Date Issued: June 23, 2020

File: SC-2019-009422

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: O.J. Ventures Ltd. v. Johnson, 2020 BCCRT 692

Between:

O.J. VENTURES LTD.

Applicant

And:

RICHARD JOHNSON

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

1.      This small claims dispute is about reimbursement for a traffic ticket. The applicant, O.J. Ventures Ltd. (O.J.) says that it paid a traffic ticket on behalf of its employee, the respondent, Richard Johnson. O.J. says that it has a company policy that its employees reimburse it for traffic tickets, and asks for an order that Mr. Johnson reimburse it $565.15. Mr. Johnson admits that he received the ticket, but denies that he is responsible to pay it.

2.      O.J. is represented by an employee. Mr. Johnson is self-represented.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

3.      These are the formal written reasons of the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT). The CRT has jurisdiction over small claims brought under section 118 of the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act (CRTA). The CRT’s mandate is to provide dispute resolution services accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly. In resolving disputes, the CRT must apply principles of law and fairness, and recognize any relationships between parties to a dispute that will likely continue after the dispute resolution process has ended.

4.      The CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. I decided to hear this dispute through written submissions, because I find that there are no significant issues of credibility or other reasons that might require an oral hearing.

5.      The CRT may accept as evidence information that it considers relevant, necessary and appropriate, whether or not the information would be admissible in a court of law. The CRT may also ask questions of the parties and witnesses and inform itself in any other way it considers appropriate.

6.      Where permitted by section 118 of the CRTA, in resolving this dispute the CRT may order a party to do or stop doing something, pay money or make an order that includes any terms or conditions the CRT considers appropriate.

ISSUES

7.      The issues in this dispute are:

a.    whether the issue of reimbursement has been dealt with already as part of another proceeding, and

b.    whether Mr. Johnson must reimburse O.J. for the $565.15 ticket.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

8.      In a civil dispute like this, an applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities. The parties provided submissions and evidence in support of their positions. While I have considered all of this information, I will refer to only what is necessary to provide context to my decision.

9.      On November 21, 2018, while he was driving O.J.’s truck in Washington State, Mr. Johnson received a traffic ticket. O.J. paid the $565.15 amount of the ticket. O.J. made deductions from Mr. Johnson’s pay of $254.00 on December 14, 2018 and $311.15 on January 15, 2019, which together total $565.15.

10.   Mr. Johnson felt that the deduction of the ticket amount was contrary to the Canada Labour Code and filed a complaint. In an August 21, 2019 decision, a federal Labour Affairs Officer noted that, under section 254.1 of the Canada Labour Code, an employer is permitted to deduct amounts authorized in writing by the employee. As a “blanket” authorization did not meet this requirement and Mr. Johnson had not authorized the specific deduction, the Labour Affairs Officer determined that O.J. must reimburse the deducted amount.

11.   O.J. says (and Mr. Johnson does not dispute) that it has repaid the deducted amount to Mr. Johnson. O.J. now seeks payment of the same amount in this CRT proceeding.

Has this issue been dealt with in another proceeding?

12.   The legal principle of res judicata prevents a party from bringing multiple proceedings about the same issue. Mr. Johnson says that this matter was decided by the Labour Affairs Officer. In East Barriere Resort Limited et al v. The Owners, Strata Plan KAS1819, 2017 BCCRT 22 at paragraphs 24 and 28, the CRT Chair explained that res judicata may arise where an issue has already been decided. Section 11(1)(a) of the CRTA says that the CRT may refuse to resolve a claim that has been resolved through a legally binding process or other dispute resolution process.

13.   In a February 10, 2020 preliminary decision, another tribunal member decided that the issue of reimbursement had not yet been decided. Accordingly, he did not refuse to resolve the dispute under section 11(1)(a) of the CRTA. As this preliminary decision is not binding upon me, I will consider whether this matter was decided already by the Labour Affairs Officer.

14.   The Labour Affairs Officer decided that the deduction of the traffic ticket amount was not permitted under section 254.1 of the Labour Relations Code as Mr. Johnson had not authorized the deduction in writing. Significantly, the Labour Affairs Officer did not make a decision about whether Mr. Johnson was responsible for the amount of the ticket.

15.   I find that the issue of whether Mr. Johnson must reimburse O.J. for the cost of the traffic ticket has not been decided by another legally binding or dispute resolution process. As the issue is not res judicata, I will consider Mr. Johnson’s responsibility for the ticket.

Is Mr. Johnson responsible for the amount of the ticket?

16.   O.J.’s company policies, as set out in its Employee Handbook, address the possibility that its employees may receive tickets while driving its vehicles. Section 5.5 of the policies says that “All tickets are to be handed in to the Office, and will be paid by O.J. Ventures on behalf of the driver, and then deducted from the next pay period” [emphasis in original]. Mr. Johnson signed an acknowledgment of the policies on April 24, 2017.

17.   O.J. says that its company policy entitles it to reimbursement of the $565.15 ticket amount. However, Mr. Johnson denies that he “signed [his] life away to cover [O.J.’s] business costs” and he says that O.J. paid for tickets for other employees.

18.   Mr. Johnson also says the Employment Standards Act (ESA) prohibits an employer from withholding wages or from requiring an employee to cover business costs. The ESA is British Columbia legislation. As O.J.’s operations cross international boundaries, I find that its operations are within the jurisdiction of the federal legislation, namely the Canada Labour Code. Therefore, the ESA does not apply to this dispute.

19.   Although the ticket issued to Mr. Johnson is identified as a “traffic” ticket, it was not related to speeding or another driving infraction committed by Mr. Johnson. Instead, the ticket was issued because the vehicle was overweight. There is no indication in the evidence that Mr. Johnson is responsible for loading the vehicle or ensuring that it is within the relevant weight restrictions for the jurisdiction.

20.   Although the policy in the Employee Handbook set out the procedure for dealing with tickets, I find that the presence of the policy does not establish that Mr. Johnson agreed to be responsible for tickets. The complete Employee Handbook is not before me, but page 12 of the document specifically states that it is not a contract. I find that O.J. has not established that Mr. Johnson agreed (in his employment contract or otherwise) to be responsible for overweight charges.

21.   Keeping in mind that O.J. bears the burden of proof, and based on the evidence before me, I am unable to conclude that Mr. Johnson agreed to be responsible for overweight charges. Accordingly, I find that O.J. is not entitled to reimbursement of the $565.15 amount of the ticket.

22.    Under section 49 of the CRTA and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. As O.J. was not successful, I dismiss its claim for reimbursement of CRT fees.

ORDER

23.   I dismiss O.J.’s claims and this dispute.