The B.C. Civil Resolution Tribunal has ruled that Pro Line Sports Ltd. wrongfully dismissed a sales support employee, ordering the company to pay $5,518.75 in damages, interest and fees after determining it did not have just cause to terminate her for opening a confidential payroll package.
The decision arises from the termination of H.D., who worked in customer service and sales support at Pro Line for 18 months. The company dismissed her in October 2023, citing a breach of trust after she opened a package from the company’s payroll provider that was addressed to one of the company’s owners and marked “Confidential.”
While the tribunal agreed the action amounted to a breach of trust, it found the misconduct did not meet the legal threshold to justify dismissal. “Dismissing an employee is the most extreme disciplinary action and should be a last resort,” the decision stated. “A lesser disciplinary sanction… would have sufficed here.”
Incident involved confidential payroll package
H.D. admitted to opening a package from Ceridian (now Dayforce), Pro Line’s payroll provider, that contained self-sealed wage statements for several employees, including herself, as well as unsealed payroll data with confidential employee earnings information. The package was addressed to the attention of L.B., one of Pro Line’s owners, and clearly marked as confidential.
H.D. opened the envelope while the owners were away, explaining that she did so to obtain her own wage statement. She said L.B. often failed to distribute statements on time, in violation of Employment Standards Act requirements. Pro Line acknowledged that wage statements were sometimes distributed late but maintained that H.D. should have waited until the owners returned the following day.
The tribunal accepted that H.D. did not access or view other employees’ wage statements and had no nefarious intent. It noted that she was honest about what had occurred and did not try to conceal her actions.
No prior warning or progressive discipline
Pro Line’s termination letter did not mention cause, and the company paid H.D. two weeks’ wages “in lieu of notice,” consistent with a without-cause termination. It later argued the dismissal was for just cause, citing breach of trust. However, the tribunal found that the company failed to explore or apply any lesser disciplinary measures.
“There is no evidence Pro Line considered other disciplinary action,” the decision stated. “The absence of other actions undermines, to a degree, Pro Line’s position that the misconduct was so serious it justified termination.”
Further, the tribunal noted that the company provided no evidence it notified affected employees about the privacy breach or took steps to revise its mail-handling or payroll privacy policies. The tribunal found no indication that H.D.’s actions had damaged customer relationships or Pro Line’s business operations.
No heightened standard of trust applied
Pro Line did not offer evidence that H.D. was held to an elevated standard of confidentiality, as might be the case in industries such as banking. While H.D. claimed to handle sensitive customer information in her role, there was no independent evidence provided about the specific duties or expectations of her position.
The tribunal concluded that while the employee had shown poor judgment, her conduct was not incompatible with continued employment. “Although she did not show remorse, neither was she dishonest about what happened,” the tribunal noted.
Damages capped at CRT limit
H.D. originally sought $5,000 in damages, the maximum allowed under the tribunal’s small claims process, claiming she was entitled to three months’ notice at common law. The tribunal found a nine-week notice period was appropriate given her length of service and the nature of her role.
H.D. worked 36 hours per week at $24 per hour, meaning she would have earned $6,048 over seven weeks (beyond the two weeks already paid). However, her claim was capped at $5,000.
The tribunal awarded that amount, plus $343.75 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act and $175 in tribunal fees, for a total of $5,518.75.
For more information, see Dionne v. Pro Line Sports Ltd., 2025 BCCRT 373 (CanLII).
