Applicable Legal Principles
 This court has made clear in a series of recent cases that
a wrongfully dismissed employee is entitled to damages for all
forms of compensation that formed an integral component of the
employee’s compensation at the time of the termination of
employment, subject only to clear contractual language limiting
 The legal framework for determining a wrongfully dismissed employee’s entitlement to damages is set out in Lin v.
Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board,  O.J. No. 4221, 2016
ONCA 619, 402 D.L.R. (4th) 325, at para. 85 (citing Taggart, at
paras. 11, 16); see, also, Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc., 
O.J. No. 4222, 2016 ONCA 618, 352 O.A.C. 1, at paras. 30-31;
Dawe v. Equitable Life Insurance Co. of Canada,  O.J. No.
3217, 2019 ONCA 512, at para. 48. First, the court must determine the terminated employee’s common law right to damages
for breach of contract based on what the employee would have
earned had he or she continued in his or her employment.
Second, the court must consider whether the terms of the
relevant contract(s) alter or remove that presumptive common
law right on termination of employment.
 Under the first branch of the Taggart test, the terminated employee’s common law right to damages for breach of
contract is “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; see, also, Paquette, at
para. 16. Damages may include bonuses or other benefits if
they formed an integral part of the employee’s compensation
package: Paquette, at paras. 30-31; Singer v. Nordstrong
Equipment Ltd.,  O.J. No. 1988, 2018 ONCA 364,
47 C.C.E.L. (4th) 218, at para. 24. This may be the case even
where the bonus is described as discretionary: Paquette, at
para. 17; see, also, Howard A. Levitt, The Law of Dismissal in
Canada (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2003) (looseleaf updated
2017), ch. 9, at pp. 7-13.
 In Taggart and Paquette, the pension plans that formed
part of the compensation packages contained language that
purported to limit the employee’s right to earn his or her full
pension during the reasonable notice period following dismissal.
Therefore, in those cases it was logical to look at the terms of the
pension at the second stage of the analysis to see whether they
limited the right the employee would have had, had he or she not
been dismissed, to earn that pension. However, where a benefit
plan contains terms that apply to an employee during employment,