B,C.’s Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has dismissed a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a barber against the owner of Sigma Barber Shop, ruling that the claim was improperly filed against an individual rather than the corporate entity that employed him.
The applicant, S.C., worked as a barber at Sigma Barber Shop, a business operated under Genrev Autosport Ltd., owned by C.M.
S.C. alleged that he was wrongfully dismissed on Feb. 14, 2023, and sought $1,072 in severance pay. The respondent argued that S.C. was an independent contractor and not entitled to severance pay. Additionally, C.M. asserted that the Employment Standards Branch (ESB) had already determined the matter.
The CRT, however, found that while S.C. had initially filed a complaint with the ESB, he later withdrew it. “I find the ESB has not decided the issues raised by the applicant,” the tribunal stated. Given this, the CRT proceeded with the case under contract law, which falls within its small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.
A key issue in the dispute was the identification of the proper respondent. S.C. named C.M. personally as the employer, but the tribunal found that the employment relationship existed between S.C. and Genrev Autosport Ltd., not C.M. directly.
While there was no written employment contract submitted as evidence, the applicant’s T4A statement identified Genrev Autosport Ltd. as the payor. “I am satisfied that the applicant’s contract was with Genrev Autosport Ltd. doing business as Sigma Barber Shop,” the tribunal noted.
Corporations are ‘separate legal entities’
Applying the common law principle of privity of contract, the tribunal emphasized that a contract cannot impose obligations on a person who is not a party to it. “Corporations are separate legal entities from their directors and officers,” the decision stated. As a result, while the contract may have imposed obligations on Genrev, it did not extend liability to C.M. personally.
The CRT also noted that S.C. did not provide an explanation as to why he pursued the claim against C.M. rather than Genrev. “It is up to the applicant to show that the respondent is personally responsible for the claimed $1,072, either under the contract or in some other way,” the tribunal wrote. Given the lack of evidence or justification, the claim was dismissed.
No finding on severance pay
The tribunal further clarified that its decision did not make any findings on whether Genrev owed severance pay to S.C. “Nothing in this decision prevents the applicant from filing a claim against Genrev, subject to any applicable limitation period,” the tribunal noted.
Additionally, S.C. sought $125 in CRT fees. However, as the unsuccessful party, his claim for reimbursement was dismissed. C.M., who did not pay any CRT fees, was not awarded any costs.
For more information, see Chang v. Maliwanag (dba Sigma Barber Shop), 2025 BCCRT 183 (CanLII).
