An employer that made a job offer to a candidate, only to rescind it two weeks later before he started, has been ordered to pay nearly $2,000 by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) of British Columbia.
The dispute began when North American Vocational Education Group (NAVEG) offered D.L. a position on March 31, 2023, with an annual salary of $55,000, promising potential raises and commissions. D.L. accepted the offer on April 4, with a mutually agreed start date of May 1, 2023.
However, on April 17, NAVEG informed him that it had to rescind the offer, citing budgetary issues. NAVEG proposed that D.L. work as an independent contractor instead, a suggestion he declined.
In response to the rescission, D.L. sought $5,000 in compensation for lost wages, emotional distress, and punitive damages. Despite NAVEG’s later attempt to reinstate the original offer on May 3, he refused — citing a lack of trust in the company’s commitment.
Tribunal’s analysis
The CRT confirmed that an enforceable contract existed between D.L. and NAVEG, despite the employment agreement not being physically signed. The tribunal noted, “To prove a binding contract, there must be an offer, acceptance, and consideration,” and found these elements present in this case.
When NAVEG rescinded the offer on April 17, it effectively repudiated the contract. The tribunal referenced Kuo v. Kuo, noting that repudiation occurs when a party indicates they no longer intend to be bound by the contract’s terms.
D.L.’s rejection of NAVEG’s amended offer was seen as an acceptance of this repudiation, ending the contract and allowing him to sue for damages immediately.
Determining damages
D.L. sought compensation equal to one month’s salary, claiming that he had already resigned from his previous job and turned down other opportunities. However, the tribunal found his evidence supporting these claims insufficient.
Despite this, the CRT recognized that he likely suffered some financial loss due to NAVEG’s breach.
“When an employee is terminated without reasonable notice, they are entitled to damages equal to what they would have earned during the notice period,” the CRT stated.
The tribunal concluded that four weeks was a reasonable notice period but adjusted the damages to account for the fact that his salary would not have commenced until May 1. Consequently, he was awarded damages equivalent to two weeks’ salary, totalling $1,815, plus $107.40 in pre-judgment interest.
Rejection of additional claims
D.L.’s claims for emotional distress and punitive damages were dismissed. The tribunal cited a lack of evidence for significant emotional distress, stating, “There must be some evidentiary basis for awarding damages for mental distress,” which he did not provide.
Additionally, the tribunal did not find NAVEG’s conduct sufficiently malicious or reprehensible to warrant punitive damages.
NAVEG’s argument that D.L. failed to mitigate his damages by not accepting its contract work offer or reinstatement was also rejected. The tribunal found NAVEG did not provide sufficient details about the contract position and noted that D.L. acted reasonably given the circumstances.
For more information, see Loree v. North America Vocational Education Group Inc., 2024 BCCRT 696 (CanLII).
