The entitlement of a participant, such as Mr. Manastersky,
to earn payments under the Mezzanine CIP was tied to the
existence of the funds created for different Investment Periods.
Two funds existed during the last decade of Mr. Manastersky’s
employment and the period of reasonable notice: Funds 1 and 2.
In accordance with the terms of the Mezzanine CIP, Mr.
Manastersky was allocated a specific amount of points in respect
of each Fund.
 As art. 4.4 of the Mezzanine CIP clearly stated, the status
of a participant with respect to any Investment Period “shall not
give any Participant the express or implied right . . . to any Points
for any future Investment Period” (emphasis added).
 By the time of his termination, Mr. Manastersky’s allocated
points for Funds 1 and 2 were fully vested. However, payments in
respect of his carried interests in each Fund were not done
annually but were to be made after the end of each Investment
Period from the net proceeds of the disposition or realization of
investments in a portfolio or fund. The investments in Funds
1 and 2 were not fully realized until after the termination of
Mr. Manastersky’s employment and the running of the period
of reasonable notice.
 Mr. Manastersky was entitled to his pro rata share of the
Investment Proceeds received by RBCDS in a particular Investment Period. In respect of the Funds 1 and 2 Investment Periods,
he was paid that entitlement during the period of reasonable
notice — which ended on August 14, 2015 — as well as in 2016.
There is no dispute that RBCDS paid Mr. Manastersky the full
amount of the payments to which he was entitled in respect of
Funds 1 and 2 based on his allocated points.
 Accordingly, those payments in respect of his share of
profits in Funds 1 and 2 reflect what Mr. Manastersky would
have earned by way of incentive plan compensation had RBCDS
given proper notice of the termination of his employment.
 But, the trial judge awarded Mr. Manastersky significantly
more. In so doing, he did not identify any term of the Mezzanine
CIP that entitled Mr. Manastersky to earnings or payments
during the period of reasonable notice beyond his allocated share
of profits in Funds 1 and 2.
 It is not surprising that the trial judge was unable to
identify any such provision. None existed. To the contrary, the
terms of the Mezzanine CIP provided that Mr. Manastersky was
not entitled to any further earnings under that plan:
( i) the Management Committee was entitled to “terminate the
Plan effective as of the end of any Investment Period
with respect to future Investment Periods”: art. 9.3. The