View cases - Stewart McKelvey

, ,. '.26After giving the evidence careful consideration I am not satisfied that Ms. Cormier understood shewas doing something illegal. Rather the arrangements were an artificial employment structure butin her beliefwere sufficient to satisfy the immigration requirements.Further I am satisfied she did not understand that she was doing something that her employer wouldnot want her to do. As noted below the evidence establishes that Mr. and Mrs. Nordqvist werecontent to allow Ms. Cormier considerable discretion in carrying out her employmentresponsibilities.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)As a result I find that Ms. Cormier's actions in employing Mr. Fagbile, setting up the employmentprogram and continuing to employhim in the interim did not constitute a breach ofher employmentresponsibilities that would entitle the Company to terminate her employment nor does it give a basisto reduce the price to be paid for her shares pursuant to clause 7.03(b)(ii).6. THE FAILURE TO DEVOTE TIME TO THE COMPANYThis allegation arises from the fact that Ms. Cormierbegan to delegate some ofher responsibilitiesand tasks to one ofthe other workers, a Ms. Bonnie Gallant.Ms. Cormiertestified that over time, her role was becoming busier. Staffing matters took more thanhalfofher time and she would often talk to Mr. Nordqvist about staffing.Ms. Gallant was originally hired to be a companion for one ofthe residents and to do on-call work.Ms. Cormier began to have Ms. Gallant to do grocery shopping. At some point she was given acredit card by the Nordqvists in her own name to buy whatever was needed. Over time herresponsibilities were increased and she gave greater assistance to Ms. Cormier.Ms. Gallant was paid as a live-in employee and for on-call work. She was never paid extra for theassistance she was rendering to Ms. Connier.