In Warren v Canaccord Genuity Corp, 2026 ONSC 547 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice awarded a former managing director more than $2.5 million in wrongful dismissal damages after finding that his compensation during the notice period should be assessed using a comparator-based (forward-looking) bonus methodology rather than a historical average.
Facts
Craig Warren was a 52-year-old managing director employed by Canaccord Genuity Corp. for approximately 18 years. He worked in the firm’s mining investment banking group and was highly compensated through discretionary bonuses tied to firm and group performance.
Although his base salary was relatively modest (approximately $150,000), his annual bonuses fluctuated significantly depending on market conditions and the firm’s performance, ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to over $3 million.
Warren was terminated without cause in September 2019. He sued for wrongful dismissal, seeking damages including substantial bonus compensation during the reasonable notice period.
Issues
The Court considered:
- What was the appropriate reasonable notice period?
- How should bonus damages be calculated during the notice period?
Decision
The Court awarded Warren 21 months’ reasonable notice — Gross damages of approximately $4.65 million (Net damages of approximately $2.54 million after deductions for mitigation income and amounts already paid)
Court’s Reasoning
- Reasonable Notice
Applying the traditional Bardal factors, the Court emphasized:
- Warren’s age (52)
- His long service (18 years)
- His senior executive role
- His specialization in mining investment banking
- The limited availability of comparable employment
The Court rejected any “one month per year of service” formula and stressed that reasonable notice must remain contextual.
- Bonus Compensation During Notice
This was the central issue in the case.
The employer argued Warren’s damages should be based on an average of his historical bonuses from prior years. Warren argued that approach understated what he would likely have earned during the notice period because the mining market improved significantly after his dismissal; his recent bonuses had allegedly been artificially depressed by internal management dysfunction; and newly hired comparable managing directors earned substantially higher compensation during the relevant period.
The Court accepted Warren’s position.
Rather than relying on a backward-looking historical average, the Court used a comparator methodology, examining what similarly situated managing directors actually earned during the notice period.
The Court found this better reflected the employer’s actual business performance during the notice period; the cyclical nature of the investment banking industry; and what Warren would likely have earned had he remained employed.
The Court specifically relied on comparator evidence involving another managing director whose role and revenue generation were found to be comparable to Warren’s.
Bonus Clause / Matthews Principles
The case also reflects the continuing influence of Matthews v Ocean Nutrition Canada Ltd, 2020 SCC 26 principles concerning bonus entitlement on termination.
The employer apparently abandoned an argument that Warren was disentitled to bonuses because he was not actively employed at the time of payment. The Court treated bonus compensation as an integral part of compensation during the notice period.
Significance
The case is important because it demonstrates that courts may depart from historical bonus averaging where it does not accurately reflect likely notice-period earnings; comparator evidence can be persuasive in bonus-heavy industries; cyclical market conditions may significantly affect wrongful dismissal damages; and high-income executive dismissals can generate very large common law exposure when compensation is heavily bonus-driven.
This precedent matters for any employee in a role with variable compensation tied to market conditions or company performance. Generally, employers cannot terminate an employee on the eve of a surge in company performance and then compensate them based on the previous downturn.
Wrongful dismissal damages must reflect what really would have actually occurred during the notice period, not what happened before it.
This case serves as a reminder that termination decisions can carry significant consequences that extend well into future performance periods, particularly when compensation is tied to results employers will achieve without the terminated employee.
*Always seek legal advice. The above is for information purposes only.
Stephen Dugandzic received his Juris Doctor degree from the University of Alberta in 2013 and is Calgary-based. He previously practised with Bennett Jones LLP and Taylor Janis LLP before founding YYC Employment Law Group in 2018 and Evolution Legal in 2026.