Manastersky’s dismissal, it was not required to compensate him for amounts
that he might have earned from future investments. Manastersky, on the
other hand, argues that the CIP was a fundamental component of his
compensation and that RBC was required to compensate him for the lost
opportunity to accrue additional entitlements under the CIP during the
 The appellant made the same argument at trial that it
made on appeal: because it had the right to terminate the CIP in
respect of future investment periods, the respondent was not
entitled to be compensated for what he might have earned during
the notice period from the CIP from a future investment fund.
 My colleague states that the trial judge erred by asking
the wrong questions in applying the Taggart test. He states that
the trial judge should have looked at the terms of the CIP when
assessing the first stage of the Taggart test to determine the
respondent’s common law entitlement to damages, and not at the
second stage. He also states that the trial judge made a palpable
and overriding error in finding that the terms of the CIP did not
limit or reduce the respondent’s common law entitlements.
 I do not agree that the trial judge erred in either respect.
He was alive to the contractual interpretation issue raised by the
appellant, which he addressed and rejected. In my view, he was
correct to do so.
 In considering what the respondent was entitled to earn
as part of his compensation package, the trial judge first examined the RBC Capital Partners Mezzanine Fund (the “Mezzanine
Fund” or the “Fund”) in detail, and how the CIP, which was
linked to the performance of the Fund, operated as a profit-sharing vehicle for those employees who were eligible to participate in it, including the respondent.
 In describing how the respondent was originally recruited
and hired as the director of the Fund, the trial judge noted
[at para. 5] that the job description stated that the successful
candidate would be offered a “highly attractive compensation
package, including base salary, annual performance bonus and
participation in the [F]und’s carried interest” (emphasis added).
The respondent’s participation in the Plan was provided for as
part of his “compensation program” and agreed to in his contract
 The trial judge also described the points in the Fund that
were allocated to the respondent over his years of employment,
from June 2001 to February 2014. He noted that while the
allocation of a specific number of points was discretionary, the
respondent’s points had remained constant since 2007 when he
received 50 per cent of the available points for all employees.
Over the course of his 13 years of employment with RBC, the