An award-winning chef who ended up shuttering his Victoria catering company considered the biggest in the city in February 2023 has won his court case after being sued by a couple who hired the firm to do their wedding.
But the ruling by the B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal left the door open to the case being refiled.
The applicants, Megan Hopkins and Ryan Feltham, said they hired Nicholas Waters, owner and chef at Victoria’s Toque Catering Inc., to provide catering for their June 25, 2022 wedding.
The applicants said in the CRT filing that they received “poor service” and asked for a $4,149.66 refund.
“They say the respondent failed to perform the services outlined in their contract to an acceptable standard,” reads the CRT ruling. “They point to multiple issues including undercooked and cold food, delayed and missing courses, and poor service from catering staff. The applicants say they are entitled to a refund for services the respondent failed to provide.”
Waters responded that the deposit by the applicants was non-refundable according to the contract, said the CRT ruling.
The closure of Toque was controversial at the time as some people who booked the company wanted a return of their deposits for future events.
The CRT ruling said that the case was being dismissed because the applicants had named Waters personally, instead of Toque.
“A longstanding principle in law is that a corporation is a separate legal entity that can enter into contracts, independent from its shareholders, officers, or employees,” said the ruling. “I find it clear from the evidence submitted that the applicants contracted with the respondent’s corporation, Toque Catering Inc. (Toque), and not the respondent personally. While the parties’ contract is not in evidence, the applicants are seeking a refund from an invoice issued by Toque. Toque also appears in the respondent’s email signature which lists him as the executive chef and director of the corporation.”
READ MORE: Victoria company sues woman after mistakenly putting birthday sign on her lawn
“The applicants admit that they hired Toque rather than the respondent,” reads the CRT ruling. “As the applicants contracted with Toque, I find the applicants have no legal right to claim a refund under the contract from the respondent. So, I must dismiss the applicants’ claim on this basis. I make no findings about whether Toque is liable to the applicants for the poor service they received at their wedding. Nothing in this decision prevents the applicants from filing a claim against Toque, subject to any applicable limitation period.”
READ MORE: Oak Bay resident rents out own home as ‘office space’ while she’s at work