After nearly two decades sharing listings, one agent's claim hit an unexpected legal wall
For 17 years, a real estate salesperson believed she was working for the colleague sitting beside her. When that arrangement ended, she sued for wrongful dismissal. A judge has now ruled she was never an employee at all, and that the law would not have allowed it.
Released June 9, 2026, the decision of Justice Papageorgiou of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted summary judgment and dismissed the claim. The worker, a salesperson with a Re/Max brokerage, had argued that after nearly two decades of shared listings she was the employee of another agent at the same brokerage, and was owed reasonable notice when the relationship ended in 2023.
A 17-year working relationship unravels
The worker said she had worked for the other agent for 17 years before the arrangement ended, and she treated its end as a termination. The other agent maintained that the two were simply independent contractors who worked together at the same brokerage and split commissions on listings they handled jointly.
The two disagreed about why the relationship ended. The other agent said she stopped working with the worker over what she described as harassment about vaccination during the pandemic, which the worker denied. Justice Papageorgiou found she did not need to resolve that dispute, since it mattered only if the worker had a legal basis to claim notice at all.
In a 2008 email, the worker had called the arrangement a partnership. Her business cards told a mixed story: an older one described her as a buyer representative for the other agent, while one she made herself in 2020 listed both women as sales representatives for Re/Max.
Who is allowed to be the employer
The first question was whether one salesperson at a brokerage can legally employ another salesperson at the same brokerage. Justice Papageorgiou concluded it cannot. Real estate is heavily regulated in the public interest, she noted, and the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 sets up a scheme in which only brokerages employ salespeople, whether as employees or independent contractors.
The judge pointed to provisions barring a salesperson from trading in real estate for, or taking payment from, anyone but the brokerage that employs them. Letting one agent employ another, she reasoned, would let that agent usurp the brokerage's statutory duty to supervise. "It would mean that the chain of accountability would be broken, potentially making it difficult to hold anyone responsible for any breaches," she wrote.
Even the worker's own written argument accepted that one salesperson cannot lawfully employ another at the same brokerage. She argued this did not sink her claim, because the two could still form a common law employment relationship. The judge disagreed, finding a contract prohibited by statute will not be enforced by the courts.
Control, income and a self-imposed dependency
Even if such an arrangement were allowed, the judge found, the facts established neither an employment relationship nor a dependent contractor one. The other agent gave the worker no desk, laptop, phone or other tools. There were no performance reviews, and no deductions for CPP or EI. Payment came from Re/Max, not the other agent.
Control pointed away from employment too. Over 17 years no emails showed the other agent directing how the worker handled clients, showings, hours or holidays. When the other agent decided to stop working with the worker, she sought permission from the brokerage's broker of record rather than simply dismissing an employee. The worker's registration with the brokerage continued after the two stopped working together.
On the dependent contractor question, the judge found none of the exclusivity or economic dependence that category requires. The worker produced no tax returns or records showing the bulk of her income came from the other agent's listings, and had at times brought in her own. She had chosen to rely on the other agent's brand rather than build her own. "If there was any dependency, it was self-imposed," she wrote. The motion was granted and the claim dismissed.
