View cases - Stewart McKelvey

, >30While the time commitment was significant the evidence was that Ms. Cormier was able to overlapher care ofRuby with carrying out her Company duties and performed some ofher companionshiprole outside of her working day for the Company. There was no evidence to suggest that herobligations to Ruby interfered with or negatively impacted he responsibilities to the Company.I am not satisfied that the arrangement was a breach of her employment responsibilities to theCompany. Rather I am satisfied that consistent with the Nordqvist's relationship with Ms. Cormierthey were satisfied to let her perform her responsibilities as she saw fit with considerableindependence.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)As a result, the arrangement whereby Ms. COroller provided companion services to Ruby did notconstitute a breach ofher employment responSibilities that would entitle the Company to terminateher employment nor does it give a basis to reduce the price to be paid for her shares pursuant toclause 7.03(b)(ii).8. FAlLURE TO KEEP REpORTSFollowing her termination, Mr. Colin Nordqvist asked his assistant, a Ms. Findlay, to go over theCompany's files and note anything that was missing. She identified 21 files with various itemsincomplete or missing (exhibit D-ll).On cross examination, Ms. Findlay acknowledged that she was not familiar with how or what fileshad been kept prior to Ms. Cormier leaving. She made Exhibit D-ll based on what they do in theShare Care 2000 units. She also acknowledged on cross that inspectors would come in from theDepartments and she had no knowledge as to whether as a result ofthose visits any deficiencies wereidentified. She agreed that while criminal checks did not appear to be in the files, she could not saythat no checks had been done at the time. She also acknowledged that there were files whereeverything seemed to be in order according to how she was reviewing the files. She only reviewed