. . . It may now be fairly and generally asserted that today, in the absence of voluntary resignation, or serious misconduct on the part of the employee, Canadian employers must dismiss their employees with proper notice or pay in lieu thereof. If the latter, they must "make the employee whole" for the common law period of reasonable notice.
 How should the law deal with the events of the period of November 6, 2004 [the disability date] to May 15, 2005 [the end of the 22 month noticeperiod]? If it is to place Mr. Luis Romero Olguin into the position he would have been in had Canac provided him with working notice, he would have received his regular cash employment compensation, plus all benefit coverages for the entirety of his 22 month notice period at law.
 Canac consciously chose not to make alternative arrangements to provide its loyal, long-service employee with replacement disability coverage. Rather, it chose to go the “bare minimum” route. It provided only the statutory minimums in pay and benefits and then gambled that he would get another job and stay well. When it lost that gamble, it chose to litigate this matter for over five years. When confronted with its potential significant exposure, it raised the argument that Mr. Luis Romero Olguin failed to mitigate his potential damages by purchasing a replacement disability policy.
 I reject that argument. The onus is upon Canac to establish the Plaintiff’s failure to mitigate. Canac has failed to do so in this instance. Insufficient evidence was led to show that comparable coverage would have been available and would have provided Mr. Luis Romero Olguin with comparable coverage. While Mr. McKechnie conceded that in this setting, the law transforms the employee into a “notional employee”, he argued that Mr. Luis Romero Olguin failed to satisfy the “actively at work” requirement contained in the policy wording. I reject this argument and find it to be circular logic to argue that, if the Plaintiff was to be deemed a “notional employee”, then how can it be asserted that he was “not actively at work”?
 Having regard for Canac’s cavalier, harsh, malicious, reckless, outrageous and high-handed treatment of Mr. Luis Romero Olguin, I award a further $15,000.00 in damages relating to its “hardball approach”.
 Pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Honda Canada Inc. v. Keays 2008 SCC 39 (CanLII),  2 S.C.R. 362, I might have considered awarding “moral damages”. However, as indicated in Natalie C. MacDonald, Extraordinary Damages In Canadian Employment Law, Toronto: Carswell, 2010 at pp. 33-168 and 812-815, the relatively new common law head of damages, in this post-Wallace world, requires considerable specificity in pleading and further evidence which was not presented at this trial.