View cases - Stewart McKelvey

· . ,27Ms. Gallant did no scheduling or payroll and only did the designated functions she was given. Shedid pass on to the other employees the scheduling that Ms. Connier determined.It was Ms. Cormier's evidence that the Nordqvists were aware ofMs. Gallant, particularly aroundthe Pepperell Street properties, and that they would be aware ofsome ofthe things she was doing.Ms. Cormier noted that the Nordqvists had other people assisting them in running their otherproperties2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)I am satisfied that on the evidence there was no failure on the part ofMs. Connier to devote her timeto the Company and that whatever delegation shemayhave made to Ms. Gallant was not ofany tasksthat should only have been performed by Ms. Cormier.I am also satisfied that the arrangements made byMs. Cormier in relation to Ms. Gallant were withinthe scope ofdiscretion that Ms. Cormier had, and was allowed to have, by the Company.As a result, the delegation of tasks to Ms. Gallant did not constitute a breach of her 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).7. CARRYING ONA COMPETING BUSINESSThis allegation arose from an arrangement made by the Department ofCommunity Services to payMs. Cormier to provide companionship and care services for an individual referred to as "Ruby".Ruby had been a Department of Community Services resident in one of the Company's unitsmanaged by },,1s. Cormier. The r"VQ of them get along "\-vell. In or prior to December 1999 Rub)~moved out ofthe Company premises and into her own apartment but still needed assistance. Shewas still under the care ofthe Department. A Ms. Bethune, a care co-ordinator with the Department,