Firm

Interpreting Employment Contracts

How To Interpret Employment Contracts In BC

‍

We often get asked if the employment contract someone signed on day 1 of their employment is still enforceable after the employee has been promoted and received salary increases. In British Columbia, the Supreme Court confirmed in October 2025 in LaPlume v AAA Internet Publishing Inc., 2025 BCSC 2139, that changes to employment does not impact the enforceability of the employment contract.

‍

Mr. Laplume became an employee of AAA Internet Publishing Inc. in December 2013, after some time as an independent contractor. While initially in a junior position, Mr. Plume received salary increases in 2015, 2016 and 2019 and then was promoted to a manager role in fall 2019 then to operations manager in 2022, which is the role he held until his without cause termination in July 2023.

‍

The employment contract Mr. Plume signed in 2013 contained a termination clause that set out severance amounts greater than the Employment Standards Act amounts, and, at paragraph 3 said:

‍

During your employment, the Company may change your position, title, duties, responsibilities or reporting relationship as it deems appropriate from time to time, consistent with your qualifications, skills and experience, and such change will not constitute a breach of this [employment contract] or a constructive dismissal, as long a such changes do not materially increase work duties or hours of work;

‍

The BC Supreme Court considered Mr. Plume’s raises and the changes to his job description with reference to the common law concept of “changed substratum”, essentially it is possible to “outgrow” an employment contract if an employee's job duties, responsibilities, or compensation expand so drastically over time that they are no longer connected to the foundation of their original role, and whose effect is to void the outgrown employment contract.

‍

To understand if “changed substratum” occurred the BC Supreme Court reviewed Mr. Plume’s employment contract, in particular the clause permitting the employer to change the employee’s position and duties and asked what is

‍

(a) the degree of change required to constitute the erosion of the substratum of the contract;

(b) the degree of the changes to the terms of employment in this case, and

‍

In Mr. Plume’s case the changes to his employment were not considered dramatic since they consisted of mostly pay increases and his first promotion to manager of a small team was after seven years of employment, and the subsequent promotion added relatively minor responsibilities to the work he was already doing. According to the judge, these are reasonable incremental changes to employment so didn’t change the enforceability of the employment contract, and were contemplated and within the expectation of paragraph 3 of the employment contract. Specifically, the BC Supreme Court found:

‍

Specifically, pursuant to para. 3, both he and the defendant expected Mr. LaPlume’s role to evolve with his qualifications, skills, and experience. That is exactly what happened: as he gained more experience and skill as a developer, his role evolved to overseeing less experienced developers. Paragraph 3 expressly reflects that both parties expected that the employment contract would remain effective notwithstanding those changes.

‍

KEY TAKEAWAYS

It is important to start out all employment relationships with a solid and enforceable employment contract, and KSW Lawyers can provide legal advice to ensure your employment contracts anticipate and permits changes in employment. Further, reviewing your employment contracts with KSW Lawyers periodically, especially when promotions are contemplated, will ensure any changes will not erode the foundation/substratum of the contract beyond what was anticipated and permitted.

‍

Finally, the following takeaways from LaPlume v AAA Internet Publishing Inc. will help to ensure that the employment contract signed on day 1 continues to be enforceable at the end of the employment relationship. Since not all changes in employment benefits, duties, and responsibilities are sufficient to erode the foundation/substratum of an employment contract, we recommend contacting KSW Lawyers if:

‍

- Significant changes in employment are being planned since they can make the employment contract unenforceable IF

(a) The foundation/substratum of the employment when the employment contract was signed no longer exists by the time of termination, or

‍

(b) it may be implied that the employed contract could not have been intended to apply to the position ultimately occupied by the time of termination.

‍

- A change that could be dramatic and fundamental is being considered since they can erode the foundation/substratum of an employment contract. If incremental and predictable changes in the terms of employment are introduced, they are unlikely to be a sufficient basis on which to conclude that an employment contract is unenforceable.

‍

- Where an employment contract anticipates and permits changes in employment, the change required to erode the foundation/substratum of the contract must be beyond what was anticipated and permitted.

‍

Please contact Fiona H McFarlane for more information.

‍

Short time frame, big cash in

Duration of a job is not always the most relevant factor

By: Junki Hong

‍

While the length of service is often associated with notice entitlement of a dismissed employee, with greater emphasis than other relevant factors, Canadian courts have recognized that short-service employees are often entitled to a proportionately longer period of notice. Carroll v. Oracle Canada ULC, 2025 ONSC 4889 (“Carroll”) is a recent example from Ontario.

‍

Court Decision

The Court in Carroll awarded 12 months’ notice to Mr. Carroll, who served for three years and seven months in the position of Global Strategic Client Executive for the employer, Oracle Canada ULC (“Oracle”). He was 61 years old at the time of termination. Mr. Carroll earned from Oracle $761,069.79 in 2022, $786,186.33 in 2021, and in 2023, between January 1, 2023 and his termination on June 30, 2023, earned $725,674.08.

‍

In coming to this determination, the Court considered the earnings of the employees of authorities cited by the parties, and how the salary level would affect the availability of a comparable position.

‍

The Court also noted that failing to provide a positive letter of reference was a factor that increases the length of an employee’s reasonable notice period. The letter that Oracle did provide was seen as a “letter that an employer would write for a mediocre or problematic employee in respect of whom an employer did not want to say anything proactively negative”. Although Oracle maintained that it was company policy not to write letters of recommendation, the letter it did write does not indicate that company policy was not to write letters of recommendation.

‍

Mr. Carroll found alternative employment on February 28, 2024, eight months after his termination. Nevertheless, the Court held that the appropriate notice period was 12 months.

‍

In ascertaining the monetary value of the 12 months notice, the Court used a three-year average for the commissions portion. The Court also awarded for benefits, a sum equal to 10% of the base salary.

‍

The Court also awarded $57,740.55, equal to the amount of the improperly withheld commissions, in punitive damages for the employer's bad faith conduct, including delays in paying statutory entitlements without any explanation for that failure, and for relying on a termination provision, when a similarly worded employment agreement involving another Oracle employee had been struck down as unenforceable.

‍

Takeaways

For your consideration:

‍

Reference letter practices can backfire. While reference letters can mitigate legal risks, refusal to provide a reference is seen as impeding an employee's ability to mitigate their losses.
‍
In assessing the notice, courts will weigh multiple factors—including the availability of a reference.
‍
Statutory requirements, including commissions earned during the notice period, are not optional, and further, not leverage. They must be paid promptly.
‍
The Court will note the history of the enforceability of termination clause. Oracle tried a similar contractual language in the past and did not succeed and was punished for trying to do so again knowing that it would fail.
‍
When an employee occupies a senior, specialized, or high-earning role where the market for comparable positions is narrow, courts will look carefully at all the relevant factors.

‍

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.

‍

Family Feuds

The Challenges of a Family Business

By: Chris D. Drinovz

‍

In the recent decision of Vassilakaki v Vassilaki & Sons Investments, 2026 BCSC 474, an 80-year-old employee’s wrongful dismissal case went horribly wrong for him.

‍

The Facts

John Vassilakaki was a director, officer, and long-time employee of Vassilaki & Sons Investments Ltd. (VSI), a family company which operated the Last Call Liquor Mart and other businesses in the Okanagan. This wrongful dismissal case followed numerous other lawsuits amongst the feuding family, including a shareholder oppression claim brought by John Vassilakaki (which was dismissed with special costs, then appealed and upheld except the costs award) and an assault claim where John was found liable for $14,000 for battery against his brother Nick.

‍

The subject of this case was Mr. Vassilakaki’s employment. Over many years, Mr. Vassilakaki had used company funds for personal expenses, including personal income taxes and legal fees, increased his own compensation, paid himself bonuses, and authorized payments to his wife, son, and daughter-in-law without board approval or informing the company's other director, his brother Nick. Notably, Mr. Vassilakaki did not work for VSI continuously, including periods of time when he was a Councilor and then Mayor of Penticton, and when he was appointed as a director of the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen.

‍

Although Nick warned him in August 2020 that future pay increases, bonuses, and personal use of company funds required board approval, Mr. Vassilakaki continued the conduct.

‍

After discovering additional questionable payments in 2023, VSI retained an independent workplace investigator. The investigation report dated July 2023 revealed serious misconduct much of which Mr. Vassilakaki admitted. Also during his interview, Mr. Vassilakaki displayed serious insolence towards his brother Nick and other family members.

‍

Following the investigation, and after hiring a replacement manager for the liquor store, VSI terminated Mr. Vassilakaki's employment for just cause in October 2023. The hiring process took some time as VSI used several recruiters, and the process occurred during a summer with bad forest fires.

‍

Mr. Vassilakaki sued for wrongful dismissal and VSI counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duty. Interestingly, the case proceeded as a “summary trial” based on affidavits only and not live testimony, which is rare for cases involving just cause and misappropriation; however in this case many of the underlying facts had been agreed between the parties in advance of the hearing.

‍

The Court's Decision

During the second day of trial, Mr. Vassilakaki admitted that his conduct constituted just cause for dismissal. His principal argument instead was that VSI had condoned his misconduct by delaying his dismissal after discovering the misconduct and by conducting what he characterized as an unnecessary investigation.

‍

The Court rejected this argument and held that:

the workplace investigation was reasonable and necessary, particularly because other litigation between the parties was already underway (including shareholder oppression);
‍
VSI was entitled to fully investigate the allegations before making a termination decision;
‍
the time taken to recruit a replacement manager before dismissing Mr. Vassilakaki was also reasonable; and
‍
there was no evidence that VSI had forgiven or accepted the misconduct.

‍

Having found no condonation, the Court concluded that VSI had just cause to terminate the employment:

‍

[90] In the case at bar, the plaintiff acknowledged his misconduct was worthy of dismissal. The misconduct involved causing VSI to pay excessive salaries to the plaintiff and to members of his family, payment of salaries for employees while on vacation where such holiday pay had already been paid regularly with pay cheques on a monthly basis, paying three sets of management salaries which were demonstrably unnecessary given the size of the business of VSI, and causing VSI to give him interest-free loans and pay personal expenses for additions to the plaintiff’s personal stamp collection, household insurance and payments of personal income tax in the amount of $20,000. All of this was coupled with intransigent insolence that no doubt was so egregious that it rendered the continuation of the employment relationship impossible.

…

[93] It is clear that the plaintiff’s behaviour was seriously incompatible with his duties as the manager of the Liquor Store, and that the employment relationship could not viably persist after the workplace investigation concluded and its results were made known to VSI and its board. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim for wrongful dismissal is dismissed.

‍

Accordingly, the wrongful dismissal claim was dismissed.

‍

Fiduciary Duty and Counterclaim Damages

The Court then addressed VSI's claim against Mr. Vassilakaki for funds he had improperly obtained during his employment and while serving as a director. The Court found that he had deliberately concealed the diversion of company funds and had breached his fiduciary duties to VSI.

‍

Relying on an expert economic report that the plaintiff did not contest, the Court awarded VSI an extraordinary $814,681.99 in damages, representing diverted company funds, excessive wages and unauthorized compensation, and unpaid loans owed to the company.

‍

Punitive Damages

The issues of costs and punitive damages were left to be determined in a second hearing. This hearing with reasons reported at 2026 BCSC 1059 occurred in front of a different judge because the original judge (Justice Ball) had retired.

‍

The Court acknowledged that punitive damages are an exceptional remedy. They are awarded where conduct is malicious, oppressive and high-handed such that it offends the Court’s sense of decency, and where compensatory damages are insufficient to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation. The Court found that Mr. Vassilakaki’s conduct was exceptionally serious and met this high threshold including because he had:

‍

Deliberately diverted company funds for personal benefit;
Breached his fiduciary duties as a corporate officer;
Falsified or allowed falsification of payroll records;
Attempted to conceal the misconduct; and
Continued the misconduct despite being warned by the company's board.

‍

Although Mr. Vassilakaki argued he had already suffered significant consequences - including having to pay significant damages and legal costs from all of his lost cases, losing his job, reputation, and political career - the Court concluded that additional punishment was necessary to denounce and deter this type of misconduct. Accordingly, it awarded an astounding $100,000 in punitive damages.

‍

Special Costs

The award for punitive damages was not the end of the matter. The Court also criticized the plaintiff's conduct during the litigation, including that fact that Mr. Vassilakaki i) continued pursuing a wrongful dismissal claim even though he knew it lacked merit; ii) had already admitted the misconduct that justified his dismissal; and iii) abandoned key parts of his claim only during the second day of trial.

‍

Because of this, the Court ordered special costs (100% of legal fees) for the portion of the trial devoted to defending the meritless wrongful dismissal claim, but not for VSI's successful counterclaim. This resulted in a costs award equal to 1/3 of VSI’s trial costs, with the remainder recoverable under the normal “Scale B” costs.

‍

As the cherry on top, the Court awarded VSI statutory pre-judgment interest of $137,067.43.

‍

Key Takeaways

‍

An employer is not required to terminate an employee immediately upon discovering misconduct. A reasonable investigation and practical considerations, such as arranging business continuity, do not necessarily amount to condonation.
‍
Condonation requires evidence that the employer knowingly forgave or accepted the misconduct. Mere delay, without more, is generally insufficient.
‍
Employees who are also corporate directors owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. Unauthorized self-dealing, diversion of corporate assets, and concealment of such conduct can result in substantial personal liability in addition to dismissal for cause.
‍
Admissions by an employee that their conduct constitutes just cause can significantly narrow the issues at trial, leaving the court to focus on defences such as condonation rather than whether the misconduct itself justified dismissal.
‍
Employees who bring frivolous claims where they have already admitted serious misconduct may be subject to serious consequences, including punitive damages and/or special costs.

‍

Who can work from home?

The Rights of Those who Work from Home.

By Chris D. Drinovz

‍

In Cressey Construction Corporation v. Parolin, 2026 BCCA 199, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that workplace arrangements established through the conduct of the employer and employee can become binding terms of an employment contract, even where they are not recorded in writing. The decision provides important guidance for employers considering changes to long-standing remote work or flexible work arrangements.

‍

Background

Tracy Parolin was employed by Cressey Construction Corporation for 18 years, ultimately serving as Director of Marketing. Over the course of her employment, her working arrangements evolved to include flexible hours to accommodate childcare responsibilities and, beginning in 2020, a full-time remote work arrangement. In 2021, after her reporting manager left the company, senior management expressly confirmed that she could continue working from home so long as her work continued to be completed satisfactorily. She remained a full-time remote employee for approximately three years.

‍

In May 2023, after Ms. Parolin requested a salary increase, Cressey instead directed her to return to the office on a full-time basis. Ms. Parolin treated the unilateral return-to-office directive as constructive dismissal and commenced a wrongful dismissal action.

‍

The trial judge concluded that both the flexible hours and remote work arrangement had become terms of Ms. Parolin's employment through the parties' longstanding agreement and conduct. The judge further found that the remote work arrangement had become an essential term of the employment contract and that Cressey's unilateral decision to require Ms. Parolin to return to the office without her consent or reasonable notice constituted constructive dismissal.

‍

The trial judge awarded 19 months of notice.

‍

Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court decision. Applying the principles established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Potter v. New Brunswick Legal Aid Services Commission, 2015 SCC 10, the Court confirmed that constructive dismissal occurs where an employer unilaterally breaches the employment agreement by substantially altering an essential term of employment.

‍

The Court found that Ms. Parolin's right to work remotely was an express oral term of her employment contract and, in the circumstances, an essential one:

[67] Ms. Parolin sought permission to work from home and as detailed above, Cressey agreed. Ms. Parolin then worked from home for three full years…In addition, the oral work from home term was not complicated, was clearly understood by the parties and was therefore sufficiently certain to be enforceable.

‍

The Court also confirmed that a reasonable person in her position would have viewed the mandatory return-to-office requirement, imposed without notice, as a substantial change to the terms of her employment. In describing why the return-to-work mandate was a substantial change, the Court held as follows:

‍

[88] Ms. Parolin had been working from home with Cressey’s approval for approximately three years. Her work from home situation allowed her to fulfil her childcare responsibilities and scale up her hours to full-time work. Cressey was aware of Ms. Parolin’s ongoing childcare needs. A change to her location of work, without notice, would have had a significant impact on her ability to manage her childcare and work responsibilities, and it is reasonable to conclude, objectively, that someone in her circumstances would have seen this as a substantial change to her contract.

‍

The decision underscores that employment contracts are shaped not only by written agreements, but also by the parties' ongoing conduct.

‍

Key Takeaways

‍

Employers should take care to ensure that any flexible remote work arrangement is captured in writing, with clear language preserving the employer’s right to require attendance at the workplace on reasonable notice. It is better to communicate expectations clearly rather than relying on a mere assumption that the arrangement was always meant to be temporary.
‍
Employers contemplating a return-to-office policy, particularly for employees with long-standing remote work arrangements, should provide meaningful advance notice and engage in substantive dialogue with affected employees before implementing any such change.

‍

BC Court of Appeal Confirms Decision

BC Court of Appeal Confirms Human Rights Decision

Nanaimo (City) v. Mema, 2026 BCCA 203

By: Michael J. Weiler & Chris D. Drinovz

‍

This is a follow up article to our earlier article on this saga.

‍

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has now upheld the decision of the BC Human Rights Tribunal exceeding $600,000 after finding that racial bias was a factor in the City’s decisions to suspend and terminate Mr. Mema, its Chief Financial Officer.

‍

Background

To refresh your memories, we will set out some of the relevant background again below.

‍

The City of Nanaimo hired Victor Mema as its Director of Finance in September 2015 and later changed his title to Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Mema (who was born in Zimbabwe and is Black) alleged that the City discriminated against him on the basis of ancestry, place of origin, race and colour when it suspended him in March 2018 and terminated his employment two months later.

‍

The dispute arose from Mr. Mema’s use of a corporate credit card, known as a P-card. The cards were not intended for personal purchases, but in practice some employees used them for personal expenses, identified those charges as personal, and repaid the City. There was no formal guideline setting out how quickly repayment had to be made.

‍

From 2016 to 2017, Mr. Mema accumulated a significant number and value of personal charges and was slow to repay the balance. Finance staff followed up over several months and eventually escalated their concerns to management. The City reprimanded Mr. Mema, agreed to a repayment plan, and ultimately cancelled his card. The City also retained auditors to review personal credit card use and recommend changes to policy or practice.

‍

Although the amount owing had been repaid, the City later suspended Mr. Mema after receiving an internal report from its finance staff alleging serious misconduct. City Council subsequently gave Mr. Mema an opportunity to be heard but ultimately voted to terminate his employment for cause.

‍

Tribunal Decision

Before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, the central issue was whether Mr. Mema’s protected characteristics were a factor in the City’s decisions to suspend and dismiss him. The Tribunal found that they were.

‍

The Tribunal concluded that, “however subconsciously,” stereotypes of a Black man as less honest or trustworthy factored into the internal misconduct report from Mr. Mema’s coworkers. Because the City relied on that report when suspending and terminating Mr. Mema, the Tribunal found that those decisions were tainted by discrimination.

‍

The Tribunal emphasized that the question was not whether Mr. Mema had breached a workplace duty or whether he had engaged in misconduct. The relevant question was whether his protected characteristics factored into the City’s conduct. It found “a distinct underlying thread of racial bias” in the way the misconduct allegations were framed, including a narrative that cast Mr. Mema’s credit card use as broader and more sinister than the established facts supported.

‍

The Tribunal awarded Mr. Mema remedies that included $50,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, $583,413.40 for wage loss subject to a 25% reduction in the City’s responsibility, $10,150.04 in expenses, and post-judgment interest. It was noted in our prior article that the 25% reduction was due to the “chilling effect” on his future employment of numerous articles about Mr. Mema’s financial misconduct with his prior employer, the City of Sechelt, including the fact that Sechelt had to pursue him in court to seek repayment for personal purchases used on the corporate card, the exact same misconduct he was fired from Nanaimo for.

‍

Court of Appeal Decision

The City unsuccessfully sought judicial review in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and then appealed to the BC Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s finding that there was a reasonable basis to conclude that race was a factor in the suspension and termination decisions.

‍

The Court reiterated several core principles of human rights law: Mr. Mema did not need to prove that the City intended to discriminate, nor did he need to prove that race was the sole or overriding factor in the adverse treatment. It was enough to show that a protected characteristic was a factor.

‍

The Court rejected the argument that the Tribunal had failed to consider Mr. Mema’s position of trust as the CFO when assessing the City’s decision to terminate him for cause. The Court noted that “it made no difference whether the City had the right to fire Mr. Mema for misconduct” (para. 61) and “it matters not whether Mr. Mema’s conduct may have given the City cause to terminate his employment at common law because a termination with cause may nevertheless contravene s. 13(1)(b) of the Code if it is racially motivated” (para. 63) holding:

‍

[64] The City submits that the Tribunal could not decide whether Mr. Mema’s misconduct was a factor in the City’s decision to terminate without meaningfully engaging in an analysis of the misconduct. But the issue before the Tribunal was not whether Mr. Mema’s misconduct was a factor in the City’s decision. Undoubtedly, there were many factors. Misconduct and a racist motivation could co-exist. Only the presence or absence of the latter was relevant.

Another key argument on appeal was that the misconduct report was effectively an employee complaint and that the City should not be responsible for whatever alleged subconscious biases another employee may have held. The Court rejected that argument as well by stating as follows:

‍

[79] I reject the City’s submission. In my view, the distinction drawn by the City between policies, rules, and decisions, on the one hand, and employee complaints, on the other, is unprincipled and unsound. While it is true that the City has no control over the subconscious biases that may motivate employee complaints, it is in control over how it handles complaints, and the decisions it makes in reliance on them. The City Council chose to suspend Mr. Mema, and later to terminate him. Nothing forced its hand. In choosing to take action based on an employee complaint without full investigation, it assumed the risk that the complaint rested on an insecure foundation.

‍

What was surprising to us is that the City did not appear to challenge the Tribunal’s finding of a general subconscious bias in the first place which the Tribunal clearly stated was not grounded in any direct (or even circumstantial) evidence but seemed to rely entirely on “historical disadvantage experienced by the group”.

‍

We question however whether the City could have done anything to change the result. If they had done an external investigation which confirmed the misconduct without any bias, would the process still not have been found to be tainted by the original report? How could the employer “clean” the ultimate decision to terminate? What about the fact that Mr. Mema was offered the chance to speak to Council? Could it be argued that this eliminated any discrimination?

‍

Practical Takeaways for Employers

This result would be extremely difficult for most if not all employers to accept and in our view undermines the trust necessary to have in our adjudicative process. Where hundreds of thousands of dollars are awarded based on a connection that was assumed (not proven), it creates an incredible uncertainty, not to mention the chilling effect on employees and other whistleblowers who are acting in good faith and reporting financial and other misconduct, particularly in a public organization.

‍

All of this is occurring in the underlying context of extraordinary adjudicative delay. In a recent presentation, the BC Human Rights Tribunal confirmed that complaints are now being vetted and forwarded to employers 2 years after being filed, and the average time for decisions is now down to 5 years from the date of original filing, and this is an improvement!

‍

Employer must now be extremely cautious when investigating misconduct against any racialized individual. Mema demonstrates that courts and tribunals will look beyond the serious misconduct and examine how the employer reached its decision. A disciplinary outcome that may appear justified can still be found to violate human rights legislation if the process was tainted or biased in any way, including if subconscious bias is found to have influenced the investigation, the report, or the decision-making process.

‍

The case also shows the risk of relying too heavily on a single internal narrative produced by co-workers without having an external investigation done. Where there is a possibility that an internal complaint is only assembling partial facts or creates a suspicious or exaggerated story, decision-makers should pause before treating the report as a reliable foundation for discipline without outside verification.

‍

When investigating workplace misconduct and making disciplinary decisions, employers should keep the following points in mind:

‍

‍Vet from the beginning. Had the City done some basic due diligence on Mr. Mema, they would have found his past misconduct with Sechelt and avoided this case altogether.
‍
Cause is not a complete answer. A termination for cause may still breach human rights legislation if a protected characteristic plays any role in the decision.
‍
Investigate thoroughly and objectively. Employers should not rely uncritically on one employee’s report or account, especially where the allegations are serious and the consequences are significant.
‍
Test the factual foundation. Decision-makers should distinguish between established facts, assumptions, inferences, and speculation before imposing discipline.
‍
Consider whether bias may be operating indirectly. Bias does not need to be intentional or overt. Employers should assess whether stereotypes or assumptions may have shaped how concerns were framed, investigated, or escalated.
‍
Use independent support where appropriate. In serious or sensitive matters, an independent investigator or outside advisor may help ensure the process is fair, impartial, and evidence-based.
‍
Document the decision-making process. Employers should be able to show how they assessed the evidence, considered the employee’s response, and separated legitimate misconduct concerns from potentially biased reasoning.
‍

‍

Phone-to-Table Service

Gig Workers & The Convenience Economy

It's 9pm. The kids are finally down, the house is quiet, and I'm standing in the kitchen realizing I survived the t-ball/gymnastics gauntlet on nothing but half a cheese string. I do what any exhausted parent does: summon a sushi platter from DoorDash.

‍

My dasher arrived looking exactly how I felt. Turns out she is a fellow parent who fits this delivery hustle in after her own kids are asleep just to keep up with the rising cost of music lessons. It's a wild cycle: I'm paying her to bring me California rolls so I don't have to move, and she's delivering them so her kid can master Mozart.

‍

We've become completely reliant on the "convenience economy" and it's built on the backs of people like her - the gig workers. In professional terms, "gig work" includes someone who is an independent contractor juggling app-based tasks like ride-hailing or delivery. In reality, gig work is the engine that keeps our chaotic lives running, one late-night spicy tuna roll at a time.

‍

A lot of British Columbians are doing it. Some estimates suggest BC has one of the highest concentrations of gig workers in Canada (around 10% of workers). With the cost of living on the rise, it is no surprise that approximately 35% of gig workers rely on this type of work to supplement their main income source.

‍

BC is setting the bar for gig worker protections in Canada. The province essentially looked at the gig economy and said: "Maybe people delivering your burrito bowl at 2am in the rain should have at least sooooooome labour protections."

‍

Since 2024, BC has introduced protections specifically for app-based ride hail workers and delivery workers that are among the first of their kind in Canada. They include

Guaranteed minimum wage for "engaged time" at 120% of BC's minimum wage;
Per-kilometer expense reimbursement;
Protection of tips from deductions;
WorkSafe BC coverage for injuries;
Pay transparency before accepting jobs; and
Occupational health and safety protections.

BC also expressly recognizes that simply calling someone an independent contractor does not magically make it true, regulators and courts still look at the actual relationship.

‍

Importantly, BC's approach is still evolving. The province is actively reviewing whether the current protections go far enough.

‍

To me, having some protections in place feels fair when a gig worker's day is controlled by an algorithm, customer ratings, surge pricing, GPS tracking, and the threat of "deactivation".

‍

Major Uncertainty Remains

UPDATE: Aboriginal title and private land ownership in Canada

Personal

As previously discussed in our article of May 6, 2026, two major court decisions (J.D. Irving, Limited et al. v. Wolastoqey Nation from New Brunswick and Cowichan Tribes v. Canada (Attorney General) from BC) have recently reshaped the legal landscape around Aboriginal title and private land ownership in Canada, raising fundamental questions for governments, developers, and property owners.

‍

Two courts - two different answers, and the Supreme Court of Canada isn’t stepping in just yet. In May 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the Wolastoqey Nation’s appeal of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision which held that Aboriginal title and fee simple ownership cannot exist, and that instead, courts may recognize a “finding” of Aboriginal title over private lands to support claims for compensation against the Crown. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision leaves New Brunswick law clear: Aboriginal title cannot be declared over privately held lands - only compensation from the Crown is available. Meanwhile, the BC Supreme Court’s decision in Cowichan Tribes went the other way, declaring Aboriginal title over land that included private parcels.

‍

The Supreme Court of Canada’s refusal to weigh in on the New Brunswick case doesn't signal agreement or disagreement with either ruling, it simply means the Court wasn't ready to decide this issue without a full trial record. That Canada-wide resolution will likely have to wait until the Cowichan Tribes case works its way through the BC Court of Appeal and eventually reaches the Supreme Court of Canada, a process expected to take several years.

‍

In the meantime, Aboriginal title litigation continues. The BC Court of Appeal recently expanded a title declaration in Nuchatlaht v. British Columbia, covering over 200 km² of Nootka Island, though notably, no private lands were involved.

‍

The bottom line: the law remains unsettled and different across provinces. Real estate investors, developers, and lenders should continue to monitor these developments closely.

‍

A New Legal Tool for Survivors

Supreme Court of Canada Introduces the Tort of Intimate Partner Violence

Personal

On May 15, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada created the tort of intimate partner violence as a distinct legal basis for survivors to seek financial compensation separate from family law entitlements and other torts like sexual assault and battery.

‍

This landmark decision in the case of Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia establishes a new legal pathway for individuals to sue for patterns of coercive and long-term abuse that existing civil claims, like assault or battery, may fail to adequately address.

‍

To succeed in a claim under this new tort, a plaintiff must typically demonstrate a pattern of behavior within an intimate partnership and prove three elements:

The abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath;
The defendant intentionally engaged in that conduct; and
That the conduct, on an objective measure, constitutes coercive control.

‍

At paragraph 5, the Court held “…Harm flows from proof of the intentional wrong because coercive control directly interfered with the plaintiff’s legal interests in dignity, autonomy, and equality within an intimate partnership. The extent of that harm may warrant greater or lesser quantum of damages, depending on the circumstances”.

‍

This decision has broader implications for survivors of sexual abuse generally. Historically, most civil sexual abuse claims pleaded the torts sexual assault and battery. In summary, these claims require a plaintiff to prove either non-consensual physical contact of a sexual nature or intentional creation of fear or apprehension of imminent sexual contact. The onus then shifts to the defendant to prove consent, either express or implied.

‍

Survivors and trauma-informed practitioners know that abuse is often larger than a single incident. Grooming, coercion, manipulation, dependency, threats and psychological domination can also shape a survivor’s ability to consent, resist, report, or leave. Those harms are real, often deeply relational and ongoing and are not necessarily captured in the analysis of the torts of sexual assault and battery.

‍

By recognizing patterns of coercive and degrading conduct as actionable in their own right, the SCC has signaled a growing understanding that sexual abuse cannot always be reduced to discrete events viewed in isolation.

‍

This decision creates a distinct civil pathway for survivors to seek compensation for harms that have too often been minimized or misunderstood.

‍

The history of the decision is important, because the initial claim was advanced as a tort of family violence, a much broader tort.

‍

The trial decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice initially created this broader tort of family violence.

‍

The Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the lower court’s decision, suggesting existing torts like assault and battery were sufficient to address the matter.

‍

The SCC reversed the ONCA decision, but narrowed the scope of the tort to intimate partner violence. The SCC pointed out the unique nature of romantic relationships and the vulnerability and harm that can flow from them. The Court also found the tort of family violence to be too broad.

‍

The applicable limitation period has not yet been determined and may be addressed in future either by the courts and/or through legislative reform.

‍

If you are a survivor of intimate partner violence, you have options. Taking the first step to come forward can be difficult, but our trauma-informed legal team is here to discuss your options and support you without judgment when you are ready.

Lessons Learned

Tips for a Business Joint Venture