BC is moving toward greater transparency about who owns companies. Each private company in BC is required to maintain a transparency register which identifies people who have significant control over a company, which is kept internally and available for viewing by government officials.

‍

Starting in late 2025, private companies in B.C. will be required to file their transparency register information directly with the Business Registry, not just keep it internally. This is intended to prevent hidden ownership and increase public accountability. Under the new rules, some of this information will become public, including individuals’ full legal names, year of birth, and countries of citizenship. Companies will need to update changes within 15 days, instead of the current 30-day window.

‍

These rules will apply to all private companies in B.C. and will require disclosure of anyone who owns or controls 25% or more of shares or voting rights, or has the power to appoint or remove directors.

‍

Non-compliance comes with serious consequences. Fines may reach $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for companies if false or misleading information is filed, plus additional penalties for failing to file at all.

‍

Now is the time for businesses to review ownership structures, update records, and get organized before filing becomes mandatory.

Big changes are coming for B.C.’s mortgage industry.

‍

The new Mortgage Services Act (MSA) officially takes effect October 13, 2026, with several provisions already in force. This major overhaul replaces the decades-old Mortgage Brokers Act, bringing tougher licensing rules, stronger oversight, and higher penalties, all of which are aimed at modernizing the sector and addressing professional recommendations on money laundering.

‍

The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) will now have expanded powers to set rules, enforce compliance, and investigate misconduct through a new Superintendent of Mortgage Services. The MSA introduces four new licence classes (brokerage, principal broker, broker, and lender), expands what qualifies as “mortgage services,” and sets much higher standards for education, suitability, and recordkeeping.

‍

Private lenders will require their own licenses, and mortgage brokers will be able to incorporate their own Professional Mortgage Corporations for tax planning purposes, similar to what realtors are already able to do.

‍

Penalties have also skyrocketed - up to $500,000 for disciplinary actions and $2.5 million for offences.

‍

With a 15-month transition period already underway, every mortgage professional in B.C. needs to prepare for the shift to this new regulatory regime.

Remote working arrangements have been around long before the COVID-19 pandemic, albeit uncommon, but employers were generally careful in approving these arrangements for its employees. When the pandemic suddenly shut the world down in 2020, businesses were understandably overwhelmed with adapting to new challenges, and many did not implement clear policies on remote work. As time went on, some employees viewed remote work as a right while their employers believed they retained the right to recall at any time.  What happens when there’s disagreement?

‍

In Byrd v. Welcome Home Children’s Residence Inc. (“Byrd”), the employee, Ms. Byrd, moved to Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic due to her husband, a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, given a posting there. Ms. Byrd’s employer, which operated a care home in Ontario, initially permitted a remote-working arrangement from Europe but later changed its mind and mandated a return to the office. Ms. Byrd refused, and her employer provided her with an ultimatum: return to the office or resign. The Ontario court found that the employer’s conduct was a constructive dismissal of Ms. Byrd’s employment and awarded her 6.5 months’ pay in lieu of notice of termination.

‍

The Byrd decision had a unique set of circumstances and does not mean that employers cannot recall its remote-working employees to the office. At the trial, neither party could produce any documentation regarding the terms of the remote-working arrangement and both parties ostensibly had a different understanding of what was agreed to. Ms. Byrd believed she was permitted to work remotely for the entire duration of her husband’s posting. The employer believed it had retained a right to recall Ms. Byrd to the office at any time.  

‍

Finding in Ms. Byrd’s favour, the court considered that there was no credible evidence that the employer ever communicated a right to recall until approximately 20 months after Ms. Byrd relocated to Europe. In these circumstances, the court found that remote work from Europe had become a fundamental term of Ms. Byrd’s employment and her employer’s attempt to recall her to the office was a breach of that term.

‍

The Byrd decision can be contrasted with the pre-pandemic decision of Staley v Squirrel Systems of Canada Ltd (“Staley”). In Staley, a Burnaby-based employer permitted its employee, Mr. Staley, to work remotely from Montreal but promptly communicated to him, in writing, that the arrangement was only approved on a temporary basis. Within three months of his Mr. Staley’s relocation, the employer presented him with a written employment contract explicitly providing that he could be recalled to the office at any time. Mr. Staley rejected the written contract and was subsequently recalled to work at the Burnaby office. When Mr. Staley refused to return, the employer terminated his employment for just cause.

‍

Considering the documentary evidence available, the trial judge ultimately concluded that Mr. Staley’s refusal to return was just cause for termination. This finding was upheld by the BC Court of Appeal.

‍

The contrasting decisions in Byrd and Staley are a good reminder for employers of the importance of having clear workplace policies and reducing verbal agreements to writing. Had the employer in the Byrd case done this and set clear expectations, the employee may not have filed a lawsuit at all, or at the very least, the litigation would have had a much different outcome.

‍

Every two years, those interested in workplace health and safety attend the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety Forum.  The 2025 Forum, like those before it, provided attendees with an opportunity to learn and share knowledge and experience around current and emerging health and safety issues.

‍

Attendees in 2025 listened to a variety of thought leaders and subject experts from government, labour and workplaces, including:

‍

• Dr. Aviroop (Avi) Biswas: Scientist at the Institute for Work and Health on a recent study on the daily movement patterns of Canadian workers and which of these are associated with optimal heart health.
• Dr. Sarah Henderson: Scientific Director of Environmental Health Services at the BC Centre for Disease Control on climate change and considerations and implications for occupational health.
• Xabier Irastorza: Senior Research Project Manager at the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work on insights from the latest European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER).
• Travis Woodworth: Health and Safety Planner at Glooscap Health and Safety on Indigenous perspectives on health and safety for workplaces and communities.

‍

The highlight was the end of forum presentation by Susan Aglukark, O.C., LL.B, award-winning Inuk singer-songwriter.  Her moving speech told the stories of her people, the Inuit of Arctic Canada, and themes of hope, spirit and encouragement accompanied by musical arrangements blended with the Inuktitut and English languages.

‍

A common theme amongst speakers was looking back to learn and go forward. Key takeaways were:

-Mindset is everything so hire with mindset as a skill set.  Work equals about 10,000 days of an individual’s life so the focus needs to be on the needs of the people in our workplaces. Mindset for workplaces need to include:

• Leadership, which in 21st century includes the ability to course correct when something new does not produce the expected results.
• Teamwork and collaborative work.
• Resilience and underscoring that asking for help at inflection points gets the organization through the hard parts of change.

-Employers should strive to optimize employee performance even when stress and mental health issues exist.  Stress and mental health includes a range of circumstances from a divorce to a family member being ill or a recent death in the family, to recent mental health diagnoses like ADHD or General Anxiety Disorder. Tools exist to facilitate employer – employee conversations to support staying at work or returning to work.

‍

-Cultural safety in the workplace is possible and its presence builds retention, confidence and long-term workplace success.  An Indigenous informed workforce means:

• Progress over perfection.
• Relationships over rules.
• Front line – first always.

‍

Family caregiving impacts talent recruitment so development of policies and practices to support flexible workplaces will support your workplace in the long-run.  New tools to help worker-carers are available.

‍

The world’s changing environment is impacting our workplaces so climate/the environment should be included in risk assessments.  Tools like the Extreme Heat Preparedness Guide should be considered when assessing the health and safety of activities at your workplace.

‍

If you would like to learn more how to create a health and safety conscious workplace, and more about the 2025 CHOHS Forum, please contact Fiona H. McFarlane.  Fiona works with employers to create policies that ensure compliance with human rights and health and safety legislation, while keeping up to date on the latest trends in health and safety.

‍

‍

‍

‍

In a recent BC Supreme Court decision, a long-term employee’s reasonable notice period was significantly reduced because she filed a wrongful dismissal action during the working notice period. Her lawsuit effectively repudiated the employment relationship, ending the employer’s obligations toward her under the employment contract.

‍

Background

Ms. Adrain worked for Agricom - a trader and exporter of agricultural commodities – in an office administrator role alongside its founder, Mr. Thorpe, for 30 years. On April 8, 2025, Mr. Thorpe advised Ms. Adrain that he was planning to wind down the company and offered that Ms. Adrain could either take over the business or eventually cease employment.

‍

On April 14, 2025, Ms. Adrain had a lawyer send a letter on her behalf to Agricom stating that she would continue to work until the company wound down but demanded $200,000.00 in severance payment to reflect 24 months reasonable notice. In response, on April 29, 2025, Agricom provided Ms. Adrain with 13 months working notice of termination. Ms. Adrain responded through her lawyer that 13 months notice was insufficient. After Agricom did not respond to this letter, Ms. Adrain filed a wrongful dismissal action on May 14, 2025. Agricom filed its response to the action on June 17, 2025.

‍

Parties Positions

Ms. Adrain argued that she was wrongfully dismissed by Agricom, as 13 months working notice was insufficient, and there was no just cause to terminate her. She argued that 24 months was reasonable notice based on her age, length of service, position and skill set and as such, she was entitled to her salary, bonuses, and cell phone expenses for the 24-month period.

‍

Agricom argued that Ms. Adrain’s demand letters and subsequent lawsuit constituted just cause for her termination. In the alternative, Agricom argued that Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract by filing the lawsuit, and that they accepted this repudiation on June 17, 2025, by filing their response. As such, Ms. Adrain would be entitled to damages reflecting reasonable notice of termination, minus pay for the months she would have worked if she hadn’t repudiated her employment contract.

‍

Issues

‍

1. Did the demand letters and lawsuit commenced by Ms. Adrain constitute just cause for her dismissal?
2. Did Ms. Adrain repudiate her employment contract by commencing the lawsuit?
3. How should Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period be calculated?

‍

The demand letters and lawsuit did not constitute just cause for dismissal

The court acknowledged that there are times when an employee’s legal action against their employer will render the employment relationship incompatible, thus constituting just cause for dismissal. However, the determination depends on the circumstances of each case: para. 48. In Ms. Adrain’s case, the demand letters and lawsuit did not amount to just cause for dismissal. The court considered that it was neither shocking nor unreasonable for Ms. Adrain to communicate with Agricom through her lawyer. Mr. Thorpe had just given her some important decisions to make regarding her future with the company. The letters, while direct, were not overly aggressive, but rather an invitation to negotiate: para. 54. The court also considered Ms. Adrain’s many years of positive contribution to the company, the power imbalance between her and Mr. Thorpe as her boss, and the ambiguous nature of Mr. Thorpe’s original explanation of how the company was going to be wound down. Further, Ms. Adrain worked from home, and she didn’t often have the opportunity to communicate with Mr. Thorpe in person.

‍

Similarly, the lawsuit itself was not scandalous or inflammatory, and was only commenced after Agricom failed to respond to Ms. Adrain’s final letter. The lawsuit did not render the employment relationship incompatible, as it was in very early stages. Ms. Adrain remained willing to work at Agricom while the company wound down and would not have been in close quarters with Mr. Thorpe as she worked from home: paras. 55-56.

‍

Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract when she filed the lawsuit

Notwithstanding the above, the court still found that Ms. Adrain repudiated her employment contract by commencing the wrongful dismissal action during her working notice. The repudiation was accepted by Agricom on June 17, 2025, when it filed the response to the action: para. 64.

‍

Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period was significantly reduced to reflect her repudiation of the employment contract

Both parties and the court agreed that 24 months was a reasonable notice period and that the 13 months notice provided by Agricom was insufficient. However, the court held that Ms. Adrain’s award should be adjusted to reflect her repudiation of the employment contract, as Agricom was not obligated to compensate her once she had ended the employment relationship. Ms. Adrain repudiated the employment contract 1.5 months into the 13 months of working notice Agricom had given her. As such, the court deducted the remaining 11.5 months of working notice that Ms. Adrain would have worked through, had she not repudiated her employment, leaving her entitlements at only 12.5 months reasonable notice (24 months minus 11.5 months).

‍

The trial of this matter occurred only 4 months after Ms. Adrain was given formal working notice of the termination of her employment. At the time of trial, Ms. Adrain had not yet secured alternate employment. However, the court determined that Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period should be deducted by an additional month, on the basis that it was likely Ms. Adrain might find alternative employment within the notice period.

‍

Ms. Adrain’s notice period was further reduced, as Agricom had continued to pay her for a period of 4.5 months after termination. It is also noteworthy that Ms. Adrain was not entitled to damages in respect of bonuses owed by Agricom throughout the notice period. This was because whether she received a bonus each year was entirely up to the discretion of Agricom. The bonuses did not make up an integral part of her compensation, as they were not issued every year: para. 88.

‍

After all the deductions, Ms. Adrain’s reasonable notice period was 7 months with an award of $47,254.70 reflecting her pay during that period.

‍

Takeaways

If an employee commences formal legal negotiations or a lawsuit against their employer, these actions will not always constitute just cause for dismissal. It will depend on whether the legal actions render the employment relationship incompatible in the circumstances.

‍

However, if an employee commences a wrongful dismissal action against their employer during their working notice, the employee will generally be considered to have repudiated the employment contract, effectively ending the employment relationship and ending any obligation on the employer to pay them further. This case serves as a caution to employees who have been given working notice, and are considering legal action, as commencing proceedings may significantly reduce any potential award granted by the court.

‍

However, employers should also be aware that employees who repudiate the employment relationship during working notice may still be entitled to damages if the working notice period provided was insufficient.

‍

As the prevalence of workplace incidents and investigations continues to gain momentum, questions abound regarding process come to us from interested parties including Complainants, Respondents and Employers investigating.  In the recent 2024 case of Marentette v. Canada (Attorney General), the Federal Court of Canada does a deep dive in its legal analysis of the applicable legislation and a thorough history of the case law in this area, with helpful takeaways, which we summarize below.

‍

In this case, a Canada border agent, Chris Marentette, initiated a workplace complaint by “notice of occurrence” under the federal regulations regarding a pattern of harassing behaviors he was alleged to have been experiencing at work; an investigation was initiated, and he was interviewed.  The investigator then interviewed the Respondents, and the witnesses. The investigator then compiled a report that found Mr. Marentette’s notice of occurrence could not be substantiated based on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities, which is the applicable legal standard of proof in these investigations.  

‍

On judicial review of the matter, the main issue was the question surrounding procedural fairness (or lack thereof).  Because Mr. Marentette was never provided the Respondents’ evidence or the witnesses’ evidence, he was not afforded the reasonable chance to rebut, refute, provide context, deny or otherwise speak to their evidence before the final report was drafted, then adopted by his employer.  Justice Brown found that the investigation was flawed for these reasons, and remanded the notice of occurrence for re-determination by a new investigator.  

‍

In support of the view that procedural fairness for Mr. Marentette had been wrongly denied in this instance, the court agreed with his submissions that workplace harassment and violence investigations are to be afforded a high level of procedural fairness; the impact on individuals involved affects them personally, professionally, and often impacts the working experience and environment.  

‍

Key takeaways:

• “right to respond” is of paramount importance for both the Complainant and the Respondent(s): each affected party is to be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to any evidence gathered during the course of investigation
• Investigation procedure is to be transparent and conducted in a timely manner
• Investigation procedures must reflect the regulatory regime(s) in place, with policy requirements being duly met
• Parties (not witnesses) are to be kept up-to-date as the investigation unfolds

‍

For further information, see case in full: Marentette v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 676 (CanLII); and Federal Regulation, Work Place Harassment and Violence Prevention Regulations, SOR/2020-130, made pursuant to subsections 125(3) and 157(1) of the Canada Labour Code, (RSC 1985, c. L-2).

‍

A common issue that I have seen in my practice is situations where an employment arrangement appears to have come to an end, but there is no agreement between the parties as to what has happened.  Did the employee resign?  Were they fired?  What does it mean, legally, when an employee fails to show up to work without contacting the employer?

Understanding how these issues are assessed by the court is critical to avoiding costly errors that may lead to years of otherwise unnecessary litigation.

‍

Resignation

Most simply, a resignation occurs when an employee initiates the termination of their employment.  The resignation itself must be both clear and unequivocal.  The test for resignation is a very stringent one, as it has both an objective and subjective component.  Subjectively, the employee must intend to resign, and objectively, the employee’s words and acts must support a finding that they resigned.  

‍

An employer cannot always immediately accept even an apparently clear resignation, especially if the resignation is given in the context of an emotional outburst.  

‍

Because the test is so stringent, it is very easy for a situation to arise where an employer believes that a resignation has occurred when, from a legal perspective, it has not.

‍

By way of example, in the case of Bishop v Rexel Canada Electrical Inc., 2016 BCSC 2351, the court found that there was no resignation in a case where the employee said he was ‘not coming back’, advised ‘yes’ when asked if he was resigning, and when asked again, confirmed again that he was ‘done’.  In Bishop, the court found that no resignation had occurred because the employer had a duty to revisit and inquire about the employee’s statement of resignation because it had occurred during an emotionally heated exchange.  

‍

In English v Manulife Financial Corporation, 2019 ONCA 612, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that submitting a letter of resignation was not a resignation, when an employee had also indicated, verbally, that she was not entirely sure about retiring.  Under the circumstances, this was found to be equivocal, and the employee was permitted to withdraw it the resignation.

‍

Furthermore, employees can revoke even a clear resignation until it has been accepted and acted upon by the employer.

‍

Job Abandonment

An employee who leaves their employment does not always formally communicate an intention to resign.  Sometimes, they will simply stop attending work.

‍

The test in this case is similar to the test for resignation, except that there is no subjective element.  Abandonment occurs when, view objectively, a reasonable person would understand from the employee’s words and actions that he or she had abandoned the contract of employment, typically by failing or refusing to attend work without reasonable excuse.

‍

As with resignation, the circumstances of abandonment matter.  A simple unexplained absence may not, on its own, constitute abandonment.

‍

For example, in Koos v A & A Customs Brokers Ltd., 2009 BCSC 563, an employee on sick leave who failed to return messages from his employer was not found to have abandoned her employment, despite evidence that she had received and reviewed the messages, which asked for an update on her status.

‍

Where there has been conflict between the employer and the employee, the employer will likely have an obligation to clarify the employee’s intentions and warn the employee that a failure to return to work as instructed will be considered abandonment.  

‍

Dismissal

An employee has, as a matter of law, the right to terminate an employee on reasonable notice (or without notice where cause exists).

‍

Like abandonment, the test for dismissal is purely objective.  The test if whether the acts of the employee, objectively viewed, amount to a dismissal. The crucial factor is the clarity with which the dismissal is communicated to the employee.  The notice must specifically and unequivocally indicate that the employment is coming to an end.  

‍

As with resignation and termination, a purported dismissal made under heated circumstances may not actually be a termination.  In Raypold v McEvoy Oilfield Services,[1977] 1 ACWS 111, 2 AR 134, the court found that there was no termination where, in the context of a drinking party, a vice-president told a manager that he wanted to fight him and he was fired.  The vice-president apologized the next day, told the manger he was not fired, and gave a written apology.  The court found, in the circumstances, that there could be no finding of dismissal.

‍

TAKEAWAYS

Whether an employment contract has come to an end is not always easy to determine, especially if it takes place in emotionally charged circumstances.  Parties should take steps to clarify the other side’s intentions and remove any potential ambiguity before committing themselves to a particular legal position.      

‍

Employers will likely want to take great care to make sure that there is no ambiguity before holding that an employee has resigned or abandoned their position, and to give employees a chance to reconsider if the resignation/abandonment took place in an emotional situation.  Even where an employer has made a mistake by treating an equivocal situation as abandonment or resignation, the employer can sometimes salvage the employment relationship by admitting the error and agreeing to reinstate the aggrieved employee.  

‍

Employees should be aware that even if they have resigned or stormed out of work, they can often walk back a resignation or unexplained absence if they approach the employer soon afterwards to clarify their intentions.  At that point, if the employer insists on treating a resignation as binding, the court may find it is a dismissal instead.

‍

Note to Readers: This is not legal advice. If you are looking for legal advice in relation to a particular matter please contact one of our group members. We communicate all these updates to our clients and readers on our Employer Resources Portal and through monthly Newsletters.

‍

On August 7, 2025, the BC Supreme Court issued a groundbreaking decision in Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General), recognizing Aboriginal title and fishing rights in part of Richmond’s south arm of the Fraser River. This is the first case in Canada where Aboriginal title has been declared in an urban area overlapping with private property and municipal lands.

‍

The Court ruled that BC has never had authority to extinguish Aboriginal title, meaning government grants of land to private landowners do not displace it. As a result, Aboriginal title can exist alongside private ownership, but conflicts must be resolved through negotiation and reconciliation.

‍

The Court also declared certain Crown and municipal land interests invalid and emphasized that government grants over the Cowichan’s lands amounted to an “ongoing wrong.” While BC has announced an appeal, the decision raises major questions about land ownership certainty in British Columbia, particularly for urban and privately-held lands.

‍

This ruling signals "unfinished business" in BC’s land system and could have ripple effects for property owners, lenders, and investors across BC and Canada. With unresolved claims still outstanding, this decision may affect not only future transactions, but also existing property rights.

‍

With the new Mortgage Services Act (the “MSA”) being introduced in October 2026, individual submortgage brokers will soon be able to use Personal Mortgage Corporations (“PMCs”), giving them a transparent, compliant way to structure their business for tax efficiency and professional flexibility.

‍

What is a Personal Mortgage Corporation?

‍

A Personal Mortgage Corporation allows a licensed submortgage broker to incorporate and operate through their own company, while still working under a licensed brokerage. This modernizes the industry and brings mortgage brokers in line with other professionals like realtors.

‍

‍

Key Benefits:

1. Commissions can be paid directly by the brokerage to the PMC. The individual submortgage broker can then pay themselves salary or dividends from their PMC.
2. Brokers gain tax planning and structuring options
3. Full regulatory oversight remains in place
4. Co-brokering workarounds are no longer needed

‍

‍

Important Notes:

• Each PMC must be 100% owned and controlled by one licensed submortgage broker
• Both the submortgage broker and the PMC must hold licences under the MSA
• PMCs can’t operate independently. They remain tied to a brokerage.
• All compliance obligations apply equally to both the submortgage broker and the PMC. If an individual’s licence is suspended or cancelled, the PMC’s licence is automatically suspended or cancelled as well.

‍

‍

Existing brokers and lenders must be licensed (or claim an exemption) by October 2026.

‍

For full details, see the guidance recently released by BCFSA.

‍