In a recent Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) decision out of British Columbia, a 10-year worker’s wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal determined she was employed by a contractor rather than the property management client she served.
The dispute centred on whether R.R. was directly employed by Whistler Vacation Club at Twin Peaks (WTP) or whether she worked for Elevate Vacations Inc., a company that provided property management services to WTP.
“I find the most likely explanation is that Elevate employs (R.R.) and that she provided property management services to WTP through Elevate,” wrote the tribunal member in the decision.
The case highlights the importance of clearly establishing employment relationships, particularly in situations involving contractors and service providers.
Background
The applicant claimed she had been employed by WTP for more than 10 years when her employment was terminated “for no reason.” She sought damages for wrongful dismissal, including wages and severance pay.
WTP denied ever employing R.R., contending that she worked for Elevate Vacations Inc., a contractor providing property management services to WTP. The respondent acknowledged terminating Elevate’s services in June 2023, but maintained no direct employment relationship with R.R.
Evidence presented
The tribunal’s decision rested heavily on the evidence presented by both parties:
R.R. provided:
- A screenshot of a 2014 T4 issued from “Whistler Vacation Club” showing $41,842 in employment income, though the screenshot did not confirm who received the T4
- Screenshots of 2023 bank deposits from “Whistler Vacation Club at TCPT,” though ownership of the receiving account wasn’t clear
WTP provided:
- Emails showing R.R.’s work email ended with “@elevatevacations.com”
- An email dated February 23, 2022, in which Elevate’s owner included R.R. in a list of Elevate’s employees
- An affidavit sworn by R.R. on September 15, 2023, as part of a separate lawsuit between WTP and Elevate, in which she stated she “has worked as a rental and organizational manager for Elevate for over 10 years”
The tribunal noted that R.R. did not provide reply submissions to explain the content of her affidavit, which directly contradicted her claim of employment with WTP.
Tribunal’s findings
Based on the evidence, the tribunal determined that R.R. was employed by Elevate, not WTP. The tribunal member concluded: “The termination (R.R.) refers to is likely WTP’s termination of Elevate’s services. So, I find that (R.R.) was not an employee of WTP and that she cannot claim damages for wrongful dismissal from WTP.”
The tribunal also considered whether R.R. might qualify as a “dependent contractor” who could be entitled to notice before termination. The decision referenced Marbry Distributors Ltd. v. Avrecan Int. Inc., which established that determining dependent contractor status involves examining:
- Duration/permanency of the relationship
- Degree of reliance/closeness of the relationship
- Degree of exclusivity
However, the tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish R.R. as a dependent contractor, noting: “I do not know the nature of (R.R.’s) work for WTP, the degree of reliance in the relationship, or whether (R.R.) had other clients.”
Fee reimbursement
The tribunal declined to order reimbursement of CRT fees, noting that “Mrs. Ryland was not successful, so I do not order any reimbursement of her CRT fees.” Neither party claimed dispute-related expenses
For more information, see Ryland v. Whistler Vacation Club at Twin Peaks, 2025 BCCRT 483 (CanLII).
