Image Credit: FACEBOOK: Kalamalka Security

A Lake Country security company on the hook $85,000 for failing to pay its employees has failed in its appeal to overturn the ruling.

Last September, the BC Employment Standards Tribunal ordered Kalamalka Security to pay $85,327 in unpaid wages to several employees. The company was also fined $3,000 for breaking employment law.

However, the company appealed the ruling.

According to a May 7 BC Employment Standards Tribunal decision, former employees complained they were owed unpaid wages, overtime, vacation pay and compensation for length of service.

The decision didn't say how many employees were affected or over what time period they weren't paid properly.

The company appealed on several grounds, firstly saying it was late filing an appeal because it was trying to find a lawyer.

The Tribunal dismissed the argument saying trying to find a lawyer wasn't a credible explanation for filing an appeal late.

Secondly, the company argued it wasn't adequately informed about the investigation into the complaints from its workers.

Kalamalka Security admitted it did receive a phone call from the Employment Standards about the investigation but argued that could have been a fraudulent or scam call.

The Tribunal didn't buy it.

"If indeed (Kalamalka Security) wished to verify that the call was not fraudulent, a return call to the Employment Standards Branch would have been sufficient," the Tribunal ruled.

The Tribunal also pointed out numerous written and emailed correspondence the firm had received.

The company submitted payroll documents and screenshots of its online banking along with an undated handwritten letter from a former employee who said he was approached several times to submit a claim for lost wages.

However, the Tribunal rejected the documents saying the only way they would be accepted is if the company didn't know about the investigation which it clearly did.

In a separate May 7 Employment Standards Tribunal decision, Kalamalka Security director Trudi Scott argued she wasn't personally liable for $60,000 of the award.

"She is saying she should not be personally liable on the grounds that she did not authorize, permit or acquiesce in the company’s contravention," the Tribunal said.

However, the Tribunal didn't buy it.

"Although (Scott) claims it was another individual who assisted with managing the company, and that this individual was the de facto director and operator of the company, there is no evidence before me... that would support (that) finding," the Tribunal ruled.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal leaving the security company on the hook $85,327.

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