had breached a contractual obligation. However, the Bratty, supra, decision is distinguishable from the matter before me. In Bratty, supra , Dr. Bratty specifically asked the travel agency if he required a Visa to enter Czechoslovakia, to which he was told to contact a specific person at the agency. Dr.

Bratty indeed took that step and went to the office and personally met with that agent, and before he obtained his ticket, she specifically told him that he would not require a Visa to enter Czechoslovakia. When he proceeded and picked up his tickets, he received an invoice with terms and conditions on the reverse, none of which were drawn to the attention of Dr. Bratty. Dr. Bratty was unable to enter Czechoslovakia when he arrived and was placed under armed guard. He sued.

At Paragraph 6, the British Columbia Court of Appeal stated: I said at the outset that we would proceed to deal with this case as one involving contractual liability. The duty of a travel agent is to exercise reasonable skill and diligence in performing the terms of the contract. The contract was to make travel arrangements for the customer, which included advice on whether a visa [emphasis added by the Court] was required to enter Czechoslovakia.

The travel agent was under a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in answering the question with respect to the visa [emphasis added by the Court] requirements. [ 32 ] In Bratty , supra, the Court found that the duty was breached, however, most notably because Dr. Bratty specifically asked for information regarding visa requirements and was specifically told that he did not require a visa. Dr. Bratty also took additional steps to be referred to a particular person with whom he engaged his specific inquiries over a period of time.

At trial, the Defendant relied upon the invoice wherein on the back were terms and conditions, similar to those in which Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen received in Chinese the following day. Dr. Bratty testified that he did not read it. However, the Bratty , supra , decision is distinguishable. The Court of Appeal noted factually that Dr. Bratty had been in consultation and communication with the agency from April, 1979 to May 18, 1979, and Dr. Bratty specifically asked if a Visa was required and was specifically told that a Visa was not required. Dr.

Bratty was engaged with the business over a period of time and was specifically referred to another person, and that specific person acknowledged that Dr. Bratty was indeed told that he would not require a Visa. In the matter before me, the Claimants entered the Defendant’s place of business and had to decide within one hour to book and pay for a cruise that left only a few days later. In addition, there is no consensus as to the facts. The Claimants assert that they were told that they did not require a Visa, however, the Defendants deny such was stated to the Claimants. Ms. Zhang testified that she asked Ms.

Erickson if the Chinese passport and US Visa was sufficient, was told yes and given a physical gesture of a thumb up. Mrs. Zhang, who does not have any working knowledge of English, testified that Ms. Erickson told her sister, and her sister told her, that no Visa was required and that Ms. Erickson gave her a fist gesture. Ms. Erickson testified that in her 13 years as an agent it is not her responsibility to know which country, which passport and which Visa allows entry to various countries and that she never told the Claimants that their Chinese passport and US Visa allowed entry.

She testified that in all of her years as a travel agent, she has never been responsible for such. [ 33 ] Travel agents and agencies in British Columbia are governed by the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and more

particularly, the Travel Industry Regulation (Reg 296/2004), wherein the following

definitions will be found: Travel service means:

a) transportation;

b) accommodation; or

c) another service combined with transportation or accommodation that is for the use or benefit of a traveler, tourist or sightseer. Travel agent means: a person who engages in the business or occupation of selling or otherwise providing to the public travel services supplied by another person. [ 34 ] Mrs. Zhang and Ms. Zhang, by their own volition, attended at the business premises of the Defendant. They chose to engage in a business relationship that had a pressing deadline of approximately one hour, and in doing so, interacted with a travel agent who only spoke English. Ms. Erickson and Ms.

Zhang spoke English to one another, and Ms. Zhang translated to Mrs. Zhang. Mrs. Zhang, other than completely relying on what she was told by her sister Ms. Zhang, has no direct knowledge of what transpired at the business premises of the Defendant. Mr. Cen did not attend, save and except at the day of the cruise departure. Mr. Cen has no knowledge of what transpired at the business premises of the Defendant at the time of the booking of the cruise. The Defendant provided the correct service as defined in the Regulations for a travel service, meaning that Ms.

Erickson, on behalf of the Defendant, provided a service for the use and benefit of Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen for travel and, further, that as an agent, she acted correctly in the “business or occupation of selling or otherwise providing to the public travel services…” Ms. Erickson’s testimony was very clear in that in her 13 years as a travel agent, she is not responsible for verifying what travel documentation a traveller requires. I accept that testimony. That testimony is also confirmed by the documentation that has been reviewed extensively herein.

That makes it abundantly clear that the traveller is responsible for confirming what travel documentation is required. It would be simply impossible for any travel agent to know and be knowledgeable about the hundreds, if not thousands, of combinations of travel documents that travellers rely upon to enter or leave countries around the world and in addition, those travel advisories and restrictions are always changing.

A reasonable person seeking to book travel with a travel agent or company could not, should not, nor would not reasonably expect every agent or travel company to know the requirements with the combinations of the hundreds, if not thousands, of combinations of passports and Visas when entering or exiting countries when travelling. Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen, for example, were living in Canada with a Chinese passport, on a US Visa and seeking to travel to Japan. Ms. Zhang testified more than once in the course of her testimony that she was “responsible” for her sister, Mrs. Zhang and for Mr. Cen when in Canada. Ms.

Zhang could have contacted the Embassy office for Japan to determine if a Visa was required for her sister and brother-in-law. So, too, Mrs. Zhang and Mr. Cen could have made the same inquiries. They did not do so. Mrs. Zhang says that she specifically asked Ms. Erickson if a Visa was needed, was told no, and a thumbs up gesture was given. Ms. Erickson denies such. Mrs. Zhang testified that her sister told her that Ms. Erickson told her that a Visa is not required, however, this is hearsay and Mrs. Zhang testified once that Ms.

Erickson at some time in the initial meeting gave a thumbs up through an interpreter and then changed it through an interpreter to a fist gesture during the course of the same meeting. I am unable to reconcile the differences in the testimony. There is also significant risk on the face of it on the part of the Claimants to chat with friends on September 9, 2014, arrive at agency hours later to be told one cabin is left, but that it must be booked and paid within an hour that very day for travel on September 12, 2014.

There is an inherent risk that the Claimants each undertook in booking a cruise with Chinese passports with a US Visa, while residing in Canada, to travel to Japan, and not conduct the pressing transaction in one consistent language for the transaction. That risk was undertaken by the Claimants to do such and book something with an hour to make a decision. In addition, the Claimants failed to read the documentation that they acknowledge was provided to them the following day in the Chinese language.

That is not what a reasonable and well informed traveller would reasonably do. [ 35 ] I am not convinced that the Claimants can succeed against the Defendants, therefore the Claim is dismissed. Each Party is to bear their own Costs. The Honourable Judge K. Arthur-Leung Provincial Court of British Columbia