The Supreme Court of British Columbia has awarded $24,000 in damages to D.G.K., who claimed he was constructively dismissed from his role as a supervisor for CAS Ventures on the Coastal GasLink Pipeline project in 2019.
Justice Coval found that while D.G.K. was excluded from the job site without clear cause, there was no evidence of bad faith on the part of CAS Ventures Ltd., dismissing claims for aggravated damages.
D.G.K., a seasoned worker in the logging and oil and gas industries, sought damages for lack of reasonable notice following his abrupt exclusion from the project site. Initially hired as a tree faller, he was later appointed as a supervisor overseeing about 10 workers from CAS. However, after only a few months in the role, he was removed at the request of the subcontractor, Kyah Resources Ltd., a decision reportedly influenced by client complaints regarding D.G.K.’s conduct.
Justice Coval determined that D.G.K. was constructively dismissed on May 15, 2019, when he was excluded from the site and ceased receiving payment. The judge noted that while CAS owner D.D. advocated on behalf of D.G.K., his efforts ultimately failed to secure his reinstatement.
“There was no evidence of inducement or high-handed conduct by CAS,” Justice Coval wrote, adding that D.D. had made “reasonable efforts” to resolve the situation in favour of the plaintiff.
During the proceedings, D.G.K. argued that his exclusion was unjustified and that he had been wronged by both CAS and Kyah Resources Ltd. Despite the ongoing issues, D.G.K. did not immediately pursue alternate employment due to his emotional state. “All he could think about was how he had been mistreated,” the ruling noted, but Justice Coval emphasized that this did not fulfill the criteria for due diligence in seeking new employment.
Justice Coval’s analysis found that, while CAS Ventures Ltd. bore responsibility for providing notice, the two-month notice period was appropriate given the plaintiff’s age and the unique circumstances surrounding his departure. D.G.K.’s request for six months’ notice was deemed excessive given his four-month tenure and the limited supervisory responsibilities he held.
For more information, see Kurik v CAS Ventures Ltd., 2024 BCSC 1862 (CanLII).
