Date Issued: January 29, 2024

File: SC-2022-008423

Type: Small Claims

Civil Resolution Tribunal

Indexed as: 548981 B.C. Ltd. (dba John Fleming Insurance Agency) v. Mehta,
2024 BCCRT 85

Between:

548981 B.C. LTD. DBA JOHN FLEMING INSURANCE AGENCY

Applicant

And:

DAIVIK MEHTA

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member:	Christopher C. Rivers

 

INTRODUCTION

1.      This dispute is about giving notice under an employment contract.

2.      In January 2022, 548981 B.C. Ltd., doing business as John Fleming Insurance Agency, (JFIA) hired Daivik Mehta as an insurance broker. In mid-October that year, Mr. Mehta quit without notice.

3.      JFIA claims the parties’ employment contract required Mr. Mehta to give 3 weeks’ notice. It claims $3,000 for lost income it relates to Mr. Mehta’s resignation.

4.      Mr. Mehta says the parties’ employment contract limits JFIA’s available remedies in the event that he did not provide 3 weeks’ notice. Mr. Mehta also says JFIA accepted his resignation when it notified the Insurance Council of British Columbia that Mr. Mehta would no longer be representing JFIA. Mr. Mehta asks me to dismiss JFIA’s claims.

5.      Mr. Mehta is self-represented. JFIA is represented by a director, Frank Astorino.

6.      For the reasons that follow, I dismiss JFIA’s claim.

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

7.      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). CRTA section 2 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.

8.      CRTA section 39 says the CRT has discretion to decide the format of the hearing, including by writing, telephone, videoconferencing, email, or a combination of these. Here, I find that I am properly able to assess and weigh the documentary evidence and submissions before me. Further, bearing in mind the CRT’s mandate that includes proportionality and a speedy resolution of disputes, I find that an oral hearing is not necessary in the interests of justice.

9.      CRTA section 42 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.

10.   Where permitted by CRTA section 118, 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.

CRT Jurisdiction – Employment Standards Act

11.   While neither party raised an issue about the CRT’s jurisdiction, I considered whether this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Employment Standards Branch (ESB). Only the ESB has jurisdiction to order compensation based on the Employment Standards Act.

12.   However, JFIA brought its claim based on the parties’ employment contract. Therefore, the CRT has jurisdiction over JFIA’s claim on the basis of contract law, which falls within its small claims jurisdiction over debt and damages.

ISSUES

13.   The issues in this dispute are whether Mr. Mehta breached the parties’ employment contract, and if so, whether he must pay damages to JFIA.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

14.   In a civil proceeding like this one, JFIA, as applicant, must prove its claims on a balance of probabilities. This means “more likely than not.” I have read all the parties’ submissions and evidence but refer only to the evidence and argument that I find relevant to provide context for my decision.

Breach of Contract

15.   As noted above, JFIA hired Mr. Mehta in January 2022 as an insurance broker. The parties each signed an employment contract that set out a variety of terms relating to Mr. Mehta’s employment. To the extent Mr. Mehta argues he signed an employment “agreement” and not a “contract,” I find the words are interchangeable. Mr. Mehta is bound by the signed contract.

16.   The contract’s section titled Leaving Employment reads as follows:

The employee agrees to give 3 weeks written notice of intention to leave his/her employment with the Company. The employee shall not be entitled to receive any severance or outstanding holiday pay, salary and/or commissions if 3 weeks written notice is not given.

17.   In mid-October, Mr. Mehta resigned from JFIA without notice. I find this breaches the parties’ contract. Mr. Mehta provided a number of reasons for his decision to leave without notice. He also argues JFIA accepted his resignation by emailing the Insurance Council of British Columbia to advise it of Mr. Mehta’s departure. Finally, Mr. Mehta argues JFIA is limited in the remedies it can seek by the above-noted clause. However, given my conclusion about damages below, I do not need to consider any of Mr. Mehta’s arguments.

Damages

18.   The usual remedy for breach of contract is damages. Damages for breach of contract are generally meant to put the innocent party in the same position as if the contract had been performed as agreed.[1]

19.   So, is JFIA entitled to damages?

20.   JFIA claims $3,000 for lost income from reduced client revenue. As noted above, JFIA has the burden of proving its case. This includes proving any damages it claims.

21.   Here, JFIA has provided no evidence or submissions about how it determined it lost $3,000 due to Mr. Mehta’s resignation. I infer JFIA claims $1,000 for each week of notice. However, JFIA provided nothing at all to support that claim, such as records of the revenue Mr. Mehta brought in for JFIA or evidence from clients who chose not to do business with JFIA due to Mr. Mehta’s sudden departure. Without any evidence, I am unable to determine JFIA’s damages and I dismiss its claims.

22.   Under CRTA section 49 and CRT rules, the CRT will generally order an unsuccessful party to reimburse a successful party for CRT fees and reasonable dispute-related expenses. I see no reason in this case not to follow that general rule and dismiss JFIA’s claim for CRT fees. Mr. Mehta did not pay any CRT fees or dispute-related expenses, so I make no order about them.

ORDER

23.   I dismiss JFIA’s claims, and this dispute.