to manage specific funds. At the time of his offer of employment,
he was provided with a copy of the 2000 Plan. Mr. Manastersky
signed the 2006 Mezzanine CIP.3 Those plans contained the
same art. 9.3, which clearly disclosed that one risk embedded
in Mr. Manastersky’s contract of employment was that the
Management Committee could terminate the plan effective as of
the end of any Investment Period with respect to future
 By terminating the Mezzanine CIP, RBCDS was not
evincing an intention not to be bound by the employment
contract. On the contrary, it was exercising a fully disclosed
right it had under the contract of employment. Consequently,
I see no evidentiary support for the trial judge’s finding that
a termination of the Mezzanine CIP would have amounted
to a constructive dismissal.
 For these reasons, I would give effect to this ground of
appeal and set aside para. 5 of the Judgment, which awarded Mr.
Manastersky damages of $953,392.50 in respect of the lost opportunity to earn entitlements under the Mezzanine CIP.
III. The CIP Foreign Exchange Methodology
A. The issue stated
 The second ground of appeal concerns the appropriate
foreign exchange rate that should be applied to value U.S. dollar
investments made in the Mezzanine Fund between 2005 and the
ultimate disposition of the investments in Funds 1 and 2 for the
purpose of calculating the payments out to Mezzanine Plan
 At trial, RBCDS contended that the Canada-U.S. dollar
exchange rate in place at the time of the disposition or maturity of
an investment in the Funds — the “exit rate” — should be
applied to calculate the book value of a U.S. dollar investment as
well as the proceeds received upon its disposition or maturity. Mr.
Manastersky argued that the exchange rate as of the date of
the investment should be used to calculate the book value and
proceeds of disposition.
3 Mr. Manastersky’s clear knowledge of the termination provisions in the
2000 Plan and 2004 and 2006 Mezzanine CIPs distinguishes the present
case from one relied upon by Mr. Manastersky, Doran v. Ontario Power
Generation Inc.,  O.J. No. 4476, 61 C.C.E.L. (3d) 232 (S.C.J.). In that
case, the clause permitting the termination of the incentive plan was not
known to the employee: at para. 59.