Six-day gap between letter date and email delivery costs BC winery $1,262
A British Columbia winery that gave a marketing director six weeks' notice of termination has been ordered to pay an additional $1,262.44 after the Civil Resolution Tribunal found that notice was effectively given on the day the employer emailed the termination letter, not the earlier date typed on the letter itself.
In a decision issued on April 24, 2026, Tribunal Vice Chair Kate Campbell held Montalvino Wineries Inc. to the wording of its own letter, finding that the employee was left four working days short of the notice period the letter promised.
When the calendar betrayed the letter
Levi Jordan Gogolinski began working for Montalvino on January 30, 2023, as Director of Marketing, with a starting salary of $75,000 per year. Her employment ended on October 2, 2024, after the company told her it would be closing its winery locations.
The termination letter was dated September 4, 2024, and stated, "Your last day of work will be Wednesday, October 2, 2024, plus 10 working days pay in lieu of notice." A registered mail copy was sent on September 6, but there was no evidence about when Gogolinski received it.
Montalvino's director and president, Berton Benjamin Andrew Evertt, emailed Gogolinski the letter on September 10, 2024, stating that he meant to send it earlier. Based on that email, the tribunal found Montalvino gave notice on September 10, not September 4.
Six weeks promised, four days missing
Gogolinski's pay stub showed Montalvino paid her until October 12, four working days short of six weeks measured from September 10. She argued the letter formed a binding agreement to pay her for six full weeks from the date she received it, and calculated the shortfall at 32 hours, or $1,262.44.
Montalvino argued it had correctly calculated and paid Gogolinski's final wages, in excess of what was required under the Employment Standards Act. The tribunal noted, however, that Gogolinski's entitlement turned on the letter and on common law, not on the statute.
Applying reasoning from Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays, De Guzman v. Marine Drive Golf Club, and Saalfeld v. Absolute Software Corporation, Campbell noted that short-term employees tend to receive proportionately higher notice periods. With Gogolinski employed 21 months in a non-junior role, Campbell wrote, "I find Ms. Gogolinski was likely entitled to more than 6 weeks' notice, and at minimum, at least 6 weeks of notice starting on September 10."
What stood, what didn't
The tribunal ordered Montalvino to pay a total of $1,450.31: $1,262.44 in damages, $62.87 in pre-judgment interest, and $125 in fees.
Claims against Evertt personally were dismissed because Montalvino is a separate legal entity and there was no employment contract between Gogolinski and Evertt.
Gogolinski's $184 mileage claim was dismissed for lack of supporting records. She also alleged Montalvino had not actually closed its locations and continued hiring after her termination, but the tribunal found this wrongful dismissal allegation was not raised in the Dispute Notice and declined to decide it.
