Cases Archive - Tevlin Gleadle Curtis Employment Law Strategies

2026 BCSC 1735: BC Supreme Court refuses to cancel shares

On a petition to cancel a number of shares in a property development the Court found as follows:

I agree with the respondents that the petitioners have not met their onus of demonstrating, on a balance of probabilities, that the true intention of the parties differed from what is recorded in the companies’ central securities registers. In my view, the evidence indicates the petitioners’ representatives’ clear intention to allocate the shares to the respondents and good faith commercial reasons for doing so. The petitioners have no evidence from anyone involved at the time that the shares were bestowed in error or for anything other than good faith business reasons. The shares should therefore not be cancelled under s 230.

2025 BCSC 1401: Costs awarded in wrongful dismissal claim

The British Columbia Supreme Court ordered uplift costs to an employee who brought a successful claim for wrongful dismissal.

The Court held that:

…the plaintiff has been put to considerable expense, delay and stress of litigation – particularly in comparison to the amount in issue. He was confronted with a vigorous defence…which included allegations of dishonourable conduct that neither of the defendants was able to support with admissible evidence. Those allegations required a significant and unusual amount of effort to defend. An award of costs on the ordinary scale would be unjust. In my view, this is an appropriate case for an award of uplift costs.

Owen v. Barnes Harley-Davidson and others, 2021 BCHRT 154

Han v. New Chelsea Society and another (No. 2), 2022 BCHRT 95

WCAT Decision Number A2401673

Liivam v. MacKay Contracting Ltd., 2025 BCSC 582

James McCallum & Associates Ltd. v. Courchene, 2025 BCCA 82

Dhaliwall v. Hook Restaurant Ltd., 2021 BCSC 1358

This case deals with a number of employment law issues arising from a relatively complex relationship between an employee and three related businesses.

Those issues included common employment, acquiring options, termination or resignation, and reasonable notice for a specialized, short-service employee.

Wilson v. Pomerleau Inc., 2021 BCSC 388

Important excerpts include the following:

[22] Mr. Wilson is presently 65 years old. Mr. Wilson argues that his age is a significant factor that supports a longer period of notice.
…
[28] I agree with Mr. Wilson that his age at this time stands as a significant factor in terms of his ability to find alternate employment. The advance of his age over his time with Westpro/Pomerleau has presently put him in the position that he will likely be perceived by future employers as having a much shortened potential employment term before any chosen or forced retirement. Common sense dictates that employers would likely be more reluctant to invest the time and energy in employing an older person in those circumstances.

WCAT Decision: D.N.

This is a case involving workplace bullying and harassment. TGC lawyer Fred Wynne, on behalf of the employee, successfully appealed WorkSafeBC’s denial of compensation for mental distress.

The Tribunal held the following:

Based on the worker’s unrefuted testimony, I find that he experienced a series of targeted events which constitute harassment in the workplace, which consisted of some events that on their own would be considered significant stressors, and others which would not stand on their own as significant stressors. However, notwithstanding that many of these events would not stand on their own as significant stressors, I find that the worker’s evidence established a pattern of seemingly benign or trivial individual events that when viewed as a whole consisted of harassment towards the worker.