The appellant challenged the trial judgment in an employment-related unjust enrichment dispute arising from extra hours worked in exchange for equivalent time off.
The court held that there was a juristic reason for the respondent's retention of the benefit because the parties' contract contemplated compensation through equivalent time off.
Since the appellant voluntarily placed himself beyond the point of enforcing that contractual entitlement, he could not establish the absence of juristic reason.
The appeal was dismissed without costs.
