FILE PHOTO.

Image Credit: pexels.com

An arrangement that saw a BC couple work at a Lake Country RV park for free housing, is now in front of an employment tribunal as the two sides disagreed about whether the gardening the couple did was paid work or not.

According to a March 17 BC Employment Standards Tribunal decision, the married couple referred to as CB and VB in the decision, came to a "labour for housing" barter arrangement with Lake Country RV park Tuscany Orchard for the 2021 season.

The decision said the couple did maintenance and landscaping in exchange for housing, and the agreement was "haphazardly documented."

It's unclear why, but the couple were given an eviction notice in March 2022, although didn't move out until August.

Sometime afterwards the couple, along with another unnamed individual, took Tuscany Orchard owner Margaret Churchill to the BC Employment Standards Branch.

In September 2024, the Employment Standards Branch ruled the couple were employees and were owed $17,840 in unpaid wages. The Branch also gave Churchill seven separate fines totalling $3,500.

However, Churchill appealed just one part of the ruling, claiming gardening work the couple did was for themselves and not part of their work for housing agreement.

The decision said none of the work in the vegetable garden was ever documented and both sides have different versions of what went on.

In the decision, the couple said when they started the garden was overgrown and Churchill would often pull them off their regular duties to weed and landscape the garden. The couple said they were told not to put gardening work on their timesheet and were only allowed to take vegetables from the garden when Churchill said so.

READ MORE: Kelowna firm that failed to pay staff unsuccessfully argued it wasn't an 'employer'

The RV park owner had a different version of events and said that the couple were allowed to share the use of her personal garden and she would record their hours worked until the garden was ready to plant. Once the garden was ready to plant, they would share its use and anything they grew was theirs to keep.

In their original complaint, the couple argued they worked 335 hours in the garden and the Employment Standards Branch agreed, and ordered Churchill to pay them for the work.

However, in the appeal the Tribunal is critical of the Branch's reasoning noting it took much of its evidence from unofficial timesheets the couple kept but had since been destroyed.

"The only evidence favouring the (couple's) position that their labour in the vegetable garden was compensable work is their own uncorroborated assertion," the Tribunal ruled.

"Given the fact that no evidentiary hearing was ever held, I query how the (Employment Standards Branch) might have been able to make a credibility finding," the Tribunal said. "The clear and obvious conflict in the positions of the two parties called for a relative credibility assessment to be undertaken."

READ MORE: Kamloops firm ordered to pay $22,000 in unpaid overtime, vacation, severance

The Tribunal also said it's "problematic" that the unofficial timesheet the couple kept was destroyed.

"I note that CB is a former lawyer and thus should have been particularly sensitive to the legal issues arising from a deliberate destruction of evidence," the Tribunal said.

The Tribunal said there wasn't enough evidence to find the couple worked unpaid in the vegetable garden and overruled the Employment Standards Branch decision.

However, the Tribunal said because of the lack of evidence it couldn't rule either way and sent the matter back to the Employment Standards Branch.

The Branch will now have to decide again whether the couple were supposed to be paid or not for their gardening.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.

We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above. SUBSCRIBE to our awesome newsletter here.

News from © iNFOnews, 2025