did in this case: he awarded damages based on what Ms. Brake’s
remuneration would have been over a 20-month time period
but made it clear that the damages award was inclusive of
Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlements. Thus, as I indicated earlier,
the damages award of 20 months was not solely compensation at
common law for wrongful dismissal. The 20-month damages
award included Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlements.
 Statutory entitlements are not damages. Ms. Brake was
entitled to receive her statutory entitlements even if she secured
a new full-time job the day after the appellant terminated her
employment. Therefore, the income that Ms. Brake earned during her statutory entitlement period is not subject to deduction
as “mitigation income”. In reaching this view, I adopt the reasons of the Divisional Court in Boland v. APV Canada Inc.,
 O.J. No. 510, 250 D.L.R. (4th) 376 (Div. Ct.).
 In Boland, the employee received part of his statutory
severance entitlement at the time that his employment was
terminated. He brought an action in which he sought damages
for wrongful dismissal and to recover the balance of his statutory
entitlements. He then sought summary judgment for payment of
the balance of his statutory entitlements on the basis that such
an amount was not subject to mitigation.
 The motion judge refused summary judgment because,
among other things, he was of the view that entitlements under
the Act were not enforceable by action but only through the
administrative procedures in the Act.
 The Divisional Court disagreed. It allowed the appeal,
set aside the order of the motion judge, and substituted an order
granting summary judgment for the outstanding balance of the
employee’s statutory entitlements.
 Lane J., writing for the Divisional Court, addressed the
question of whether, if an action is brought, statutory entitlements are subject to mitigation. He concluded that they are not.
 He noted that when such entitlements are obtained
through the administrative route, they are not subject to mitiga-
tion (at para. 21). He then summarized, at para. 22, the argu-
ment of the director, who had intervened, as follows:
The [Act] benefits are minimum entitlements and may not be reduced
whether sought in an action or by the administrative route. The [Act] enti-
tlements are not damages. They are not linked to any actual loss suffered by
the employee, but are payable in any event. They are to be paid “promptly”,
a legislative indication that the employer is not entitled to wait and see if
the employee becomes re-employed.
 At para. 23, Lane J. stated that he agreed with the
director’s position and went on to further explain: