The program gave Ms. Brake up to 90 days to achieve goals
on which she and the appellant were to agree.
 The trial judge found that the GAP program was not
implemented in accordance with its terms, either in letter
or spirit. He found that the thresholds that Ms. Brake was
ordered to meet were arbitrary and unfair. He gave, as an
example, the appellant’s use of the CSO scores. For example,
Ms. Brake was required to achieve a 0 per cent CSO score at the
Wal-Mart location at each of the 30-, 60- and 90-day GAP evaluation periods. The Wal-Mart location had historically “trended”
at a 35 per cent CSO score.
 He also found that the GAP goals were objectively more
difficult to meet than the standards set over the course of
Ms. Brake’s employment with the appellant.
 The trial judge gave other examples of the arbitrariness of
the GAP process and the goals set for Ms. Brake.
 On two of her three “90-day goals”, Ms. Brake had outstanding scores according to McDonald’s own corporate standards, with a CSO of 0 per cent and a QSC score of 90 per cent or
higher. She did not achieve the third goal, her “labour” goal, but
missed it by a small margin. As with the CSO metric, a perfect
labour score would be 0 per cent. Ms. Brake’s “goal” was 19.6 per
cent, and her actual result was 22.7 per cent.
 According to the GAP protocol document, an employee
who successfully completes the GAP process is to continue with
his or her regular employment without additional supervision.
 Nonetheless, on August 2, 2012, Mr. McKenna met with
Ms. Brake and told her that she had failed the GAP program
and that she had a choice between a demotion to first assistant
and termination. The salary as a first assistant would have
been the same as that which she had been receiving as a
restaurant manager but the benefits would have been meaningfully inferior.
 Ms. Brake refused the demotion. At trial, she explained
that she was embarrassed and humiliated by the proposed
demotion to first assistant because she would be reporting to
people whom she had trained and supervised, and those people
were younger and less experienced than she was. She left the
meeting and never returned.
 Shortly after the meeting, she received a letter from
Mr. McKenna that gave her a final deadline of August 10, 2012
to accept the first assistant position. In the letter, Mr. McKenna
stated that if she declined the offer or failed to answer, it would
be taken as confirmation of her resignation.