Court found no privity of contract between the worker and any of the four defendants
A resident caretaker in Winnipeg who was fired from a nonprofit housing property sued not only the management company but also a senior property manager, a volunteer board chair, a tenants' council president, and the tenants' council itself. In a March 6, 2026, decision, Associate Judge J.L. Goldenberg of the Manitoba Court of King's Bench struck every claim against the four defendants, finding the worker failed to establish any of them were his employer or owed him a legal duty.
The case raises a pointed question for nonprofit organizations: when employment relationships are poorly defined, who ends up in the crosshairs after a termination?
Fired caretaker names everyone in sight
Robert Arnold Vosters began working as resident caretaker at 5445 Roblin Boulevard in Winnipeg on November 1, 2022, under a written employment contract. The property was managed by S.A.M. (Management) Inc., a nonprofit. His employment was terminated on January 10, 2024.
Representing himself, Vosters filed a claim alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, harassment and intimidation, stress, anxiety, embarrassment and humiliation, and defamation. Beyond S.A.M. and Vasa Lund Estates Inc. (VLE), a nonprofit, he sued Jennifer Maidens, a senior property manager at S.A.M., Neil Carlson, chair of VLE's volunteer board, Jim Wintemute, president of the Vasa Lund Estate Tenants Council, and the council itself.
All four moved to have the claims against them thrown out.
No contract, no duty, no standalone claim
The court found Vosters' contract was not with any of the four: "The Claim does not allege that any moving defendant was a party to that contract or otherwise in a contractual relationship with the plaintiff."
On fiduciary duty, the court held the claim "pleads no facts showing that any moving defendant undertook to act in the plaintiff's interests," noting a "lack of due diligence" alone "is not a recognized standalone tort." Claims for stress, anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation were struck because "these are not independent causes of action recognized in Manitoba law."
Vosters alleged defendants stated he withheld building access keys, leading S.A.M. to replace front entrance doors/keys at a cost of $10,000. The court found the claim "does not identify who made the allegedly defamatory statement(s) or sufficient circumstances of the publication."
One narrow door left open
The court struck the claim in its entirety against all four but granted leave to amend "only with respect to a properly pleaded claim in defamation, and only against the specific individual(s) alleged to have made the defamatory statement(s)."
The decision added: "The plaintiff is strongly encouraged to obtain legal advice before filing any amended defamation claim, given the potential for significant cost consequences if an amended pleading again fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action."
The case remains active against S.A.M. (Management) Inc. and Vasa Lund Estates Inc., which have filed statements of defence and crossclaims against each other. Costs of the motion "may be spoken to if not agreed."
