In McIntosh, a resource economist was wrongfully dismissed from his position. During the notice period, he taught an
evening class in economics for which he was paid the sum of
$3,674. The trial judge did not deduct that sum from the damages
award because Mr. McIntosh “could have taught this evening
course if he had remained in the respondent’s employ”.
 At pp. 201-202 C.C.E.L. of McIntosh, the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal specifically ratified this aspect of the trial
decision, stating that in light of the trial judge’s finding with
respect to the teaching income, it would make no deduction for
 This principle applies in the present case. As Ms. Brake
had worked a second job with Sobey’s while working full-time for
the appellant, her work for Sobey’s and her work for the appellant were not mutually exclusive. Had Ms. Brake stayed in the
appellant’s employ, she could have continued to supplement her
income through part-time work at Sobey’s. Therefore, I would
not deduct the income that she received from Sobey’s during the
balance of the notice period from the damages award.
 Whether Ms. Brake’s Sobey’s income exceeded an
amount that could reasonably be considered as “supplementary”
and, therefore, not in substitution for her employment income
was not argued. On the facts of this case, the amounts received
from Sobey’s do not rise to such a level that her work at Sobey’s
can be seen as a substitute for her work at PJ-M2R. I leave for
another day the question as to when supplementary employment income rises to a level that it (or a portion of it) should be
considered as a substitute for the amounts that would have been
earned under the original contract and, accordingly, be treated
as deductible mitigation income.
 For these reasons, I would not deduct the sums that
Ms. Brake earned from Sobey’s during the balance of the notice
 The evidence regarding Ms. Brake’s Home Depot income
is unclear.3 In these circumstances, I would refrain from deducting from the damages award the modest sum of $600 that
Ms. Brake earned from Home Depot.
The Respondent’s New Submission
 As I have already mentioned, the court sought additional
written submissions from the parties after the oral hearing of
3 See para. 4( v) of the trial reasons, the trial transcripts and the chart in
the appellant’s factum.