Worker inquired about activating benefits 7 months after start of employment
The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal has dismissed a worker’s claim for out-of-pocket health insurance premiums stemming from her employer’s breach of its contractual obligations to provide benefits for her fiancé.
The worker was hired by Pet Valu Canada in June 2023 be a full-time keyholder at a pet store BC starting in July. The letter offering employment to the worker, dated June 6, set out the terms and conditions of employment.
The letter specifically stated that the worker was required to enroll in Pet Valu’s mandatory group benefits plan and, after three months of employment, she would be automatically enrolled in the group health, life and long-term disability benefits, all covered by the company. After nine months, Pet Valu would automatically enroll the worker in its group dental benefits.
The offer letter also stated that additional group health and dental benefits for her spouse and/or children could be purchased at her expense. If she wanted these benefits, she was to send an email within three months of her start date.
Benefits plan
The worker emailed the company in January 2024 asking how to activate her benefits. Pet Value’s benefits team provided her with information about registering for an online account with the plan contract number and her member number. The worker also said she wanted to enroll her fiancé for benefits, but she was told they would have to process a late enrollment since she had been automatically enrolled in the benefit plan in October, three months after her start date.
The worker completed forms for the late enrollment of her fiancé and followed up in February. The benefits team asked her for the date they began living together, as the plan required 12 months of living together for a partner to be eligible for benefits. The worker didn’t answer.
A short time later, Pet Valu terminated the worker’s employment for unrelated reasons. The worker filed a civil claim for $672 she said that she paid for her fiancé’s health insurance after October to the end of 2023, when he should have been included under her benefits with Pet Valu. She alleged that the company failed to provide timely information about her employment benefits, which led her to continue paying for her fiancé’s health insurance out of pocket.
Pet Valu countered that benefit details were included in the worker’s offer letter.
Employment contract
The tribunal noted that it didn’t have jurisdiction over matters related to statutory entitlements under the BC Employment Standards Act, but it had jurisdiction over small claims related to debt and damages. The worker’s claim related to the employment contract or a claim for negligence and therefore fell within its jurisdiction.
The tribunal noted that the worker had agreed to the terms outlined in the offer letter that clearly stated that after three months of service, employees were automatically enrolled in group health benefits and may add dependents at their own expense within the first three months of her employment.
The tribunal found that, although the offer letter contained instructions for benefit enrolment, the worker didn’t make any inquiries until January 2024, so Pet Valu shouldn’t be responsible for benefit premiums for the fiancé before then. When she did inquire, the Pet Valu benefits team responded promptly, providing the necessary details and paperwork, said the tribunal.
The worker completed the forms to enroll her fiancé but she didn’t respond to a request asking for the couple’s cohabitation start date to ensure they met the plan’s 12-month cohabitation requirement. Without a confirmed cohabitation period meeting the requirement, the worker’s fiancé wouldn’t have qualified for coverage regardless of when the request was made, the tribunal said.
The tribunal also found no evidence that the worker personally paid the $672 in question, as the receipt was issued in her fiancé’s name.
The tribunal determined that Pet Valu didn’t act negligently or breach the employment contract, and the worker didn’t prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a financial loss. It dismissed her claim in full. See Tol v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2025 BCCRT 443.
