interpretation of the credit letter, there is no basis to interfere
with the trial judge’s finding that Ms. Brake had the equivalent
of 20 years of employment with the appellant.
 A trial judge’s determination of the period of reasonable
notice is entitled to considerable deference: Minott v. O’Shanter
Development Co. (1999), 42 O.R. (3d) 321,  O.J. No. 5
(C.A.), at pp. 343-44 O.R. In finding that the period of reasonable
notice was 20 months (including her statutory entitlements
under the Act), the trial judge took into account the well-established Bardal1 factors: the character of her employment,
her length of service, her age and the availability of similar
employment in the light of her experience, training and qualifications. Moreover, in oral argument, counsel for PJ-M2R conceded that if the court were to find that Ms. Brake had 20 years
of service as a restaurant manager, a notice period of 20 months
would be within the acceptable range.
 Accordingly, I would dismiss this ground of appeal.
Issue #5 Mitigation during the notice period
 The appellant submits that the trial judge erred in two
ways in his treatment of mitigation during the notice period.
 First, it says that the trial judge erred when he found
that the respondent had made reasonable efforts to mitigate her
losses. It points to the respondent’s evidence at trial that she
made one application for a job between August 10, 2012 and January 29, 2013 (when she was examined for discovery), and that
she had not applied for any restaurant management positions.
 Second, the appellant argues that the trial judge erred in
law in failing to deduct the income that Ms. Brake received during the notice period from the damages award. In its factum, the
appellant represents Ms. Brake’s income during the notice period
Sobey’s, August – December 2012 9,208.88
Sobey’s, January – December 2013 $19, 566.58
Tim Horton’s — two months in 2013 2,701.00
EI benefits — 2013 7,150.00
Sobey’s, January – April 2014 6,793.20
Home Depot, January – April 2014 600.00
1 Bardal v. Globe and Mail Ltd.,  O.J. No. 149, 24 D.L.R. (2d) 140
(H.C.J.), at p. 145 D.L.R.