The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has ruled that an employee who was fired without cause is entitled to five weeks of pay despite the employer’s assertion that the worker had quit during their probationary period.
In a recent decision involving J.E. and Silverdale Doggy Vacation Lodge, the tribunal found that statements made in an employee group chat did not constitute a formal resignation when direct communications between the employee and employer clearly showed the employee’s intention to continue working.
“Whether words or actions amount to a resignation must be determined with reference to the surrounding circumstances, and statements made under moments of stress may not be effective resignations,” wrote the tribunal in its decision.
Employee’s complaint upheld
J.E. was employed as a general manager at the doggy daycare starting August 16, 2023. The employment relationship deteriorated after a disagreement about attending training in Florida.
Following this dispute, J.E. wrote disparaging statements about M.E. in an employees’ group chat, concluding with “Good luck everyone, I’m out.” The employer interpreted this as a resignation.
However, J.E. provided evidence of text messages sent directly to M.E. on or around October 19, 2023, where she “clearly states that she will be returning to work and fulfilling her employment contract.”
The tribunal determined these direct communications showed J.E. “never communicated her resignation to M.E. and intended to continue her employment.”
Documentation contradicted employer’s claims
The tribunal’s decision noted that key documentation contradicted the employer’s position that J.E. had quit:
“An email from M.E. to J.E. dated October 20, 2023 says clearly that she is firing J.E. without cause effective as of October 18, 2023. J.E.’s Record of Employment (ROE) submitted by M.E. also says ‘termination without cause’ in the comments section.”
The tribunal rejected M.E.’s explanation that she had indicated “termination without cause” on the ROE merely to help J.E. obtain employment insurance benefits, finding this explanation implausible given the apparent animosity between the parties.
Contract provisions enforced
The employment contract between the parties included a provision entitling J.E. to three weeks’ notice plus an additional two weeks of base salary if terminated without cause.
While the contract also required J.E. to sign a “full and final release” to receive severance pay, the tribunal found this clause unenforceable due to vagueness.
“Where the terms of the contract are vague or ambiguous, it cannot be said that the parties came to a meeting of the minds,” the tribunal noted. “So, I find that this clause is unenforceable.”
Based on J.E.’s annual salary of $85,000 stated in the employment contract, the tribunal calculated that five weeks of pay would exceed the CRT’s small claims limit of $5,000. As a result, J.E. was awarded the maximum allowable amount of $5,000.
Employer’s counterclaims dismissed
M.E. filed a counterclaim against J.E. for $5,000, alleging damage to her business’s reputation, legal fees, fees paid to a human resources company, time and costs related to a WorkSafe BC claim, and costs associated with another employee allegedly quitting due to J.E.’s actions.
The tribunal refused to consider the defamation claim, noting that under section 119 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act, the CRT lacks jurisdiction over claims of slander or libel.
The legal fees claim was dismissed because no “extraordinary circumstances” were demonstrated to justify such an award under CRT Rule 9.5.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for HR fees, viewing it as “essentially a claim for a dispute-related expense” in the context of an unsuccessful defence against J.E.’s severance pay claim.
Regarding the WorkSafe BC matters, the tribunal refused to resolve this claim, deferring to the Workers’ Compensation Board as the appropriate authority.
Finally, M.E.’s allegation that J.E. was “instrumental” in causing another employee’s departure was dismissed due to lack of evidence and failure to establish a legal basis for damages.
Order details
The tribunal ordered M.E. to pay J.E. a total of $5,175, consisting of $5,000 in damages and $175 in CRT fees, within 30 days of the decision.
J.E. expressly waived her entitlement to interest on the award, though she remains entitled to post-judgment interest as applicable.
The CRT’s validated order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia and carries the same force and effect as a Provincial Court order once filed.
For more information, see Evans v. Eggen, 2025 BCCRT 594 (CanLII).
