A palpable and overriding error is one that is “plainly
seen”: Housen v. Nikolaisen,  2 S.C.R. 235,  S.C.J. No.
31, 2002 SCC 33, at paras. 1-6. This standard is met “if the trial
judge misapprehended the evidence in that the findings are
‘clearly wrong’, ‘unreasonable’, or not ‘reasonably supported by
the evidence’”: RBC Dominion Securities Inc. v. Crew Gold
Corp.,  O.J. No. 4146, 2017 ONCA 648, 73 B.L.R. (5th) 173,
at para. 29 (citing L. (H.) v. Canada (Attorney General), 
1 S.C.R. 401,  S.C.J. No. 24, 2005 SCC 25, at paras. 55-56).
 In my view, the trial judge did not make a palpable and
overriding error. To the contrary, not only was the trial judge’s
interpretation of the CIP a reasonable one, in my view it was
 The trial judge took into account all of the history and
other contextual factors surrounding the respondent’s compensation while employed at RBC in interpreting his common law entitlement. As the trial judge found, the provision that allowed RBC
to unilaterally discontinue the Plan, a particular mechanism of
part of the compensation, does not contain clear language that
has the effect of removing the employee’s right to receive compensation in an amount equivalent to what he would have earned
through that mechanism during the period of reasonable notice:
Lin, at para. 86 (citing Taggart, at para. 20).
 The reason clear language is required is to ensure that
the employee is bound only by what was understood and agreed
to. There is no dispute that the respondent understood and
agreed that the CIP could be terminated by RBC. However, he did
not agree as a term of his contract that his compensation package
would then no longer include participation in an incentive plan.
Nor was there evidence that it was the intention of the parties
that the clause that gave RBC the right to terminate the CIP
would have that effect.
 I agree with the trial judge that RBC’s right to discontinue
the CIP does not constitute the type of clear language that is
required to limit an employee’s common law entitlement to
damages in lieu of notice. It gives the company the business discretion and flexibility to continue or discontinue a particular
mechanism of compensation linked to the company’s investments.
It does not speak to the employee’s entitlement to receive the level
of compensation to which the employee is entitled.
 While RBC could terminate the CIP pursuant to art. 9.3,
it would have been required to offer the respondent an alternate
comparable form of compensation, because the contract does not
provide that the effect of the employer’s ability to terminate the
CIP is that the respondent’s compensation would be unilaterally