A wrongful dismissal and sexual harassment trial involving allegations of assault and disputed financial transactions between a former employee and employer has been adjourned by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, pending a jurisdictional determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board.
The decision follows an application from defendants D.B. and numbered company 330452 BC Ltd. seeking to amend their response to explicitly reference section 127 of British Columbia’s Workers Compensation Act (WCA). Section 127 prohibits workers from suing employers for injuries occurring in the course of employment, mandating such claims be exclusively addressed through the province’s workers’ compensation scheme.
Allegations and counterclaims
The litigation involves K.V., who claims wrongful dismissal, sexual assault, and harassment perpetrated by her former employer. She alleges these events occurred throughout her employment, which spanned from around late 2017 until April 2022.
K.V. initially filed a counterclaim after D.B. sued her, alleging she failed to repay a $4.7 million loan. K.V. argues the funds were a gift, not a loan. The financial dispute, combined with the harassment allegations, places the employment relationship at the centre of both the main claim and counterclaim.
Workers Compensation Act and jurisdiction
The defendants sought to amend their pleadings to specifically reference section 127 of the WCA, arguing that K.V.’s allegations fall within the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board. According to section 122 of the WCA, the Workers’ Compensation Board or Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal holds exclusive authority to determine if an injury arose from employment.
Citing precedent, the court noted that even without a formal amendment, the issue of jurisdiction under the WCA could still be raised at any stage of the proceedings. “If a claim falls within the scope of the Workers Compensation Act, compensation is not only payable; in some cases, it is only payable pursuant to that scheme,” the court emphasized.
Mandatory adjournment
Given the pending determination by the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding jurisdiction, the court ruled that proceeding with the scheduled trial would be inefficient and improper. Consequently, the court granted the defendants’ request to amend their pleadings and adjourned the trial, originally set for Oct. 28, 2024.
“There is no way that the determination under section 127 of the Workers Compensation Act will be made by the trial date,” the court stated, adding that proceeding without clarity on jurisdiction “would not be an efficient use of court resources.”
Unified adjournment to prevent inconsistent outcomes
Although the application sought only an adjournment of the counterclaim, the court decided to adjourn both the original claim and the counterclaim. This unified approach was deemed necessary due to significant overlapping facts and issues, particularly concerning the nature of the financial transaction and the personal relationship between D.B. and K.V.
The court expressed concerns about potential injustice and inconsistent findings if the actions were heard separately. “Having the matters tried separately gives rise to a potential injustice in the sense that there is a very real possibility that the parties could face disparate and inconsistent findings of fact on the same issues,” the court explained. Such a scenario, it noted, could bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Costs determination
While the court acknowledged the defendants largely succeeded in their application, it refrained from awarding immediate costs, noting K.V. had not fundamentally opposed the amendments but rather consented under certain conditions, which the court ultimately endorsed. As a result, costs were deferred to be determined in the overall outcome of the litigation.
For more information, see Beckman v Vinci, 2024 BCSC 2538 (CanLII).
