B.C. Salon Group Loses Appeal Over Written Notice Rule

The Mega Hair Group Inc. will pay a former employee compensation for lost wages after losing its appeal at the British Columbia Employment Standards Tribunal on Aug. 19, 2026, a ruling that reminds every salon operator that a verbal "we're closing" is not the same as statutory notice.

Tribunal member Ryan Goldvine dismissed the company's appeal and upheld the original order requiring The Mega Hair Group to compensate the worker, who had complained that she never received the written notice or pay-in-lieu that B.C.'s Employment Standards Act demands when employment ends.

What happened at the salon location?

In November 2023, management at one Mega Hair location told staff the business was closing. The doors shut in January 2024, roughly two months later. One employee filed a complaint with the province's Employment Standards Branch, arguing she never received proper written notice or termination pay covering the shortfall.

A branch investigator sided with the worker. A reviewing officer agreed, finding that The Mega Hair Group had breached B.C.'s notice requirements and owed additional compensation.

Why did the company argue the investigation was unfair?

The Mega Hair Group pushed back on the investigator rather than the underlying notice, claiming she had pre-judged the case, favoured the worker, and cherry-picked case law. According to the company, the investigator cited one prior tribunal decision supporting a finding of insufficient notice while dismissing a comparable decision the company offered.

Goldvine rejected the bias argument. Proving investigator bias, he wrote, requires "clear and convincing" evidence, not inference. The company never accused the reviewing officer of bias, only the investigator whose report that officer relied on. Citing case law and sharing preliminary views, Goldvine noted, is part of an investigator's job, built to help both sides assess their positions rather than predetermine an outcome.

Why didn't a group announcement count as proper notice?

The company argued the result turned on a "narrow technical interpretation, rather than the broader and more practical realities." Staff knew roughly 12 weeks before closure that the location was shutting down and had accepted their jobs were ending, the company said, so the precise wording of any notice should not have mattered.

Goldvine disagreed. The November 2023 communication was addressed to staff collectively, with no specific end date attached to any individual employee. Written notice is mandatory, he explained, because verbal assurances leave too much room for doubt. A prior ruling had framed the issue: without something in writing there is "uncertainty in the minds of employees as to precisely when their employment will terminate."

The worker herself remained uncertain in early January 2024 about whether she would be transferred or laid off, undercutting the company's claim that she already had a firm end date. Even on the company's own description of the verbal conversations, the law still required a written, individual notice that was never issued.

What does this mean for working salons?

For salon owners planning a closure, a consolidation, or even a last-minute termination, the takeaway is mechanical: every affected employee needs a written notice identifying them by name, with a specific termination date, delivered within statutory timeframes. A group huddle or a casual "heads up, we're closing" does not satisfy the Employment Standards Act, and the cost of getting it wrong shows up as termination pay owed to each employee who should have received proper notice.

Multi-location operators should treat this ruling as a checklist item during any wind-down: audit each employee file, confirm date-stamped individual notice, and where notice is short or absent, calculate and set aside termination pay before announcing anything to staff. The tribunal dismissed the appeal in full, meaning the original compensation order against The Mega Hair Group stands.

Watch for the next data point: any further B.C. tribunal rulings applying Goldvine's reasoning to other small-business closures, which will test whether the decision remains an outlier or becomes a standard reference for salon and spa operators across the province.