please read the points below and get the main idea (the key points ) of each of these points

The trial judge conducted an extensive and thorough review of the facts in the course of his reasons for judgment.None of his findings of fact has been challenged in a direct manner by the respondent or altered by the Court of Appeal.As the facts are particularly important in the case at bar, I will review in some detail the trial judge's most relevant findings.

The respondent, Cognos Incorporated (previously named Quasar Corporation and hereinafter referred to as "Cognos" or "respondent"), is an Ottawabased company which carries on the business of designing, developing and marketing computer programmes and software.In December of 1982, the respondent's President (Mr.Mike Potter) instructed Mr.Sean Johnston, the recently appointed Manager of Product Development for a product line of accounting software known as "Multiview", that Cognos intended to develop Multiview to an equal standing with its main product line called "Power House".Mr.Johnston had also received instructions from the VicePresident of Research and Development of Cognos (Mr.Bob Minns), at the time of accepting the position of Manager of Product Development, that the respondent wished to see Multiview expand beyond the general ledger module (the software involved consists of various "modules") then developed and in circulation, and the accounts payable module then under development.In particular, he was told that the respondent wished to see the development of three additional modules, namely, accounts receivable, cash flow, and fixed assets.Mr.Johnston was instructed by Cognos's senior management to take charge and to do whatever was necessary to make Multiview a marketable and profitable product.

A meeting was held on December21, 1982, during which Mr.Johnston and several senior executives of Cognos reviewed plans for the development of the Multiview line of products according to the mandate that had just been given.Criticisms were voiced by Mr.Johnston about the development of Multiview currently under way.He filed a project schedule covering a period of time up to 1985 and contemplating the development of modules such as accounts payable, accounts receivable, and cash flow.

Mr.Johnston indicated that there was a need on the research and development team of Multiview for an accountant to assist in the writing and maintenance of the software.Mr.Johnston proceeded, with the full knowledge of the respondent's senior management, to advertise for (and later hire) an accountant to help with the development of Multiview.An advertisement was placed inThe Globe and Mailin midJanuary, 1983, and many responses were received.In February of that year, a short list of six chartered accountants were interviewed by Mr.Johnston and two other executives of Cognos.The appellant, Douglas J.Queen, was one of the persons interviewed.

At the time of his interview, the appellant had been qualified as a chartered accountant for some eight and a half years.Since May of 1975, he had been living in Calgary with his wife and children and had occupied positions with three different employers, whereby he gained experience in working with computer accounting systems.For the three and a half years prior to the interview, the appellant had been the Regional Controller for a Calgarybased corporation named Genstar Development Corporation, occupying a relatively well paying and secure managerial position.In the fall of 1982, the appellant was actively seeking employment outside Calgary and was interested in the hightech industry in the Ottawa area.In the words of the trial judge, the appellant wanted more challenging opportunities than were available for him in Calgary; he wanted a senior financial position that would make use of his expertise in management information computer systems.

On February14, 1983, the appellant was interviewed for approximately an hour and a half.During this interview, Mr.Johnston made a number of representations (as he had to the other five candidates) about the Multiview project and about the successful candidate's role in its development.These representations are fully canvassed at pp.39698 of the reported reasons of the trial judge:(1987),1987 CanLII 4123 (ON SC),63 O.R. (2d) 389.

In sum, Mr.Johnston told the appellant that Multiview was a major project which would be developed over a period of two years (the "primary development period") with enhancements and maintenance thereafter, and that the position being interviewed for would be needed throughout this period.It was made clear that Cognos was committed to the development of additional modules of Multiview beyond general ledger (then developed), accounts payable (development under way), and accounts receivable (planned, but not yet under development).Those additional modules were cash flow, fixed assets, inventory, and order entry.Moreover, it was represented that the staff required to develop the Multiview modules would double, from 16 to 32, by August, 1983 (the appellant's evidence), or by the end of the twoyear primary development period (Mr.Johnston's evidence).Throughout the interview, it was understood that the successful candidate would play an important role as a chartered accountant in the Multiview project, advising on accounting standards throughout the life of the project.In addition, the trial judge found, based on his assessment of all the evidence, that it was implicitly represented that there was a reasonable plan in existence for the additional modules and that Cognos had made a financial commitment for such development in the way of budgetary provisions.

At the time of this interview, Mr.Johnston's knowledge as to the respondent's commitment to the development of Multiview was based on conversations and meetings with senior executives of Cognos.He was aware, however, that the funding needed for the full development of Multiview in accordance with his mandate had not yet been approved by the respondent's corporate management team.While this body had met in early February to discuss and formulate strategies and plans for the development of Multiview, it had not yet given any financial commitment commensurate with the mandate given to Mr.Johnston.Mr.Johnston was also aware that this body had the ultimate responsibility of deciding whether to allocate corporate funds for the research and development of Multiview.At no point during the interview was the appellant made aware of the fact that there was no guaranteed funding for the Multiview project as described to him, or that the position being applied for was subject, in any respect, to budgetary approval.

The appellant was offered the job of Manager, Financial Standards, by telephone early in the month of March, 1983.He accepted immediately and Mr.Johnston mailed to him a written contract of employment.It is undisputed that, prior to signing, the appellant read and understood the employment agreement.He knew that its purpose was to define the rights and obligations of the parties.One clause in the contract (clause 14) permitted the respondent to terminate at any time the appellant's employment "without cause" upon one month's notice, or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.Another clause (clause 13) enabled the respondent to reassign the appellant to another position within Cognos without reduction in salary and upon one month's notice.Much importance was given to these provisions by the Court of Appeal as well as by the respondent in argument before this Court.