statutory entitlements were subsumed within the damages
awarded by the trial judge.
The burden of proof
 It is important to know the duration of the statutory entitlement period because, as I have already explained, employment
income earned during that period need not be deducted as mitigation income. In my view, where (as in this case) a blended
damages award is made, it is for the employer to prove what
employment income is attributable to the statutory entitlement
period and what employment income is attributable to the balance of the notice period. I say this for the following reasons.
 Once an employee has proven wrongful dismissal and
has adduced evidence of his or her losses, the onus shifts to the
employer to demonstrate that some or all of those losses were
avoidable or avoided: Red Deer College, at p. 331 S.C.R.
 The principle of avoidable loss is described as follows in
Harvey McGregor, McGregor on Damages, 19th ed. (London:
Sweet and Maxwell, 2014), at p. 311:
Where it appears that steps have been taken by the claimant to avoid loss
which are [sic] to be taken into account in assessing the damages, the onus
is on the defendant to prove that, and also how far, loss has thereby been
 Accordingly, as the appellant wished to have employment income that Ms. Brake received during the notice period
treated as mitigation income, it was up to the appellant to show
what part of that income was properly attributable to the balance of the notice period.
Employment income in the statutory entitlement
 As I have explained, employment income that Ms. Brake
earned during the statutory entitlement period is not deductible
from the damages award. On that basis, I would exclude three
amounts of income: (1) income from Sobey’s for the period
August to December 2012 ($9,208.88); (2) a portion of the total
Sobey’s income earned in 2013 ($19, 566.48); and (3) income from
Tim Horton’s for two unidentified months in 2013 ($2,701).
 The first item — Ms. Brake’s income from Sobey’s for the
period August to December 2012 — is not to be deducted
because, although the precise duration of the statutory entitlement period is not known, it would not have been exhausted by
the end of 2012.