1. Reasonable efforts to mitigate
 At para. 4( v) of his reasons, the trial judge gave this
explanation for finding that Ms. Brake made reasonable efforts
( v) Ms. Brake had long had another job at Sobey’s as a cashier, a fact that
was always known to the [appellant]. After August 2012 she increased her
hours at Sobey’s. In addition, Ms. Brake made other efforts to mitigate her
damages. From October 2012 until mid-January 2013, she worked 30-36
hours per week at Tim Horton’s. Her hourly wage was $11.25. I accept
Ms. Brake’s testimony that she attempted to start a babysitting service and
cleaning service. She made phone calls, put up posters and posted an adver-
tisement for both businesses on Kijiji. I further accept that by January 2013,
Ms. Brake realized that the businesses were not working and that she needed
to find another source of income. Accordingly, she applied for several posi-
tions including as a McDonald’s mystery shopper, store manager and front
store supervisor at Shopper’s Drug Mart, overnight supervisor at Home
Depot, part-time cashier at IKEA, store manager at Mark’s Work Ware-
house, supervisor at Costco, assistant store Manager at Loblaws, store
manager at Dollarama and various other positions at Bed, Bath and
Beyond, Swiss Chalet, LCBO and Target. Ms. Brake has not been offered a
management position with any company since her termination. In March
2013, Ms. Brake accepted a position as a cashier at Home Depot. She works
approximately 35-38 hours per week and earns a wage of $12.50 per hour.
She continues to work there to date.
 I see no basis on which to interfere with the trial judge’s
finding that the respondent made reasonable efforts to mitigate.
The record amply supports that finding, as the reasons in
para. 4( v) readily demonstrate.
 It is trite law that a trial judge’s factual findings are to be
afforded deference and an appellate court is not to disturb them
absent palpable and overriding error. The appellant does not
argue that the trial judge’s finding is infected by a palpable and
overriding error. In effect, the appellant is asking this court to
retry the question of reasonable efforts. That request ignores the
standard of review to be applied to findings of fact.
 There is no magic formula that an employee must follow
when making reasonable efforts to obtain other employment
and thereby mitigate his or her loss. When an employer alleges
that a former employee has not reasonably mitigated his or her
losses, “the question is whether [the employee] has stood idly or
unreasonably by, or has tried without success to obtain other
employment”: Michaels v. Red Deer College,  2 S.C.R. 324,
 S.C.J. No. 81, at p. 331 S.C.R. A terminated employee is
entitled to consider her own long-term interests, so she will not
fail to mitigate merely because she chooses to take some career
risks that might not minimize the compensation that her former
employer will owe to her: Peet v. Babcock & Wilcox Industries Inc.