Working for the Canadian employer from Canada is not United States employment. The question turns on which entity she works for and where the work occurs, so the arrangement should be described precisely rather than assumed to be safe.
Where the work happens is the whole question
Hypothetical example: Continuing in her existing role for the Chase company, from Canada, does not require United States work authorization. Difficulty arises when the arrangement is described as running the United States subsidiary from Canada, because that suggests she is performing services for the United States entity, and because time spent that way may complicate the qualifying-year narrative if her employer of record changes. There is also a practical risk: a person who has effectively been doing the United States job for months may find that the petition's description of a new managerial role sits awkwardly against the actual history. The cleaner arrangement is to keep her role and payroll unchanged until the transfer is authorized.
Create a calendar that shows the last day of the qualifying year, petition preparation time, planned travel and the aggregate seven-year ceiling. Hypothetical example: An aerospace-parts supplier wants its Canadian director relocating for a three-year launch. A two-month payroll gap in the relevant period may postpone filing even though the corporate plan is ready. Checking that gap early may allow the company to revise the launch sequence without misdescribing employment history.
The company should document any interruption honestly and recalculate. Extending a claimed period on paper creates a credibility problem that later payroll records will expose.