COURT FILE NUMBER Clerk’s Stamp

COURT COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

FILED
JUDICIAL CENTRE EDMONTON DIGITALLY
2303 08314
PLAINTIFF KAITLYN ROSS May 10, 2023
11:37 AM
DEFENDANT COVENTRY HOMES INC.

DOCUMENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM

ADDRESS FOR SERVICE SAMFIRU TUMARKIN LLP

AND CONTACT
INFORMATION OF PARTY
FILING THIS DOCUMENT
736 8 Avenue SW, Suite 800
Calgary, Alberta T2P 1H4
Attention: Aaron Levitin
Telephone: 587-316-2322
Facsimile: 587-387-7218
Email: aaron.levitin@stlawyers.ca

NOTICE TO DEFENDANT(S)

You are being sued. You are a Defendant.

Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.
Statement of facts relied on:

THE PARTIES

1. The Plaintiff, Kaitlyn Ross (“Kaitlyn” or “the Plaintiff”), is a 32-year-old individual residing in
the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta. She was employed by Coventry Homes Inc.
(“the Defendant” or “Coventry Homes”) in Edmonton for two (2) years and ten (10) months,
until on or about November 7, 2022, at which time her employment was terminated by the
Defendant. The Defendant alleges it had just cause to terminate the Plaintiff’s employment.

2. Coventry Homes is one of Edmonton’s largest new home builders. The Defendant
business is owned by Robin Nasserdeen, Henri Rodier, Mark Rodier, and Ray Rodier.
The Defendant is part of the Coventry Group of Companies which includes, Coventry
Homes Inc. and Impact Homes Ltd. Coventry Homes has partnerships with the Edmonton
Oilers, Habitat for Humanity, and the Edmonton Humane Society.
3. Coventry Homes’ management team includes Henri Rodier, Chief Executive Officer
(“Henri”); Robin Nasserdeen, Director of Sales (“Nasserdeen”); Chris Amundson, Chief
Financial Officer; Mark Rodier, General Manager; Antonius Magureanu, Sales Manager
(“Magureanu”); Len Walters, Construction Manager, and Shantyl Segin, Preconstruction
Manager (the “Executive Management”)

EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND

4. At the time of termination, Kaitlyn was employed by the Defendant as an Area Sales
Manager. In this position, Kaitlyn’s responsibilities included, but were not limited to:

a) maintaining proper file flow targets;

b) completing files in full and proper manner;

c) preparing and maintaining sales targets;

d) ensuring Coventry/Impact value proposition is maintained;

e) reviewing all purchase agreements for correctness prior to submission;

f) reporting sales activities and traffic reports to the necessary stakeholders;

g) maintaining existing client relationships, while fostering new business

opportunities; and

h) a host of additional job duties and responsibilities, the particulars of which will be
provided prior to or at trial.

5. In exchange for her services, Kaitlyn received the following remuneration from the Defendant:

a) annual earnings of $180,922.61 as per her 2022 T4;

b) participation in Coventry’s comprehensive benefits plan; and

c) three (3) weeks’ paid vacation, eligible for carryover.

6. At all material times, Kaitlyn states she was a hardworking and dedicated employee who
performed her job duties in a professional and highly capable manner. Kaitlyn states she was

2
 one of the most successful Area Sales Managers in the homebuilding industry throughout all
of Edmonton in 2022, prior to her wrongful termination.

7. In 2022, Kaitlyn states she was nominated for both the “Rookie of the Year” and “Sales
Volume” categories in the Canadian Home Builders Association Awards of Excellence
Kaitlyn states she was integral to the Defendant’s success and profitability as she sold over
twenty-one (21) homes in 2022, and also achieved a 95.8% customer satisfaction rating. In
addition, Kaitlyn states that the custom home she sold to her client won the “Best Single
Family Home” Category in the 2023 Canadian Home Builders Association Awards of
Excellence.

COVENTRY HOMES FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS INTERNAL POLICIES

8. Kaitlyn pleads that Coventry Homes breached its own policies contained in The Coventry
Group Policy Manual, including but not limited to the following:

a) Coventry Homes’ House Rules;

b) Coventry Homes’ Core Values;

c) Coventry Homes’ Open Door Policy;

d) Coventry Homes’ Mutual Trust Policy;

e) Coventry Homes’ Human Rights Policy;

f) Coventry Homes’ Reporting Discrimination or Harassment Policy;

g) Coventry Homes’ Investigating Reports of Harassment, Discrimination, or Violence

Policy;

h) Coventry Homes’ Employee Privacy of Information Policy;

i) Coventry Homes’ Code of Ethics Policy;

j) Coventry Homes’ Health & Safety Policy;

k) Coventry Homes’ (Drug and Alcohol) Policy;

3
 l) Coventry Homes’ Workplace Threat Policy;

m) Coventry Homes’ Workplace Accident Investigation Policy; and

n) Coventry Homes’ Email Best Practices Policy;

together, “Coventry Policies”

9. Kaitlyn plead that the Coventry Policies formed part of the written terms and conditions of her
employment with Coventry Homes.

DISCRIMINATION, WORKPLACE HARASSMENT AND POISONED WORK ENVIRONMENT

10. Kaitlyn specifically states that it was an express and/or an implied term of her employment
with the Defendant that it would provide a safe work environment, which was free of
harassment, sexual harassment, bullying and discrimination.

11. Kaitlyn states that, despite this clear term of employment, she was forced to work in a hostile
environment, suffused with ongoing workplace harassment, sexual harassment, unwanted
sexual solicitation, bullying, and discriminatory conduct, known to Coventry Homes.

12. Kaitlyn states Executive Management failed to protect her and other Coventry staff by actively
engendering, or at the very least, knowingly permitting a poisoned and toxic work
environment.

CHRONOLOGY OF COVENTRY HOMES’ PROLONGED CAMPAIGN OF INAPPROPRIATE

CONDUCT

13. Prior to working for Coventry Homes, Kaitlyn states she worked at a trauma treatment center
assisting sexually abused children and youth, and for several NGO group-home agencies
with trafficked children and youth, collectively, for approximately eight (8) years.

14. Kaitlyn states she joined Coventry Homes to pursue an alternative career path, due to the
mentally and emotionally-taxing nature of her previous roles. Kaitlyn states she pursued work
in the homebuilding industry estate as she believed it would be a safe place to pave a new
career.

4
15. However, in the following escalating series of events, Kaitlyn pleads she was terminated for
cause as reprisal for bringing her bona fide concerns forward to members of Executive
Management regarding their decision to return Nasserdeen to the workplace after he was
charged with the sexual assault of a former Coventry Homes’ employee, J.M.

Coventry Homes Employee Allegedly Raped by its Director of Sales

16. In or around April 8, 2022, Nasserdeen was arrested and criminally charged for the sexual
assault of Kaitlyn’s colleague, J.M. Nasserdeen’s criminal trial is scheduled for February
2024.

17. On or about April 11, 2022, at approximately 11:00 am, Kailtyn and the Coventry Homes’
sales team were required to attend a meeting with Nasserdeen, Henri Rodier, Ray Rodier,
Mark Rodier, Len Walters, Magureanu, and Chris Amundson.

18. Kaitlyn states the purpose of this meeting was for Executive Management to express their
support of Nasserdeen in light of his criminal charges. Kaitlyn specifically states that Henri
Rodier referred to his long-standing relationship with Nasserdeen as the reason for his
continuous support.

19. At the meeting, it was confirmed that Nasserdeen would remain in Coventry Homes’ employ
pending his criminal trial in February 2024, in the same position, without any change to his
position of leadership or the numerous opportunities his position afforded him to have isolated
interactions with his female subordinates.

20. Kaitlyn states that she was immediately vocal about her objections to Coventry Homes’
approach and her concerns going forward. Kaitlyn states that she specifically expressed her
opinion that the Defendant’s unwavering support of Nasserdeen was extremely
unprofessional considering the fact that charges were laid and his position of authority within
the company. In response, Kaitlyn states that she was advised that she was behaving
inappropriately.

21. On or around 11:38 AM on April 11, 2022, Kaitlyn states that Henri, sent a company-wide
email defending Nasserdeen to all staff:

“To All Coventry Group of Companies Staff:

5
 An allegation of misconduct has been made against one of our Executive
team members, Robin.

We know Robin well, I know Robin well, given the interactions with both
women and men at our company for the last 10 years.

For this reason, along with various factors, we have reason to take pause
about her allegations.

We take all such matters seriously and prefer to have this dealt with fully
and properly through the Justice system.

Henri.”

[bolded by the Defendant for emphasis]

22. On April 12, 2022, Kaitlyen states Nasserdeen also sent a company-wide email defending
himself to all staff. The email states:

“Dear colleagues,

As many of you know it’s been a difficult past week for me. I have been as
shocked as anyone by allegations that have been made against me.
Unfortunately, rumours have also begun spreading at work and are
disrupting our otherwise exemplary workplace. I would like to set the record
straight about a lot of things, but my lawyers have told me that it has to wait
until the court process runs its course. I look forward to clearing my name.

In the meantime, I don’t want my personal issues to distract from any of the
important work we do here at Coventry. As such I’m going to be stepping
away from my role while I sort out some initial legal issues. You are all
exemplary professionals and are in good hands.

To your continued success,

Robin”

23. Kaitlyn pleads that Coventry Homes failed to conduct an investigation when it knew or ought
to have known that Nasserdeen was charged with the sexual assault of a former Coventry
Homes’ employee. Kaitlyn further pleads that Coventry Homes failed to take any steps to
protect the numerous female employees who continued to interact with and report to
Nasserdeen.

6
 Failure to Investigate Following April 11, 2022, Meeting

24. After receiving the above-noted email from Henri Rodier, Kaitlyn states a meeting was
scheduled with him and other impacted employees at approximately 1:00 PM that same day.

25. Kaitlyn states the meeting was attended by A.S., Henri, Antonius, Pamela Armstrong, Thai
Sarakoone, and Ahad Raja. Kaitlyn further states that the purpose of this meeting was to
discuss the charges against Nasserdeen and to address why Nasserdeen remained in the
workplace after he was arrested and charged for the sexual assault of an employee under
his direct supervision.

26. Again, Kaitlyn vocalized her concerns regarding Coventry Homes’ response, or lack thereof,
to the unfolding situation, as follows:

a) Kaitlyn states she advised that she had years of professional experience working with
sexually abused children and youth at trauma treatment centers and group homes.
Kaitlyn states she advised Henri Rodier that he had improperly characterized the
seriousness of the situation by using the term “allegations.” Kaitlyn states she further
attempted to elucidate for Henri Rodier, and the other attendees of the metting, that
there was a significant difference between an “allegation” and a “criminal charge.”

b) Kaitlyn states she informed Henri Rodier that a year-long criminal investigation was
conducted, which she was specifically involved in. Kaitlyn states she further explained
that the evidence gathered by the Edmonton Police resulted in the Crown’s decision
to bring criminal charges against Nasserdeen.

c) Kaitlyn states she informed Henri Rodier that the evidence against Nasserdeen
included but was not limited to: DNA evidence; video footage; and phone calls. In
response, Kaitlyn states Henri Rodier raised his voice, spoke directly to her, asking
her if she heard what she was saying and advising her that she was condemning
Nasserdeen.

d) Through further discussion, it was acknowledged by members of Executive

Management that the situation was “severe” and that Coventry Homes’ could access
the public records regarding same through its counsel if it so directed.

7
 e) Kaitlyn states that she encouraged Coventry Homes to more closely investigate the
charges laid against Nasserdeen, advising that she felt scared when Nasserdeen
scheduled her performance review meeting at a restaurant far from her area.

f) Given her previous experience in the field, Kaitlyn expressly warned Executive
Management that Coventry Homes’ actions and inaction could trigger and traumatize
other Coventry employees. Kaitlyn expressly encouraged Executive Management to
conduct an internal investigation to ensure that other Coventry Homes’ employees
had not been assaulted by Nasserdeen.

27. Kaitlyn states that despite her express concerns and warnings, the Defendant failed to
conduct an investigation. Rather, throughout and after the meeting, Executive Management
continued to insist Nasserdeen was innocent.

Edmonton Police Duty to Warn

28. On or around June 20, 2022, Kaitlyn states a Duty to Warn was issued by the Edmonton
Police, as a result of the overwhelming evidence against Nasserdeen.

29. On June 20, 2022, Kaitlyn states Detectives with the Edmonton Police spoke with Henri
Rodier in accordance with the Duty to Warn.

Kaitlyn Terminated for Cause

30. Kaitlyn states she took vacation between September 5 and September 17, 2022. Kaitlyn
states she was not informed by Coventry Homes that Nasserdeen would be returned to the
workplace.

31. On November 7, 2022, Kaitlyn states she was terminated from her Area Sales Manager
position for cause, which is not admitted and expressly denied. The reason provided at her
termination meeting was insubordination.

32. Kaitlyn pleads the Defendant terminated her employment in extraordinary bad-faith as
reprisal for bringing her genuine concerns to Executive Management concerning the safety
of herself and her colleagues.

8
33. Kaitlyn pleads that the Defendant further terminated her employment in bad-faith when it
failed to provide her with commissions earned during her employment, the particulars of
which will be provided prior to or at trial.

34. Kaitlyn pleads that between Nasserdeen’s return to the workplace on September 12, 2022,
and November 8, 2022, five (5) female Coventry Homes’ employees were either outright
terminated from their employment after voicing their fears and concerns, or had to resign due
to the actions and inaction of the Defendant. Kaitlyn further pleads she was one of those five
women.

DAMAGES

Outstanding Commissions Yet to be Paid

35. Kaitlyn states the Defendant has not paid her for $62,394.30 in commissions earned but not
yet paid.

36. Kaitlyn pleads that the Defendant has a duty of good faith and fair dealing and further pleads
it breached its duty to provide her with outstanding commissions upon termination in bad
faith.

Entitlement to Reasonable Notice

37. Kaitlyn pleads that if this Honourable Court finds her employment has been wrongfully
dismissed, she is entitled to reasonable notice pursuant to the common law.

38. In assessing her entitlement to reasonable notice at common law, Kaitlyn pleads that this
Honourable Court ought to consider the following factors:

a) Kaitlyn’s age of 32;

b) Kaitlyn’s 2 years and 10 months of service;

c) Kaitlyn’s niche position as Area Sales Manager; and

d) The difficulties the Plaintiff has faced in securing new employment catalyzed by the
Defendant’s cause allegation; and

e) the impact the Defendant’s mistreatment has had, and continues to have, on her
ability to work.

9
39. In light of these factors, Kaitlyn pleads that she is entitled to compensation in lieu of
reasonable notice in the amount of $105,000.00 representing a reasonable notice period of
seven (7) months.

COVENTRY HOMES FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROVIDE A SAFE WORK

ENVIRONMENT

40. Kaitlyn pleads it was an implied term of her employment with the Defendant that she would
be provided with a safe and healthy work environment, free from bullying, harassment,
sexual harassment, and discrimination. The Plaintiff pleads the Defendant breached their
duties and obligations to her in this regard.

41. The Plaintiff, in particular, pleads the Defendant’s failure to properly investigate sexual
harassment complaints, and take steps to prevent further harassment in the workplace,
even after the Edmonton Police informed Henri of its Duty to Warn, was a violation of its
duties to investigate and provide a safe and healthy work environment pursuant to
Alberta’s Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2 (“OHSA”), and pursuant
to the common law.

42. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the provisions of the Alberta Occupational Health and
Safety Act, SA 2020, c O-2.2.

43. The Defendant’s actions and inaction caused Kaitlyn to be subjected to a poisoned work
environment, which was not contemplated by the contract of employment and, was
completely antithetical to the spirit and intent of the contract of employment.

44. Kaitlyn pleads the Defendant had an obligation to maintain a workplace free of such
harassment but failed to do so. Kaitlyn states she was berated, humiliated, and deeply
impacted by the actions and inaction of the Defendant when she advocated for the safety
of her workplace.

45. As a result of the Defendant’s breach of its duties and obligations, Kaitlyn has suffered,
and will continue to suffer damages. The Plaintiff therefore pleads that she is entitled to
damages for breach of the common law and statutory duty to provide a safe and healthy
work environment, and investigate complaints of harassment, in the amount of
$50,000.00.

10
MORAL DAMAGES

46. In determining the Plaintiff’s damages, Kaitlyn pleads that this Honourable Court ought to
account for the Defendant’s failure to comply with their duty of good faith and fair dealings in
the manner of dismissal.

47. In that regard, Katlyn pleads that when the parties entered into the contract of employment,
it was contemplated that if the Defendant were to breach their duty of good faith and fair
dealings upon the termination of Kaitlyn’s employment, it was reasonably foreseeable that
this would cause her mental distress. The Plaintiff therefore pleads and relies upon the
following:

a) The Defendant’s failure to investigate Kaitlyn’s concerns;

b) The Defendant’s failure to provide a safe and healthy, harassment free work
environment for the Plaintiff;

c) The Defendant’s failure to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in
the workplace;

d) The Defendant’s refusal to provide the Plaintiff with a harassment-free workplace;

and

e) The Defendant’s reprisal of the Plaintiff for bringing her concerns forward when it
terminated her employment and alleged it had cause.

48. Kaitlyn states her successful career as an Area Sales Manager was tarnished after she
experienced an incredibly successful year in Alberta’s homebuilding industry.

49. Kaitlyn states the Defendant’s actions and inaction have deeply impacted Kaitlyn’s livelihood,
as well as her future earning capacity, as she is now a Corrections Officer at the Edmonton
Young Offender Centre.

50. Kaitlyn further states that the Defendant’s conduct, as particularized above, has impacted
her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

51. Kaitlyn pleads that the mental distress she was caused as a direct result of the actions and
inactions taken by the Defendant, as particularized above, has caused her anxiety and
depression.

52. As a result of the actions and inaction of the Defendant, Kaitlyn states she underwent
Emotional Management Therapy (“EMT”). Kaitlyn states that she too is a victim of sexual

11
 assault, and pleads the Defendant’s actions and inaction, triggered her past trauma, resulting
in ongoing therapy.

53. Kaitlyn further states that Nasserdeen’s return to the workplace resulted in increased anxiety
and fear for her future livelihood as she felt she would be terminated due to her friendship
and support of J.M.

54. In effecting her termination in extraordinary bad-faith, Kaitlyn pleads the Defendant’s actions
and inaction has significantly impacted her ability to earn an income to that which she
previously earned from Coventry Homes.

55. Following her termination, Kaitlyn states she accepted a new position with another Alberta
homebuilder, Anthem United. However, Kaitlyn states she was unable to continue in the
homebuilding industry and quit approximately one month after accepting new employment
as she was still forced to routinely engage in uncomfortable interactions with Coventry
Homes’ clients and staff. Kaitlyn pleads these interactions further triggered her past trauma.
As such, Kaitlyn pleads she had no choice but to resign and accept employment at the jail.

56. Kaitlyn pleads that she was well on her way to a promising and successful career and that
the Defendant’s actions and inaction has significantly impacted her self-worth, and her future
earning capacity. Kaitlyn states that due to the reduction in wages, she has been unable to
afford the proper therapy required to navigate her difficult experience with Coventry Homes.
Kaitlyn states that she took significant pride in her career and pleads the Defendant’s actions
and inaction tarnished her promising future in Alberta’s homebuilding industry.

57. The Plaintiff therefore pleads that she is entitled to moral damages in the amount of
$75,000.00.

DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL SUFFERING

58. Kaitlyn states she has suffered and continues to suffer from significant mental and physical
distress and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of the Defendant’s conduct, as outlined
above.

59. The Defendant’s actions in terminating Kaitlyn from her employment was a calculated,
intentional act designed to cause harm.

60. Kaitlyn has sought medical assistance for stress, anxiety, depression, and insomnia, all of
which is a direct result of the Defendant’s conduct while she was still employed, and for the

12
 manner the Defendant terminated her employment. Kaitlyn states she will require treatment
on an ongoing basis but is unable to afford the required treatment due to her reduced income.

61. Kaitlyn states it was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, and reasonably
foreseeable, that if the Defendant treated Kaitlyn in the manner that it did, Kaitlyn would suffer
mental distress and psychological injury due to the Defendant’s reckless disregard.

62. Kaitlyn states that her termination was calculated to produce harm and did produce significant
harm.

63. Further, the Defendant’s conduct was designed to inflict, and did inflict, mental distress upon
Kaitlyn at a time when the Defendant knew or ought to have known that she was vulnerable.

64. Kaitlyn therefore pleads that she is entitled to damages for intentional infliction of mental
distress in the amount of $100,000.00.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

65. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant’s breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealings
in the manner of dismissal, as outlined above, are actionable wrongs unto themselves, and
that the Defendant’s actions were so harsh, vindictive, reprehensible, and malicious that they
are deserving of punishment on their own by this Honourable Court, and to deter such
conduct.

66. The Plaintiff therefore pleads that she is entitled to punitive damages in the amount of
$75,000.00 as against the Defendant to demonstrate the Court’s condemnation of the
Defendant’s actions.

MITIGATION AND PLACE OF TRIAL

67. The Plaintiff states that she has incurred and will continue to incur certain out-of-pocket
expenses to mitigate her damages for which she is entitled to be reimbursed by the
Defendant. The Plaintiff undertakes to provide particulars of these expenses prior to the trial
of this action.

68. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in the City of Edmonton, in the Province of
Alberta.

13
Remedy sought:

69. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant:

a) Damages in the amount of $62,394.60 for earned unpaid commissions;

b) A declaration that the Plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed on November 7, 2022;

c) Damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of:

i. $105,538.19 for lost earnings during the seven (7)-month reasonable notice
period;

ii. $10,553.00 for lost benefits during the seven (7)-month reasonable notice
period;

iii. $2,100.00 for lost RRSP-contributions calculated at 2% of earnings during

the seven (7)-month reasonable notice period; and

iv. $4,200.00 for lost vacation pay, eligible for carryover, during the seven (7)-
month reasonable notice period.

d) A declaration that the Defendant failed to provide a safe and healthy work
environment for the Plaintiff, thereby breaching their common law duties to do so, as
well as their duties pursuant to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, SA 2020, c
O-2.2.

e) Damages for this breach in the amount of $50,000.00;

f) Moral damages for the bad-faith manner of termination in the amount of

$75,000.00;

g) Intentional Infliction of Mental Suffering in the amount of $100,000.00;

h) Punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00;

i) Damages for out-of-pocket expenses, the particulars of which will be provided prior
to or at trial;

j) Prejudgment interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, RSA 2000, c. J-1, and
the regulations thereunder;

k) Costs of this action; and

l) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

14
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT(S)
You only have a short time to do something to defend yourself against this claim:

20 days if you are served in Alberta

1 month if you are served outside Alberta but in Canada
2 months if you are served outside Canada.

You can respond by filing a statement of defence or a demand for notice in the
office of the clerk of the Court of King’s Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, AND serving
your statement of defence or a demand for notice on the plaintiff’s(s’) address for
service.

WARNING

If you do not file and serve a statement of defence or a demand for notice within
your time period, you risk losing the law suit automatically. If you do not file, or do
not serve, or are late in doing either of these things, a court may give a judgment to
the plaintiff(s) against you.

15