While a verbal contract is enforceable, it may be harder to prove
A voluntary payment is not proof of an employment relationship. That principle guided a Civil Resolution Tribunal ruling issued July 6, 2026, in which member Deanna Rivers dismissed a worker's claim for $190 in unpaid wages against Kelowna Drywall.
The worker argued that because the company had sent him money, it must have been his employer and must owe him the balance of his wages.
The company said the payment was an act of sympathy, not an admission of any employment obligation, and that he had been hired by one of its subcontractors, not by the company itself.
Payment made out of sympathy
The dispute centred on a $450 e-transfer the company sent the worker on July 9, 2024. The worker said he had a deal with one of the company's subcontractors to be paid $20 an hour and that he worked 38 hours. By his account, he received only $570 in total, $120 from the subcontractor and $450 from the company, leaving him short.
So he took the drywall firm to the Civil Resolution Tribunal, seeking the $190 gap. He argued the company had paid him, so it must have employed him and must owe him the balance of his wages.
The company saw it differently. It said it never had an employment agreement with the worker, that he had been hired by its subcontractor, and that the subcontractor, not the company, was responsible for his pay.
Employment relationship
Rivers considered whether that $450 payment suggested an employment relationship between the worker and the company. Video recordings of a phone call between the company and the worker's mother pointed the other way.
On the recordings, the company said it had not hired the worker and did not know the terms of any arrangement between him and the subcontractor. It explained that it felt sorry for his situation and paid the money to resolve the matter. Rivers found the payment did not establish an employment relationship.
A second gesture got similar treatment. In its response to the claim, the company had offered to pay $150 if the worker agreed to withdraw. Rivers found this was "a settlement offer, not an admission of liability," and decided the case on its legal merits instead.
Proof of employer's obligation
As the person bringing the claim, the worker had to prove it was more likely than not that the company owed him. That proved difficult. He did not produce an employment contract, and beyond his own statement there was nothing showing the company had hired him.
Rivers acknowledged that a spoken agreement can still be binding. "While a verbal contract is enforceable, it may be harder to prove," she wrote, adding the worker offered no details of the alleged agreement, such as when or where he spoke with the subcontractor, or terms like his hours or breaks.
There was also nothing to back up the claim that he had worked 38 hours, no log and no record of dates, hours, tasks or locations. Rivers dismissed the claim. Because the worker did not succeed, she also dismissed his request to recover his tribunal fees, and neither side claimed other expenses.
