Nicole D. Samson

The appellant payroll provider paid the wages of the corporate respondent's employees without first receiving sufficient funds from the corporation.

The appellant sued a director of the corporation for unjust enrichment, arguing that its payment relieved the director of her statutory liability for unpaid wages under s. 131 of the OBCA.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the primary obligation to pay wages belonged to the corporation, not the director.

The director received no direct benefit and was not unjustly enriched.

Furthermore, the appellant could not be subrogated to the employees' rights because the employees had been paid and had no claim against the director.

The respondent, a 25-year employee of the appellant Board, was summarily dismissed for using his position to obtain a direct monetary benefit.

He had purchased computers at a discount from a registered employer and accepted a $1,000 payment from an employer representative, subsequently lying about these events during the employer's investigation.

The trial judge found the dismissal was wrongful and awarded 24 months' notice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and dismissed the action, finding the trial judge erred by failing to apply the correct legal standard from McKinley v. B.C. Tel and by not considering the full extent of the respondent's misconduct.

The Court held that the respondent's intentional and repeated dishonest acts constituted a fundamental breach of his employment obligations, justifying summary dismissal.