He was months from vesting when his job ended. Then came the fight over his final pay
A terminated worker fell short of the vesting period on his employer's retirement plan, and it cost him the employer's matching contributions. His fight to recover that money, along with a bonus and disputed paycheque deductions, went nowhere at a British Columbia tribunal.
In a decision issued July 20, 2026, Civil Resolution Tribunal Vice Chair Kristin Gardner dismissed every claim a former employee brought against Vegpro International Inc. Across two linked disputes, the worker had sought $2,000 for the employer's unpaid RRSP contributions, $3,000 for a 2023 performance bonus, and $5,000 tied to deductions applied to his pay in lieu of notice.
A retirement match caught short of vesting
The worker enrolled in a voluntary group retirement savings plan through Desjardins, effective April 1, 2022, with Vegpro matching his contributions up to 2 per cent of his salary. After Vegpro terminated his employment without cause on Aug. 17, 2023, he was able to withdraw or transfer his own contributions, but Desjardins Insurance advised that he had not worked long enough to be entitled to the employer's share.
The worker argued he had never been told a vesting period applied. Gardner accepted that his employment contract did not spell out a vesting period for the employer's contributions, but she noted the contract identified Desjardins as the plan provider and that he could have requested the plan's terms at any time. Under the plan, "the employer's contributions are fully vested only after participating in the plan for 24 months."
Because his enrollment took effect on April 1, 2022, and his employment ended on Aug. 17, 2023, Gardner found he had participated for only 15.5 months. On that basis, she found he was not eligible for the matching contributions and dismissed the claim.
A bonus that ended with the job
Under the contract, the worker qualified for a short-term incentive program after one year of continuous service, worth up to 10 per cent of his base annual salary and tied to both his performance and Vegpro's financial results. He said he had received a bonus for 2022 covering only eight months because the company had changed its fiscal year end, and he argued he was owed a further bonus for January to August 2023.
Vegpro said it had paid him a bonus on May 18, 2023, and did not suggest his performance in 2023 was unsatisfactory. It maintained, however, that the contract did not guarantee a bonus or require payment for any particular period of employment, and that none was earned, approved, or payable for the stretch he claimed.
Gardner agreed the contract did not guarantee a bonus, finding it discretionary and dependent on both performance and the company's financial results. With no evidence before her about Vegpro's 2023 finances, and with the worker's employment ending before bonuses were calculated or payable, she found he had not proved his entitlement and dismissed the claim.
The deductions on the final paycheque
The contract entitled the worker to the notice or pay in lieu required under the Employment Standards Act, and the parties agreed the act called for two weeks. Vegpro paid two weeks' salary in lieu, but the worker argued it could apply only statutory deductions, and that deducting retirement plan contributions and vacation pay made the notice term unenforceable.
His termination letter said the pay in lieu would be paid less applicable statutory deductions in accordance with the act. The paystub showed deductions for CPP, federal tax, provincial tax, "collective insurance" and "group RRSP", and Gardner found no sign that anything had been deducted for vacation pay. The letter's reference to statutory deductions, she found, "did not necessarily preclude Vegpro from making other applicable deductions."
Gardner found the group RRSP line covered the worker's own plan contributions, which he received back in full, and that the collective insurance line covered group benefits ending on Sept. 15, 2023. A separate "RPDP" entry, she found, reflected the employer's plan contribution and was recorded for information only. She concluded Vegpro had complied with its obligations under both the contract and the act, and dismissed both disputes, making no order on fees.
