小蓝视频’s Civil Resolution Tribunal has rejected a claim by a groom’s mother that the reception bartender owed the family money.
In his , tribunal vice-chair Eric Regehr ruled the contract was with the bride and not with the mother-in-law.
When Patricia Dee Langlois’s son got married in July 2023, Amanda Daul bartended the wedding.
Langlois alleged that Daul was short on cash at the end of the night, failed to charge correct prices, and failed to clean the empties.
Langlois claimed a total of $738: $400 for the cash shortage, $288 for overcharging for non-alcoholic drinks and $50 for the inconvenience.
Daul denied doing anything wrong. She said the wedding was disorganized and she did the best she could to comply with changing directions from the couple and wedding party. Daul also said not many guests bought drinks, which is why there was less money at the end of the night than they all expected.
Finally, she said that Langlois had nothing to do with hiring her in the first place and asked for Langlois’s claims to be dismissed.
Regehr said there were three issues in the case:
- Did Langlois have standing to claim compensation from Daul?;
- If so, did Daul breach the parties’ contract?; and,
- If so, how much does she owe Langlois in compensation?
“There is little evidence to suggest that anyone other than the wedding couple and Ms. Daul were parties to the contract,” Regehr wrote.
Regehr said there was a text between Langlois and Daul on the wedding day and that Langlois had the liquor licence for the event.
Still, he said, “On balance, I find that Mrs. Langlois was not a party to the contract with Ms. Daul. She therefore has no standing to make a claim for any alleged breach of contract. I dismiss her claim on that basis, and will not address her other allegations.”
