[Act] entitlements are not linked, as damages are, to the criteria established
in Bardal such as the age of the employee, the likely length of time to find
another position, the actual finding of another position etc. They are payable
in any event. In my view, it is illogical to suppose that the Legislature
intended that such payments would become “damages” if sought in an
action, but not when sought administratively. They are minimum sums to be
paid by the employer and subjecting them to reduction by reason of sums
received from others removes their character as minimum. Their character
as minimums was clearly recognized in Machtinger and in Rizzo & Rizzo
Shoes Ltd., Re.
(Citations omitted; emphasis added)
 For the reasons given by Lane J. in Boland, statutory
entitlements are not subject to mitigation. Therefore, any
employment income that Ms. Brake earned during her statutory
entitlement period is not deductible as mitigation income.
 Since the employment income that Ms. Brake earned
during her statutory entitlement period is not deductible from
the damages award, the trial judge ought to have determined
her statutory entitlement period and identified which items of
employment income were attributable to that period and which
were attributable to the balance of the notice period.
Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlement period
 Ms. Brake’s statutory entitlement period would clearly
cover the period from the date of her dismissal to the end of 2012
and some part of 2013. Unfortunately, the record does not permit
this court to determine the precise number of weeks to which she
was statutorily entitled. Consequently, the court cannot determine when in 2013 the statutory entitlement period expired.
 The trial judge recognized that Ms. Brake was entitled to
benefits under the Act but made no determination of what they
were. He simply ordered that the damages award based on 20
months’ compensation included her entitlements under the Act.
 The court explored the matter of statutory entitlements
at the oral hearing of the appeal and asked the parties for further written submissions on the matter. In her additional
written submissions, counsel for Ms. Brake submitted that the
appellant had a separate, mandatory obligation to pay Ms.
Brake her statutory entitlements of “34 weeks”. However, she
did not indicate how she arrived at the figure of 34 weeks. She
asked this court to make an order requiring the appellant to pay
that amount in addition to the 20 months’ notice. I return to that
 The appellant, in its additional written submissions,
said nothing about the respondent’s assertion that her statutory
entitlements were 34 weeks. Its position was that Ms. Brake’s