pension benefits he lost as a result of the appellant’s termination
of his employment contract”, the decision explained that the
claim “is for common law contract damages as compensation for
the pension benefits the respondent would have earned had the
appellant not breached the contract of employment” (emphasis
added): at paras. 11 and 16. The proper measure of damages
reflects the employer’s obligation “to pay damages that ‘place the
employee in the position that he or she would have been in had
the contract been performed’”: Taggart, at para. 16.
 Once a court determines on the evidence what benefits the
employee would have earned had the employer not breached the
contract of employment, the employee is entitled to claim damages
for loss of those common law rights unless there is some contractual term limiting the employee’s common law right. This is the
focus of the second step of the Taggart analysis. As put by
Taggart in respect of pension plans, a court must ascertain
whether there is anything in the pension plan at issue “capable
of depriving the [employee] of his common law right to damages
for the loss of the pension benefits that he would have earned
during the notice period” (emphasis added): at para. 15. As to
bonus plans that contain entitlement terms placing limitations
on or conditions for the payment of a bonus, the question is
whether the wording of the bonus plan was sufficient to limit
the employee’s common law right to receive compensation for
lost bonuses during the period of reasonable notice and whether
any limiting language was brought to the attention of the
employee and formed part of his or her contract of employment:
Lin, at para. 86; Paquette, at paras. 18 and 46.
 The standard of review applicable to the trial judge’s
determination of Mr. Manastersky’s claim in respect of incentive
plan compensation is that set out in Sattva Capital Corp.
v. Creston Moly Corp.,  2 S.C.R. 633,  S.C.J. No. 53,
2014 SCC 53 and its progeny: Ledcor Construction Ltd. v.
Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co.,  2 S.C.R. 23,
 S.C.J. No. 37, 2016 SCC 37; Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v.
British Columbia,  1 S.C.R. 688,  S.C.J. No. 32, 2017
 Mr. Manastersky framed his claim for damages in respect
of the Mezzanine CIP as one for payment in lieu of lost participation in the CIP during the period of reasonable notice, using an
annual rate of payment of $1,053,735. In assessing that claim, the
trial judge undertook the first step in the Taggart analysis:
determining the employee’s common law right to damages for