respondent’s CIP share represented well over 50 per cent of his
total annual earnings. The trial judge referred to Bain (ONSC)
for the general test for determining whether a bonus is an
integral part of an employee’s compensation. One element of that
test is whether the employee received a bonus every year: Bain
(ONSCJ), at para. 83.
 The trial judge then reviewed the leading cases on the
issue of how to determine an employee’s entitlement to damages
for wrongful dismissal, including all forms of compensation
beyond wages which form an integral part of the employee’s
compensation package: see Lin; Paquette; Taggart.
 The point of contention in the respondent’s case was
whether the CIP represented an integral part of the respondent’s
compensation. That issue had to be determined in order to
address the first part of the Taggart analysis: the employee’s
common law right to damages.
 In deciding whether the CIP entitlement formed an inte-
gral part of the respondent’s compensation, the trial judge took
into account the following contextual factors: it formed part of his
contract; he participated throughout his 13 years of employment;
although the points allocation was discretionary, his had
remained constant since 2007; and his CIP entitlement
represented over 50 per cent of his annual income. The trial judge
concluded, at para. 41:
In short, the CIP was a significant, nondiscretionary variable form of com-
pensation that represented more than half of Manastersky’s annual income,
similar to the variable forms of incentive compensation considered by Corbett
J. in [Lin v. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, 2015 ONSC 3494, at paras.
92-94]. It was integral to his compensation and therefore forms part of his
presumptive entitlement to damages at common law during the notice period.
 The trial judge then turned to the second component of
the test: whether the terms of the CIP altered or removed the
respondent’s common law right to damages on termination of his
employment. He noted, relying on the jurisprudence of this court,
that clear language is required to limit common law entitlements.
He focused on the fact that the CIP specifically addressed what
would happen on termination of employment by providing for
accelerated vesting of the respondent’s points in the CIP. It did
not purport to reduce or limit the respondent’s entitlement.
 The trial judge then addressed the argument, which is
renewed on appeal and which my colleague accepts, that because
the Plan provided that RBC could terminate the CIP at the end of
any investment period, RBC was entitled to eliminate the
respondent’s ability to earn CIP during his employment, which in
turn constituted a limitation on the respondent’s right to have