Join us for our 2026 Labour & Employment Webinar on February 4, where we’ll unpack the most significant developments shaping workplace law in Canada. This year brings critical updates that every employer needs to understand, from evolving termination clauses and new protections for gig workers to navigating new employment standards laws and creative immigration strategies
George Avraam
George Avraam was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1999 and has since practiced as a trial and appellate litigator. George’s practice is focused on labour, employment, public and administrative law, class actions, education law, and fiduciary duties. He has acted as lead counsel in arbitrations, administrative proceedings, trials, appeals, judicial reviews, class actions, and injunctions.
George is designated by the Law Society of Ontario as a specialist in civil litigation. He is a Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers, has been ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers Canada and Ontario (Band 2), has been recommended as a leading lawyer in Legal 500 for Labour and Employment, and has been recommended as a leading employment lawyer in Lexpert. George is also the Chair of the North America Employment and Compensation Law Practice Group and a member of the Global Employment and Compensation Law Practice Group’s Steering Committee.
Don’t Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Excellent: Ontario Court Validates Termination Clause that is Unambiguous and Legal
In the recent case of Bertsch v. Datastealth Inc., 2024 ONSC 5593 (Bertsch), an Ontario court upheld a termination provision that did not specify every detail. While recent decisions suggest that such provisions may have to be flawless to be enforceable, Bertsch is a welcome decision showing that employers do not necessarily have to meet that high bar to protect themselves.
Key Takeaways
Bertsch reminds employers of the importance of including clear and compliant termination provisions in employment agreements. Ontario employers should review their agreements to ensure they meet the requirements of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 to avoid potential legal challenges. Employers should continue to confirm their termination provisions are:
- Clear and unambiguous to avoid disputes and potential invalidation by the courts.
- Compliant with the ESA and its regulations.
- Inclusive of language stating that compliance with the ESA and whatever other entitlements are listed in the employment agreement satisfy any common law notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof.
Bertsch demonstrates that while courts will continue to closely scrutinize termination provisions in employment agreements, employers must only ensure that the provisions are legal and unambiguous. This provides some relief for Ontario’s employers by indicating that they do not necessarily have to rely on “perfect” termination clauses that reference all scenarios and laws in their employment agreements to enforce them.
Even with this positive decision for employers, we continue to encourage all Canadian employers to assess the enforceability of termination provisions in existing employment agreements.Continue Reading Don’t Let Perfect Be the Enemy of Excellent: Ontario Court Validates Termination Clause that is Unambiguous and Legal
Join Us for Our Annual Canadian Employer Update Webinar
What Canadian Employers Need to Know to Ring in 2024
In 2023, we helped Canadian employers overcome a host of new challenges across the employment law landscape. Many companies started the year with difficult cost-cutting decisions and hybrid work challenges. We’ve worked hard to keep our clients ahead of the curve on these issues, as well…
Baker McKenzie Named Among Greater Toronto’s Top Employers in 2024
…“As a global law firm, we work very closely with our colleagues around the
Partner Jennifer Bernardo Featured in Precedent Magazine
Proud to share that Jennifer Bernardo was recently spotlighted in Precedent Magazine. Jen is a stellar advocate for her clients and, in this profile, she shares how her office is an extension of her life, filled with items that help her thrive in her litigation practice.
The article is accessible here.
Employers Can’t Rely on Original Termination Clauses When Employee Responsibilities Increase
We are pleased to share a recent Benefits Canada article, “Employers can’t rely on original termination clauses when employee responsibilities increase: court,” with quotes from George Avraam. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision upheld a motion judge’s award of over $400,000 to an employee on the basis of the changed substratum doctrine. The case…
2023 Litigation Forecast: Prepare Now For Storms Ahead
In 2023, uncertainty is the new certainty, with the economic cycle replacing Covid-19 as the main driver of instability. Experience, along with the insights we’ve gathered from more than 600 senior lawyers at large corporations across the globe, point to an anticipated rise in employment disputes. Organizations should proactively identify risk and involve dispute practitioners…
Why Some University Students Will Have To Show Proof of COVID-19 Vaccination This Fall (podcast)
In a recent episode of the Toronto Today with Greg Brady podcast, George Avraam (starting at 16:17 of the podcast) discussed Baker McKenzie’s representation of McMaster University in defending its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on judicial review (see also our prior blogpost here), and why some university students will have to show proof…
Employers Seeking to Withhold Termination Entitlements Must Prove Wilful Misconduct Pre-planned
We are pleased to share a recent Benefits Canada article, “Employers seeking to withhold termination entitlements must prove wilful misconduct pre-planned: Ontario court,” with quotes from George Avraam. A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision raises the bar for employers seeking to withhold minimum entitlements under the Employment Standards Act from employees dismissed for cause.…
Baker McKenzie Advises McMaster University on Challenge to Mandatory Vaccination Policy
Baker McKenzie represented McMaster University in defending its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on judicial review. Four Applicants asked for an exemption from the University’s mandatory vaccination policy, citing religious and conscience grounds. The University refused their exemption requests, claiming no connection between their religious beliefs and refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
The Applicants challenged
…