View cases - Stewart McKelvey

9She was then given a letter dated November I, 2005 terminating her employment for cause effectiveOctober 31, 2005 (exhibit PI tab 39).2. THE DECISION TO TERMINATEMrs. Nordqvist testified that going into the October 12th meeting at the TV shop, there was nointention to terminate Ms. Cormier, but that she and herhusband had come to a decisionthat changeshad to be made.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)Both the Nordqvists testified that following the confrontation in the TV shop, they were concernedas to how they would be able to continue to work with Ms. Cormier. As ofthat point oftime theydid not identify any specific shortcomings in the way Ms. Cormier had been performing her duties.Even though they had made no complaints, Mr. Nordqvist testified that they were concerned abouttheir clients and they decided that it had to end.Mr. Nordqvist testified that he went to the meeting on October 28 when Ms. Cormier was to bringthe payroll records and he came with financial records ofthe company. She spentthe morning goingthrough the books and they then broke for lunch. After lunch, he came back and delivered the lettercalling for the Board meeting. Ms. Cormier asked him what that was about and he told her that shewould find out when she got there.Bythe time ofthe October 31 st Board meeting, Mrs. Nordqvist testified that she could not trust Ms.Cormier to properly perform her responsibilities in a safe manner for their residents. She said thetrust and confidentiality was broken. She referred to the ongoing communications through lawyersin the attempts made to get access to the financial statements and there was an ongoing problem withcheques being written for cash.Mr. Nordqvist testified that at the Board meeting, Ms. Cormier was told that she was fired becausethey could not work with her. They were concerned about their clients and staff.