The decision of Prinzo vs. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, released by the Ontario Court of Appeal in August, 2002 has raised a further issue of the proper interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Wallace v. United Grain Growers.

In Prinzo, the Court found that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive a Wallace extension on the notice period, given the conduct of the defendant. The Plaintiff had, however, been successful in earning income post termination and accordingly the Wallace extension on the notice period was not a significant benefit to her.

The Court of Appeal, although speaking obiter, in that this argument was not raised before the court, did state that it was open to accept argument that in such cases, that the sum to be added to the notice period should be paid without offset from other income in that period. This would be the case, particularly given the Wallace extension was also intended to compensation for intangible injuries. It will, as usual, lie to further cases to develop this concept.