A pilot who left SkyLink Express before completing a one-year employment commitment must repay $3,764.54 for breaching a training bond, the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) has ruled.
The tribunal found the airline’s agreement requiring repayment of training costs was valid and enforceable, rejecting the pilot’s arguments that the contract violated employment standards or lacked consideration.
Training agreement required 12-month commitment
The case centred on an aircrew training agreement the worker signed on October 1, 2021. Under the deal, he agreed to remain employed for 12 months after completing pilot-in-command training or repay a prorated portion of the training’s $10,000 cost.
SkyLink said the pilot completed training flights on October 8, 11, and 12, 2021, costing the company about $16,200, and began revenue flights the next day. He resigned on June 12, 2022 — seven months later, according to SkyLink.
The company sought $4,166.67 in liquidated damages for the remaining five months of the contract. But the tribunal determined the 12-month period began when the training was completed, meaning the worker had served eight full months, not seven.
“Since [the worker] ceased his employment as of June 12, 2022, I find that he worked for eight complete months,” the CRT member wrote.
Worker said contract was illegal and lacked consideration
The pilot, who represented himself, said the contract was invalid because it “limited his mobility rights and contravened the Employment Standards Act.” He also argued he “did not receive any consideration for signing the contract” and that the training was mandatory under federal aviation rules.
While the tribunal accepted that “the Canadian Aviation Regulations part 703 imposes recurrency training obligations on air operators such as SkyLink,” it found no evidence that the company was legally required to cover the cost.
The CRT dismissed his claim that the contract violated provincial employment law. “Since air carriers such as SkyLink are federally regulated, they are also governed by the Canada Labour Code rather than the Employment Standards Act,” the decision said.
The tribunal also concluded that valid consideration existed because the pilot received training that advanced his qualifications. “I find that [the worker] did receive his recurrency training,” the decision stated.
Training bonds common and enforceable in aviation
The CRT cited previous rulings upholding training bonds in the airline industry, including Northern Thunderbird Air v. Anderson and Alkan Air v. Cunningham.
“Courts have found that training bond contracts are not unconscionable or illegal,” the tribunal said, adding that such agreements “have been found unenforceable in circumstances where there is no consideration, such as where no training occurred.”
Because training did occur, the tribunal found the reasoning in Van Haren did not apply. “I find the training bond was valid and bound [the worker] to remain employed with SkyLink for 12 months or pay the prorated cost of training if he left within 12 months,” the decision said.
Amount awarded to SkyLink
SkyLink’s claim evolved during the proceedings. It initially sought $3,333.33 in demand letters, later increased its tribunal filing to $4,166.67, and then requested $5,000 in submissions, citing more than $833 in legal fees.
The tribunal rejected the higher amount, finding that SkyLink had not amended its claim or provided proof of legal expenses. “SkyLink provided no evidence to prove the legal fees that it incurred to enforce the training bond, such as an invoice from its lawyer,” the CRT wrote.
In the end, SkyLink was awarded:
- $3,333.33 in damages for the unfulfilled portion of the training term
- $256.21 in pre-judgment interest, calculated from the date of its demand letter
- $175 in tribunal fees
That totalled $3,764.54, payable within 30 days.
Tribunal emphasized fairness and proportionality
The CRT noted that its mandate under the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act is to resolve disputes “accessibly, quickly, economically, informally, and flexibly.” In this case, the tribunal decided the matter based on written evidence and submissions, finding that “an oral hearing is not necessary.”
It emphasized that SkyLink had met its burden of proof on a balance of probabilities and that the decision reflected both the contract terms and the duration of service actually completed.
“SkyLink is entitled to post-judgment interest, as applicable,” the tribunal concluded. The order can be filed with the Provincial Court of British Columbia for enforcement.
See additional coverage in our sister publication HR Law Canada here: https://hrlawcanada.com/2025/11/skylink-pilot-ordered-to-repay-3700-after-leaving-before-end-of-training-bond/
