What evidence supports an employer's claim that it intended to terminate a worker in May 2006 even in the absence of safety issues?

In these proceedings I have reviewed the evidence on file, including the evidence before the case officer as well as the new affidavit(s) evidence provided by the employer in these proceedings. Applying the Faryna v. Chorny test earlier referred to in this decision, and in agreement with the reasons provided by the case officer in his June 4, 2008 decision, I find that the employer has failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it would have terminated the worker on or about the month of May 2006 even in the absence of the safety issues. I note the evidence that there were customer complaints about other employees’ job performance yet their employment was not terminated. I also note the evidence about supervisor A encouraging the worker to get well when the worker was off work – this is not consistent with the employer being displeased with the worker’s job performance and planning to terminate his employment in the near future. As well, a planned job termination for May 2006 is inconsistent with B, the employer’s managing partner, speaking with the worker on May 19, 2006 at the employer’s premises and responding “OK, we’ll see you” when the worker indicated his intention to return to work on May 24, 2006. On all the evidence, the employer’s position that it intended to terminate the worker’s employment in May 2006 is not persuasive.