incentive compensation related to the Mezzanine CIP. That
required the trial judge to determine what Mr. Manastersky
would have earned under the Mezzanine CIP had RBCDS
performed the contract of employment and provided him with
18-months’ notice of termination. That, in turn, required the trial
judge to examine the terms of the Mezzanine CIP as part of the
first step in the Taggart analysis. The trial judge failed to do so
and thereby fell into error, ignoring key provisions of the
Mezzanine CIP relating to what Mr. Manastersky would have
earned during the notice period.
 Incentive-type plans vary greatly in their structure and
pay-out terms. Of necessity, the analysis under the first step of
the Taggart approach will be very case-specific. The analysis in
respect of one type of incentive plan may not be transferable
to the analysis of another type of incentive plan.
 For example, Taggart, Lin and Paquette all involved situations where the incentive or pension plan in question continued
in the ordinary course of the employer’s business during the
applicable period of reasonable notice.1 At issue in Lin and
Paquette was the terminated employees’ entitlement to annual
payments under continuing bonus or incentive plans: Lin, at
para. 69; Paquette, at paras. 30 and 49. Taggart concerned the
entitlement of a terminated employee to accruing pension
benefits during the period of reasonable notice.2
 By contrast, the structure and conditions of entitlement
under the Mezzanine CIP are quite different. Mr. Manastersky’s
contract of employment called for him to manage investments in
mezzanine opportunities made through the RBCDS Mezzanine
Fund. In the last decade of his employment, his entitlement to
carried interest incentive-type compensation in respect of such
investments was governed by the terms of the Mezzanine CIP.
 The CIP was the product of an agreement between
a sophisticated employer and a group of sophisticated employees.
The terms of the agreement were fully disclosed to Mr.
Manastersky. As a participant in the plan, he signed the
December 15, 2006 amended Mezzanine CIP.
1 Similarly, in Belton v. Liberty Insurance Co. of Canada (2004), 72 O.R. (3d) 81,
 O.J. No. 3358 (C.A.), a case relied upon by Mr. Manastersky, the underlying
business of selling insurance policies continued, although the employer
attempted to impose a new commission structure on the employee sales agents.
2 Although the plan in issue was subject to a partial wind-up that entitled
the employee to certain statutory “grow in” rights, given the agreement of
the parties on the quantification of damages this court did not have to consider the implication of the partial wind-up: Taggart, at para. 23.