View cases - Stewart McKelvey

...35environment including any lack ofsecurity. No objection was made which, again, is consistent withthe evidence that the Nordqvists were content to permit Ms. Cormier independence to carry out herfunction as she saw fit.As a result, I am satisfied that the fact Ms. Cormier transferred to the space in the TV shop and waskeeping confidential records there did not constitute a breach ofheremploymentresponsibilities thatwould entitle the Company to terminate her employment nor does it give a basis to reduce the priceto be paid for her shares pursuant to clause 7.03(b)(ii).2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)10. INSUBORDINATIONThis refers to the confrontation that occurred at the TV shop at the meeting on October 12th.Mrs. Nordqvist testified that at the meeting at the TV shop, she walked in and saw Ms. Cormiersitting at a desk with cheque books laid out. At that point, she made the comment as to "What isthis?" At that point, Ms. Cormier stood up and the two ofthem had a confrontation face to face. Mr.Nordqvist then suggested they should leave.Ms. Cormier testified that the Nordqvists came into the TV shop and chatted in the space where shewas maintaining the office at the back ofthe store. Ms. Cormier testified that when she asked iftheyhad brought the books to look at, Mrs. Nordqvist became very angry and the meeting quicklydeteriorated into a confrontation with raised voices. While the parties respective descriptions ofwhat happened and who instigated the yelling differed, there is no doubt from the evidence that aflashpoint occurred and the parties became very hostile to each other. At one point, Ms. Cormieralleged that the Nordqvists said that ifyou get a lawyer involved, it will be the sorriest day ofyourlife.Neither Mr. Martell nor Mr. Nordqvist took any active participation in the confrontation other thanMr. Nordqvist told his wife they should leave.