IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
Citation: |
Asselin v. North Island College, |
|
|
2008 BCSC 1511 |
Date: 20081105
Docket: S6913
Registry: Campbell River
Between:
Alex
Asselin; Keith Morrill; Henryk Buturla; Jesse Tidmarsh;
John Zoney; Kenny Hunter
Plaintiffs
And
Martin Petter; Don Gillingham; North Island College; Ruedi Pletscher
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Shabbits
Reasons for Judgment
| Counsel for the plaintiffs Alex Asselin, Keith Morrill, Henryk Buturla, Jesse Tidmarsh John Zoney: |
G.P. Sinnott |
| Counsel for the defendant North Island College:
|
W.E. MacDonald |
|
Date and Place of Trial: |
July 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 29, 30 |
|
|
Nanaimo, B.C. |
[1] This action was discontinued against Martin Petter, Don Gillingham and Ruedi Pletscher before trial.
[2] The claim of Kenny Hunter was settled prior to trial.
[3] Those parties were therefore not represented at trial.
[4] The plaintiffs took the Aircraft and Transport Manufacturing Technician’s course given by North Island College during the 2002 – 2003 academic year.
[5] The plaintiffs have pleaded various causes of action. All of their claims arise from their participation in the course.
[6] The plaintiffs plead that the defendant’s failure to provide them with a course authorized by Transport Canada and leading to Transport Canada accreditation was a breach of contract.
[7] I find that none of the plaintiffs believed that they were enrolling in a Transport Canada approved course. I find that the defendant never agreed to provide any of the plaintiffs with a course that was approved by Transport Canada. I find that the defendant provided to each of the plaintiffs the exact course that it had agreed to provide to them.
[8] In my opinion, none of the plaintiffs has a claim for damages arising from breach of contract. There was no breach of contract.
[9] The plaintiffs plead that the course they took was provided by the defendant in a negligent, careless and neglectful manner and not in accordance with the guidelines of Transport Canada with regard to course content.
[10] The claim that the instruction was inadequate rests in the evidence of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs presented no evidence from anybody having expertise in education. Mr. Zoney was particularly critical of the instruction.
[11] The course instructor was Ruedi Pletscher. He gave evidence about his qualifications and about he conducted the course.
[12] Mr. Zoney said that attendance records were inadequate or attendance was not kept at all.
[13] Mr. Pletscher said that he took attendance regularly, and kept record of attendance.
[14] Mr. Zoney did not explain how he knows proper attendance records were not kept. The defendant’s communication to Mr. Asselin, to which I refer in paragraph 57 of these reasons, suggests that accurate attendance records were maintained. I find that adequate attendance records were kept.
[15] Mr. Zoney said that the students were given the answers to tests they had taken after the tests were completed. He did not explain what was wrong with that procedure.
[16] Mr. Pletscher said that it was a requirement that tests be fully corrected with the students so that they would know the answers to the questions that had been asked. I accept that evidence.
[17] Mr. Pletscher denied Mr. Zoney’s allegation that students who missed a test were given the answers to it before they wrote the test. Mr. Zoney did not provide particulars of this allegation-that is, he did not say which students wrote tests improperly or when. This allegation has not been established.
[18] Although this was not pleaded as a separate cause of action, two of the plaintiffs, Mr. Morrilla and Mr. Burtula, said that Mr. Pletscher humiliated them during instruction, and caused them to lose confidence in themselves.
[19] Mr. Pletscher said that he did correct students as necessary, and that he did point out their deficiencies to them, particularly with the pace of fabrication work. He said such correction is a necessary part of the instruction, and that students can not hope for a successful career in aviation structure without being able to meet the commercial demands of employers.
[20] Both Mr. Morrill and Mr. Burtula passed the course. I have concluded that each of them is not now in a career in aviation because they have chosen not to pursue such a career, and not because of anything Mr. Pletscher said to them during the course.
[21] Mr. Zoney wrote to the president of the defendant college on October 30, 2003. He then had these complaints:
· course curriculum did not meet the Ministry of Transport criteria
· the college should have obtained an A.T.O. prior to offering the course
· instructor was not qualified pursuant to the Ministry of Transport standards for accreditation
· shop inspection by the Ministry of Transport did not meet their guidelines.
[22] Mr. Zoney made his complaints known to Transport Canada before it assessed the course he took and before it considered the defendant’s application for accreditation.
[23] Transport Canada determined the course content met its certification criteria.
[24] Mr. Zoney, and the other plaintiffs, were all aware that the defendant was not an Approved Training Organization when they enrolled in the course. The plaintiffs enrolled in a B.C. Apprenticeship System course, and not in a Transport Canada course. In my opinion, it was open to the defendant to offer a B.C. Apprenticeship course. Mr. Zoney’s complaint seems to be that the college could not offer a B.C. Apprenticeship System course, and that only Transport Canada courses could be taught. I do not accept that submission.
[25] I am satisfied that Mr. Pletscher was qualified pursuant to Transport Canada standards for accreditation as an instructor. Transport Canada accepted that that was so. Mr. Pletscher’s evidence as to his training suggested to me that he is highly trained.
[26] Finally, Transport Canada accepted the defendant’s shop for the purposes of it being accredited as an Approved Training Organization. Although there have been some deficiencies with the shop, they have been corrected.
[27] The plaintiffs have not established that the course they took was delivered in a neglectful or deficient fashion. I find that the course was delivered in a competent and professional manner.
[28] The plaintiffs plead that the defendants failure to make clear to all those who wished to register for the course, including the plaintiffs, that the course was not approved and recognized by Transport Canada, was a negligent breach of a duty of care.
[29] The course that the defendant offered during the 2002 – 2003 academic year was described in its catalogue. The catalogue explained that the course was intended to provide its graduates with the skills required to enter the occupation of Aircraft Structures Technician as described by the B.C. apprenticeship system.
[30] The catalogue said this:
Aircraft structures technicians are responsible for the assessment, planning and implementation of aircraft structural fabrication and manufacturing. You will also gain the skills to work in entry level manufacturing positions in industries such as the fabrication and manufacturing of light rapid transit vehicles and commercial highway tractor and trailers.
[31] The catalogue made no reference to Transport Canada accreditation.
[32] Mr. Pletscher said that there are different kinds of courses and different accreditation tracks. Apprenticeship courses do lead to careers in aviation structure.
[33] In my opinion, there was no obligation on the defendant to explain to prospective students what the course was not-there was only the obligation to accurately explain to them what it was, and that the defendant did.
[34] I find that the course description of the “Aircraft & Transportation Manufacturing Technician” course in the defendant’s catalogue was a fair and accurate description of what the defendant was offering, and that the defendant was not negligent in describing the course to prospective students.
[35] The primary claim of each of the plaintiffs is that as a consequence of misrepresentations made to each of them by representatives of the defendant, they enrolled in the defendant’s Aircraft and Transport Manufacturing Technicians Course.
[36] The pleaded misrepresentations include that the defendant misrepresented that the course would be accredited by Transport Canada before the end of the 2002/2003 academic year, and that that misrepresentation was made negligently and with deceit.
[37] The defendant applied to Transport Canada for Approved Training Organization status on July 25, 2003.
[38] It obtained certification as a Transport Canada Training Organization on May 10, 2004.
[39] Students who now take the course receive credit for basic (technical) training and credit for 11 months of experience towards Transport Canada’s Aircraft Maintenance Engineer – Structures Certification, commonly called the “S” licence.
[40] The “S” licensing requirements include that to be successful a candidate must: (i) complete basic training by successful completion of an acceptable aircraft maintenance course OR by successfully challenging Transport Canada’s technical training test after having taken a training course with a curriculum acceptable to Transport Canada, AND (ii) passing Transport Canada’s regulatory requirements examination, AND (iii) acquiring a minimum of 36 months approved experience that must have included completion of a number of specified aircraft maintenance tasks.
[41] The claims of each of the plaintiffs in respect of misrepresentation is different. Each must be considered separately.
Alex Asselin
[42] Gregory Alexander Asselin was born in April of 1982. He is 26 years of age.
[43] After completing high school in 1998, Mr. Asselin was employed in the installation of alarm systems in automobiles.
[44] Mr. Asselin took a welding course during the 2001/2002 academic year. He passed the course.
[45] Mr. Asselin started the defendants’ 2002/2003 Aircraft and Transportation Manufacturing Technician course about two months after the end of the welding course.
[46] Mr. Asselin testified that he applied for the Aircraft and Transportation Manufacturing Technician course in the fall of 2001 when he was still in the welding course. He said he applied to take the Aircraft and Transportation Manufacturing Technician course because he did not like welding, but he did like fabrication.
[47] Mr. Asselin said that prior to registration he spoke to Mary Preston, an admissions advisor employed by the defendant in the admission department of its Campbell River Regional Campus, and he spoke to the instructor of the 2001 – 2002 academic year course. Mr. Asselin said that he cannot recall what either of them told him about the course.
[48] Mr. Asselin said he thought he had read the course description in the defendants’ calendar. The defendants’ calendar at that time said that the course would provide its graduates with the skills required to enter the occupation of Aircraft Structures Technician as described by the B.C. Apprenticeship System. That information was correct. The calendar made no reference to certification or accreditation by Transport Canada.
[49] Mr. Asselin’s participation in the course was facilitated by funding provided by the Ministry of Advanced Education, Student Services Branch. Its assessment notification dated July 25, 2002 set out the funding being made available to Mr. Asselin.
[50] Mr. Asselin was advised of his acceptance into the course in a letter dated June 19, 2002, from Ms. Preston. Ms. Preston, in that letter, recommended that Mr. Asselin contact the instructor, Bill McPherson, to arrange for an informational interview prior to registration.
[51] The 2002 – 2003 course was actually instructed by Mr. Ruedi Pletscher. Mr. McPherson had instructed the 2001/2002 course.
[52] Mr. Asselin was unsure whether he spoke to Mr. Pletscher before starting the course, but he was sure that he did not have an informational interview with a course instructor before the start of the course.
[53] Mr. Asselin said that at the commencement of the course, Mr. Pletscher told him and others in his class that the defendant was working on obtaining “S” licence accreditation for the benefit of course participants.
[54] Mr. Asselin said that at some point he became aware that the defendant might not obtain that accreditation. He thought that occurred after Christmas of 2002.
[55] Mr. Asselin said that he attended classes until about one and one-half months before the end of the program. He said that he then came to the conclusion that the course would not be accredited by Transport Canada, and that he therefore left the program. He said that he then started employment as a self-employed mechanic.
[56] Mr. Asselin is presently employed as a mechanic in a truck and automobile repair facility in Courtenay. He has been there for about two years. Mr. Asselin is in the third year of a four year apprenticeship program relating to mechanics. He said at trial that he intended to challenge the fourth year final test after completing his third year of apprenticeship.
[57] In cross examination, Mr. Asselin was confronted with a letter written by the Department Chair, Mechanical and Metal Trades, North Island College, dated April 22, 2003.
[58] The letter sets out that the Department Chair was advised by the course instructor (Mr. Pletscher) that Mr. Asselin was absent 16 days and late on numerous occasions, which exceeded the 5% limit on the absent attendance requirements, as described by the program regulations, and that Mr. Asselin had missed five tests.
[59] It is that letter that confirms Mr. Pletscher’s evidence that attendance records were kept.
[60] The letter set out a number of conditions that Mr. Asselin would have to meet to remain a student. It said that Mr. Asselin’s failure to meet the conditions would result in him receiving a grade F in the program on study and that he would have to leave the program.
[61] The conditions included that he arrive at class on time each day, that he arrive each day prepared for class, and that he make up the time missed to reduce the accumulative amount of absences to no more than 5% of the total program, and that he complete the assignments and the exams that were overdue.
[62] The letter requested that Mr. Asselin sign the letter in order to confirm that he received a copy of the document and that he discussed the content with the course instructor and department chair.
[63] The letter concluded with this observation:
Our desire is to help you succeed in your studies. Please note, however, that we do require an immediate change in your behaviours and performance.
[64] Mr. Asselin testified that he didn’t think that he had received the letter. He did not challenge that the content of the letter was correct. He agreed that he did not get credit for the course. He said he left the course because there was no point in being there.
[65] Mr. Asselin’s claim is based in misrepresentation and deceit. Mr. Asselin pleads that he enrolled in the course as a consequence of misrepresentations by the defendant.
[66] The tort of negligent misrepresentation was discussed in Queen v. Cognos Inc. 1993 1 S.C.R. 87. Sopinka and Iacobucci J.J. wrote this for the majority of the court at page 110:
The required elements for a successful Hedley Byrne claim have been stated in many authorities, sometimes in varying forms. The decisions of this Court cited above suggest five general requirements: (1) there must be a duty of care based on a “special relationship” between the representor and the representee; (2) the representation in question must be untrue, inaccurate, or misleading; (3) the representor must have acted negligently in making said misrepresentation; (4) the representee must have relied, in a reasonable manner, on said negligent misrepresentation; and (5) the reliance must have been detrimental to the representee in the sense that damages resulted.
[67] In my opinion, Mr. Asselin’s claim is completely without merit.
[68] There is no evidence that before he started the course the defendant or any of its employees or instructors or personnel advised Mr. Asselin that the course was anything other than a course designed to provide its graduates with the skills required to enter the occupation of Aircraft Structures Technician as described by the B.C. Apprenticeship system.
[69] There is no evidence that the defendant or anybody associated with the defendant made any misrepresentations to Mr. Asselin that caused him to do anything to his detriment.
[70] Mr. Asselin decided to enrol in a B.C. apprenticeship system course long before the defendant even considered applying to have the course accredited by Transport Canada for “S” licence purposes. Mr. Asselin was told that the defendant would be applying to have the course receive Transport Canada accreditation only after he was already in the course. Mr. Asselin did not register in or embark on the course because he was told it was a course accredited by Transport Canada or because he was told the course would be accredited by Transport Canada.
[71] There is a second reason why Mr. Asselin’s claim cannot succeed. Mr. Asselin did not complete the course. He did not fulfill its attendance requirements. He did not take required tests. His performance was unsatisfactory. He abandoned the course before its completion.
[72] Had Mr. Asselin completed the course, he could have embarked on a career in aviation structures fabrication even without Transport Canada accreditation. The course content was later approved by Transport Canada following its review of the defendant’s application. Had Mr. Asselin completed the course, he could then have received basic training accreditation by writing Transport Canada’s test under its CARS 566 regulations. Mr. Pletscher told Mr. Asselin and the others in his class about that alternative at the outset of the course.
[73] Mr. Asselin could not have received credit for any of the “hands on” experience he received during the course. Transport Canada regulations do not allow for recognition of pre-accreditation practical training. Mr. Pletscher denies that he told any of the students that after accreditation they would receive recognition for pre-accreditation hands on experience. But it is now over 60 months since the course ended. Had Mr. Asselin wanted a career in aviation structure, and had he pursued such a career, enough time has passed that he could already have completed the B.C. apprenticeship program as well as obtained “S” standing status. In those circumstances, the issue as to whether he was misled as to whether he could receive recognition for hands on experience, and as to whether that caused him damages would be of relevance. It is not now of any possible relevance.
[74] I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Asselin quit the course because he decided to pursue a career in auto mechanics, and not because the course was not yet recognized by Transport Canada for “S” licensing purposes.
[75] Mr. Asselin’s claim is dismissed.
Keith Allan Morrill
[76] Mr. Morrill is 48 years of age. He is not presently employed. Mr. Morrill’s education includes grade 12 standing that he obtained in Alberta and his completion of the defendant’s Aircraft and Transportation Manufacturing Technician course which he took during the 2002 – 2003 term.
[77] Mr. Morrill had been on social assistance for about two years before he began the defendant’s course. As a result, he was eligible for government funded retraining.
[78] Mr. Morrill’s first choice was to take a course in power engineering. He was unable to take that course because he did not have a sponsor.
[79] Mr. Morrill then saw the description of this course on the defendant’s web site.
[80] Mr. Morrill applied to take this course in April of 2002.
[81] Mr. Morrill met with Mr. McPherson and Mr. Pletscher. He testified that Mr. Pletscher told him that the course was being changed to an Aircraft Structures course and that the syllabus for the course would easily exceed what was required for formal “S” training. Mr. Morrill said that he was not told that the defendant was an approved training centre.
[82] Those representations, if they were made, were true.
[83] Mr. Morrill said that it was on the first day of class that he and the others were told that the defendant would be applying to have the course formally recognised by Transport Canada for “S” licensing.
[84] That was also true.
[85] Mr. Morrill said that he was made aware of the CARS 566 Regulations, and that he could later apply to take Transport Canada’s test relating to basic training.
[86] Mr. Morrill said Mr. Pletscher told them that he anticipated the approval would be received by the end of the school term.
[87] Mr. Pletscher denied that he ever told any members of the class when Transport Canada might approve an application. He testified that he could not predict how long Transport Canada approval might take and that for that reason alone he did not say that the approval would be obtained before the course ended.
[88] I prefer Mr. Pletscher’s evidence on this point to that of the plaintiffs. It seems to me most unlikely that Mr. Pletscher would have given the students any assurance as to when Transport Canada might do something. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to do that-the class had already started. I find that Mr. Pletscher made no such assurance.
[89] There was a delay in the defendant applying for accreditation. This was because of the need to prepare course documentation, particularly a detailed manual.
[90] As it was, Transport Canada took from July of 2003 to May of 2004 to complete the process and approve of the application.
[91] Mr. Morrill completed the course, and passed it. He was not successful in finding employment in the aviation industry.
[92] Mr. Morrill said that the aviation industry did not appeal to him by the time he had finished the course. Although he passed the course, he said that it was obvious to him that Mr. Pletscher considered him unsuitable for a career in aviation structures and that in the result he lost self-confidence and decided not to pursue a career in aviation.
[93] I am of the opinion that Mr. Morrill has no cause of action against the defendant.
[94] It was only after Mr. Morrill was already in the course that he was told that the defendant was applying to be designated as an Approved Training Organization and that the defendant was applying to have the course formally recognized by Transport Canada for “S” licensing standards. When Mr. Morrill was told that, he was already taking the course.
[95] The course was later approved by Transport Canada, although the approval was not received until the spring of 2004. Mr. Morrill could have then applied to be tested. He chose not to do that. He said that one reason why he did not was because since the course was inadequate (at least in his opinion), he would have been deceiving Transport Canada had he applied to take the test on the basis that he had received the necessary training. That explanation, in my view, is absurd. Transport Canada made its own assessment as to the merits of the course, and Mr. Morrill would not have been involved in any deception by taking its test.
[96] In my opinion, the real reason why Mr. Morrill is not in the aviation industry is that he is not interested in pursuing an aviation career. Mr. Morrill seems to have decided that he is not well suited for the industry.
[97] I am of the view that Mr. Morrill’s action must fail for two reasons. The first is that there were no misrepresentations made by the defendant or any of its employees that caused him to do anything. The second is that Mr. Morrill has suffered no loss. He is not in the aviation industry by choice – he could have taken employment in the aviation industry at the end of the course and he could have written the “S” licence test and he could have pursued getting the practical hourly experience required for an “S” licence. He has not done those things. The delay in accreditation did not cause Mr. Burrill any loss.
Henryk Buturla
[98] Mr. Buturla is 47 years of age. He is presently employed in Calgary as a labourer.
[99] Mr. Buturla immigrated to Canada from Europe in 1990. After working in Alberta for several years he began work near Campbell River in 1995 in a coal mine. He was injured in 1998 and became entitled to Workers’ Compensation Board benefits. Mr. Buturla became aware of the defendants Aircraft and Transportation Manufacturing Technician course in 2001. After speaking with an admissions person at the college, he took English 10 and 11 to satisfy the course pre-requisites, and he successfully wrote the mathematical test, which he had challenged. On April 12, 2002, he went to the college and met Mr. Pletscher. Mr. Buturla said that on April 12th he was told by Mr. Pletscher that the defendant was in the process of getting government certification.
[100] Mr. Buturla’s registration fee for the course was paid in April 2002. He said that he did not meet Mr. Pletscher again before the course started. Mr. Buturla said that in class Mr. Pletscher told the members that this was a brand new course and by the time the course had finished it would be certified by Transport Canada. Mr. Buturla said that he understood that what was meant by that was that after the completion of the course he would have to take two years of on job experience before he could be licensed.
[101] Mr. Buturla completed the course, passing the exams.
[102] Mr. Buturla testified that during the term, Mr. Pletscher put him down in front of the class. He said Mr. Pletscher said that he was too slow and shouldn’t be in the trade. Mr. Buturla said that after Mr. Pletscher’s comments with him he lost confidence in himself and decided that he would not pursue an aviation career. He said that in the result he looked for different work after June 2003.
[103] He worked in a steel manufacturing shop for awhile, and then moved to Calgary where he worked for a waste management company. He continues to work in Calgary.
[104] Mr. Buturla’s evidence is that he met Mr. Pletscher on one occasion – April 12th- before the course started. By then, Mr. Buturla had already decided to enrol in the course. He had decided to pursue the course in 2001, although he did not enrol in the course until 2002.
[105] I am satisfied that Mr. Pletscher did not tell Mr. Buturla in April of 2002 that the course would be accredited by Transport Canada, or that the defendant was applying for Transport Canada accreditation. The defendant’s decision to do that had not yet been made. The defendant could have decided to leave the course as a provincial apprenticeship course only, or it could have decided to pursue accreditation other than Transport Canada. It was not until late June of 2002 that the defendant opted for the Transport Canada track of accreditation. Mr. Pletscher denied that in April of 2002 he told Mr. Buturla that the course would be a Transport Canada approved course. I find that he did not do that.
[106] I find that no misrepresentations were made to Mr. Buturla before he registered in the course, and that it was only after he was in the course that he was told of the defendant’s intent to apply for Transport Canada accreditation. The course that was provided to Mr. Burturla was the course that he had enrolled for.
[107] I am for that reason alone of the opinion that Mr. Buturla’s action must fail.
[108] There is, as well, a further reason why Mr. Buturla has no cause of action. This course was just the first step of a career in the aviation industry. Mr. Buturla knew that. He knew that he would have to have at least two years practical training before he could obtain any accreditation from anybody for formal standing. After he took the course, Mr. Buturla could have obtained employment in the aviation industry but he did not pursue it. I am of the opinion that the reason that Mr. Buturla did not do that is that he, too, came to the conclusion that he was not well suited for the aviation industry in structures.
[109] Mr. Buturla also criticized Mr. Pletscher’s teaching methods. He said Mr. Pletscher demeaned him, thereby causing him to lose self-confidence. I do not find that Mr. Pletscher belittled him. Mr. Pletscher said there were shortcomings in his fabrication practices, but he passed the course. Surely the real reason why Mr. Buturla is not in aviation is that he decided that his aptitude for this particular career was not right.
[110] I dismiss Mr. Buturla’s claim against the defendants.
Jesse Tidmarsh
[111] Jesse Paul Tidmarsh is 29 years of age. He is one of the graduates of the 2002 to 2003 course that is employed in the aircraft industry. He is working as a sheet-metal worker.
[112] Mr. Tidmarsh worked in the logging industry after he graduated from high school. In 2002 he was unemployed when his employer downsized.
[113] Mr. Tidmarsh made enquiries about the defendant’s course. He was told the course was not an accredited program but that Mr. Pletscher told him that steps were being taken to obtain accreditation and that he, Mr. Pletscher, was confident that the course would be approved before the end of the course. In chief, Mr. Tidmarsh testified that after speaking with Mr. Pletscher, he then spoke with Ms. Preston in admissions who gave him the same information. He said Ms. Preston told him that the defendant had faulty manuals that were being updated and that there would be a re-evaluation conducted before the end of the term, and that he was confident the manuals would be eventually approved.
[114] This testimony was clearly in error. Mr. Tidmarsh conceded in cross examination that Ms. Preston in admissions referred him to Mr. Pletscher, and that he, Mr. Tidmarsh, was wrong in asserting, (and he had done so with considerable confidence) that he had spoken to Mr. Pletscher first. Second, Ms. Preston knew nothing about changes that were proposed to the course. She was in admissions, and she had available to her only information and documentation that was generally available.
[115] I find as a fact that Ms. Preston did not give Mr. Tidmarsh any of the information and assurances of which he spoke for this reason.
[116] On February 21, 2003, Ms. Preston emailed Mr. Gillingham with this inquiry about the course:
Are we waiting on some approval from Transport Canada? I have a student who is basing his decision to register upon a receipt of some approval he had heard was pending?
[117] On February 22, 2003, Mr. Gillingham replied as follows:
We are preparing to submit our proposal for Transport Canada certification as an A.T.O. (authorized training organisation). This will enable students to receive recognized credit toward their T.C.A.M.E.-S licence “transport Canada Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Structures.” We hope to have this process complete before the next intake of students in September.
[118] I am satisfied from those e-mails that prior to February of 2003 Ms. Preston did not know that the defendant was applying for certification as a Transport Canada Authorized Training Organisation, nor did she know that certification would enable students to receive recognized credit toward an “S” licence. I accept Ms. Preston’s evidence that she did not know of those things before February, 2003, and that she did not give any of the plaintiffs any pre-course information relating to the accreditation application or to recognition of credits by Transport Canada.
[119] After Mr. Tidmarsh completed the course, he obtained employment in aviation fabrication. He continues to work in that area. Mr. Tidmarsh has now applied for a log book, which enables his employment to be accepted for eventual accreditation for an “S”. licence. Mr. Tidmarsh did not earlier apply to take any steps toward “S” accreditation, because he did not need that accreditation for his employment, and he was satisfied with his employment.
[120] Mr. Tidmarsh agrees that he could have applied earlier to have his work experience accepted for eventual “S” accreditation, but he did not do that. He also agrees that having taken the defendant’s course he can apply to take the basic training test. He has not yet done that.
[121] Mr. Tidmarsh knew the course was not a Transport Canada accredited course before he started it. Had the defendant’s course been accredited by Transport Canada prior to Mr. Tidmarsh beginning the program, Mr. Tidmarsh’s successful completion of the course would have meant that he would not have to take the test in respect of formal training, and that he would have received 11 months credit against the three year job experience required for “S” licensing. The experience required is at least three years. It could be longer, as there is not only the three year requirement, but the experience must be in specific work areas. It is unusual for a person to be able to obtain all of the practical training needed from one employer. In either case, that is whether Mr. Tidmarsh attended an accredited training centre or not, Mr. Tidmarsh would have to pass a test on Federal aviation regulations.
[122] In my opinion, Mr. Tidmarsh has not shown that the fact the defendant’s course was not accredited before it ended has made any difference to his career. Although it is true that he must take the Transport Canada Test for his formal training to be recognized and that he would not have had to have taken that test had the defendant’s course been accredited when he first enrolled in it, there is no reason to think that he can not successfully complete the test. Transport Canada has accepted that the course Mr. Tidmarsh took meets their requirements. Mr. Tidmarsh now has considerable experience in aviation fabrication.
[123] Furthermore, although Mr. Tidmarsh would have received 11 months experience credit against his experience requirements had the program been approved before he started it, Mr.Tidmarsh has not shown that that has delayed his career. Mr. Tidmarsh has been employed in the aviation industry for four years. The reason why he has not already obtained the “S” licence accreditation is due to his decision not to pursue it.
[124] There is, however, a more fundamental and basic reason why, in my opinion, Mr. Tidmarsh’s claim is without merit.
[125] In my opinion, there were no misrepresentations made to Mr. Tidmarsh that caused him to do anything that he was not already doing. The program was not accredited by Transport Canada when Mr. Tidmarsh enrolled in it and started to take it, but neither the defendant nor any of its employees said that it was. Mr. Tidmarsh was not misled. Furthermore, the lack of transport Canada accreditation has made no difference to his career. It has not caused him any loss.
John Zoney
[126] Mr. John Zoney is 51 years of age. He is presently employed in Langley in the aerospace industry as a production manager with a manufacturing company. His employer manufactures aviation training devices.
[127] Mr. Zoney had been a logger. He was injured in 1997. He had a Workers’ Compensation Board claim. In the summer of 2002 Mr. Zoney had a vocational rehabilitation counsellor with Workers’ Compensation Board. That counsellor, a Mr. Whitehead, was trying to get Mr. Zoney back into the work force. It was Mr. Whitehead that steered Mr. Zoney into the aircraft industry. He did that because the aircraft industry had good wages.
[128] Mr. Zoney said that he spoke with Mr. Gillingham of the defendant and was told that the course was not accredited by Transport Canada but that the defendant was engaging Mr. Pletscher, a new instructor.
[129] Mr. Zoney testified that he spoke to Mr. Pletscher in August, 2002, and Mr. Pletscher told him that he was reworking documentation, and that the program would be approved by Transport Canada before the 2002 class graduated.
[130] As I have noted, Mr. Pletscher denies saying that.
[131] The Court of Appeal of British Columbia discussed claims for damages for misrepresentation in P.D. Management Ltd. v. Chemposite Inc. 2006 B.C.C.A. 489. Kirkpatrick J.A. said this for the court at paras. 13 and 14:
However, even if, as found by the learned chambers judge, the alleged representations were true representations, they did not give rise to actionable misrepresentations. A “misrepresentation” is an “intentional false statement respecting a matter of fact, made by one of the parties to a contract, which is material to the contract and influential in producing it” (Black’s, supra at 1301).
It is settled law that an alleged misrepresentation must pertain to a matter of fact. In MacMillan v. Kaiser Equipment Ltd., 2003 BCSC 672 (CanLII), 2003 BSSC 672, aff’d 2004 BCCA 470 (CanLII), 2004 BCCA 470, this Court dismissed the claims for damages for misrepresentation because “it is clear that each of the alleged representations relate to a future occurrence, and not to an existing state of events. A future offer is not an actionable representation” (para. 85).
[132] I am of the opinion that it has not been shown that anything Mr. Pletscher is alleged to have said to to Mr. Zoney was an actionable misrepresentation.
[133] I am of the opinion that it has not been proven that anything Mr. Pletscher said to him was said deceitfully or negligently. I find that Mr. Pletscher did not tell Mr. Zoney Transport Canada accreditation would be received before the course ended.
[134] Mr. Zoney said that he wrote the Math and English prerequisite tests.
[135] Mr. Zoney wrote his WCB advisor on August 22, 2002. Mr. Zoney told him that:
The course is recognized and Transport Canada approved for licensing.
[136] Mr. Zoney testified that although he knew the course wasn’t approved for licensing, he told his advisor that it was approved because Mr. Pletscher had told him that the course would be approved. Mr. Zoney’s letter to his advisor reflects poorly on his veracity and reliability as a witness.
[137] Mr. Zoney testified that he wouldn’t have taken the course if he had know that there was a problem in respect of accreditation and that nobody had told him the course might not be approved.
[138] In fact, there was no particular problem with accreditation, other than that the time involved was longer than he had anticipated.
[139] Mr. Zoney said that he attended the course and enjoyed the work. He said that it was a good learning experience.
[140] After completing the course, Mr. Zoney was unsuccessful in finding employment in the aviation industry. He attributed that to some potential employers not accepting his training and to others not having work available.
[141] After pursuing matters with W.C.B., Mr. Zoney was approved to take a similar course in the 2004/2005 academic year, this time at Abbotsford, which by then was an Approved Training Organization. He completed that course. He then obtained his present employment.
[142] Mr. Zoney has not pursued “S” accreditation. It is not required for his present employment.
[143] Mr. Zoney was critical of the manner in which Mr. Pletscher conducted the course.
[144] I referred to those complaints earlier. Mr. Zoney’s complaints were, at least in part, directed at his theory that if he had applied to have his training with the defendant accredited, he would have been misleading Transport Canada. Mr. Zoney said that was why he did not apply to take the CARS basic training test.
[145] In fact, Transport Canada evaluated the program after Mr. Zoney made his allegations known to them, and it approved the defendant’s facility and the program.
[146] I am of the opinion that there is no credible reason why Mr. Zoney could have been thought to have being misleading Transport Canada by taking the Transport Canada CARS test.
[147] After the program had been evaluated, which was before Mr. Zoney took the second course, Mr. Zoney could have taken the Transport Canada CARS test and had his basic training with the defendant recognized by Transport Canada for “S” licensing purposes.
[148] Mr. Zoney has now decided that he will not get an “S” licence at all. He is satisfied with his present work situation.
[149] I am of the opinion that Mr. Zoney’s claim must be dismissed.
[150] First, Mr. Zoney was not misled. He knew that the course was not Transport Canada approved when he started it. He was told that application would be made for approval. That was done. I find that he was not given any assurance that Transport Canada approval would be obtained before the course ended.
[151] Second, I see no reason why Mr. Zoney took the course over again. He could have obtained basic training accreditation by writing the Cars test. He could have done that before he started the Abbotsford course.
[152] The Abbotsford course did provide Mr. Zoney with the equivalent of about 11 month’s experience, but he would have received the same experience had he simply started working, and not retaken the same course.
[153] The fact the defendant’s course could not retroactively provide him with recognized experience has made no difference to his career. He is not pursuing “S” standing.
[154] I am of the opinion that Mr. Zoney’s claim must be dismissed.
ORDER
[155] The plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed. The defendant is entitled to its costs on Scale B, unless there are matters of which I am not aware. In that event, the parties may speak to costs.
_________________________________
Mr. Justice S.J. Shabbits