View cases - Stewart McKelvey

.'37In the year 2000, there was another audit bythe Revenue Canada and she was told that no one shouldbe paid in cash following that. From that time on, all full-time and part-time staff were put on apayroll, but some part-time staff continued to be paid cash for vacation, overtime and bonuses.Cash payments also caused problems for the Company because they could never be reflected in thebudgets that were submitted for approval by the Department and thus, funding could not be obtainedfor those payments.It was Ms. Cormier's evidence that the practice was reducing and by the time her employment hadbeen terminated, there were only a few employees getting paid by that method.2010 NSSC 252 (CanLII)While it had been agreed that theywould cutback on cash payments it was Ms. Cormier's testimonythat she still needed to make some payments in order to get staff to work and that the Nordqvistswere aware ofthat. It was her evidence that it was standard practice and the Nordqvists were doingthe same thing in their other homes.She would write out cheques to cash, give the cash to the employee and the cheques would go fromthe bank back to Mr. Nordqvist. She would normally write information on the cheques indicatingwhat they were for. She testified Mr. Nordqvist never asked for further information.Mr. Nordqvist testified that after the 2000 meeting with Revenue Canada, he told Ms. Cormier thatthey had to stop cash payments. He acknowledged that Ms. Cormier would explain that there wereproblems getting staffto work so cash payments were still required and hebelieved her and acceptedthat, so unfortunately, it continued.Mr. Nordqvist testified that as for Ms. Cormier's use ofthe cheques and practice ofusing money, shewas running the ship and knew what she was doing with the money and that they (me~ning he andhis wife) had no choice.