Dismissal for Wilful Misconduct: Using Racial Slurs

Small Claims Court OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: [NAME] v. [NAME] , 2026 NSSM 1 Date: 20260116 Docket:  544680 Registry: Halifax Between: [NAME] Claimant v. [NAME] Defendant Adjudicator: [NAME]: December 4, 2025, January 13 and 14, 2026 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Decision: January 16, 2026 Counsel: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME], Counsel for the Defendant By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ]              This case involves the alleged use of racist epithets, ‘nigger’ and ‘faggot’. To avoid these words, ‘N’ and ‘F’ are used throughout these reasons. [ 2 ]              The Defendant employed the Claimant for thirty-three years as a meat cutter, most recently in its store in Lower Sackville, Nova Scotia. On September 16, 2024, the Defendant dismissed the Claimant for breaching its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and its [NAME]. The Defendant concluded the Claimant used the words N and F in the [NAME], with regard to other employees or as a curse word when expressing frustration or anger. [ 3 ]              The Claimant denies using the alleged words and, in the alternative, argues that if they were used, that did not amount to just cause for dismissal, but warranted a lesser penalty and therefore he is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal. [NAME]’ [NAME] [ 4 ]              The Defendant’s position is that all employee terms of employment include a requirement to adhere to its Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (October 2020) [1] and its [NAME] (April 2023) [2] . The Code includes a provision that ‘rejects all forms of harassment, abuse and discrimination.’ [3] in the [NAME].  The Code requires employees to be respectful. The company embraces diversity and enables everyone to work without being harassed, intimidated or facing discrimination [4] . [ 5 ]              The [NAME] starts with this paragraph: [NAME] is committed to provide a safe, healthy, and respectful [NAME] that is free of all forms of discrimination, violence and harassment including bullying and sexual harassment. Disrespectful or violent behaviour, discrimination, bullying or harassment of any sort (“Improper Behaviour”) by any employees of [NAME], contractors or suppliers will not be tolerated. [ 6 ]               It says, ‘Every employee is entitled to work in a safe environment that is respectful and free from Improper Behaviour .’ All employees are to refrain from disrespectful behaviour. Harassment is defined to include bullying, which includes, in part, ' making attacks or derogatory statements based on someone’s private life or personal traits.’ [ 7 ]              As part of employment obligations, each year, employees are expected to review the [NAME] through an online program and sign to confirm they have done so. [ 8 ]               The Claimant last signed a declaration that he had reread the policy in October 2023. The Initial Complaint of [NAME] To It [ 9 ]              The events that led to the Claimant’s termination started on Sunday, September 8, 2024, at the beginning of his shift, when [NAME], the Meat Manager, met the Claimant in the Meat Department. There was water on the cutting board, left there by the person responsible for cleanup from the last shift on Saturday. This upset the Claimant. In the presence of his manager, in anger, he banged and slammed things and referred to the person responsible for the Saturday cleaning as ‘a stupid N’. [ 10 ]          The employee who last worked in the meat department on the evening before the Claimant’s morning shift and who was responsible for leaving the workspace clean and ready for use is an [NAME] high school student who worked part-time at [NAME]. He has been employed since about September 2023. The Claimant had never met him. He is referred to in these reasons as ‘the night cleaner’. [ 11 ]           In his evidence, the Claimant denies using the words N or F in the [NAME]. In response to the Defendant’s position that on Sunday, September 8, he had a conversation with his manager, [NAME], about the poor quality of the night cleaner's work from the previous night, he stated that he did not remember that incident. When responding to [NAME]’s reporting that he called this employee ‘a stupid N’, he said, ‘I never used that word’. Similarly, when it was suggested that he had previously said, ‘That kid will only be good for shovelling asphalt and driveways,’ he denied saying that. He rejected any suggestion of his use of the word F on September 6 or 7, in relation to a piece of equipment he was using, so that a co-worker, [NAME], heard it, or the use of the word N, so that [NAME] and another colleague, [NAME], heard it. In reply to anticipated evidence from [NAME], a part-time meatcutter, that he frequently referred to the night cleaner as ‘stupid N’, the Claimant stated, ‘That’s not true’. [ 12 ]          In cross-examination, when it was suggested to the Claimant that he had a temper and could be aggressive with others, he disagreed. When asked about the [NAME] employee, he said that he did not know him. He made negative comments about his work because ‘it was not good’.  He vigorously refuted that he referred to that employee as a N, in [NAME]’s or others’ presence. In response to a question suggesting that [NAME] had advised him that it was inappropriate to use the words F or N, he stated he did not receive that advice. He testified he did not use the word F in front of a bisexual employee in the meat department, who he believed may be gay. [ 13 ]           On Monday, September 9, [NAME] reported the September 8th  exchange with the Claimant to [NAME], the Assistant Store Manager. [NAME] and the Store Manager, [NAME], after receiving advice from [NAME] staff, set up interviews with those who worked with the Claimant, in order to document the facts regarding the Claimant and his use of inappropriate language. [ 14 ]          On September 9, they met with [NAME] and [NAME]. Each employee was asked, “Have you heard any racially charged comments in the meat department, specifically the prep area?”  Mr. [NAME], who worked in the meat department, did not recall hearing anything ‘racist said by [NAME].’  [NAME] repeated what had occurred on September 8 and suggested [NAME] and [NAME] might be spoken to. [ 15 ]          [NAME], the Seafood Manager, related that in his view, ‘[NAME] has been getting out of hand’. The Claimant had used ‘N’ earlier in the summer to refer to the night cleaner, and a couple of days earlier, in front of [NAME] and him. That day, upset by a problem with the weight scale, he cursed it by using F.  [NAME] confirmed that the Claimant was frequently bothered by the poor cleaning done by the night cleaner. [ 16 ]          [NAME] was spoken to on September 11, as she did not work on September 9 or 10. She reported that the Claimant never referred to the night cleaner by name, only as a ‘stupid N’, as he had done earlier that morning. She believed the Claimant was unstable and might have some anger management issues. She feared him and said she had not reported him because of she feared possible retribution.  She said when the Claimant was angry at [NAME], he referred to him as ‘the F’. She noted that ongoing changes in the store and how some work was done, were a concern to the Claimant, as they might result in more work for him. [ 17 ]          Management interviewed the Claimant on the same day. In response to a question about whether he ever used derogatory or discriminatory language, he did not admit anything but noted that there may have been times when he said something he should not have. He attributed this possibility to his upbringing. Specifically regarding using N, he said he would not want to offend anyone, but if he said anything, it would have been out of frustration, as he gets irritated when things do not get done properly. [ 18 ]          The Claimant was asked about the employer's [NAME], which he noted was in place to protect employees, keep them safe, and ensure they were treated with respect. [ 19 ]          The initial report from [NAME] involved a single incident of using a racial slur. Following the employee interviews, management realized that inappropriate language was not a one-time issue and extended beyond a single word. The employees revealed that the Claimant regularly impugned the character of other employees with racist epithets. A decision was made to immediately suspend the Claimant. [ 20 ]          When advised of this, the Claimant said he never makes the same mistake twice and cited an instance in which he was disciplined and allowed to return to work. In effect, he was asking for a similar approach here: discipline involving a warning and suspension, with a return to work afterward. [ 21 ]          In his oral evidence, when responding to the allegations made against him, the Claimant said he did not make any derogatory statements or use racist language. He believed management was unhappy with him because he raised safety concerns and the possible involvement of the Workers’ Compensation Board. He referred to broken tiles in the meat preparation area and a missing knife holder. He also complained about [NAME]'s tardiness, an issue that management had already addressed. The Claimant believed there was some collaboration among employees to besmirch his name and make allegations without foundation. [ 22 ]          [NAME], the store manager, testified that no safety issues had been raised with management by the Claimant or that any existed in the meat preparation area. In their testimony, the employees denied any collaboration among them regarding their descriptions of the Claimant’s language and behaviour. At the hearing, witnesses were excluded, so they were not privy to others' testimony. [ 23 ]          I have carefully considered the Claimant’s assertion that the other employees were out to get him or conspired against him. There is no evidence to support this assertion, and I find that there was no collaboration among witnesses to construct a story about the Claimant. The Employees’ Evidence [ 24 ]          In their trial evidence, the Defendant’s witnesses confirmed and elaborated on what they had reported to management in September 2024. [ 25 ]          [NAME] said the Claimant was a good meat cutter, but he was concerned about his anger and quick temper. On Sunday, September 8, he met the Claimant in the meat department. There was water on the cutting board, which upset the Claimant, who, in anger, banged and slammed things and referred to the night cleaner as an N. [NAME] did not tell the Claimant that his language was improper or otherwise advise him about [NAME] conduct. [ 26 ]           On Monday, September 9, he reported his exchange with the Claimant because he believed it demonstrated a breach of [NAME]’ [NAME]. He understood there was ‘zero tolerance for racial slurs’. He indicated that the Claimant had previously said, ‘That kid will only be good for shovelling asphalt and driveways’, but he said he was not aware of the Claimant’s previous use of improper language, including homophobic insults or of any concerns employees had about him. He noted that the Claimant referred to the night cleaner as ‘the kid’, not by his name. [ 27 ]          [NAME], the Seafood Manager, works in the area next to the meat department, about fifteen feet away. He would cover for the Claimant from time to time and vice versa. He testified he knew the Claimant was not happy with the night cleaner’s work and had heard him call him a ‘f---ing N’. On hearing that, he told the Claimant, ‘You can’t be saying that in the department’. He said the Claimant shrugged off his advice and just stared at him.  He recalled three occasions when the Claimant used N as an expletive. He has also heard the Claimant use the word F' as a curse when the scale did not work properly. The word was not directed at anyone. He noted that the Claimant appeared angry on every shift and had a short temper. Staff were on edge because of it. [ 28 ]          [NAME] is a part-time meat cutter who worked with the Claimant once or twice a week. She has anxiety and avoids conflict whenever possible. She noted she had a good relationship with the Claimant when he was in a good mood, but when things did not go well, she said ‘He’d go off the deep end’, which made her anxious and nervous. For that reason, and fearing possible repercussions, she did not report the Claimant to management. [ 29 ]          The night cleaner began work in September 2023. [NAME] testified that the Claimant complained about his work, saying he did nothing right. [NAME] believed the Claimant did not like him. When referring to the night cleaner, he called him a ‘stupid N’. She stated this occurred ‘dozens of times’. She recalled that when dealing with a co-worker ([NAME]), he said to her, ‘[NAME] doesn’t want to fuck with me, or I’ll get a group of black guys to deal with the issue.’ She also heard him use F in reference to another employee, and on one occasion, he referred to ‘the [NAME]’. [ 30 ]          Ms [NAME] did not socialize with other employees outside of work. Though some were Facebook Friends, and sometimes she would get a ride to work from [NAME], they were not mates outside of the store. She shared her concerns about the Claimant’s anger with co-workers, who had similar apprehensions, but she did not discuss the use of racialized language with anyone until she was interviewed by [NAME] and [NAME]. [ 31 ]          Although others worked in the meat department, they were not interviewed because they were away from the store on September 9-11. [NAME], following consultation with [NAME], was satisfied that the Claimant’s use of N and F in the [NAME] over many months, within earshot of or in conversation with colleagues, constituted a significant violation of [NAME]’ [NAME]. He believed the trust of employees had been undermined by the continuous use of offensive language over many months, and that the only way to reestablish trust and demonstrate respect for store employees was to remove the offender from the store and relieve the Claimant of his position. On September 16, 2024, the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s employment. It determined there was cause for termination without notice or pay in lieu thereof, and therefore no compensation was paid to the Claimant under common law or under s. 72 of the Labour Standards Code [5] , because [NAME] considered the Claimant’s conduct to have constituted wilful misconduct or disobedience. Findings [ 32 ]          The Claimant was adamant at trial that he did not use any of the language that was attributed to him. When he met with [NAME] in the immediate aftermath of the accusation, he was not so certain. Though he denied the specific allegations, he allowed that he might have used inappropriate language, and if he did, it was unintentional and without malice. He understood the reasons for the [NAME] policy and the need to respect fellow employees. [ 33 ]          Having listened to the Claimant and defence witnesses, and having carefully considered their demeanour and the way they provided their evidence,  I favour the evidence of the Defendant’s witnesses over that of the Claimant. I conclude the Claimant did, on more than one occasion, use the words N and F. His denial is not believable. Though he may have spoken with no intentional ill will, the Claimant used words and expressed an attitude that disparaged other workers, based on their personal characteristics. N was an epithet used to refer to the night cleaner, a young man the Claimant had never met. In many instances, it was used to criticize the character or work of the night employee and degrade him based on his personal characteristics and race. If the Claimant had concerns about the quality of the work done before he started his shift, he ought to have raised them with his manager, not raged about the employee by using offensive language that referred to his race. In anger and frustration, he used the word F, when some equipment was not functioning properly. I am not satisfied that he directed his words to an individual, but nevertheless, the word itself is homophobic, is disrespectful to homosexuals and has no place in a [NAME], where respect for all is a hallmark of expected conduct. [ 34 ]          Having found that the Claimant did use the words N and F while at work at [NAME], and that the use of N was directed towards a single individual,  which constituted a breach of [NAME]. I must determine if termination of the Claimant’s employment is an appropriate and justified outcome. Terms of the Employment Contract [ 35 ]          The employment contract between the parties is oral and contains terms based on [NAME]’ practices, as accepted by the Claimant. Not all terms of the contract are relevant to this case. However, I must address whether the employment contract incorporated the [NAME]. [ 36 ]          When may terms be implied in a contract? Cory J.A. (as he then was) of the [ADDRESS] of Appeal outlined the following answer to that question in [COMPANY]. v. [COMPANY] . , 1983 CanLII 1719 (ON CA), When may a term be implied in a contract? A court faced with that question must first take cognizance of some important and time-honoured cautions. For example, the courts will be cautious in their approach to implying terms to contracts. Certainly a court will not rewrite a contract for the parties. As well, no term will be implied that is inconsistent with the contract. Implied terms are as a rule based upon the presumed intention of the parties and should be founded upon reason. The circumstances and background of the contract, together with its precise terms, should all be carefully regarded before a term is implied. As a result, it is clear that every case must be determined on its own particular facts. [ 37 ]          Given that [NAME] had a Code of Conduct and a [NAME], promulgated to all employees, requiring them to review it annually and attest in writing that they had done so, it is clear that both employer and employee intended it to be part of the contract between them. The Claimant acknowledged that in his interview with [NAME] on September 11, 2024. I find that the [NAME] is an implied contractual term in the Claimant's employment contract. He was required to comply with its requirements. Just Cause for Dismissal and the Labour Standards Code [ 38 ]          Both parties rely on McKinley v [NAME] , 2001 SCC 38, for the governing principles for just cause dismissal. At para. 48ff, Justice Iacobucci speaking for the Court says 48 In light of the foregoing analysis, I am of the view that whether an employer is justified in dismissing an employee on the grounds of dishonesty is a question that requires an assessment of the context of the alleged misconduct. More specifically, the test is whether the employee's dishonesty gave rise to a breakdown in the employment relationship. This test can be expressed in different ways. One could say, for example, that just cause for dismissal exists where the dishonesty violates an essential condition of the employment contract, breaches the faith inherent to the work relationship, or is fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee's obligations to his or her employer. 49 In accordance with this test, a trial judge must instruct the [NAME] to determine: (1) whether the evidence established the employee's deceitful conduct on a balance of probabilities; and (2) if so, whether the nature and degree of the dishonesty warranted dismissal. In my view, the second branch of this test does not blend questions of fact and law. Rather, assessing the seriousness of the misconduct requires the facts established at trial to be carefully considered and balanced. As such, it is a factual inquiry for the [NAME] to undertake. [ 39 ]          Though the case dealt with dishonesty, the same principles apply to the employer-employee relationship when other misconduct is at issue. When an employee is dismissed for cause, a court must determine if the employee’s conduct violated an essential condition of the employment contract, breached the faith inherent to the work relationship, or was fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee's obligations to his or her employer. [ 40 ]          Courts and tribunals in Nova Scotia have opined on the gravity of use of the word N. Judge Jamie Campbell (as he then was) wrote in R. v. A.B. , 2012 NSPC 31, starting at para. 39 [ 39 ] … The word “nigger” has become one of the most reviled utterances in modern culture.  [NAME], has written a cultural history of the use of the word in  Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word  ([NAME], 2003) Again though, context matters. While it, and variations of it, is used by some self referentially, its use in that context is still highly controversial. It can be used in that way to rob it of its hateful power. When directed as a slur however, there is no doubt of that power. [ 40 ]   Those who freely use what was once the most culturally taboo of sexually related vulgarities will make reference to it only as “the n word”.  It has a uniquely reviled status. [ 41 ]   The excision of the word from the general lexicon is on the one hand a [NAME] of respect. That one word carries with it the baggage of centuries of slavery, racism, abuse and disrespect. Our collective refusal to utter it makes a statement about our shared values. On the other hand, removing it from use has given it the status of a wicked verbal talisman. It was and is a hurtful word. Now it has power beyond almost any other. The sad paradox is that the more the word is shunned, the more powerful it seems to have become. [ 42 ]   Any idiot who wants a reaction can get one. Anyone who craves attention can get some. Anyone who wants to inflict a wound can do it. The only cost to the user is his own dignity. [ 41 ]          In a more summary fashion, the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission (Inquiry Commissioner Dennis James) said in [NAME] v [NAME]’s Taxi , 2015 CanLII 9153 (NS HRC) [ 145 ] There can be no dispute that the language used by [NAME] is deplorable. It is language that is debilitating to African-Canadians. The use of the word "nigger" demeans, humiliates and asserts a dangerous sense of racial superiority. It is often dismissed as arising from anger or loss of control but that is not an answer. The demeaning language reveals an underlying disrespect and hostility. It must not be tolerated in any way and condemned at every opportunity . [ 42 ]          Though these cases refer only to the use of N, a long history of discrimination against gays and lesbians, which has frequently been spurred on by homophobic monikers, satisfies me that the use of F is as offensive and destructive as negative descriptors based on race. See the decision of Judge Atwood in R. v. A.B. , 2014 NSPC 63. [ 43 ]          These findings support my conclusion that the use of hateful and hurtful language, as was employed by the Claimant, is deserving of serious sanction. [ 44 ]          The language used qualifies as bullying under the [NAME]. Bullying includes ‘making attacks or derogatory statements based on someone’s private life or personal traits.’  Using N to refer to the night cleaner is disparaging of his race. Referring to him as ‘a stupid N’ is an attack on him. Similarly, cursing equipment and calling it F is an attack on a group of people whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual. It is an attack on the LGBTQ+ community. It is disrespectful and bigoted. [ 45 ]          I find that the use of the words N and F was a breach of the employee’s obligations under his employment contract. They violated an essential condition of the employment contract, breached the faith inherent to the work relationship, and were inconsistent with the employee's obligations to his or her employer and colleagues under the [NAME]. [ 46 ]          Having concluded that use of the words N and F violates an essential condition of the employment contract and is fundamentally or directly inconsistent with the employee's obligations to his or her employer, under [NAME] policies, I find there was just cause for termination of the Claimant at common law. [ 47 ]          Given the length of the Claimant’s employment, I must also consider if application of the Labour Standards Code alters that outcome. Sections 71 and 72 of the  Code  establish the minimum legal standards that apply to the termination of his employment. Section 72 provides tenure to long-term employees and protects them from dismissal unless they have been guilty of ‘wilful misconduct or disobedience or neglect of duty that has not been condoned by the employer’. The parties agree that willful misconduct is a higher threshold than is required for dismissal for cause at common law. [ 48 ]          I was referred to a recent decision of Chair Walsh of the Nova Scotia Labour Board in [NAME] v [NAME] , 2025 NSLB 30. In that case, as here, the utterer of inappropriate language did so unintentionally. That raised the issue of whether the requirement of ‘willful misconduct’ could be met. It is noteworthy that [NAME] involved [NAME] and the same [NAME] policies as are at issue here. Chair Walsh said the following regarding the ‘wilful’ requirement in s. 72. [ 67 ]   [NAME] argued that if he did not know that his sexually inappropriate statement was offside it cannot be said that his misconduct was wilful. The Board is not persuaded that this is so. [NAME]’s responsibility as an employee of [NAME] was to know what the  Policy  required of him, especially in the months following his two previous disciplinary incidents. [ 68 ]   As discussed above, the definition of sexual harassment contains an objective standard in the Policy and under the  Nova Scotia  Human Rights Act. All that was required for his statement to be ‘wilful’ in this circumstance was that he intended to make it. ‘Wilfulness’ does not require that he intended to enact sexual harassment . (Emphasis added) [ 69 ]   The Board is persuaded that his behaviour was also wilfully disobedient and neglectful of his duty as a [NAME] employee. He had been directed by [NAME] to comply with the  [NAME],  and he disobeyed that direction. He chose to make a statement that neglected his duty in this respect. [ 49 ]          Chair Walsh referred to a labour arbitration decision [6] that dealt with the use of racist language under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act. The arbitrator stated: Thus in the prevailing environment, given the progress towards the societal goal of eliminating all forms of harassment in the [NAME], …, it is in my opinion now appropriate to regard any use of demeaning racial or ethnic slurs by one employee to another as very serious misconduct falling within the category of [NAME] offences that prima facie justifies termination of the employment relationship [ 50 ]          In coming to this conclusion, the arbitrator noted that even in a unionized [NAME],  where progressive discipline (as was used in [NAME] ) is the norm, when the conduct is manifestly serious, a warning, suspension or education/training will not be required because the conduct was so offensive that it shattered the core of the employee’s obligations to the employer and fellow workers and undermined the trust that is essential to maintain an employment relationship. Progressive Discipline [ 51 ]          Was there an obligation here for the Defendant to engage in progressive discipline? In Nova Scotia, it is most often the Labour Board or the Labour Relations Board that deal with sanctions applicable in employment cases. It is clear from their decisions that progressive discipline is expected when an employee breaches the employment contract. [ 52 ]            [COMPANY], 2006 CanLII 92083 (NS LST), the Nova Scotia Labour Standards Tribunal dismissed the Respondent employer’s appeal when it was determined that the employer had failed to follow the principles of progressive discipline, stating that:

12. It has long been held by this Tribunal and the Courts that an employer must follow the principles of progressive discipline when attempting to terminate an employee for “cause”. Generally, this means starting out with a warning to the employee about their behaviour and then proceed to a suspension and termination. This approach has been applied countless times in the employment law jurisprudence. [ 53 ]          The decision of Justice Goodfellow in [NAME] v. [COMPANY]. , 1993 CanLII 4666, deals with the Plaintiff’s utterance of a racial slur, ‘fruit’, in a fit of anger, along with further behaviour to vent pent-up frustration. The employee was dismissed for cause. [ADDRESS] found that progressive discipline was appropriate in the circumstances and ordered compensation under s. 72 of the Labour Standards Code . I distinguish [NAME] from the case at bar as the use of offensive language, which breached the employer’s written policies, involved a single incident and did not comprise consistent use of racial slurs over many months. Whether that case would be decided in the same way today is a question I need not consider. [ 54 ]          Progressive discipline should be the norm. A warning, a suspension, or education/training should be the first response to an employee's breach of contractual obligations, unless the conduct is so serious as to constitute wilful misconduct. [ 55 ]           I have found the Claimant’s behaviour amounted to willful misconduct.

Accordingly, this was not a case in which the employer needed to consider how to modify or improve the Claimant’s behaviour through discipline that was short of dismissal. [ 56 ]          Having considered the approaches outlined in the case law, I reiterate that the Claimant’s use of the words N and F amounted to wilful misconduct under s. 72 of the Code, so that the provisions of that section regarding compensation to an employee do not apply. The Defendant was justified in dismissing the Claimant for his wilful misconduct, and that dismissal was appropriately made without notice or pay in lieu under s.72. Conclusion [ 57 ]          Having found that the Claimant’s use of racial slurs breached his employment contract because it constituted a violation of the [NAME], and having found the breach was so serious as to constitute wilful misconduct that did not require the employer to undertake progressive discipline or to pay any compensation under s. 72 of the Labour Standards Code, but justified summary dismissal, I dismiss the claim. [ 58 ]          I thank counsel for their thorough and balanced presentations of their cases. The issues in this matter were difficult. All lawyers were sensitive to the troubling nature of the allegations and governed themselves accordingly. That is much appreciated. [NAME], Small Claims Court Adjudicator [1] Ex 2/Tab 1. The Code is disseminated by [NAME] parent Company, [COMPANY], and applies to all its subsidiaries, [2] Ex 2/Tab 2 [3] At p. 4 [4] At p. 6 [5] SNS 1989, x 246, as amended - Termination of employment by employer 72 (1) Subject to subsection (3) and Section 71, an employer shall not discharge, suspend or lay off an employee, unless the employee has been guilty of wilful misconduct or disobedience or neglect of duty that has not been condoned by the employer, … [6] [NAME] and Workers United Canada Council (Brown) Re  2020 CarswellOnt 9279