Photo of 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.

In a recent episode of the Toronto Today with Greg Brady podcastGeorge 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

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.

In Render v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Limited Group, the Ontario Court of Appeal redefined wilful misconduct under the Employment Standards Act and confirmed the modern day approach to assessing sexual harassment in the workplace.

The Decision

Mark Render was terminated for cause after slapping a female co-worker on her behind. The trial judge found

Our two-part webinar series was designed to bring Canadian in-house counsel and human resources leaders up to speed on the top labour, employment and human rights law developments of 2021 and to prepare them for what’s on the horizon in 2022.

Using our “quick hits” format, we provided two content-rich presentations complete with practical takeaways

And we thought 2020 was a doozy! In terms of continuing challenges, unprecedented questions and shifting legal landscapes, 2021 delivered.

Between maintaining business continuity and keeping your workforce safe, we know there’s been little time to track the rapidly changing labour, employment, and human rights law landscape in Canada.

This two-part webinar series is designed

In an encouraging decision for employers, the Ontario Court of Appeal clarified that a corporation is not a common employer just because it “owned, controlled or was affiliated with another corporation that had a direct employment relationship with the employee”. In O’Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385, the Court affirmed that the

Companies are facing critical business challenges in regard to their most important asset – their people. While workforce transformation is not a new concept for global organizations, the pandemic has forced us to rapidly adapt our standard ways of working and how we engage with employees to ensure the long-term viability of the business. We

2020 has posed unprecedented challenges for Canadian Employers. We know that in addition to keeping your employees safe and maintaining business continuity, it’s a challenge to keep track of all the changes to the employment law landscape in Canada.

These two, 60 minute virtual sessions are designed to help you stay abreast of what changed

We thank Glenn Gibson, John Pirie & Michael Nowina for this post.

In an unreported judgment Pallotta v. Cengarle, Court file CV-16-56337 released on February 27, 2020, Faieta J. found real estate lawyer Licio Cengarle vicariously liable for his clerk’s mortgage fraud scheme as well as for breach of trust. This case is a cautionary tale for professionals and employers about the need for internal controls.
Continue Reading Ignorance of Fraud is No Defence: Employer Vicariously Liable for Rogue Employee