Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Certification of the action as a class proceeding was denied due to failure to meet two key criteria under the Class Proceedings Act.

• The plaintiff alleged that employment termination clauses were void for non-compliance with minimum standards under the Employment Standards Act.

• Key evidence included the standardized employment contracts and an employee handbook that allegedly formed part of the employment terms.

• A significant issue was whether Triple M Housing Ltd. and Triple M Modular Ltd. were "common employers" of the class members.

• The court determined that individual inquiries into each employee’s experience were required, undermining the suitability for class treatment.

• One of the four Void Claims regarding termination calculations was struck as it was “bound to fail” based on statutory interpretation.

Background and facts of the case

Byron Linza filed a proposed class action against his former employers—Triple M Housing Ltd., Triple M Modular Ltd. (dba Metric Modular), and Metric Modular itself—on behalf of approximately 100 employees terminated between May and September 2020. The claim sought damages for wrongful dismissal, arguing that the defendants failed to provide sufficient notice or pay in lieu of notice as mandated by employment contracts or the British Columbia Employment Standards Act (ESA).

Linza alleged that the employment contracts, including termination clauses, were void for breaching statutory minimums under sections 63 and 64 of the ESA. He also contended that an employee handbook—distributed during orientation—was part of the employment terms and that certain provisions within it unlawfully extended probation periods and defined just cause too broadly.

Additionally, the plaintiff sought to establish that the defendants functioned as "common employers," thereby making all liable for the alleged breaches.

Certification attempt and legal framework

Linza applied for the action to be certified as a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act (CPA), R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50, having earlier been given leave to amend his pleadings following a 2023 decision. The case addressed the five statutory certification criteria: cause of action, identifiable class, common issues, preferability, and adequacy of representation.

The court reviewed four amended “Void Claims” advanced by Linza:

• (A) improper extension of probationary periods,

• (B) overly broad just cause termination provisions,

• (C) failure to provide group termination benefits under s. 64 of the ESA,

• (D) improper calculation of pay in lieu of notice.

Key findings and outcome

Justice Norell ruled that Linza’s pleadings—through the Further Amended Notice of Civil Claim (FANOCC)—did adequately state a cause of action for wrongful dismissal and for Void Claims (A), (B), and (C). However, Void Claim (D), which argued that “pay in lieu” was calculated in a forward-looking rather than backward-looking manner as required by the ESA, was struck on the grounds it was bound to fail.

The court accepted that there were some common issues, notably whether the termination clause was void under the ESA, but emphasized that the central issue—whether Triple M Housing Ltd. was a common employer—could not be resolved on a class-wide basis. It required individual inquiries into each worker’s employment experience, communications, and understanding of who their employer was.

As a result, the court held that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure. The complexity and individualized nature of the common employer issue would inevitably lead to up to 100 separate trials, undermining judicial efficiency and access to justice. The proposed representative plaintiff, Linza, was also found not to have submitted a sufficiently robust litigation plan for managing such complexities.

Final orders and disposition

Justice Norell granted Linza leave to file the amended pleadings (excluding Void Claim D), but denied certification of the class action. The case was dismissed as a class proceeding, leaving individual former employees the option to pursue their claims separately.