Woman won’t be compensated for ‘inconvenience’ of returning $492 jeans to Holt Renfrew: tribunal

A stack of denim jeans is seen in this stock image. (shutterstock.com)

A woman who was sent the wrong pair of jeans from Holt Renfrew won’t be compensated for the “significant inconvenience, disruption, stress, and financial loss” she says she experienced in returning them, a tribunal has ruled.

The woman placed the order online in 2024, paying $492 for the pants, according to a recent decision from B.C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal. When she realized the jeans were not the right size, she contacted the business asking for either the proper size or a full refund, the tribunal heard.

A customer service representative told her its return process required her to print out an emailed shipping label and drop off the jeans at a Fed-Ex location to be shipped back, or to return them to a Holt Renfrew store in order to get her money back. Then, she “replied to request an immediate refund,” the tribunal’s decision said.

While the woman ultimately did return the jeans to a store and got all of her money back, she sought $330 compensation for the time she spent completing the transaction.

Refunds without returns are legally possible

B.C.’s Sale of Goods Act, which the woman cited in her correspondence about the refund, does have a provision that makes it possible for someone to be refunded without having to return the item in question—if certain conditions are met.

Tribunal member Peter Nyhuus’s decision said the legislation has a section covering “the sale of goods by description,” which applies in situations where a buyer “cannot inspect the item before buying it.”

One of the “implied conditions” of these sales is that “the item the buyer receives matches the description,” the decision said.

Sending someone the wrong-sized jeans, which Holt Renfrew admitted to doing, is a breach of the Sale of Goods Act, according to the decision.

To get a refund without sending back an item, a person has to “reject” it within a reasonable time—which the tribunal found the woman did, in this case.

But the section of the legislation that provides for a refund without a return only applies in cases where there is no other “arrangement” in place—such as an agreed-upon return policy.

Holt Renfrew argued that completing the sale online involved agreeing to its return policy and further that the woman demonstrated a “sense of urgency” to return the jeans within the 14-day window required for a full refund, and the tribunal agreed.

“I find (the woman) likely acknowledged and agreed to the return policy upon purchasing the jeans,” Nyhuus wrote. “I find she is not entitled to damages arising from the inconvenience of following Holt Renfrew’s return policy.”

Damages neither proven nor mitigated

The woman’s claim also fell apart because she did not provide any evidence to back up the damages she was claiming, the decision said.

“(She) claims damages for lost wages and out-of-pocket commuting expenses. However, she has not provided her salary or hourly wage or receipts for her commute to Holt Renfrew, such as bus fare,” Nyhuus wrote.

Further, the tribunal found travelling to a store to make the return was not necessary in the circumstances.

“(She) claims she had to take time off work to commute four hours to a Holt Renfrew store to return the jeans. However, Holt Renfrew did not require (her) to return the jeans to its store. It instructed her to bring the jeans to a FedEx location that is much closer to her house,” the decision said.

“I find (she) failed to mitigate her damages by taking a more onerous path to returning the jeans than was necessary,” Nyhuus concluded, before dismissing the claim.