the appeal. In Ms. Brake’s additional submissions, she argued
that the employee’s right to receive severance benefits under the
Act is separate from the right to damages at common law.
Accordingly, she contended, the trial judge erred in combining
the two amounts. She asked that she be granted 34 weeks of
severance pay in addition to compensation for 20 months’ notice
at common law.
 I reject this submission.
 Where the employer dismisses the employee and fails to
give the employee the benefits to which the employee is entitled
under the Act, the employee may claim both those benefits and
common law damages in a single civil action, so long as there is
no double recovery. This approach follows from Stevens. See, also,
Boland, at paras. 11-17.
 In this proceeding, Ms. Brake sought compensation for
both common law damages and statutory entitlements. The trial
judge was entitled to make the damages award in the fashion
that he did, namely, based on 20 months’ compensation in lieu of
notice and inclusive of statutory benefits as required by the Act.
 In any event, the respondent did not bring a cross-appeal so it is not open to the court to consider increasing the
 For these reasons, I would dismiss the appeal with costs
to the respondent fixed at $19,500, all inclusive.
 K.N. FELDMAN J.A. (concurring): — I fully concur with
the result reached by Gillese J.A., and with her excellent rea-
sons. However, with respect to the income the respondent earns
as a cashier at Home Depot, in my view, the trial judge was enti-
tled to make the following finding:
The cashier position she occupies now at Home Depot is so substantially
inferior to the managerial position she held with the Defendant that the
former does not diminish the loss of the latter.
 It was on that basis that the trial judge declined to
deduct the Home Depot income that the respondent earned during the notice period from her damages for wrongful dismissal.
I would uphold that decision.
 The trial judge found that the respondent made reasonable best efforts to find a managerial position reasonably comparable to the one she held with the appellant. Having been unable to
do so, the respondent accepted a non-managerial job as a cashier
at a much lower salary, because she needed to earn money.