Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Leah Bennett claims CAD 80 from Copper Finch Homewares Ltd. for four hours of training at a rate of CAD 20 per hour. Copper Finch asks that the claim be denied or reduced. The parties have both had an opportunity to make final submissions. 2. The supplied rules require the party seeking relief to support the claim with specific facts or records. For a pay claim, the court considers what work was earned, what was paid, what was withheld, and what the records show. The remedy should match the proven loss. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Leah’s training attendance was expected or required work, and whether CAD 80 for those hours remains unpaid. Leah bears the burden of proving her claim. Submissions of the parties 4. Leah submits that she attended a four-hour training session and that the manager’s message made attendance expected. She says the hours were omitted from her timesheet because she expected the manager to add them, and asks for CAD 80 at the recorded rate of $20 per hour. 5. Copper Finch initially relied on the attendance sheet’s “Optional Learning Session” heading and the fact that Leah’s submitted timesheet omitted the training. In its later submissions, Copper Finch acknowledged that the manager sent the message saying Leah needed the training before her next till shift and should attend from 9 to 1. It accepts that the message supports an expectation to attend. Copper Finch also acknowledges that its pay record covers only the hours Leah submitted and that it has no separate record showing payment for the training or a different rate. It nevertheless asks the court to deny or reduce the claim because the message does not expressly discuss pay. Evidence and findings 6. Exhibit 7 records the Kingston shop’s stock-system session from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. Leah’s signature appears beside arrival and departure entries. The exhibit is accepted by both parties as a legible copy. It proves attendance and the session’s stated hours, while also recording the “Optional Learning Session” heading. It does not establish what staff were told separately. 7. Exhibits 5 and 6 contain the manager’s message exchange. Leah asks whether she can skip because the sheet says optional. Colin replies that she needs the training before her next till shift and asks her to be there from 9 to 1. Copper Finch confirms that Colin sent the message and that it told Leah to attend. The message is therefore reliable evidence of an attendance expectation, although it does not itself say whether the time would be paid. 8. Exhibits 2 and 4 are the timesheet and matching pay statement. They show that Leah’s submitted shop hours were paid at $20 per hour, but the training session was omitted. These records do not prove that the training hours were paid. Copper Finch’s final submission confirms there is no separate payment record or different rate for those hours. Reasons 9. On the first issue, Leah has met her burden. The optional heading is relevant and weighs in her favour only to the extent that it suggests the session may have been optional in general. But the manager’s direct response to Leah’s question is more specific: she needed the training before her next till shift and was asked to attend at a stated time. Copper Finch confirms the message and its meaning. On this record, the message outweighs the heading. The court finds that attendance was expected as part of Leah’s work. This conclusion follows from the proof and the supplied rules on burden and reliable records; it does not treat Leah’s submissions alone as evidence. 10. On the second issue, the records establish four hours of attendance and a rate of $20 per hour. The pay statement shows payment for the hours Leah submitted, not for the training. The omission from the timesheet does not establish that the training was unpaid work voluntarily chosen: the manager’s message explains why attendance was expected, and the pay record does not include the session. Copper Finch has no separate record of payment and identifies no different rate. Leah has therefore shown, on the available accounting, that CAD 80 remains unpaid. 11. Copper Finch’s strongest point is that the message does not expressly promise payment. That absence is a limit in the evidence, but it does not overcome the combined proof that the training was expected, Leah attended for four hours, the documented rate was $20, and the training hours were not paid. The supplied pay-claim rule directs the court to consider what was earned, paid, withheld, and documented. On these facts, the supported calculation is four hours multiplied by $20, or CAD 80. No additional amount is claimed or supported. Final order 12. Judgment is granted to Leah Bennett against Copper Finch Homewares Ltd. in the amount of CAD 80 for unpaid training wages. Copper Finch must pay Leah CAD 80. The request to deny or reduce the claim is refused. No additional relief is awarded because none is established on this record.