Ontario Small Claims Court awards CAD 80 in wages for expected job training

The Ontario Small Claims Court granted Leah Bennett’s claim against Copper Finch Homewares Ltd. for CAD 80 in unpaid wages for a four-hour training session. It found that attendance was expected as part of her work and that the hours remained unpaid at her documented rate of CAD 20 an hour.

The court refused Copper Finch’s request to deny or reduce the claim. It ordered the company to pay the full CAD 80, with no additional relief because none was established on the record.

The central question was whether the training was expected or required work despite the attendance sheet’s optional label. Bennett bore the burden of supporting her claim with specific facts or records.

The signed attendance sheet established that Bennett attended the Kingston shop’s stock-system session from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Both parties accepted the copy, which recorded her arrival and departure signatures. However, the court noted that the sheet did not establish what staff had been told separately.

The manager’s message supplied that missing context. When Bennett asked whether she could skip the session because the sheet described it as optional, Colin told her that she needed the training before her next till shift and asked her to attend from 9 to 1. Copper Finch confirmed that he sent the message and that it directed her attendance.

The court gave that specific instruction greater weight than the general heading. It found the message reliable evidence that attendance was expected as part of Bennett’s work, rather than relying on her submissions alone.

On payment, the timesheet and matching pay statement showed that Bennett’s submitted shop hours were paid at CAD 20 an hour, but omitted the training. Copper Finch had no separate record of payment for the session and identified no different rate.

The court acknowledged that the manager’s message did not expressly promise payment. Nevertheless, applying the supplied pay-claim rule—which required consideration of what was earned, paid, withheld and documented—it held that the combined evidence supported four unpaid hours at CAD 20 an hour.

Bennett maintained that the training was required for her job and relied on the attendance sheet and manager’s message. She said she omitted the hours from her timesheet because she expected the manager to add them.

Copper Finch initially relied on the optional heading and the omission from the timesheet. It argued that its pay record showed full payment for the hours Bennett submitted.

In later submissions, the company accepted that the manager’s message supported an expectation to attend and made the optional label less persuasive. It also acknowledged that it had no evidence of another training arrangement, separate payment or a different hourly rate.

Copper Finch nevertheless sought denial or reduction of the claim because the message did not discuss wages or establish a separate payment agreement. The court rejected that argument in light of the attendance, instruction and accounting records considered together.

The dispute arose from a four-hour stock-system training session at Copper Finch’s Kingston shop for staff who used the till. Bennett signed an attendance sheet describing the session as optional, but maintained that Colin required her to attend before her next till shift.

The outcome turns on the specific instruction and payment records before the court. The award covers only the proven four training hours; the judgment grants no additional relief and does not resolve training-pay arrangements beyond this record.