COURT FILE NUMBER Clerk’s Stamp

COURT COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF ALBERTA

FILED
JUDICIAL CENTRE EDMONTON DIGITALLY
2303 08315
PLAINTIFF TESSA THOMSON May 10, 2023
11:39 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, Tessa Thomson (“Tessa” or “the Plaintiff”), is a 30-year-old individual residing
in the Municipal District of Parkland County, in the Province of Alberta. She was employed
by Coventry Homes Inc. (“the Defendant” or “Coventry Homes”) in Edmonton for one (1)
year and six (6) months, until on or about December 22, 2022, at which time her employment
was constructively terminated by the Defendant.

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, Tessa was employed by the Defendant as a Drafter. In this
position, Tessa’s primary responsibilities included, but were not limited to:

a) drafting client and spec files when in the drafting queue;

b) creating construction drawings;

c) communicating with site superintendents and assisting with any inquiries;

d) problem-solving and troubleshooting any issues brought to her attention;

e) creating required drafting addendums; and

f) 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, Tessa received the following remuneration from the Defendant:

a) an annual salary of $65,280.00;

b) participation in the Defendant’s comprehensive benefits plan, for which the

Defendant paid a monthly premium on Tessa’s behalf; and

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

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

2
COVENTRY HOMES FAILED TO FOLLOW ITS INTERNAL POLICIES

7. Tessa 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;

l) Coventry Homes’ Workplace Threat Policy;

m) Coventry Homes’ Workplace Accident Investigation Policy; and

n) Coventry Homes’ Email Best Practices Policy;

together, “Coventry Policies”

8. Tessa pleads that the Coventry Policies formed part of the written terms and conditions of
her employment with Coventry Homes.

3
DISCRIMINATION, WORKPLACE HARASSMENT, AND POISONED WORK ENVIRONMENT

9. Tessa 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.

10. Tessa states that, despite this clear term for 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.

11. Tessa states the Executive Management team 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

12. In the following escalating series of events, Tessa states that she was constructively
terminated as reprisal for bringing forth 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

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

Coventry Homes Immediately Defends Nasserdeen and Misrepresents the

Seriousness of the Situation to its Staff

14. On or about April 11, 2022, at approximately 11:38 am, Tessa states that Henri, sent a
company-wide email defending Nasserdeen to all staff:

“To All Coventry Group of Companies Staff:

An allegation of misconduct has been made against one of our Executive

team members, Robin.

4
 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]

15. On April 12, 2022, Tessa 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”

16. Tessa 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. Tessa 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.

Edmonton Police Duty to Warn

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

5
18. On June 20, 2022, Tessa states Detectives with the Edmonton Police spoke with Henri
Rodier in accordance with the Duty to Warn.

Nasserdeen Returned to the Workplace

19. On September 12, 2022, Tessa states the Defendant welcomed Nasserdeen back into the
workplace. Tessa pleads Coventry Homes’ failed to provide an opportunity for Tessa or other
Coventry Homes’ employees to address their concerns surrounding Nasserdeen’s return to
their workplace.

Tessa was Humiliated, Berated, and Bullied at the Drafting Meeting

20. On November 8, 2022, Tessa states Coventry Homes held a drafting meeting with its team
(“the Drafting Meeting”). Members of the Executive Management present included but were
not limited to: Henri Rodier; Shantyl Segin; and Len Walters.

21. At meeting’s end, and at the invitation of Shantyl Segin, Tessa raised an important and
sensitive concern regarding the number of Coventry Homes’ female staff who had resigned,
been forced to leave or had been terminated, and of those employees, who had raised
concerns about Nasserdeen and/or Coventry Homes’ response to same. In response, Tessa
states that Henri Rodier quickly grew visibly agitated and proceeded to berate Tessa in front
of all staff present at the Drafting Meeting. Tessa states Henri Rodier shouted at her and
claimed she had no right to judge Nasserdeen. Tessa further states that Henri Rodier then
attacked her character, declared she hates Nasserdeen, and wanted him to be found guilty.

22. In turn, Tessa states she expressed that her concern was related to how Coventry Homes
was handling what was an incredibly sensitive situation. Tessa states she expressed to Henri
that it was inappropriate for him to use his reputation and power to publicly defend
Nasserdeen, influence Coventry Homes’ staff, and paint their former colleague, J.M., in a
negative light.

23. Tessa states she then further advised Henri that his April 11, 2022, email, defending
Nasserdeen to all staff was extremely inappropriate. Tessa states Henri denied sending the
email and claimed he did not know what she was referring to.

6
24. Tessa states she then told Henri and everyone else present at the Drafting Meeting that there
were other victims of sexual assault at Coventry Homes who deserved to feel safe. At this
point, Tessa states it was necessary to inform Henri Rodier and others present that she too
was a sexual assault victim.

25. Tessa states she explained that the actions and inaction of the Executive Management
triggered her past trauma.

26. Tessa states she addressed Henri regarding inappropriate events that occurred at
Coventry’s Halloween Party on October 31, 2022 (the “Halloween Party”).

27. At the Halloween Party, Tessa states that Coventry Homes’ Purchasing Manager, Mike
Reschke, dressed up as a woman, wearing a dress, bra, high-heels, makeup, and a wig.
Tessa states Mike Reschke flaunted being a woman when he entered the room and that
Nasserdeen immediately went over to him and began flirting with him in jest. Tessa states
Nasserdeen expressed, “Oh, you’re so beautiful, I can’t keep my eyes off of you! What are
you doing to me?” Tessa states Mike Reschke replied, “Robin, you’re making me feel
uncomfortable, stop!” – or words to the same effect.

28. Tessa states she explained to Henri that this conduct, which occurred in front of all staff, was
inappropriate, insensitive, and damaging. Specifically, Tessa advised that after witnessing
Mike Reschke’s and Nasserdeen’s display, she had to leave the room to compose herself,
as she was deeply offended and impacted by what she had witnessed.

29. In response, Tessa states Henri laughed and asked her why she cared and whether Mike
Reschke wanted to bring a sexual harassment complaint. Tessa states Henri then asked
her what she wants from him, and what does she want him to do. Tessa further states she
was shocked and deeply offended by his response.

30. Tessa states that Henri further accused her of being deluded by unnecessary emotion and
alleged that due to his position within Coventry Homes, she had no right to question him in
the manner she did.

31. Tessa states that once Henri and Len Walters exited the Drafting Meeting, Shantyl Segin
ridiculed and reprimanded her for speaking up. Tessa states Shantyl Segin informed the
group that they were paid to work, not talk.

7
32. Tessa states she requested a copy of the Meeting Minutes but the Defendant denied her
request and told her she had no right to view the Meeting Minutes.

Tessa Placed On An Unpaid Suspension

33. On November 9, 2022, the day after the Drafting Meeting, Tessa states she was placed on
an unpaid suspension by the Defendant. In so doing, Tessa pleads there were no express
terms in her Employment Contract with Coventry Homes that gave it the right to place her on
an unpaid leave of absence. Tessa states she was advised that she was being placed on an
unpaid suspension due to insubordination, disruptive conduct, and contravention of Coventry
Homes’ policies.

34. Tessa states that her self-identity, dignity, and self-worth were deeply impacted by the
Defendant’s decision to place her on an unpaid leave after she advocated for the safety of
herself and her colleagues.

35. Tessa states the Defendant’s decision to place her on an unpaid leave resulted in significant
stress and anxiety.

36. Accordingly, Tessa states she visited her doctor, Dr. Therese Chua (“Dr. Chua”) to seek
treatment.

37. Tessa states she was advised by Dr. Chua that she was unfit to attend work due to medical
reasons until December 9, 2022.

38. As such, on November 20, 2022, Tessa states she submitted Dr. Chua’s medical note to the
Defendant advising it that she was unable to work on account of medical reasons until
December 9, 2022.

39. On or around November 28, 2022, Tessa states the Defendant sent a third-party to her home
while she was recovering on a medical leave of absence. Tessa further states that a medical
questionnaire was pinned to her front door.

40. On or around December 2, 2022, Tessa states she provided the Defendant with a second
medical note from Dr. Chau who advised the Defendant that Tessa would remain on a
medical leave of absence until March 9, 2022.

8
41. Despite this, on December 22, 2022, Tessa states the Defendant sent another third-party to
her home who attempted to physically hand her the Defendant’s medical questionnaire while
she was off on medical leave.

42. Tessa states that the Defendant’s collective conduct, culminated by this final senseless act,
constituted the constructive termination of her employment. Tessa states that the Defendant
had fractured the employment relationship between the parties beyond repair.

43. As such, Tessa pleads she was terminated from her employment as reprisal for bringing forth
her genuine concerns to members of the Defendant’s Executive Management regarding
Nasserdeen’s return to the workplace.

44. Tessa further pleads she is entitled to aggravated damages for the extraordinary bad-faith
manner in which the Defendant effected her termination.

DAMAGES

ENTITLEMENT TO REASONABLE NOTICE

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

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

a) Tessa’s age of 30;

b) Tessa’s 1 year and 6 months of service;

c) Tessa’s niche position as a Drafter; and

d) The difficulties the Plaintiff has faced in securing new employment, catalyzed by the
Defendant’s deplorable conduct and the lasting effects the Defendant’s mistreatment
has had, and continues to have, on her ability to work.

47. In light of these factors, Tessa pleads that she is entitled to compensation in lieu of
reasonable notice in the amount of $32,640.00, representing a reasonable notice period of
six (6) months.

COVENTRY HOMES FAILED TO INVESTIGATE AND PROVIDE A SAFE WORK

ENVIRONMENT

9
48. Tessa 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 that the Defendant breached
their duties and obligations to her in this regard.

49. 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 Rodier 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.

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

51. The Defendant’s actions and inaction caused Tessa 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.

52. Tessa pleads the Defendant had an obligation to maintain a workplace free of such
harassment but failed to do so. Tessa states she was berated, humiliated, and deeply
impacted by members of the Executive Management when she advocated for the safety
of her workplace.

53. As a result of the Defendant’s breach of its duties and obligations, Tessa 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.

MORAL DAMAGES

54. In determining the Plaintiff’s damages, Tessa 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.

55. In that regard, Tessa 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 Tessa’s employment, it was reasonably foreseeable that

10
 this would cause her mental distress. The Plaintiff therefore pleads and relies upon the
following:

a) The Defendant’s failure to investigate Tessa’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 forward her concerns forward
when it constructively terminated her employment.

56. Tessa states that her successful career as a Drafter was tarnished by the actions and inaction
of the Defendant.

57. Tessa states the Defendant’s actions and inaction have deeply impacted Tessa’s livelihood,
as well as her future earning capacity. Tessa states that she is the breadwinner of her family
and that the impact of her termination has significantly impacted both herself and her family.

58. Due to the actions and inaction of the Defendant, Tessa states she now suffers from
insomnia, lost appetite, anxiety, and depression.

59. Tessa states that due to the financial difficulties associated with her termination, Tessa has
experienced significant stress over and above the normal feelings associated with
termination.

60. Tessa states that she has incurred Non-Sufficient-Fund (“NSF”) Fees from her bank and has
had to borrow money from family due to the actions and inaction of the Defendant.

61. Tessa states she was in the process of qualifying for a mortgage for a new home which has
been put on hold due to her termination.

62. Tessa further states she and her husband have been forced to sell personal items to get by.

63. Tessa states the Defendant’s conduct, as particularized above, has significantly impacted
her dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

64. Tessa pleads her mental distress was caused by the actions and inaction of the Defendant
and therefore pleads she is entitled to moral damages in the amount of $75,000.00.

11
DAMAGES FOR INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF MENTAL SUFFERING

65. Tessa states that 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.

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

67. Tessa states she had received, and continues to receive, medical assistance for stress,
anxiety, depression, and insomnia, all of which are a direct result of the Defendant’s conduct
and for the manner the Defendant terminated her employment.

68. Tessa states she will require these treatments on an ongoing basis, and that her need for
therapy was further exacerbated by the Defendant’s conduct while she was on medical leave.

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

70. Tessa states that her termination was calculated to produce harm and did produce significant
harm.

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

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

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

73. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendant’s breach of their duty of good faith and fair dealings
in the manner of dismissal, and in the events leading up to her dismissal, 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.

12
74. 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

75. 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.

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

Remedy sought:

77. The Plaintiff claims against the Defendant:

a) A declaration that the Plaintiff was constructively terminated from her employment,
when the Defendant placed her on an unpaid leave of absence without the express
contractual right to do so. In the alternative, a declaration that the Plaintiff’s conduct,
as particularized above, resulted in the Defendant’s constructive termination on or
around December 22, 2022.

b) Damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of:

i. $32,640.00 for lost earnings during the six (6)-month reasonable notice
period;

ii. $3,264.00 for lost benefits during the six (6)-month reasonable notice period;
and

iii. $2,611.20 for lost vacation pay, eligible for carryover, during the six (6)-month
reasonable notice period.

c) 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.

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

13
 e) Moral damages for the bad-faith manner of termination in the amount of
$75,000.00;

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

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

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

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

j) Costs of this action; and

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

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.

14