The Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board has dismissed an appeal by Paktech Electronics which argued it should not have to pay wages to an employee the company claimed never actually worked for them.
The board upheld a wage assessment of $2,697.14 in favour of M.U.A., finding the adjudicator made no errors of law in determining the worker was indeed an employee who performed work for the Regina-based electronics company.
Company’s defence rejected
Paktech argued that M.U.A. was never an employee and “never showed up to work.” However, the original adjudicator preferred M.U.A.’s testimony over that of the company’s representative, L.A., finding the employee’s evidence was “consistent, reasonable and rational.”
The adjudicator noted M.U.A. “remembered with clarity and gave inherently, plausible testimony, which, matched the facts, that the witness and documents showed.” In contrast, the adjudicator found L.A. was “elusive, tangential, and vague” and “did not explain the inconsistencies of his testimony when presented with evidence or documents to the contrary.”
Documentary evidence supported employment relationship
The case included substantial documentation supporting the employment relationship, including an offer of employment from Paktech to M.U.A., a job approval letter from the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program, a document signed by both parties confirming a start date of Oct. 1, 2023, and a letter of reprimand dated Oct. 18, 2023, regarding “uneven attendance.”
Text messages between L.A. and M.U.A. also formed part of the evidence, along with rental documents showing L.A.’s name as an employer representative when he helped M.U.A. find housing in Regina.
Appeal grounds fail to establish legal errors
On appeal, Paktech raised three main arguments: the adjudicator erred in findings of fact, the hearing was procedurally unfair, and L.A. lacked authority to act on behalf of the corporation.
The board found no merit in any of these grounds. Regarding procedural fairness, the board noted these concerns were never raised during the original hearing. “The Corporation should have cross examined the witnesses at the time or raised a concern if it was under the apprehension that cross-examination was not permitted,” the board stated.
The board emphasized that new issues generally cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, explaining it would be unfair to allow parties to get a “second kick at the can” without giving the original decision-maker a chance to address concerns.
Authority of company representative established
Paktech’s argument that L.A. lacked authority to bind the corporation also failed. The board noted L.A. served as the company’s representative throughout the proceedings and was involved in all aspects of M.U.A.’s employment relationship.
L.A. had forwarded the employment offer, met M.U.A. at the airport in Toronto, helped him find rental accommodation, and was the person who contacted M.U.A. for work assignments and drove him to work.
“All representations made to [M.U.A.] about his employment were through [L.A.],” the board found. “The Corporation, by conducting these interactions through [L.A.], represented that he had authority.”
Standard of review limits board’s jurisdiction
The board’s analysis was constrained by its limited jurisdiction under the Saskatchewan Employment Act. The board can only hear appeals on questions of law, not questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law, unless there is an identifiable legal error.
For findings of fact, the board explained it has no jurisdiction “unless there is an extricable question of law, or the Adjudicator errs in principle in its findings of fact.” An error in principle occurs when a tribunal makes findings “on the basis of no evidence or irrelevant evidence” or “in disregard of relevant evidence.”
Credibility assessment upheld
The board found the adjudicator’s credibility assessment was properly grounded in the evidence and witness observations. The original decision-maker had the advantage of hearing testimony directly and comparing it to documentary evidence.
“The Adjudicator made a credibility finding based on his observation of the witnesses and how their testimony compared to the written evidence,” the board noted, finding no error in principle in this analysis.
Corporate liability through agents
The board also addressed the broader legal principle that corporations must act through agents since they “lack the ability to act on their own.” When a corporation allows someone to act on its behalf in employment matters without restricting that authority, it becomes bound by those actions.
The board found “a clear basis for finding that [L.A.] had ostensible or actual authority to act on behalf of the Corporation in employment matters.” There was no evidence M.U.A. was ever told to contact anyone other than L.A., nor any evidence presented that L.A. lacked authority to act for the company.
For more information, see Paktech Electronics v Director of Employment Standards, 2025 SKLRB 26 (CanLII).
