Date Issued: February 3, 2022

File: SC-2021-000877

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: Scott v. King George Aviation Ltd., 2022 BCCRT 127

Between:

BRADLEY SCOTT

Applicant

And:

KING GEORGE AVIATION LTD., SHOUNAK CHAKROBORTY, and ARNOLD KLAPPE

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Richard McAndrew

INTRODUCTION

1.      This is a dispute about flight training wages and compensation. The applicant, Bradley Scott, claims the respondent, King George Aviation Ltd. (King George), owes $5,000 for unpaid wages and related compensation. The respondent Shounak Chakroborty is King George’s owner. The respondent Arnold Klappe is King George’s previous owner. Mr. Scott claims that Mr. Chakroborty and Mr. Klappe are also responsible for his alleged unpaid compensation as King George’s owners.

2.      The respondents deny Mr. Scott’s claims. King George and Mr. Chakroborty say they did not hire Mr. Scott and there are no employment records supporting this claim. Mr. Klappe says Mr. Scott is not entitled to payment because he did not complete his work. Mr. Klappe also says that he is not personally responsible for King George’s contracts.

3.      Mr. Scott, Mr. Chakroborty and Mr. Klappe are each self-represented. Mr. Chakroborty also represents King George as its owner.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

4.      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). Section 2 of the CRTA states that 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 the dispute’s parties that will likely continue after the CRT process has ended.

5.      The CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, or a combination of these. Though I found that some aspects of the parties’ submissions called each other’s credibility into question, I find I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me without an oral hearing. In Yas v. Pope, 2018 BCSC 282, the court recognized that oral hearings are not always necessary when credibility is in issue. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate of proportional and speedy dispute resolution, I decided I can fairly hear this dispute through written submissions.

6.      Section 42 of the CRTA says 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.

7.      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.

Unviewable evidence

8.      Mr. Scott submitted 2 spreadsheet documents that I was unable to view. Mr. Scott resubmitted the documents as CRT staff requested. The respondents were given an opportunity to respond. Mr. Chakroborty and King George provided submissions and a duplicate copy of an invoice that had already been submitted. Mr. Klappe did not respond. Since the respondents had an opportunity to respond to Mr. Scott’s resubmitted evidence, I find that they have not been prejudiced and I have considered this evidence in my decision.  

ISSUES

9.      The issues in this dispute are whether any of the respondents owe Mr. Scott unpaid compensation for flight training services, and if so, how much.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

10.   In a civil proceeding like this one, Mr. Scott, as the applicant, must prove his claims on a balance of probabilities. I have read all the parties’ submissions but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision. Mr. Klappe did not provide any evidence, though he had the opportunity to do so.

 

Claims against Mr. Klappe

11.   Mr. Scott says he took ultra-light instructor training at King George and he also performed flight training services for King George. It is undisputed that Mr. Klappe previously owned King George and that Mr. Chakroborty became King George’s owner on November 24, 2019.

12.   Mr. Scott says that he made an agreement with Mr. Klappe to provide flight training services and that his employment wages would be credited against his ultra-light instructor training tuition. In contrast, Mr. Klappe says that he acted only as King George’s agent and that he did not personally hire Mr. Scott. As such, Mr. Klappe says that he is not personally responsible under the contract. I find that Mr. Scott has not proved that Mr. Klappe personally intended to be bound by the contract.

13.   Mr. Scott also argues that Mr. Klappe is responsible for King George’s contracts because he was the sole principal of King George. Corporations are generally separate legal entities from its principals, something known in law as the “corporate veil”. As stated in Tresoro Mining Corporation v. Mercer Gold Corp. (B.C.), 2015 BCSC 1822, the corporate veil can be pierced if the corporate entity was “completely dominated and controlled”, and the corporate entity was “used as a shield for fraudulent or improper conduct”. A court or tribunal should not lift the corporate veil because declining to do so would simply be unfair. Only exceptional cases that result in flagrant injustice warrant going behind the corporate veil (Edgington v. Mulek Estate, 2008 BCCA 505 at paragraphs 24 to 26).

14.   Mr. Scott argues that Mr. Klappe acted improperly by encouraging him to wait until Mr. Chakroborty bought King George before attempting to collect his alleged unpaid wages, which Mr. Klappe does not deny. This is consistent with Mr. Chakroborty’s submission that he was not aware of Mr. Scott’s alleged unpaid wages until he received Mr. Scott’s November 4, 2019 invoice shortly after buying King George. However, I find that this does not establish that Mr. Klappe used King George’s corporate identity improperly. So, I find that the corporate veil should not be pierced and Mr. Klappe is not responsible for this alleged contract. Since this dispute is based solely on an alleged debt under the contract, I dismiss Mr. Scott’s claim against Mr. Klappe.

Claim against Mr. Chakroborty

15.   Mr. Scott also claims that Mr. Chakroborty is responsible for the alleged unpaid compensation. Mr. Scott does not provide any evidence or submissions saying that Mr. Chakroborty agreed to hire him personally. Further, Mr. Scott does not dispute Mr. Chakroborty’s submission that he was not aware of Mr. Scott’s alleged work until after he received Mr. Scott’s November 4, 2019 invoice. I find that Mr. Scott has not proved that Mr. Chakroborty hired him personally.

16.   Further, I find that Mr. Scott has not proved that Mr. Chakroborty is personally responsible for King George’s alleged debt as its owner. As discussed above, corporations are separate legal entities. I find that Mr. Scott has not shown that Mr. Chakroborty acted fraudulently or improperly here. So, I find that Mr. Scott has not proved that Mr. Chakroborty is responsible for the alleged unpaid compensation and I dismiss Mr. Scott’s claim against Mr. Chakroborty

Claim against King George

17.   Mr. Scott also says that King George agreed to pay Mr. Scott for flight training services and that his wages would be deducted from the tuition he owed King George for his own training fees. Mr. Scott says after his flight training debt to King George was repaid, King George would pay him wages for further training work.

18.   King George denies having a contract with Mr. Scott. It says it does not have any employment records relating to Mr. Scott and says that Mr. Scott has not provided any documents showing the existence of a contract. Though Mr. Scott has not provided a written contract, a verbal contract is enforceable like a written contract. However, a verbal contract can be harder to prove.  

19.   In his submissions, Mr. Klappe acknowledges that King George hired Mr. Scott. However, Mr. Klappe no longer owns King George and there is no evidence showing that he is still an authorized King George representative. As such, I do not consider Mr. Klappe’s submission to be an admission on King George’s behalf. However, I do accept Mr. Klappe’s submission as a witness statement about Mr. Scott’s employment when Mr. Klappe owned King George.

20.   King George argues that Mr. Scott’s claim is not credible because he waited so long to pursue it. King George says it is unlikely that Mr. Scott would continue working for King George without payment of his wages. Mr. Scott explained that he waited to get paid until Mr. Chakroborty bought King George based on Mr. Klappe’s suggestion.

21.   King George also says that Mr. Scott has not proved his claim because he did not complete King George’s log book. Mr. Scott says that he did not enter all of his trips into King George’s log book because the log book was not properly maintained and he was eventually unable to access the log book. King George says that it told Mr. Scott that he could access the log book and update his entries but he refused. However, I find that nothing turns this since Mr. Scott has provided his own spreadsheets detailing his flights and there is no evidence before suggesting that Mr. Scott’s spreadsheets are less reliable than log book entries.

22.   I note that Mr. Scott has not provided any documents showing that King George hired him. I would expect that there to be some payroll or employment records for a someone employed for 16 months as Mr. Scott claims. However, on balance, I find that Mr. Scott has proved the King George hired him as he claims, even in absence of employment records, based on Mr. Klappe’s statements as King George’s former owner.

23.   So, what were the employment terms?

24.   Mr. Scott says that King George agreed to pay $25 per hour for the first 3 months and $27 per hour after that. Mr. Scott also says that King George agreed to pay him hourly for conducting ground school lessons, providing maintenance services, and assisting at corporate events. Mr. Scott also says that King George agreed to let him refuel his personal vehicle with King George’s gas and to reimburse his expenses. However, Mr. Scott has not provided any documents showing that King George agreed these employment terms.

25.   Based on Mr. Klappe’s submissions that he hired Mr. Scott, I am satisfied King George agreed to pay Mr. Scott hourly for his work. Further, I find Mr. Scott’s alleged wages $25 per hour for the first 3 months and $27 after that to be reasonable. So, I find that King George owes Mr. Scott wages at those rates. However, in the absence of supporting documents, I find that Mr. Scott has not proved that King George also agreed to provide fuel and reimburse expenses. So, I dismiss those claims as unproven.  

Flight training services

26.   Mr. Scott provided a detailed spreadsheet showing his flight history at King George. The spreadsheet shows the engine start and end times, the takeoff and landing times, the flight time, air time and the passengers’ names. Mr. Scott’s spreadsheet shows that he earned $5,312.50 in flight training services at the hourly wages of $25 and $27 per hour. King George has not provided any evidence refuting these records. Based on the extensive flight details provided by Mr. Scott, and the lack of evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that Mr. Scott earned $5,312.50 in flight training services.

Ground school lessons

27.   Mr. Scott provided a spreadsheet detailing his ground school lessons. The spreadsheet shows the date of each ground school lesson, the subject of the lesson, the participants and the hours he taught. I find the spreadsheet shows that Mr. Scott provided 63.25 hours of ground school lessons. Since King George did not provide evidence refuting this, I find that Mr. Scott performed this work for King George. At Mr. Scott’s then rate of $27 per hour, I find that King George owes Mr. Scott $1,707.75 for ground school work.

Aircraft Maintenance, corporate events and other labour

28.   Mr. Scott has not provided evidence supporting his alleged aircraft maintenance work, corporate event work or other labour. So, I dismiss these claims as unproven and I deny them.

Credits

29.    Mr. Scott’s invoice acknowledges that he owes King George the following credits:

•         $2,130 for personal flights

•         $250 personal ferry flights

•         $2,750 for ultralight training

30.   Based on Mr. Scott’s admission, I find that Mr. Scott owed King George credits totaling $5,130.

31.   Based on the above, I find that King George owes Mr. Scott $7,030.25 for unpaid wages. After deducting the $5,130 in credits, I find that King George must pay Mr. Scott $1,900.25.

Interest, CRT fees and dispute-related expenses

32.   The Court Order Interest Act (COIA) applies to the CRT. Mr. Scott is entitled to pre-judgment interest on the $1,900.25 in unpaid wages from November 4, 2019, the date of his invoice. This equals $37.99.

33.   Under section 49 of the CRTA and the CRT’s rules, a successful party is generally entitled to reimbursement of their CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. Since Mr. Scott was partially successful, I find that he is entitled to reimbursement of one-half of his CRT fees. This equals $87.50. None of the parties claimed reimbursement of dispute-related expenses.

ORDER

34.   Within 30 days of the date of this order, I order King George to pay Mr. Scott a total of $2,025.74, broken down as follows:

a.    $1,900.25 as unpaid wages,

b.    $37.99 in pre-judgment COIA interest, and

c.    $87.50 in CRT fees.

35.   Mr. Scott is entitled to post-judgment interest from King George, as applicable.

36.   Mr. Scott’s claims against Mr. Klappe and Mr. Chakroborty are dismissed.

37.   Under section 48 of the CRTA, the CRT will not provide the parties with the Order giving final effect to this decision until the time for making a notice of objection under section 56.1(2) has expired and no notice of objection has been made. The time for filing a notice of objection is 28 days after the party receives notice of the CRT’s final decision.

38.   Under section 58.1 of the CRTA, a validated copy of the CRT’s order can be enforced through the Provincial Court of British Columbia. A CRT order can only be enforced if it is an approved consent resolution order, or, if no objection has been made and the time for filing a notice of objection has passed. Once filed, a CRT order has the same force and effect as an order of the Provincial Court of British Columbia.