View cases - Stewart McKelvey

With information that you have provided and the subsequent request ofseeking one day a month, I’m sorry to inform you that Myert Corps Inc.,will not be approving any other days except the one that was agreed on forJuly 10 th 2002.We are bound by employment standards, and to [sic] our best continue toprovide best practices in the work place. Since these days are not part ofwhat is described under current standards, you will need to make otherarrangements so that, your religious commitments do not interfere withwork.If you see this to be an issue with your employment at Myert Corps. Inc.,please advise me as soon as possible.[33] It is important at this juncture to comment on the evidence given by Mr. Derksenand the evidence given by Imbenzi, because my findings about the events surrounding thedays off requests will require that I prefer one or the others’ evidence on certain points. Iuse the same criteria to assess their credibility, and Mrs. Imbenzi’s, as set out at para. 19.[34] In general, I found both Mr. Derksen’s and Imbenzi’s evidence self serving.While Imbenzi seemed to be less than direct in his answers in cross examination, it wasclear this is an emotional issue for him because he himself is a religious person andwould not want to be found to have discriminated on the basis of religion. Some areas ofhis evidence were less than reliable but I prefer some of his evidence over that of Mr.Derksen’s. However, I also prefer the evidence of Mr. Derksen over that of Imbenzi’s oncertain otherpoints.[35] The first credibility issue is whether Imbenzi intended his letter of July 9 th to referto only Mr. Derkson’s probationary period. I find it was not. To start, there wascontroversy about whether Imbenzi handed the letter to Mr. Derksen and discussed itwith him, explaining that it only applied to the probationary period. Based on otherdocumentation provided, such as the detailed proposal for the Program prepared byImbenzi, I find that if Imbenzi had intended the letter only to apply to the probationaryperiod, he would have said so. Further, I find he did not discuss it with Mr. Derksen, butrather, just left it on his desk. Mr. Derksen’s actions in relation to the next requested dayoff lead me to believe the letter shocked him, it could not have been discussed with him,9