BC tribunal dismisses allegations of misconduct
A British Columbia employer succeeded on only one of four claims against a former employee in a Jan. 29, 2026 decision that exposes critical gaps in how companies document workplace policies and employee misconduct.
Tribunal Member Max Pappin awarded Zarikoff Developments just $560 of its $2,785 claim against Travis McLay Homer, dismissing allegations of fuel card misuse, poor workmanship, and damage to company equipment. The employer failed on claims totaling $2,300 largely due to missing documentation.
The case centered on Homer's seven-month employment from October 2023 to May 2024. The parties had no written employment contract.
More than ‘simple negligence’ required
Zarikoff Developments claimed $600 for a concrete mixer that fell out of Homer's truck and was damaged. Homer acknowledged the mixer fell when his tailgate opened, but the employer still lost.
Citing the 2009 BC Supreme Court decision in Kirby v. Amalgamated Income Limited Partnership, Pappin ruled that "something more than simple negligence is required for an employer to recover damages from an employee” and the employer must show the employee "failed to do something specifically promised or obviously implied in the employment contract, beyond simply not performing as well as the employer expected."
The tribunal found Homer "merely made a mistake" and dismissed the claim. Zarikoff Developments provided no employment contract, emails, or text messages showing Homer agreed to pay for equipment damage, and no quote proving repair costs.
The employer also claimed $1,000 for deficient work on a wall and roof installation. Without a written contract or evidence that Homer failed to meet specific promises, that claim failed too.
‘Unjust enrichment’ with tool purchase
Zarikoff Developments prevailed only on tools purchased after the employment relationship ended.
Homer bought a grinder and jigsaw using the company account on May 7, 2024, two days after his employment ended. He claimed the purchase occurred in April while still employed, but the employer produced a receipt proving otherwise. Homer had paid $100 toward the $585 cost.
The tribunal ordered reimbursement of $485 based on unjust enrichment, finding Homer "was enriched by receiving a new grinder and jigsaw" while the company "was deprived" without "evidence of a valid reason for Mr. Homer's enrichment."
Why documentation matters
The employer's fuel card misuse claim collapsed entirely. Though Zarikoff Developments provided transaction histories suggesting excessive fuel purchases, the documents showed multiple employees used the card. The tribunal noted the records didn't show "who used the fuel card for each purchase," and the employer provided no employment contract or messages showing "what limit it imposed on Mr. Homer's fuel card use."
The court also said, "recovering damages is only possible if the loss is actual, demonstrable, and directly connected to the employee's breach."
The successful claim had three elements the failed claims lacked: a dated receipt, evidence of partial payment, and proof the transaction occurred after employment ended.
