09.07.2015 Views

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

View cases - Stewart McKelvey

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

for the day off for religious reasons. The memo sent following the meeting contained theinformation Imbenzi needed with respect to the change in Autumn’s duties. It alsocontains a statement tacked on to the memo “Also, I would like to request one day off forFriday, August 9/02”. I conclude that it is more in “accordance with the preponderanceof probabilities” that if Imbenzi had approved the day off, Mr. Derksen’s memo wouldhave reflected that approval. Instead, it was framed as a request.[44] Mr. Derksen did not make it clear until late on August 8 th that his request wasbased on religious reasons. That is apparent from his faxed memo. If he had toldImbenzi on August 7 th that he needed a day off for religious reasons on August 9 th , hewould not have made the statement in his memo “I apologize for not clearly explainingthe nature of my request.” Based on the preponderance of probabilities, I find that theImbenzis did not know until late on August 8 th that Mr. Derksen’s request for the day offon Friday was for religious purposes. Mrs. Imbenzi refused to grant the request for theday off, and as a result it became an unauthorized day off.[45] Mrs. Imbenzi testified that she told Imbenzi that it was her view they needed tocut their losses with Mr. Derksen. She based her statement on comments she said she hadfrom staff indicating the Program was not working out. As well, since she did thefinancial reporting to HRDC on the Program, and had to file a first report by September10 th , she knew the Program was not meeting its enrolment target.[46] Mrs. Imbenzi phoned the Abbotsford office on Friday, August 9 th and confirmedthat Mr. Derksen had not reported to work. Over the weekend, the Imbenzis decided toterminate Mr. Derksen’s employment.[47] On Monday, Mrs Imbenzi attended at the Abbotsford office to terminate Mr.Derksen’s employment. Their evidence about what transpired differs.E. Dismissal[48] Mrs. Imbenzi testified that she had never dismissed a Myert employee before, soshe rehearsed what she was going to say and had her key phrases mapped out beforemeeting with Mr. Derksen. She said that her intent was to say that Myert had decided to13

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!