Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15770/TIA

In the matter of an appeal from a denied claim for reimbursement in accordance with section 57 of Ontario Regulation 26/05, under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

Between:

Yazan Nasreddin

Appellant

and

Travel Industry Council of Ontario

Respondent

DECISION and ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Bruce Stanton

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Yazan Nasreddin (Self-Represented)

For the Respondent:

Karan Sharma, Counsel

Husein Panju, Co-Counsel

Heard by videoconference

August 21, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Yazan Nasreddin (the “appellant”), appeals from the denial of his claim for reimbursement from the Travel Industry Compensation Fund (“Fund”) which is administered by the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (“TICO”) pursuant to Ontario Regulation 26/05 (the “Regulation”), under the Travel Industry Act, 2002 (the “Act”).

ISSUES

2The issue in dispute is:

i. Is the appellant entitled to compensation from the Fund for travel services paid for but not provided by Holy Destinations Travel, pursuant to section 57 of the Regulation?

ii. If compensation is owed, what is the amount of the compensation?

RESULT

3I find the appellant is not entitled to compensation from the Fund, no compensation is owed, and his claim is refused.

ANALYSIS

Events leading to the appellant’s claim for compensation

4On May 14, 2023, the appellant purchased two packages to attend Hajj, a pilgrimage for followers of Islam which they are expected to complete at least once in their life, in Saudi Arabia in June 2023, at cost of $12,500 each, from Holy Destinations Travel Inc. (“HDT”). HDT was, at the time, a registered travel agent of TICO. Mohammed Bensaci, a local community leader and Imam, is the principal of HDT. The appellant stated that he paid Bensaci in cash for the Hajj packages.

5The appellant testified that the Hajj package he purchased from HDT was to include attendance at Hajj, lodging and food during Hajj, transfers, and visas for the stay in Saudi Arabia.

6The appellant and his family traveled to Amman, Jordan on June 12, 2023 where they stayed until September 4, 2023. Their travel between Canada and Jordan was purchased separately from HDT and is not part of this claim.

7As the key dates for Hajj (June 26 to 27, 2023) approached, the appellant expected to receive information from Bensaci for the visas, hotel and Hajj arrangements in Saudi Arabia, but they never arrived. The appellant stated in his claim that Bensaci disappeared and was unreachable after June 14, 2023. His attempts to reach Bensaci went unanswered until July 5, 2023, more than a week after Hajj 2023 had concluded.

8The appellant filed a claim to the Fund for $25,000 on January 24, 2024 for travel services he purchased from HDT and paid for, but were not provided. TICO denied the appellant’s claim on February 29, 2024 citing insufficient and inconsistent documentation to substantiate his claim.

Is the appellant entitled to compensation from the Fund?

9I find the appellant did not meet his burden of demonstrating he is entitled to compensation from the Fund because the documentation supporting his claim does not credibly establish that he paid HDT for the Hajj package that is the subject of his claim.

10Section 61(1) of the Regulation stipulates that a claimant under section 57 shall provide documents to prove their claim. Further, s. 61(2) of the Regulation provides that the TICO Board may request that a claimant provide additional documents in support of their claim.

The appellant’s receipts

11The appellant testified that he submitted evidence to support his claim to TICO and referred me to a scanned, unsigned copy of a receipt/invoice dated May 14, 2023 in the respondent’s document book (“Receipt1”), that appears to have an image of HDT’s logo in the upper left-hand corner. To the right of the HDT logo graphic, the title and address of HDT are listed. The description of the product in the body of the invoice lists only “Hajj Package for 2, Br. Yazan Nasreddin and Sr. Dua’a Alshareef”. The appellant testified that Bensaci gave him the original of this receipt at the HDT office, on May 14, 2023, the same day he paid for it.

12The appellant filed a colour version, .jpg image, of Receipt1 with his documents for the hearing. This version (“Receipt2”) of the receipt appears to be hand-signed by Bensaci with the added message “Paid in Full”.

13The respondent’s book of documents includes a third version (“Receipt3”) of the receipt/invoice of May 14, 2023 with Bensaci’s signature, but the signature appears in a different location on the document than on Receipt2, and “Paid in full – CASH” is printed on the document to the right of the title “Remarks, notes”. Neither Receipt1 nor Receipt2 have anything printed next to “Remarks, notes”. The appellant testified that Receipt3 was obtained from Bensaci after his TICO claim was denied. Upon learning that the denial was due to improper or inconsistent documentation, the appellant asked Bensaci to send him a receipt, like for the other claimants, in his handwriting. The “other claimants” being referred to by the appellant are other claimants who had paid HDT for travel services to Hajj 2023 that were not provided.

14Each version of the receipt/invoice shows a balance owing of $25,000. The only indications the amount was paid to HDT were hand-written by Bensaci in the case of Receipt2, and printed on the form, in the case of Receipt3.

Email showing package was paid for

15In his claim to TICO, the appellant included a copy of an email he received from OttawaHajj@gmail.com, dated July 5, 2023, stating that the appellant and his spouse paid for two Hajj packages at $12,500.00 each totalling $25,000 and have registered with HDT for the Hajj 2023 season. It goes on to express regret that HDT was not able to fulfill its Hajj campaign for 2023 and it is working on settling all legal and financial matters with the appellant’s family and others. The email is signed by Mohamed Hachemi Bensaci, President, HDT. In email correspondence from the appellant to TICO dated February 7, 2024 the appellant wrote that he needed the July 5 email from Bensaci for the H/R department of his employer.

16Email documents in evidence show that the appellant informed TICO that the cash used to pay HDT the $25,000 came from collecting on loans from other persons and that he held the cash from those loan collections for the payment to HDT, i.e. the loan collections were not deposited into a bank account.

Relations between the appellant and Bensaci

17The appellant testified that he had dealings with Bensaci prior to booking travel with HDT. Bensaci appeared as a guest speaker at fundraising events in which the appellant was involved through his work in the humanitarian relief sector, and in his family’s interactions with Bensaci’s mosque. The appellant paid Bensaci $15,000 before May 2023 as a loan for equipment and supplies for the mosque. The loan is still outstanding. The appellant testified that the $15,000 loan was unrelated to travel but also stated that Bensaci informed him that the cost of his and his spouse’s Hajj packages could be up to $40,000. He stated that Bensaci told him the package “… could be between $16k and $20k per person. I paid him the $25,000 to complete the package [totalling $40,000]”.

18The appellant testified that he and a colleague lead a WhatsApp group of claimants who paid HDT for Hajj 2023 travel that was not provided, called Hajj Victims of Bensaci. The appellant described his role in the group as being an intermediary between the victims and Bensaci. Having not provided the expected travel benefits promised, Bensaci had been getting bombarded by claims from angry customers. The appellant described the WhatsApp group as an efficient and effective way for the victims to connect with Bensaci stating, “we got him to a point where he started communicating with TICO.” The appellant testified that he communicated with Bensaci mostly by WhatsApp messages, but that two different phones he was using for that purpose failed soon after the end of Hajj 2023 and the record of messages between himself and Bensaci were lost, as were all the messages between himself and the WhatsApp group.

19The appellant testified that Bensaci says he does not have the money to refund the appellant or the other victims because the money is with the Emiratis. Bensaci also told him the Saudis are not giving him his money back and that he is trying to get the money from inside Algeria.

20The appellant submits that he provided documents to show that he paid Bensaci the $25,000 and that travel was not provided by HDT. He submits that documents/receipts from other Bensaci victims whose claims were approved by TICO also had discrepancies and different versions. He submits that HDT was registered under TICO at the time of his purchase, he paid for the Hajj travel, and it was not provided. He submits that he is entitled to the maximum compensation from the Fund of $5,000.00 per person, $10,000 in total.

21The respondent submits that the appellant failed to meet his burden in proving that he paid for the Hajj 2023 package from HDT. It submits that his receipt does not include details, dates and what is included in the package, and it is not consistent with HDT documents found, in other claims, to be valid.

22Lori Furlan, a claims co-ordinator with TICO, who managed the appellant’s claim, testified that the graphics and header on the form submitted by the appellant is not the same as the form used by HDT for its other customers to Hajj. The HDT invoice that TICO has accepted as valid includes details like the itinerary, hotels, what is included, the balance paid, how much is owing etc. She testified that TICO has received 36 claims arising from HDT not providing travel services that were alleged to have been paid for. The registration of HDT was revoked in July 2023.

23Furlan directed me to several invoices from HDT for similar Hajj packages in 2023. The invoice form, all completed by hand, were submitted by other claimants for compensation from the Fund arising from HDT not providing the travel services they paid for. The claimants who submitted this valid receipt from HDT, that she referred to as a long-form receipt, were approved.

24The respondent submits that the appellant sent other victims the same version of the receipt/invoice, Receipt3, that he filed in evidence for the hearing. Four claimants have filed claims with TICO using the Receipt3 form that includes what appears to be Bensaci’s electronic signature. It submits that these receipts are being issued to HDT customers/victims, by the appellant, without verification of travel or of purchase from a registered travel agency.

25The respondent submits Bensaci is untrustworthy. He made commitments and failed to meet them. It submits that little weight should be given to conversations the appellant is alleged to have had with Bensaci via WhatsApp. The appellant has provided no record of those conversations, nor any financial transaction evidence, to support his contention that monies were paid to Bensaci.

26The respondent submits that of the 36 HDT claimants to TICO, only the appellant claims to have had communication with Bensaci, post-Hajj 2023. It submits that the inconsistencies and lack of documentation make it difficult to believe that the appellant’s claim is legitimate and asks the Tribunal to uphold TICO’s decision to deny the claim.

27I find the appellant has not demonstrated that he is entitled to compensation from the Fund.

28The pivotal issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has proven that he paid Bensaci the $25,000 for Hajj 2023. The only evidence of this transaction is Receipt1, noted by the appellant as being given to him on May 14, 2023, and an email from Bensaci to the appellant on July 5, 2023, alluding to the Hajj package having been paid for.

29The invoice/receipt, Receipt1, the appellant provided as part of his claim to TICO is a poor recreation of a HDT document. It looks fabricated. The fonts on the company name and address are different, the letterhead is completely different than the invoice/receipt stock used by HDT for its other Hajj bookings in 2023, it is unsigned, and it shows a balance owing. Essentially it provides no proof that any payment changed hands on that day.

30The two later versions of the document, Receipt2 and Receipt3 appear to have been provided by Bensaci to help the appellant with his appeal. The signature on Receipt3 is on a different part of the document than where it appears on Receipt2. It is not clear whether Bensaci affixed his signature to each receipt at two different times or if one of them, Receipt3, is just an electronic signature added to the document. Either way, these signatures, if they are genuine, came only after Bensaci misled and deceived at least 36 of his Hajj 2023 customers, and they appear to be an effort by Bensaci to help the appellant in his appeal to get compensation from the Fund. Bensaci’s untrustworthiness diminishes the credibility of these documents.

31The hand-written signature from Bensaci, a person of influence in his community at the time, who none-the-less cheated multiple families from their payments for travel, cannot be relied on in proving, after the fact, that any payment was made.

32That the appellant had a relationship with Bensaci prior to the travel, including loaning him $15,000, and that he continued to be an intermediary/facilitator between Bensaci and other victims, post-Hajj, despite losing $25,000 to him, leaves me with the impression that the appellant is not an impartial victim of HDT. It appears that he was collaborating with Bensaci to provide irregular documents to other victims of HDT’s Hajj 2023 travel debacle.

33In terms of proving that he paid HDT, I give little weight to the July 5, 2023 email the appellant requested from Bensaci to provide to his H/R department. Although it speaks of the appellant having paid for his travel, the appellant has provided no corroborating evidence that any cash payment was made to HDT. I accept that the gmail account from which this email was sent was Bensaci’s, but Bensaci is not a reliable source and there is no other reliable record to support the appellant’s argument that cash was paid.

34The appellant argues that he had important and relevant conversations with Bensaci over WhatsApp and he relies on those conversations in advancing his claim, however the appellant has not filed any copies of these conversations into evidence. I have no way of knowing what was in those conversations, what other persons may have been included in them, or the content and context of them. For these reasons, I give little weight to this aspect of the appellant’s evidence. The record of communications between the appellant and HDT following the alleged payment in May 2023 might, otherwise, have served to support the appellant’s claim that a cash transaction indeed occurred.

35The appellant has provided no credible documentation showing where the cash payment was derived from. The appellant revealed only that it came from collecting, in cash, on loans he had given other people.

36The circumstances of this appeal serve as a cautionary example of why transactions in cash require greater scrutiny and documentation, especially if the transactions are with a business that is regulated and for which there could be remedies like the Fund in cases where fraud or business failure occurs.

37I find the appellant does not meet his burden in proving that he paid for the travel services that were not provided by HDT. He is therefore not entitled to compensation from the Fund. No compensation is owed to him.

Conclusion

38For the reasons discussed above I refuse to allow the appellant’s claim pursuant to s. 71(6) of the Regulation.

ORDER

39The appellant’s claim is refused pursuant to s. 71(6) of the Regulation.