18. Pacifica says that in October 2020 Ms. Kun and RN hired it to assess Ms. Kun’s eligibility for a new US visitor visa, and to assist RN in travelling to Canada in December 2020 while pandemic-related travel restrictions were in force. Pacifica says it also provided Ms. Kun information about changing her immigration status in Canada to avoid paying tuition for her daughter to attend public school. It says the parties agreed to a $2,100 flat fee for its services.

19. Ms. Kun says her only interest in Mr. Shirazi’s services was to help her apply for a US visitor visa which she ultimately decided not to pursue. She denies that she or RN asked Pacifica to assist RN with visiting Canada or to provide any other services. She says she never agreed to pay Pacifica for its services, and she did not learn that Mr. Shirazi was not a lawyer until October 31, 2020.

20. A binding contract requires a “meeting of the minds” between the parties on all of the essential terms of their agreement. The existence of a binding contract is determined by an objective test of the parties’ outward expressions of intent. It is not enough for one party to believe there is a contract. (see Hodder Construction (1993) Ltd. v. Topolnisky, 2021 BCSC 666, at paragraph 114). For the following reasons, I find Pacifica has not established that there was a binding contract between the parties.
Read more