on account of his bonus entitlement for the notice period; and his
 Over the course of 2015 and 2016, as the portfolios within
the Mezzanine Fund were wound down, RBCDS paid Mr.
Manastersky a total of $5,434,309, representing the company’s
calculation of his entitlement under the Mezzanine CIP from
Fund investments made between 2005 and 2013. There is no dispute that RBCDS paid Mr. Manastersky the full amount he was
entitled to in respect of his participation in Funds 1 and 2.
 At trial, Mr. Manastersky testified that he was not taking
the position that he was entitled to an allocation of points with
respect to some new or notional Fund 3 Investment Period that
was never established by RBCDS under the Mezzanine CIP.
B. The issue stated
 When RBCDS terminated his employment in February
2014, Mr. Manastersky held vested points in both Funds 1 and 2
pursuant to the Mezzanine CIP. At that time, the Mezzanine CIP
comprised only Funds 1 and 2.
 The 18-month period of reasonable notice to which the
trial judge found Mr. Manastersky was entitled ran from February
2014 until August 2015. During that period, RBCDS proceeded
to wind-down Funds 1 and 2 and distribute the proceeds of distribution in accordance with the priorities established by the
Mezzanine CIP. Mr. Manastersky received his full share of
the profits realized upon the disposition of Funds 1 and 2.
 RBCDS did not establish any new fund under the Mezzanine CIP; no Fund 3 Investment Period was started. Instead,
RBCDS ended the Mezzanine CIP.
 The trial judge held that Mr. Manastersky was entitled to
an amount beyond the full share of profits he had been paid in
respect of Funds 1 and 2. He awarded Mr. Manastersky the sum of
$953,392.50 “in respect of the lost opportunity to earn entitlements
under [the Mezzanine CIP] during the 18 month reasonable
 RBCDS contends that although the trial judge began his
analysis of the issue by citing the correct legal principles, he misapplied those principles to the facts of the case. In its view, since
Mr. Manastersky received all the profits he was entitled to in
respect of Funds 1 and 2, and as under the terms of the Mezzanine
CIP the managing committee was under no obligation to start up
a new Fund 3 Investment Period, Mr. Manastersky did not lose
any opportunity to earn further entitlements under the Mezzanine
CIP, which was the contractual basis for his entitlement to
incentive plan compensation during his employment.