Young v. Aird & Berlis, (1991) 54 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

• Judge: O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 1991
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1991), 54 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

Young v. Aird & Berlis (1991), 54 O.A.C. 127 (DC)

MLB headnote and full text

Alison Harvison Young (plaintiff/appellant) v. Aird & Berlis (defendant/respondent)

(1040/90)

Indexed As: Young v. Aird & Berlis

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Divisional Court

O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ.

December 3, 1991.

Summary:

An employment contract between a lawyer and a law firm provided that all lawyers, who graduated in the same year, would be paid the same rate of salary. In January of the lawyer's third year she was informed that her employment would not be continued. By mutual agreement the lawyer continued in the employ of the firm until August of that year during which time she received the rate of pay of a second year associate. The trial judge held that the notice of termination changed the lawyer's status and the firm was no longer required to pay her salary at the rate specified in the original employment agreement. The lawyer appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered judgment in favour of the lawyer.

Master and Servant - Topic 1128

Contract of hiring (employment contract) - Essential terms - Remuneration - A law­yer's employment contract provided that all lawyers of the same graduating year would be paid the same rate of pay - In January of the lawyer's third year with the firm she was informed her employment would be terminated - By mutual agree­ment the lawyer continued in the employ of the firm until August during which period she received the rate of pay of a second year associate - The lawyer claimed the rate for third year associates - The Ontario Divi­sional Court held there was no evi­dence of any agree­ment that the lawyer would be paid in any way other than in accordance with the original con­tract and ordered judgment in favour of the lawyer.

Counsel:

M.N. Grosman, for the plaintiff/appel­lant;

R.A. Spence, for the defendant/respon­dent.

This appeal was heard before O'Driscoll, Steele and Rosenberg, JJ., of the Ontario Divisional Court, whose decision was released orally by Rosenberg, J., on Decem­ber 3, 1991.