Application of the Potter test
 In the present case, the first branch of the Potter test is
the applicable one. Its application leads to the conclusion that
when the appellant told Ms. Brake she could take the first
assistant position or her employment would be terminated, it
constructively dismissed her.
 On the first step in the first branch of the Potter test, the
court must determine whether a breach occurred. On the findings of the trial judge, there can be no doubt that it did. The
demotion was unilateral — Ms. Brake did not consent or acquiesce to it and there was no suggestion that either an express or
implied term in the employment contract authorized the change
in position. Further, the demotion would have been detrimental
to Ms. Brake if for no other reason than that her benefits would
have been “meaningfully inferior”.
 On the second step, the court must ask whether a reasonable person in the same situation as Ms. Brake would have felt
that the essential terms of the employment contract were being
substantially changed. In my view, it is self-evident that a reasonable person in Ms. Brake’s situation would have felt that a
demotion to first assistant amounted to a change to the essential
terms of her employment contract.
 In sum, the appellant unilaterally changed the employment contract to Ms. Brake’s detriment when Mr. McKenna told
Ms. Brake she had to take the demotion or her employment would
be terminated. In so doing, it constructively dismissed her.
 I would conclude on this ground of appeal with a final
comment. At times, it appeared that the appellant was asserting
that it had just cause to dismiss Ms. Brake. If so, I would simply
observe that the trial judge’s findings of fact are a complete
answer to such an assertion. As the trial judge explained,
Ms. Brake had a lengthy history of effective contribution to
PJ-M2R and her performance never fell to such a level that
there was cause for dismissal. On the record, he was fully justified in those findings.
Issue #3 Refusal to accept continued employment
 The appellant submits that if Ms. Brake was constructively dismissed, she was obliged to accept the demotion to first
assistant, and by failing to do so, she breached her obligation to
mitigate her damages and disentitled herself from receiving
 I do not agree.