Mr. Dalgleish that he couldn't agree to accept accusations of incompetency and he would consider what course he should take. In an interview the next day the plaintiff refused to resign either as an employee or as a director and he was thereupon given a letter signed by Mr. Dalgleish which reads as follows: "Dear Mr. Bardal: This is to confirm the notice given to you today of the termination of your employment with the Globe and Mail Limited as of this date." 7 The plaintiff was given a cheque for the balance of his salary owing to the date of his dismissal. Immediately after his dismissal the plaintiff made efforts to secure other employment and finally made arrangements with another employer in the advertising business for employment at a salary of $15,000 a year for two years, with provision for certain stock option rights. 8 At the time of his dismissal under the provisions of the defendant's pension plan the plaintiff had earned a right to receive a refund of his contributions with interest which would amount to approximately $5,000, or an alternative right to accept a pension of approximately $1,350 per annum, commencing on the 1st of February, 1970. The plaintiff accepted the latter alternative. 9 In the statement of defence filed the defendant denied that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed and pleaded that he voluntarily withdrew from the employment of the defendant. In the alternative it was pleaded that if the defendant did terminate the plaintiff's employment it was justified in doing so by reason of the fact that the advertising department did not, during the period the plaintiff was advertising manager, obtain the results which the defendant was reasonably entitled to expect. During the trial it was admitted both by Mr. Dalgleish and counsel for the defendant that it could not be contended that the defendant was justified in dismissing the plaintiff without notice. No improper conduct on the part of the plaintiff was proved or suggested and I think the evidence of Mr. Dalgleish can be summed up by saying that he had come to the conclusion that he thought he could get an advertising manager who would produce better results than the plaintiff. In view of this it is quite unnecessary for me to discuss the evidence of the plaintiff with reference to the results he produced and the circumstances that gave rise to some decline in revenue from the advertising department preceding his dismissal. It remains only for me to consider what damages the plaintiff is entitled to recover.