or to this court’s understanding of the basis for each decision
that he reached.
 The appellant’s second complaint is essentially a quarrel
with the trial judge’s findings of fact. I see no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge’s findings. On the contrary, the
record supports the findings made by the trial judge.
 Take, for example, the appellant’s complaint that the
trial judge erred in accepting Ms. Brake’s evidence that she
was dumbfounded when she got a negative performance review
in November of 2011. The trial judge was uniquely positioned
to make such a finding. He heard the parties and their wit-
nesses and he had a full documentary record in front of him.
In Ms. Brake’s performance reviews from 2000–2010, she had
received an overall rating of “excellent”. It will be recalled
that Ms. Brake’s review for the first half of 2010 included this
Esther, this is the best start to a new year I’ve ever seen you put together.
You have the store running the best I’ve seen. Your CSO scores are below
the national and regional average and way ahead of last year . . . Also for
the first time, both the McDonald’s and PJ-M2R scorecards are outstanding.
 It was within this context that the trial judge accepted
Ms. Brake’s evidence that she was dumbfounded when she was
given her negative review in 2011. Although Ms. Brake had
received a “satisfactory” review score for the second half of 2010,
in light of her long streak of “excellent” ratings on annual
reviews, it was clearly open to the trial judge to accept Ms.
Brake’s testimony that she was “shocked” by her 2011 review.
 Another example that the appellant relies on for its contention that the trial judge’s presentation of the facts was
unsupported by the evidence relates to Ms. Brake’s part-time
work for Sobey’s. I address that matter below as part of my
analysis of issue #5.
 Accordingly, I would dismiss this ground of appeal.
Issue #2 The constructive dismissal finding
 The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in finding that the respondent had been constructively dismissed. It
contends that Ms. Brake knew what was expected of her and
that she was struggling to achieve her goals. It says that
Ms. Brake was placed on GAP in an attempt to assist her in
achieving her goals and that, over a 90-day period, rather than
accept that GAP was to assist her, Ms. Brake adopted a negative
attitude, failed to acknowledge her difficulties and became a
detriment to herself.