The law governing this issue, as enunciated in Evans v.
Teamsters, Local 31,  1 S.C.R. 661,  S.C.J. No. 20,
2008 SCC 20, at para. 30, can be summarized as follows. Where
an employer offers an employee a chance to mitigate damages by
accepting a different position, the central issue is whether a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have accepted
the offer. This is an objective standard, on which the employer
bears the burden of proof: Evans, at para. 35. The employee is
not obliged to mitigate by working in an atmosphere of hostility,
embarrassment or humiliation. The non-tangible elements of the
situation, including work atmosphere, stigma and loss of dignity,
as well as the tangible elements, such as the nature and conditions of employment, must be considered in determining
whether the objective standard has been met.
 The trial judge found that, in the circumstances, it would
have been “unreasonable” to have expected Ms. Brake to accept
the demotion and continue working for PJ-M2R. He noted that
he had heard from many witnesses and gotten a real sense of
the culture at PJ-M2R and how Ms. Brake fit into it. He
described [at para. 22] the evidence given by some witnesses on
behalf of PJ-M2R as being “downright insulting to Ms. Brake
and her personality and abilities”. He concluded that it was “
perfectly understandable” that Ms. Brake would have found working
under a young man whom she had trained to be embarrassing or
even humiliating. He concluded [at para. 22] that Ms. Brake
could not have been expected to continue with PJ-M2R “given
the way they had treated her”.
 The trial judge effectively found that the objective standard had not been met — a reasonable person in Ms. Brake’s
position would not have been expected to have accepted the
demotion to first assistant. As a finding of mixed fact and law, it
is subject to appellate intervention only if there is a palpable
and overriding error: Evans, at para. 35. The appellant has not
demonstrated any such error.
 Accordingly, I would dismiss this ground of appeal.
Issue #4 The notice period
 The appellant says that, in any event, the trial judge
erred in awarding Ms. Brake damages based on a notice period
of 20 months. This submission is based largely on the appellant’s
position that Ms. Brake began working for PJ-M2R in July of
1999 and, while she had worked for McDonald’s prior to 1999,
that work was “in no way connected to the Appellant”. The
appellant says that it recognized Ms. Brake’s prior service with
other McDonald’s restaurants only for the purposes of benefits.