Guiney v. Toronto (City)
The appeal was dismissed because the contract provided the juristic reason (equivalent time off) and the appellant voluntarily prevented enforcement of the City's obligation, so he could not establish absence of a juristic reason to support restitution.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C33083
- Parties
- Appellant: Wayne Guiney; Respondent: The Corporation of the City of Toronto
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 August 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed without costs
- Legal Topics
- Juristic Reason, Time Off in Lieu, Retention of Benefit, Voluntary Relinquishment
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Wayne Guiney
Appellant
The Corporation of the City of Toronto
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was a juristic reason for the City retaining the benefit
- 2 Whether the appellant's conduct precluded enforcement of the City's obligation
- 3 Whether the appellant could establish absence of a juristic reason to support restitution
Ratio Decidendi
The appeal was dismissed because the contract provided the juristic reason (equivalent time off) and the appellant voluntarily prevented enforcement of the City's obligation, so he could not establish absence of a juristic reason to support restitution.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed without costs
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed without costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Guiney v. Toronto (City) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2000-08-21 Docket numbers C33083 Judges Goudge, Stephen Thomas; Feldman, Kathryn N.; MacPherson, James C. Subject Civil Decision Content DATE: 20000821 DOCKET: C33083 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: WAYNE GUINEY (Plaintiff (Appellant)) and THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF TORONTO (Defendant (Respondent)) BEFORE: GOUDGE, FELDMAN AND MACPHERSON JJ.A. COUNSEL: A. Melvin Sokolsky For the appellant Andrew M. Stikuts For the respondent HEARD: August 18, 2000 On appeal from the judgment of Madam Justice Katherine E. Swinton dated October 6, 1999. ENDORSEMENT [1] In our view, in the circumstances of this case, there was a juristic reason for the retention of the benefit conferred on the City. The appellant’s contract contemplated that he would receive equivalent time off for the extra time he worked. Given that the appellant voluntarily put himself beyond the point of being able to enforce the City’s obligation, we agree with the trial judge that the appellant is unable to establish the absence of a juristic reason for the City retaining the benefit. [2] The appeal must be dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. “S.T. Goudge J.A.” “K. Feldman J.A.” “J. C. MacPherson J.A.”