On his part, Mr. Manastersky takes the position that the
trial judge properly interpreted his contract of employment and
applied the governing jurisprudence, so this court should not
interfere with his award. In his view, the surrounding circumstances of his employment relationship and all of the other
evidence clearly illustrated that if RBCDS terminated the Mezzanine CIP, it would have to be replaced by another carried interest
plan or comparable form of compensation. He submits that an
employer cannot take advantage of the discontinuance of a part
or function of its business to avoid payment to an employee of
compensation tied to production of that function during the
C. Applicable legal principles
 The parties agree that the applicable legal principles are
those set out in three decisions of this court: Taggart v. Canada
Life Assurance Co.,  O.J. No. 310, 50 C.C.P.B. 163 (C.A.);
Lin v. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board,  O.J. No.
4221, 2016 ONCA 619, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 325; and Paquette v.
TeraGo Networks Inc.,  O.J. No. 4222, 2016 ONCA 618, 352
O.A.C. 1. The Lin and Paquette decisions were decided by the
same panel and released the same day.
 The analysis in each of the three decisions proceeded from
the general principle that where an employer terminates an
employee without cause, the employer is liable for damages for
breach of contract, measured by the loss of wages or salary and
other benefits that would have been earned during the reasonable
notice period: Taggart, at para. 13; Lin, at para. 84; Paquette, at
para. 16. A terminated employee is entitled to a common law
claim for damages for the loss of pension benefits that would have
accrued or he would have earned had the employee worked
until the end of the notice period: Taggart, at paras. 13 and 20.
A similar approach applies in the case of bonuses or incentive
payments that are an integral part of the employee’s compensation: Lin, at para. 86.
 When considering a claim by a terminated employee for
damages in respect of benefits payable under such plans during
the period of reasonable notice, Taggart describes the two-step
inquiry a court should undertake: ( i) first, consider the employee’s common law right to damages for breach of contract; and
then ( ii) consider whether the terms of the plan alter or remove
a common law right: at para. 12.
 As to the first step of the inquiry, although Taggart
stated that a terminated employee’s claim “is not for pension
benefits but rather for damages as compensation for the