received by way of EI from a damages award for wrongful dis-
missal. At p. 112 O.R. of Peck, he concluded that they are not to
be deducted since the employer ought not to profit from the ben-
efits payable to the employee. He stated:
It is to be observed that as a result of the [employer] breaching its contract
of employment with the [employee], the [employee] was required to use up
at least part of his [EI] benefits. It would be inconsistent to have that
amount taken into account for the benefit of the employer who, by its breach
of contract, compelled the employee to resort to his [EI] benefits.
 Numerous lower court decisions in Ontario have followed these decisions and refused to deduct EI benefits from
wrongful dismissal awards. See, for example, Desforge v. E-D
Roofing Ltd.,  O.J. No. 3720, 69 C.C.E.L. (3d) 115 (S.C.J.),
at paras. 70-73; and Saladini v. Affinia Canada Corp., 
O.J. No. 394, 2011 ONSC 79 (S.C.J.), at para. 47.
 Therefore, in accordance with settled law, Ms. Brake’s
2013 EI benefits were not received in mitigation of loss and are
not deductible from the damages award.
b. Employment income in the statutory entitlement
 In this section of the analysis, I will begin by explaining
why employment income earned during the statutory entitlement period is not subject to deduction as mitigation income.
Thereafter, I will consider Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlement
period and the burden of proof in respect of it. I will conclude
this section of the analysis by considering the income earned
during the statutory entitlement period.
Employment income in the statutory entitlement
period is not subject to mitigation
 When Ms. Brake’s employment was wrongfully terminated, she was entitled to two types of compensation — termination and severance pay under the Act (“statutory entitlements”)
and common law damages for wrongful dismissal. In her
amended statement of claim, she claimed for both. At para. 35 of
the claim, she states that she had been paid no compensation in
lieu of reasonable notice and none of the amounts required
by the Act.
 The trial judge was entitled to make a global award
encompassing both Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlements and her
common law damages, provided that there was no double recovery: Stevens v. Globe and Mail (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 481, 
O.J. No. 1614 (C.A.), at p. 493 O.R. That is what the trial judge