View cases - Stewart McKelvey

. ...4premise on which the parties proceeded, and that I have accepted, is that ifI find the company hadcause to terminate then that same cause also triggers the 20% reduction in clause 7.03(b)(ii) oftheBuy Sell Agreement.It is my decision and award that the Company has not established cause to justify the termination ofemployment ofMs. Cormier and that the termination was wrongful. The facts and reasoning thatlead me to that conclusion are set out below.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)1. FACTUAL BACKGROUNDMs. Cormier and Mrs. Nordqvist have known each other for a number of years. At one point Ms.Cormier dated the brother of Mrs. Nordqvist. Ms. Cormier lived with the Nordqvists for severalmonths. They would share family occasions. Ms. Cormier testified that they were very comfortablewith each other and had no difficulty discussing things. They both spoke their minds.They had previously worked together providing education programs for the Province. Mrs.Nordqvist would organize and obtain funding for the programs and Ms. Cormier would teach them.That initiative came to an end in approximately 1993. Shortly afterwards Mrs. Nordqvist proposedto Ms. Cormier that they go into business together running small options homes. Small optionshomes are a residential alternative to a nursinghome. The Nordqvists hadpriorexperience operatingsuch units.The initial proposal made byMrs. Nordqvist was that Ms. Cormier would be a live-in worker in thesmall options home. Ms. Cormier testified that she wanted greater involvement in any suchundertaking. She did not want to repeat their earlier arrangement were she felt she did not getsufficient recognition. Mrs. Nordqvist agreed that she would have the responsibility for theday~to-daymanagementofthe homes and :Ms. Cormier and :Mrs. Nordqvist would be 50/50 partners.There was no evidence lead as to any investment that was required by any ofthe three shareholders.