(b) Ms. Brake’s employment income in the statutory entitle-
ment period under the Act; and
(c) Ms. Brake’s employment income in the balance of the
20-month notice period (the “balance of the notice period”).
a. EI benefits
 In my view, the law is clear: EI benefits are not to be
deducted from damages awarded for wrongful dismissal. Accordingly, the damages award was not to be reduced by the $7,150 of
EI benefits that Ms. Brake received in 2013.
 The Supreme Court addressed the deductibility of
EI benefits from wrongful dismissal damages in Jack Cewe Ltd.
v. Jorgenson,  1 S.C.R. 812,  S.C.J. No. 24. In that
case, Mr. Jorgenson successfully sued Jack Cewe Ltd. (the “
company”) for wrongful dismissal. The trial judge awarded damages
equivalent to a year’s salary. From that amount, the trial judge
deducted, among other things, the EI benefits2 that Mr. Jorgenson had received during the 12-month notice period. The British
Columbia Court of Appeal held that the EI benefits should not
be deducted. The company appealed to the Supreme Court and
argued that EI benefits should be deducted in proportion to the
company’s contribution. Its appeal was dismissed.
 At p. 818 S.C.R. of Cewe, Pigeon J., writing for the
court, stated that he found the company’s position “untenable”.
The payment of [EI] contributions by the employer was an obligation
incurred by reason of [Mr. Jorgenson’s] employment, therefore, to the extent
that the payment of those contributions resulted in the provision of [EI]
benefits, these are a consequence of the contract of employment and, conse-
quently, cannot be deducted from damages for wrongful dismissal.
 This court expressed a similar view in Peck v. Levesque
Plywood Ltd. (1979), 27 O.R. (2d) 108,  O.J. No. 4468
(C.A.). In Peck, after awarding an employee damages for wrongful dismissal, the trial judge reduced the award by the amount of
EI benefits that the employee received during the notice period.
This court allowed the employee’s cross-appeal, holding that
the damages award should not be reduced by the amount of the
 Justice Dubin (as he then was), writing for this court,
thoroughly canvassed the jurisprudence from across Canada on
the question of whether there should be a deduction of amounts
2 At that time, such benefits were called unemployment insurance benefits.