The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed a wrongful dismissal claim brought by a longtime private school principal who alleged he had been constructively dismissed when the school hired a new principal in 2023. The court found instead that the plaintiff, D.G.C., had accepted a new part-time role and later chose to resign.
In a parallel finding, the court also rejected the employer’s counterclaim that sought damages against D.G.C. for allegedly failing to properly prepare the school for a Ministry of Education inspection that resulted in conditional accreditation.
Background: Change in role and disagreement over consent
D.G.C. had served as principal of Pattison High School, a private Vancouver institution owned by Timesing Education Group Inc., since 2013. He was 72 at the time of the dispute.
The conflict began after a May 26, 2023 meeting between D.G.C. and the school’s director, A.L., during which A.L. proposed structural changes and informed D.G.C. that a new principal would be hired for the September semester. A.L. offered D.G.C. a part-time role, either as senior consultant, school director, or vice principal.
The court found that A.L.’s subsequent email confirming the new arrangement, including a proposed title and reduced working hours, aligned with her testimony that these options were clearly discussed in the May 26 meeting. In response, D.G.C. thanked A.L. for the meeting but did not object to the summary of the discussion.
He later followed up on July 6 with an email that stated he had “taken the necessary time to reflect” and would “accept the role of ‘senior consultant’ on the scheduled date previously given in the correspondence.”
Although D.G.C. testified that he only meant to accept the title, not the role itself, the court found this explanation inconsistent with the plain meaning of the email and his subsequent conduct.
“While he sent a text message on July 22 that said his view was that he was constructively dismissed on May 26, he did not go further and state he was not accepting the new role,” the court wrote. “More importantly, he continued working throughout and did not leave his job.”
Court weighs credibility and conduct
The ruling turned heavily on credibility and written communications. The court found the best evidence came from emails and texts exchanged at the time, not from the parties’ testimony.
“I find in general (he) tried at trial to explain his own written words in a manner to conform with his litigation position,” the court stated. “Where there is a conflict in evidence, I prefer the evidence of Ms. Lu.”
The court concluded that D.G.C. had not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that he was constructively dismissed. While the change from full-time principal to part-time senior consultant was significant, the court said D.G.C. had ample time to reject the new terms and sue for constructive dismissal if he had chosen.
“Throughout May to September, (his) words and actions indicated he agreed to switching to part-time work,” the court found. “He expressly (said) he accepted the role of senior consultant.”
Accreditation failure and counterclaim dismissed
After D.G.C. left the school in early September 2023, Pattison High failed a Ministry of Education inspection and was placed on conditional accreditation. Timesing counterclaimed against D.G.C. for $150,000, alleging his failure to complete the required inspection report contributed to the poor outcome.
However, the court rejected the counterclaim, finding no evidence that D.G.C. breached a fundamental term of his employment contract. Although he had previously handled accreditation matters, the contract did not assign him sole responsibility for the report or guarantee completion by a specific date.
“The defendant has not proven that the plaintiff is liable for any loss the defendant may have sustained due to the Report prepared by the plaintiff,” the court found.
Moreover, the court emphasized that multiple staff—including a new principal and counsellor unfamiliar with the school—were involved in the failed inspection. It noted the school had passed similar inspections for years under D.G.C.’s leadership using the same policies now found deficient.
“The court is not able to find the plaintiff liable for the failed inspection when the same policies submitted by the plaintiff were found to be sufficient in the past.”
No damages awarded
In dismissing both the claim and counterclaim, the court found that D.G.C. had not been constructively dismissed and that the school failed to prove any legal wrongdoing or negligence on his part that would entitle it to damages.
The court indicated a preliminary view that each party should bear its own legal costs, but left open the possibility for further submissions on costs within 30 days.
For more information, see Chowne v Timesing Education Group Inc., 2025 BCSC 1196 (CanLII).
