FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 7 -[31] Ms. St. Pierre generally denied or downplayed the plaintiff’s concerns or said that theplaintiff and other staff were treated the same. She allowed that there was stress in the office andthat the plaintiff clashed with Ms. Pozniak, and claimed that the plaintiff did not like to takedirection from Ms. Pozniak.[32] Ms. St. Pierre said regarding the February 22, 2007 staff meeting that things had not beenrunning smoothly and the staff wanted to address some issues. She disagreed that most of thesewere regarding Ms. Pozniak, except that one might have been about how Ms. Pozniak spoke tostaff about errors. The issues, she said, were referred to in her letter at Exhibit 1, Tab 7.[33] That letter, dated February 26, 2007 was written by Ms. St. Pierre after the meeting. Themeeting had become heated between her and Ms. Pozniak and had been ended by WalterPozniak who had asked for letters from staff. In the letter, she referred to the way “Robbie”,meaning Ms. Pozniak, spoke to the staff and about the atmosphere in the office adding to theinherent stress of the job, among other things. In the letter, she denied that she and the plaintiffspoke about personal issues in the office, but during cross-examination, she admitted that thatwas not so. Also in cross-examination, she said that the reference to the way Ms. Pozniak spoketo the staff had more to do with the tone of voice than the words themselves.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[34] As previously noted, Ms. St. Pierre left the defendant’s employ in March, 2007, soonafter the plaintiff left. She said that she took a stress leave as recommended by her doctor forhealth reasons. She was having trouble sleeping and experiencing stomach issues. Sheattributed these problems to a combination of the stressful job and her separation. Also, she saidthat her relationship with Ms. Pozniak was not good at that time, but not solely because of workrelatedissues. Indeed, she said, she and Ms. Pozniak were not speaking at the time.[35] Ms. St. Pierre went on to work from July, 2008 to July, 2009 at another job andsubsequently worked at another travel agency until she was laid off. She returned to work for thedefendant in March, 2010 after another sister intervened between her and Ms. Pozniak. Theyrestored their relationship and Ms. St. Pierre learned that Ms. Pozniak had forgiven her the$10,000 loan.[36] A comment on Ms. St. Pierre’s evidence is in order here. The quality of her relationshipwith her sister, Roberta Pozniak, has varied dramatically over time. This, understandably,colours Ms. St. Pierre’s view of situations involving her sister. During the period leading up tothe end of the plaintiff’s employment relationship with the defendant, Ms. St. Pierre’srelationship with her sister appears to have been at a low ebb. Also at that time, she wasallegedly going through a separation. In those circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude thatshe was unduly harsh in her criticism of the Pozniaks and their business at the time. By the timeof the trial, Ms. St. Pierre’s relationship with Ms. Pozniak had been repaired and Ms. St. Pierre