(2) in finding that Ms. Brake had been constructively dismissed;
(3) by failing to find that Ms. Brake’s decision to not accept
the offer of continued employment as a first assistant
amounted to a failure to mitigate her damages, thus disentitling her to any damages;
(4) in setting the notice period at 20 months; and
(5) in his treatment of mitigation during the notice period.
Issue #1 Adequacy of reasons
 The appellant makes two different complaints on this
ground of appeal.
 First, the appellant submits that the trial judge’s reasons
for decision do not show the pathway taken through the conflicting evidence or provide an adequate explanation for the “why” of
 Second, the appellant contends that the respondent’s own
evidence does not support the findings of fact made by the trial
judge. For example, the appellant points to the trial judge’s
acceptance of Ms. Brake’s evidence that she was “dumbfounded”
and “shocked” when she received a negative review in November
of 2011. How can that be, asks the appellant, when Ms. Brake
had signed and agreed with her numerous performance reviews
in which her shortcomings had been pointed out?
 I see nothing in this ground of appeal. I will deal with
each of the two complaints in turn.
 The first complaint is that the trial judge gave inadequate
reasons. I do not agree.
 Appellate intervention based on inadequacy of reasons is
justifiable when the inadequacy prejudices the appellant’s exercise of his or her legal rights to an appeal or impedes or prevents
an appellate court from understanding the basis of the trial
decision: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. Pension Plan (Trustee of)
v. BF Realty Holdings Ltd.,  O.J. No. 2125, 214 D.L.R.
(4th) 121 (C.A.), at para. 64. Neither such difficulty exists in the
 The trial judge articulated the relevant legal principles.
He reviewed the evidence, made his findings and indicated how
he applied the legal principles in light of those findings. The
route by which he found that Ms. Brake’s employment had been
wrongfully terminated is abundantly clear. So, too, is his reason-ing on the other legal issues that he decided. There is no impediment either to the appellant’s ability to mount its appeal