Burke v. McCarrn

Burke v. McCarrn

The adjudicator found the operative agreement governing commission was between the Claimant and the Defendant, accepted the Claimant's evidence of earned gross and payments showing a 3% shortfall, and awarded the 3% differential for the period in dispute; the dealer's scale did not negate the parties' agreed rate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2010 NSSM 19
Parties
Claimant: John Gregory Burke; Defendant: Blaise McCarrn
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Action Transferred From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia / Decision
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant in part; Defendant ordered to pay monetary sums to Claimant.
Legal Topics
Commission Dispute, Contract Formation, Breach of Contract, Remedies, Independent Contractor Status
Source Language
english
Contract Securities Agency Commercial Commission Dispute Contract Formation Breach of Contract Remedies +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gregory Burke

Claimant

Blaise McCarrn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Action Transferred From Supreme Court of Nova Scotia / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the commission agreement was between the Claimant and the dealer or between the Claimant and the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the dealer (and its successor) had the contractual right to unilaterally determine or alter the commission payable to the financial advisors
  3. 3 If the agreement was between the Claimant and the Defendant, the precise terms of that agreement (rate and application period)

Ratio Decidendi

The adjudicator found the operative agreement governing commission was between the Claimant and the Defendant, accepted the Claimant's evidence of earned gross and payments showing a 3% shortfall, and awarded the 3% differential for the period in dispute; the dealer's scale did not negate the parties' agreed rate for that period.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant in part; Defendant ordered to pay monetary sums to Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant pay Claimant $19,440.03 (3% commission differential)
  • Defendant pay Claimant $196.16 (commencing action)