As the employee's counsel, I must develop a convincing argument explaining why the employer's conduct constituted a breach of the employment agreement and did not meet the test for summary dismissal (i.e., explain why summary dismissal was not appropriate) for the scenario provided. How would I apply the test for summary dismissal as set out in McKinley v. BC Tel, [2001] 2 S.C.R. 161, 2001 SCC 38. Which should set out which party is represented, my client's position and some details to support their argument. Demonstrates an accurate understanding of the scenario and provides a precise and brief recitation of the pertinent facts, relevant issues, and legal principles. Must be written using appropriate tone, accurate spelling/grammar, clarity of thought, reader engagement, and interesting use of written word. Scenario: Mr. Hugo Blair (the Employee) was employed as the Ontario Director of the Commercial Insurance Group Health Benefits Division (CIGHBD) of Desjardins (the Employer). First founded as a caisse (a cooperative, member-owned financial institution) in 1900 by Alphonse and Dorimne Desjardins. Desjardins describes itself as a cooperative financial group with 7.7 million clients/members, 56,165 employees and 2,379 directors. As of September 30, 2024, Desjardins held assets valued at $464.7 billion Canadian (CND) and with net revenue in 2024 totaling $11.2 million CND. The Employee was employed under a written contract of employment dated August 29, 2006 (the "Contract"). The relevant provisions of the Contract are the following: Clause 10: the Employee will comply with all the Employer's policies. Clause 13: if the Employee breaches the Contract or fails to meet the performance requirements, as set out by the Employer, disciplinary action in the form of suspension or termination may result. Clause 14.3(a): the Employer is entitled to terminate the Employee's employment at any time as long as the Employer provides the Employee with four (4) month's pay in lieu of notice. Clause 14.3(b): The Employer is entitled to summarily dismiss the Employee on several grounds, including serious misconduct. The Contract does not define what constitutes serious misconduct. On November 15, 2024, Mr. Yat'Sun Ng, the Employer's National Director of the CIGHBD sent an e-mail to all 13 CIGHBD Directors (Provincial and Territorial) about changes to the Employer's policies (the "Recipients"). Some of these changes were considered very controversial (decreases in benefits and increases in co-pays all to increase member dividends), and their adoption was not universally welcomed. The Employee later used Mr. Ng's e-mail as the basis for his speaking notes to address 40 or 50 senior team leaders at an event in Toronto. The Employer was aware of the event and did not review the Employee's remarks in advance. None of the attendees at the event were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement, but all were employed by the Employer and were bound by a general fiduciary duty to the Employer. The event was staffed by an external catering company that provided food, drinks and wait staff. None of the catering company's staff were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements. On December 1, 2024, the Employer learned that a copy of Mr. Ng's e-mail had been leaked to The Globe & Mail. The Employer managed to obtain the envelope in which the leaked e-mail had been mailed to The Globe & Mail. The Employer appointed a panel of three to investigate the incident to determine who was responsible for the leak. Four days after The Globe & Mail reported on the leaked information, the CEO of an American multinational, for-profit corporation that provides both health insurance and health care was killed in New York City (NYC) by an individual furious with the American for-profit health care industry. The alleged killer is said to have written a manifesto which described the for-profit health care sector as "parasites" who "have it coming." The Chief of Police (NYC) described the manifesto as having "an anti-corporatist mentality" that went beyond the grievances of any one individual. Considering the circumstances, the investigation panel were encouraged to work swiftly, but carefully. It was decided that the pool of suspects could only be one of the email Recipients located in Toronto since the postmark on the envelope that contained the copy of the e-mail had been mailed was from Toronto. Of the Recipients, six (6) lived in and around Toronto. The investigating panel did not interview any of the seven (7) Recipients who lived outside Toronto, nor did it make inquiry into their physical locations at the time the envelope was mailed. The investigating panel only interviewed the six (6) Toronto Recipients, including the Employee. The investigating panel engaged a handwriting expert, Mr. Neville Longbottom (considered a bit of a wizard in the field of handwriting analysis). Mr. Longbottom concluded that there were many similarities between Employee's handwriting and handwriting on the envelope of the leaked e-mail. His report stated that he was "almost certain" the handwriting belonged to the Employee but could not eliminate the possibility of different author. On January 10, 2025, the investigation panel issued a report that concluded that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the Employee was responsible for the leak. The Employer summarily dismissed the employee pursuant to Clause 14.3(b) of the Contract. The Employee commenced proceedings in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice alleging a breach of contract. Can you cite and reference this in APA