FAQ's Cases - Stewart McKelvey

- 8 -would feel grateful for the forgiveness of the loan and dependant for her job. In thosecircumstances, it is reasonable to think that, as appeared from Ms. St. Pierre’s testimony, shewould minimize her criticism of the defendant. Consequently, little reliance can be placed onher evidence.[37] Roberta Pozniak testified at some length. She exhibited a stern, business-like appearanceand had a low, somewhat harsh voice. She said that she and Walter Pozniak had owned thedefendant company since 1978. He, not she, had previous travel business experience.Generally, the staff consisted of them and three employees. She outlined the respective roles ofthe people in the office. She said that her management style had not changed over the years.Her views on the various complaints of the plaintiff are dealt with under those topics elsewherein these reasons. Generally, she denied the evidence of others regarding her mistreatment of theplaintiff.2011 ONSC 2148 (CanLII)[38] Walter Pozniak testified for the defence. He has been in the travel business for 40 years.Along with Roberta Pozniak, he owns the defendant company which opened in 1978. He saidthat Roberta Pozniak is the manager, which could explain why he seemed somewhat detachedfrom events. It is a busy office, he said, where there is work to be done and no time to chat.Losing the plaintiff on sick leave left him in “dire straits”, and he was happy to see her return towork. However, he left it to Roberta Pozniak to deal with the plaintiff. There was someinconsistency in his evidence in that he spoke of the plaintiff’s high value as an employee, butalso of her excessive mistakes which the office paid for.[39] The October 4, 2006 expectation document mentioned above was referred to frequentlyduring the trial and provides a useful tool for organizing the evidence of the plaintiff’scomplaints about the defendant. It consists of 17 paragraphs each of which will be set out anddealt with in turn.[40] 1. Rules apply to everyone equally, such as start times, uniforms, personal calls, etcetera.[41] The evidence on point indicated that the rules about the uniforms and personal calls wereapplied equally to the staff.[42] Although they did not all work the same shifts, some having different hours from others,the plaintiff did not object to this. However, Roberta Pozniak insisted that the employees arrive10 or 15 minutes early so as to be at their desks and ready to work at their start times. On thethree occasions that the plaintiff was not there 10 minutes before her shift, each time for a goodreason, she said that she was yelled at by Ms. Pozniak. These incidents took place within the lastthree years of her employment. She contrasted this with the more lenient treatment of others