View cases - Stewart McKelvey

13Mr. Nordqvist testified that Ms. Connier's primary responsibility was to manage the employees.Generally, it was his evidence that the only time he met with Ms. Cormier was when he had to getsome information into the government. His evidence was that basically he left Ms. Cormier aloneto do her thing. It was his evidence that had he known details at the time, it would have been adifferent story, but at the time, he was not that interested.In summary the evidence is that Ms. Cormier was given considerable latitude in how she handledthe day-to-day affairs ofthe Company that were within her responsibilities and that both Mr. andMrs. Nordqvist were content to give her that latitude.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)With that context each ofthe allegations by the Company can be more accurately assessed.5. THE EMPLOYMENT OFMIl. FAGBILEIn my view, the circumstance involved with the continued employment ofMr. Fagbile is the mostserious ofthe allegations. As stated in the Company's post hearing submission, it involved arguablyillegal actions and could have exposed the Company, and its directors, to significant sanctions.It is for the respondent to prove a material breach ofMs. Cormier's employment responsibilities. Akey question is whether Ms. Connier knew that the arrangements that she had structured were illegalor did she believe them to be a permitted, or at least tolerated, arrangement to comply with theimmigration requirements. How aware Ms. Cormier was of the wrongful significance of thearrangements she put in place is a key component in assessing the nature and seriousness of heractions.In May of2005 Ms. Cormier hired Mr. Fagbile to be a live-in caregiver in one of the units in thePepperell Street property. lvlr. Fagbile was from Nigeria. At the time ofinterviewing and hiringhim, Ms. Cormier was provided with his resume and information as to his qualifications (exhibit PItabs 49 through 52). She was unaware ofany restrictions as to his ability to work for the Company