Photo of George Avraam

George Avraam

Subscribe to George Avraam's Posts

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.

Follow:Read more about George AvraamGeorge's Linkedin Profile

(Canadian businesses with U.S. & international operations should consider this webinar, hosted by our colleagues in Palo Alto, California and Munich, Germany.)

More and more employers are adopting Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs as a cost-effective way to provide their workforces with the most up-to-date smartphones, tablets and laptops. As recent headlines show, these programs can open the doors to substantial data privacy risks and security breaches, as the use of personal devices for business further blurs the lines between work and private activities. What measures should employers take now to minimize these risks?
Continue Reading Webinar: Do You Know Where Your Data Is? BYOD, Social Media, and Other Workplace Tech Developments

Our regular readers may recall our previous post regarding the case of Attorney General of Canada v. Johnstone, in which the Federal Court of Appeal established a new test for determining whether an employer has discriminated against an employee on the basis of “family status.” In the recently-released Partridge v. Botony Dental Corporation, 2015 ONSC 343, the Ontario Superior Court adopted the Johnstone test in the context of Ontario’s Human Rights Code and awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in human rights damages.
Continue Reading Ontario Court Adopts Federal Test for Family Status Discrimination

Overruling one of its own decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada today has determined that the “right to strike” is protected under s. 2(d) of the Charter, which is the freedom of association provision. In Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, the Court confirmed that legislation that limits the right to strike is unconstitutional unless its limits are reasonable and justified in a free and democratic society.

In practice, this case will ensure that legislators do not limit the right to strike without a strong and compelling justification, and without providing an alternative means of resolving a bargaining impasse –an alternative means that will not undermine the bargaining power of the union. In any event, a law that limits the right to strike must interfere only as much as is necessary.
Continue Reading Supreme Court of Canada Recognizes Constitutional Right to Strike: What Does it Mean for Employers?

(Canadian businesses with U.S. & international operations should consider this webinar.)

2014 has been yet another active year for employers, with significant labor and employment developments in the U.S. Now is the time for employers to update their employment handbooks, policies, and internal company practices to reflect both Federal and state developments from this past year, and for U.S. multinational companies to sharpen their employment-related business strategies for 2015.Continue Reading Navigating U.S. and International Employment Laws (Webinar)

Our regular readers will recall a previous blog about the case involving Jan Wong, a former Globe and Mail columnist, who violated the confidentiality clause in a settlement agreement that was intended to finally resolve her unjust dismissal grievance.  Wong disclosed information about the settlement in her published book, Out of the Blue.  The arbitrator found that Wong’s disclosure breached a specific provision of the settlement agreement, and ordered her to repay $209,912 to her former employer.

In an attempt to reverse the arbitrator’s decision, Wong applied to Divisional Court for judicial review.  To put it mildly, she did not succeed.  Moreover, she was ordered to pay $30,000 in legal costs to her former employer and union.
Continue Reading Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Strongly Enforced: Former Globe and Mail Columnist Who Was Ordered to Repay $209,912 Now Required to Pay $30,000 in Legal Costs

Since 2007 there have been five significant overtime class action cases in Canada.  Two of these cases have been labelled “off-the-clock” cases — cases in which employees allege they were expected to work overtime without being paid for it.  Both off-the-clock class actions were eventually certified.  One of those cases has now settled.

The remaining three overtime class actions are “misclassification” cases in which employees allege that their employer misclassified them as exempt from statutory overtime entitlements.  Courts have been more reluctant to certify the misclassification cases because, in a majority of those cases, the proposed plaintiff class has not been sufficiently similar to justify a class action proceeding.

The Ontario Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Brown v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce confirms the prevailing view that employers are most vulnerable to issues that arise when their employees’ hours are not properly monitored, recorded, enforced or compensated.  Employers continue to be liable to individual employees for misclassifying them as “overtime exempt”, but it is less likely that such misclassifications will give rise to the added liability that is associated with a class action.
Continue Reading Ontario Court of Appeal Refuses to Certify Another “Misclassification” Overtime Class Action

In Attorney General of Canada v Johnstone, 2014 FCA 110, the Federal Court of Appeal (“FCA”) established a new test for determining whether an employer has discriminated against an employee on the basis of “family status” under the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”).

Continue Reading Federal Court of Appeal: Your Kid’s Hockey Tournament is Not Protected Under the Canadian Human Rights Act

A team of Baker & McKenzie lawyers successfully argued for the summary dismissal of a human rights application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. The applicant in this case alleged discrimination on the basis of disability under s. 11 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (“Code”).
Continue Reading Successful Dismissal of a Human Rights Application in the Academic Context by Baker & McKenzie