The company provided 'no evidence or submissions' about how it arrived at the $3,000 figure – which Rivers said could have included things like 'records of the revenue' the employee brought in or evidence 'from clients who chose not to do business with (the company) due to Mr. 'Damages for breach of contract are generally meant to put the innocent party in the same position as if the contract had been performed as agreed,' the decision explains. Rivers said, in his decision, that the issue of whether Mehta had breached the contract was ultimately irrelevant because the company had failed to prove its case. doing business as John Fleming Insurance Agency was asking the tribunal to compensate the company $3,000 after Davik Mehta, a broker, quit with no notice in 2022.
Quitting without giving the required notice, the decisions say, can legally constitute a 'breach of contract,' making an employer eligible to sue for damages.īut – and this proved to be the deciding factor in each case – there must be evidence that the worker's departure resulted in the claimed damages.
B.C.'s small claims tribunal has weighed in on two cases where an employer attempted to sue a worker who quit without providing the notice required by their contracts.ĭecisions in both cases were posted online Monday – and while the circumstances were different, the tribunal dismissed the employer's claims in both cases for the same reason.