A former HR manager in British Columbia who claimed he lost his job over an unshipped package has won damages from the courier company — but only for breach of contract related to the shipping of the package, not the loss of employment.
The human resources manager claimed six months of lost wages and a year-end bonus, blaming the respondent’s failure to send a package on time for causing the end of employment. Although the Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia found that the respondent — a store that offers UPS services — breached its contract by failing to ship the package, it concluded that the applicant’s demand for employment-related damages was not supported by sufficient evidence.
According to the tribunal’s written reasons, the HR manager paid G.E.L. $395.93 to send a package through a third-party courier service. The agreement implied that the shipment would start within a few days, with an estimated delivery date of Oct. 26, 2023. Several days after that date passed, the HR manager “discovered that the package still had not left the respondent’s store,” according to the ruling.
The HR manager said the package’s non-delivery influenced his employer’s decision to terminate him. He claimed six months of wages plus a year-end bonus, totalling $12,012. Because of the tribunal’s monetary limit, the total claim was reduced to $5,000. Of that reduced sum, $395.93 represented the shipping fee the HR manager wanted returned, while the balance covered the alleged loss of employment income and bonus.
Throughout the dispute, the store insisted that it “had already shipped the package” before the applicant sought to retrieve it. The company said the HR manager requested the package be brought back, which led to it being returned to the store. Therefore, the respondent argued, it owed no refund and did not contribute to any job loss. However, the tribunal pointed out that the store “did not provide any evidence in this dispute, such as any information to confirm that the package left its store before the applicant cancelled the package.”
A critical piece of evidence was the tracking log provided by the HR manager. The log showed the creation of a shipping label on Oct. 23, but there was no sign of forward movement until Nov. 2, when the item was returned to the sender rather than delivered. The tribunal noted a perplexing log entry from Nov. 18 stating, “This package has been delivered and can no longer be returned to the sender.” Both parties agreed this was incorrect, as the package ended up back at the store, where the HR manager eventually retrieved it.
The decision underscored the principle of adverse inference, explaining that if a party “fails to provide relevant evidence without a reasonable explanation, the tribunal may draw an adverse inference against them.” In this instance, the store offered no documentation — like internal records, staff statements, or courier data — to show the parcel was dispatched as promised. As a result, the tribunal found it more likely the shipment never actually left the respondent’s location.
While the tribunal ruled that the store breached its contract by not shipping the package, it turned to the applicant’s assertion of lost wages and a year-end bonus. Despite the applicant’s statements linking the unshipped package to a subsequent termination, the adjudicator wrote, “I find that he has not provided any evidence to support his assertion that his loss was a result of the respondent’s failure to send the package.” There were no letters, emails, or other written communications to confirm an employment consequence caused by the delay. The tribunal also found no proof of the bonus. As a result, the demand for $12,012 in damages — reduced to fit the tribunal’s jurisdiction — went largely unproven.
“I find this claim unproven,” the ruling stated, noting a key gap in evidence related to the termination. The tribunal made it clear that a claim of lost employment tied to a breach of contract must be substantiated by documentation or corroborated details, rather than mere allegations.
The partial success of the HR manager’s claim meant the applicant was entitled to reimbursement of the shipping fee and related costs. “Damages for breach of contract are intended to place an innocent party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been carried out as agreed,” the tribunal wrote, ordering G.E.L. to repay the $395.93 shipping fee. In addition, the tribunal granted $23.53 in pre-judgment interest, plus $87.50 representing half of the applicable tribunal fees. The tribunal explained that while applicants are generally awarded full fees when successful, the larger lost wages portion of the claim had been dismissed.
Under the tribunal’s order, the store was given 30 days to pay the total sum of $506.96. The ruling emphasized that the applicant’s remaining claims — for lost employment income — were dismissed due to the lack of documentary proof. “He has not provided any evidence of his year-end bonus,” the tribunal wrote, reiterating the need for employers and employees alike to maintain clear documentation when linking a missed or delayed task to a termination.
For more information, see Fung v. GPM Enterprises Ltd, 2024 BCCRT 1310 (CanLII).
