In 1701104 Alberta Ltd. v Singh, 2026 ABESAB 16 (Chair Schlesinger), the Alberta Employment Standards Appeal Body (“ABESAB”) found a worker was a non-managerial employee and thereby entitled to overtime hours. However, the employee was found to have worked fewer hours than he claimed and no overtime was found to be owing on appeal, which made up the bulk of his claim.
The decision reinforces that job titles alone do not determine whether someone is employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity. It’s also a reminder that an employer’s failure to keep proper records of employees’ hours can create significant risk. However, the absence of employer records does not automatically establish an employee’s claim for overtime where the employee’s own evidence about their hours is not credible.
Facts
The following were the pertinent facts summarized by the ABESAB:
- The Respondent employee, Mr. Singh, worked for the Appellant employer at the Edson RV Park & Campground (the “Park”)
- The employee and employer referred to Mr. Singh’s position as Park Supervisor and Park Manager interchangeably
- Mr. Singh lived in a trailer on site
- Mr. Singh claimed to have worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week
- It is unclear whether the employer ever directed him to work these hours or provided any set schedule at all
- On cross-examination, Mr. Singh’s evidence seemed to suggest that he was “on call” for these hours, but not necessarily working for all of the hours claimed
- The owner did not live on site and visited the Park 1-2 times a month or less
- Mr. Singh’s daily duties were janitorial, groundskeeping and administrative in nature
- He also monitored the work of contractors coming to the Park
- The evidence demonstrated that the owner of the Park bore the primary responsibility for Park operations
- Neither the employee nor the employer kept contemporaneous records of the hours Mr. Singh worked and he was not required to submit timesheets
- Pay statements indicated Mr. Singh worked 154 hours per month
- Upon termination, Mr. Singh filed an Employment Standards Code (“ESC”) complaint for unpaid wages, overtime pay, vacation pay, and general holiday pay
- He was largely successful on his initial employment standards complaint, including an award of over $22,000 in overtime pay
- The employer appealed, arguing that Mr. Singh was employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity and therefore not entitled to overtime or alternatively, that no overtime was owing because he did not work the overtime hours claimed
Analysis / Conclusion
Managerial or Supervisory Capacity
The ABESAB first considered whether Mr. Singh was employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity under section 2(1) of the Employment Standards Regulation.
The ABESAB emphasized that job titles are not determinative. The fact that Mr. Singh was referred to as a “Park Manager” or “Park Supervisor” did not mean that he was actually employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity. The exemptions are determined based on the employee’s actual duties and responsibilities, and exceptions from minimum employment standards are to be interpreted narrowly.
The ABESAB found that Mr. Singh was not employed in a managerial capacity. Although the owner was generally not physically present at the campground, he retained overarching authority over park operations. He handled many calls, bookings and emergencies, and continued to make important operational and financial decisions. Mr. Singh’s daily duties primarily consisted of janitorial work, administrative tasks and yard maintenance. While he had some independence in carrying out those tasks, this was not sufficient to make him a manager.
The ABESAB also rejected the employer’s argument that Mr. Singh was employed in a supervisory capacity. The ABESAB noted that including the occasional monitoring of contractors would stretch the meaning of “supervisory capacity” too far.
As a result, Mr. Singh was found to be an employee and entitled to overtime pay for working hours exceeding 8 hours per day or 44 hours per week. However, like the decision in 1701104 Alberta Ltd. v Tucker this finding was ultimately a hollow victory for Mr. Singh because the ABESAB also concluded that he had not established that he actually worked overtime hours.
Overtime Hours Worked
Section 14(1) of the ESC requires employers to keep up-to-date records of an employee’s regular and overtime hours each day. If an employer fails to keep those records, section 87(2) permits an Employment Standards Officer to determine the amounts payable in any manner the officer considers appropriate. In practice, that means poor employer records can create significant risk for employers, but they do not guarantee success for an employee whose own evidence is not credible or sufficiently detailed.
The purpose of section 14 is to avoid disputes that turn entirely on competing recollections of hours worked. In this case, however, Mr. Singh’s evidence did not support his claim that he worked 12 hour days, 7 days a week. The Park was small and largely vacant during the winter and early spring months, and the evidence did not show that he spent significant time in the Park office or performing work. The ABESAB concluded that Mr. Singh had made a broad and exaggerated claim without the detail needed to prove the overtime hours he claimed.
The overtime claim was really a claim for the hours Mr. Singh said he was “on call.” The ABESAB held that merely being on call in his trailer was not generally “work” under section 1 of the ESC, which defines work as providing a service. The ABESAB noted that the outcome may have been different if Mr. Singh had been required to remain in the Park office for 12 hours a day.
The ABESAB ultimately found that Mr. Singh had not established that he worked overtime. The employer’s appeal was therefore allowed, although Mr. Singh remained entitled to the other amounts that were not successfully challenged, subject to recalculation by Employment Standards based on ABESAB’s findings regarding his hours.
My Take
This case provides a useful assessment of what it means to be employed in a managerial or supervisory capacity. Calling an employee a “manager” or “supervisor” does not make them one. The employee’s actual duties, responsibilities and authority are what matter.
The case also illustrates the importance of keeping accurate records of working hours. Employers are required to keep these records, and failing to do so can be to their own peril. However, poor employer records do not automatically mean an employee’s estimate of their hours will be accepted. Here, the evidence was compelling enough for the employer to successfully resist a significant overtime claim despite its inadequate records.
Stephanie Barron is an employment lawyer at Bow River Law in Calgary, Alberta.
Bow River Law provides these regular legal blog articles for the purposes of legal news, education and research for the public and the legal profession. These articles should be considered general information and not legal advice. If you have a legal problem, you should speak to a lawyer directly.
This blog post is an original work of Bow River Law LLP. The original publication of this article is on Bow River Law’s website blog.
