Kelowna distillery loses another appeal after shorting staffer $60,000

The directors of a defunct Kelowna distillery have failed in their latest attempt to avoid paying a staff member $60,000.

In four separate July 8 Employment Standards Tribunal decisions, Forbidden Spirits directors Maya Kanigan, Kelly Janine Wilson, and Eugene Hodgson argued that they weren’t directors when the company failed to pay a former executive assistant for the “many hours” she worked without pay.

However, the Tribunal didn’t buy it, saying the record showed they were directors at the time and there was no “persuasive evidence to the contrary.”

Last year, Forbidden Spirits lost an appeal after the Employment Standards Tribunal fined it $1,500 and ordered it to pay $60,513 in unpaid wages to the former staffer.

Former MP Charles Blair Wilson founded the distillery with his wife Kelly Wilson a decade ago, but it closed down last year.

Since then the directors have appealed the ruling but lost.

Under BC employment law, directors are personally liable for up to two months’ unpaid wages per employee, leaving each director on the hook for $24,937.

While Kanigan had previously acknowledged she was a director, in her latest appeal, she changed her tune, saying she wasn’t a director when the unpaid wage claim arose and therefore wasn’t personally liable for the unpaid wages.

Kanigan established the Women in Leadership Foundation, a not-for-profit which says it’s committed to “creating a platform to promote diverse and inclusive workplaces.”

Kelly Wilson also previously said she was a board member, but now changed her tune, saying she wasn’t a director.

The Tribunal dismissed their arguments.

All four directors also argued they were not responsible for the debt because the company is in receivership.

However, the Tribunal said the evidence did not establish that Forbidden Spirits was placed into formal receivership.

“A court-ordered sale of the leased property where the company operated from, or a memorandum of understanding between the landlord and the creditors, does not satisfy the statutory requirements for insolvency,” the Tribunal ruled.

Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected all grounds for appeal saying neither director had raised a serious question of law, fact, or procedure.

“Nor do they present new evidence that meets the applicable standard. Instead, the application constitutes an impermissible attempt to reargue previously decided issues or to raise new arguments that could have been presented at the appeal stage,” the Tribunal said.