We just read the judge's decision. It's over a period of one month. And it's clear that she was being deceptive in some way from the evidence provided, as she kept offering new excuses that changed the nature of what she was claiming every time she was presented with evidence challenging her previous excuse.

Also, this is in Canada, so we're less familiar with the specifics of the laws there. It does, however, present a nasty precedent for companies to take advantage of even in dissimilar situations.