What replacement employees earned becomes the benchmark in precedent-setting ruling
A 52-year-old Managing Director fired after 18 years at Canaccord Genuity Corp. has been awarded $2,540,073.95 in damages following a wrongful dismissal case that establishes important precedent on how employers must calculate bonus entitlements during notice periods. Justice Paul B. Schabas of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled on January 28, 2026, that Craig Warren was entitled to 21 months' notice and rejected the employer's proposed three-year bonus averaging method in favor of a "comparator approach" based on what replacement employees earned during a once-in-a-decade bull market.
Warren was terminated without cause on September 6, 2019, from his position as the only Managing Director in Canaccord's Toronto mining group. At the time, he was the longest-serving investment banker at the firm. His annual income depended heavily on discretionary bonuses that fluctuated based on the size of Canaccord's Canadian Capital Markets Pool and his individual performance.
The case centered on two disputes: the appropriate notice period and how to calculate the bonuses Warren would have received during that period. Canaccord argued for 16 months' notice and averaging Warren's last three years of bonuses. Warren sought 24 months' notice and bonuses based on what two Managing Directors who replaced him actually earned.
Senior role, specialized work, and age support extended notice
The court applied the Bardal factors – character of employment, length of service, age, and availability of similar employment – to determine reasonable notice. "There is, therefore, no 'rule of thumb' or starting point of one month per year," Justice Schabas wrote. "Rather, I must exercise my judgment, applying the Bardal factors and any other relevant circumstances that arise in this case, to arrive at an appropriate period of reasonable notice."
Warren had worked exclusively in metals and mining investment banking since 1993, creating highly specialized expertise that was not readily transferable to other industries. Witnesses for Canaccord agreed that Managing Director was a "very senior role." As the only Managing Director in the Toronto mining group, "Warren was responsible for sourcing business in addition to working on and sometimes overseeing transactions brought in by others. He supervised several other employees for whom he made recommendations respecting bonuses and advancement."
The court noted Warren's age and the nature of the industry. "At the date of his termination in 2019, Warren was the longest serving investment banker at Canaccord. He was 52 years old. Further, as Warren testified, while experience can be an asset, investment banking is seen as a 'young man's game.' This also supports a longer notice period."
Justice Schabas quoted from another case in describing the challenge Warren faced: "Similar or comparable employment does not mean any employment; rather, it is usually interpreted as employment comparable to the dismissed employee's employment with their former employer in status, hours and remuneration." Taking all factors into account, the court found that a notice period longer than the 16 months proposed by Canaccord was required and settled on 21 months.
Comparator approach reflects actual economic conditions during notice period
The central issue involved calculating Warren's discretionary bonuses, which had ranged from a low of $240,000 in fiscal 2015 to a high of $3,025,000 in fiscal 2011. "As was explained, the highs and lows reflect the highly cyclical nature of the mining market," the court wrote.
The court found the comparator approach appropriate for several reasons. Extensive evidence was available about bonuses paid to comparators Tom Jakubowski and David Sadowski, who joined Canaccord as Managing Directors on the same day Warren was terminated and two months later, respectively. "Jakubowski came into a more senior role than was held by Warren and instituted changes to the mining group during the notice period from which Warren would have benefitted," Justice Schabas wrote. "Sadowski came to Canaccord with less experience than Warren, and although Sadowski also attracted new work, he also supported Jakubowski and existing clients which Warren would likely have done had he remained at Canaccord during the notice period."
Critically, the comparator approach reflected actual economic conditions during the notice period. "The size of the Canadian Capital Markets Pool boomed in fiscal year 2021, going from about $57 million in FY2020 to almost $140 million," the court found. "That year was described as a once-in-a-decade bull market, and Canaccord's best year ever. It was followed in FY2022 with another very strong year with a pool of about $128 million."
The court emphasized that "applying the bonuses of comparators awarded during the notice period reflects the other stated criteria in the employment agreement which requires consideration of 'the total size of the pool, which in turn primarily reflects the success of' Canaccord's business." By contrast, "the averaging approach asserted by Canaccord would not reflect the financial performance of Canaccord in the notice period at all."
Dysfunctional management suppressed bonuses unfairly
The court found "compelling evidence that Warren's bonuses between 2017 and 2019 were not an accurate reflection of his performance in those years." After Warren's supervisor Jens Mayer left Canaccord in early 2016, the mining group became dysfunctional under Vancouver-based leaders Ted Hirst and Gunnar Eggertson. "Warren and others described the mining group as dysfunctional after Mayer left. It was even described as 'massively dysfunctional' in Warren's performance review in 2019 – a view Warren shared but had little ability to fix, despite having raised concerns with more senior people in Toronto."
The court detailed the operational problems: "The Toronto and Vancouver offices operated in silos with limited communication between them. This led to embarrassing situations in which both offices pursued the same work, despite Warren having coverage responsibility. Hirst and Eggertson removed key accounts from Warren without notice or explanation. They rarely communicated with anyone in the Toronto mining group."
Chris Blackwell, who was head of Canadian Investment Banking at the time, "described the mining group as 'dysfunctional', agreeing with Warren that Hirst and Eggertson operated as an 'island.'" During Jakubowski's recruitment, "Jakubowski was told by Blackwell and others that Hirst 'was not in the group to grow the group' but to 'benefit on his own', and that Canaccord 'wanted a change.'"
Despite generating substantially greater revenue than Hirst and Eggertson in fiscal 2018, Warren received far lower bonuses. "Unknown to Warren until disclosed in this case, Hirst and Eggertson received bonuses of $1,750,000 and $850,000 respectively for FY2018. Combined, this is about three times the amount paid to Warren, despite Warren having substantially greater revenue than Hirst and Eggertson together." Neither Hirst nor Eggertson testified at trial to explain their decisions.
Sadowski chosen as most appropriate comparator
Justice Schabas selected Sadowski rather than Jakubowski as the appropriate comparator. "Jakubowski came into a more senior position and had a broader practice and range of clients. Sadowski, on the other hand, took on a position similar to that held by Warren and, although younger, had his own strengths that he brought to Canaccord."
Sadowski, age 35 when he joined in 2019, "was much less experienced than Warren" but became "the 'second-in-command' under Jakubowski, a role Warren may well have filled if he had remained at Canaccord, and which was the role he filled under Jens Mayer until 2016."
The court found "it is reasonable to conclude that Warren and Sadowski would have had similar revenue production" during the notice period. Sadowski's fiscal 2021 revenue of $15.1 million "was his highest ever. This may be compared with Warren's FY2018 revenue of just under $14 million, achieved in a more difficult market."
The court also noted that both focused on similar work: "Sadowski and Warren both focused on equity and underwriting work rather than advisory work."
Damages calculated using replacement employee's actual bonuses
Using Sadowski as the comparator, the court awarded Warren a base pool draw of $262,500 pro-rated for 21 months. For fiscal 2020, the court annualized Warren's pre-termination revenue and applied a 20 percent rate, "reflecting about 20% of what his revenue would have been that year," awarding a bonus of $868,524.
The court rejected Canaccord's claim that it had properly fixed Warren's fiscal 2020 bonus. "Canaccord's position is self-serving and disingenuous. It made severance payments to Warren upon termination. Those payments were not based on his performance in FY2020, nor did they follow the bonus process. It was only in March 2025, on the eve of trial, that Canaccord sent Warren a cheque for $221,427.70 which purported to be part of a bonus for FY2020."
For fiscal 2021, Warren received a $3,000,000 bonus matching Sadowski's award. "I note, in reaching this conclusion, that based on Warren's prior performance he would very likely have achieved similar, if not greater, revenue production than Sadowski had he remained at Canaccord. As has been noted, Warren generated almost $14 million in revenue in FY2018, which was a much weaker year. Further, during the last bull market in 2011, Warren's bonus was $3,025,000."
For fiscal 2022, the court pro-rated Sadowski's $2,850,000 bonus for the portion of the year covered by Warren's notice period, resulting in $515,342.47.
Mitigation from new employment properly accounted for
Warren found alternative employment at Cantor Fitzgerald in February 2020. "There is no issue that Warren met his obligation to act diligently in seeking and obtaining alternate employment within five months of his termination by Canaccord," the court found.
Canaccord argued that Warren's lower revenue at Cantor Fitzgerald supported a reduced bonus calculation. The court disagreed. "Although Cantor Fitzgerald is a large American investment bank, its Toronto office is small and did not provide Warren with a comparable platform or stable of issuers for whom he could work. Although some work followed Warren, in some ways Warren was starting over when he joined Cantor Fitzgerald, which lacked the platform, connections, and supports he had at Canaccord."
The court concluded that "Warren's income at Cantor Fitzgerald is relevant to mitigation, but it is not appropriate to use as a proxy for how Warren would have done at Canaccord."
The court also addressed deferred compensation from Cantor Fitzgerald. Warren argued this was future earnings outside the notice period, but the court rejected this position. "As Warren agreed in cross-examination, the deferred compensation should be 'done symmetrically.' Accordingly, Warren's damages should be reduced by a further $247,500 for deferred compensation earned in 2020" and $86,802 for the portion of 2021 within the notice period.
Total mitigation of $1,534,901.82 was deducted from the damages.
Court orders final payment of $2.5 million
In his conclusion, Justice Schabas summarized the award: "I find that Warren was entitled to 21 months notice or pay in lieu of notice. Warren would have earned $4,646,366.47 had he remained at Canaccord for 21 months following his termination on September 6, 2019. As Canaccord has paid Warren $571,390.70, and Warren earned $1,534,901.82 at Cantor Fitzgerald during the notice period, his damages are $2,540,073.95, which I order be paid to Warren by Canaccord."
The parties did not address pre- and post-judgment interest during the hearing, "however, both were sought in the Statement of Claim and should be awarded. I leave it to counsel to work out those calculations."
If costs and interest cannot be agreed upon within 30 days of the release of the reasons, the parties may contact the judge's assistant to arrange a case conference to discuss the procedure for determining those issues.
See Warren v. Canaccord Genuity Corp., 2026 ONSC 547
