B.C. tribunal cites inconsistencies in worker's timeline
The Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia has ordered a worker to pay her former employer $2,647 within 30 days, in a small claims decision issued July 8, 2026.
Tribunal member Alison Wake found the company had proved both an $839 wage overpayment and $1,658.46 for a laptop and accessories that were not returned.
The worker was employed for about two months before her termination on Aug. 26, 2024. She had reported not receiving her Aug. 16 pay, so on Aug. 19, the employer sent her $1,434 by e-transfer.
The company later said she had also been paid the same amount by direct deposit through payroll, with its bank statement showing a withdrawal for that amount on Aug. 15.
Overpayment to worker
After accounting for her final pay, the employer said the worker owed a refund of $839. In her dispute response, she acknowledged she had ultimately been paid twice. Because the second payment came after her termination and the company had not asked for it back, she said she "left it at that."
Wake found it more likely than not that the worker had been overpaid, applying unjust enrichment principles. The worker later said any payments were tied to her employment and denied intentionally withholding or misusing funds, but she did not dispute the $839 figure.
Wake noted the termination letter had set out the balance owing, and that the company's view that pursuing repayment was not "worth the struggle" did not amount to a waiver.
Return of work equipment
The larger claim concerned a laptop and accessories, which a receipt suggested included a USB hub and a mouse. The employer had provided the equipment, along with a printer, desk, and chair, so the worker could do her job from home.
It valued the laptop and accessories at $1,658 citing a receipt dated June 25, 2024.
The worker said the parties had no agreement that she would return the items. Wake found their conduct suggested otherwise, noting that after the termination they arranged by email for a company director to collect the equipment on Aug. 30.
Wake found it unlikely the worker would have agreed to a pickup if she believed she was not required to return anything.
On the afternoon of Aug. 30, the director texted to say he would arrive shortly. The worker replied that she had already gone out and that the equipment was waiting for him: "It's all outside. I'm not home."
Full reimbursement required
When the director reached the home, the laptop and accessories were not there. He texted the worker, "Where is my laptop?" She responded that she had put it outside with the rest of the equipment, and in her submissions, she maintained she had returned it.
With no photograph or other record of the equipment in the carport, Wake weighed which account was more credible and gave more weight to the employer's, citing inconsistencies in the worker's timeline. The worker said in one place that she had left about five minutes before the director arrived and elsewhere described a 10-minute gap; the texts showed 21 minutes between her message and his.
Wake also noted the worker did not dispute telling the director that someone must have taken the laptop, and found it unlikely a thief would take the laptop but leave other valuable items behind. Even if that had happened, the tribunal found, the worker was responsible for leaving it unattended.
Wake ordered her to reimburse the full amount plus $150 in fees, a total of $2,647, within 30 days, and noted the company had waived pre-judgment interest.
