View cases - Stewart McKelvey

". '. '.12The Company has acknowledged that the facts giving rise to some ofthe justifications to terminatewere not known to the Company at the time oftermination but submits that there is authority thatafter acquired knowledge can be used to justifytermination. For the purposes ofthis decision I amprepared to accept that contention.First, however, in order to assess the context and thus the significance ofher impugned conduct itis necessary to understand the nature of the relationship Ms. Cormier had with the Nordqvists andhow she carried out, and was pennitted to carry out, her employment responsibilities.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)4. THE NATURE OF THE RELATIONSHIPAs noted at the beginning ofthis decision, the relationship between Ms. Connier and theNordqvistspredated the undertaking ofthe Company business. Itwas more than a business relationship, it wasalso a friendship.The parties divided the responsibilities ofrunning the business and they left each other alone in thoseareas. This may have been partially due to the fact they were familiar with each other and hadexperience working together.It was Ms. Cormier's evidence that typically she would discuss business matters with one or both ofthe Nordqvists about once a week. They often talked byphone, but also mixed business discussionswith social occasions. The evidence was that while there were discussions and to some extent a flowofinfonnation, the Nordqvists did not give direction or instructions.It was Mrs. Nordqvist's testimonythat they wouldjustget together informallyto talk about whatwashappening in the business. Mrs. Nordqvist agreed that on a day-to-day basis, she never checked on~1s. Cormier. She trusted her to CWT.i out her responsibilities~