About Justin W. Anisman

Justin W. Anisman’s civil litigation practice at Brauti Thorning LLP encompasses complex litigation files with an emphasis on commercial and contractual disputes and employment law matters for both employees and employers. He has extensive experience in the day to day handling of a large volume litigation practice and has represented clients before all levels of Ontario Courts, including the Superior Court of Justice, the Provincial Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal, as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Professional Affiliations

Hobbies and Interests

Justin enjoys spending time with his wife and two daughters. A former competitive swimmer and self-diagnosed smart phone addict, these days he is passionate about website design and development. Justin is proud to have hand designed and developed this very website. He has a weakness for Italian wine  ever since honeymooning in Tuscany and is an avid reader of fiction, graphic novels and investment blogs.

Justin was called to the Bar of Ontario in 2014. He is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Advocates’ Society.Justin is the founder of the Advocates for the Rule of Law. A legal think tank dedicated to promoting constitutionalism and the rule of law across Canada and abroad.

Work History

Brauti Thorning LLP

Associate Lawyer

2018 to Present

Complex civil litigation practice with an emphasis on commercial and contractual disputes and employment matters for both employees and employers.

Mason Caplan Roti LLP

Associate Lawyer

2014 to 2018

High-volume civil litigation practice with an emphasis on subrogated property claims, the defense of solicitors negligence claims, commercial and contractual disputes and employment matters for both employees and employers.

McCague Borlack LLP

Associate Lawyer / Student-at-Law

2012 to 2014

Day-to-day carriage of numerous litigation files in various areas of law, including: subrogation, commercial litigation, insurance defence, professional liability, accident benefits, personal injury, and employment law.


The University of Western Ontario

Juris Doctor, Faculty of Law

2010 to 2013

Dean’s Honours List
Margaret H. McNulty Award, for showing great promise.

Wilfrid Laurier University

Bachelor of Arts, Faculty of Philosophy

2006 to 2010

Graduated with Honours

Court Decisions

Hunyh v. Gallery Speciality Hardware Ltd.

2019 HRTO 1610

Successfully differed consideration of a HRTO Application pending the conclusion of an OLRB proceeding.

Ibrahim v. Orellana

2018 ONSC 6498

Justin W. Anisman, acting for the plaintiff, persuades the Court to significantly limit the scope of documentary discovery in a defamation lawsuit. The Defendant had proposed a discovery plan that sought 12 classes of documents. The Plaintiff disputed production of 8 of those classes. The Court agreed with the Plaintiff and dismissed the Defendant’s motion. The categories of documents that the Defendant requests go beyond the narrow scope of documentary discovery in defamation cases.

Baradaran et al v LawPro et al

2018 CanLII 3415 (SCC)
2017 ONCA 304
2016 ONSC 5089

On January 12, 2016, the Sheriff of the Regional Municipality of York sold the property located at 19 Church Avenue in the City of Toronto at auction for $1,050,000. It had been owned by Mr. Baradaran and/or his wife. The sale was made pursuant to an order that they satisfy costs awards made against them following the dismissals of an action they had filed and their appeal. Pursuant to the costs awards, the creditor, LawPRO, filed Writs of Seizure and Sale dated February 19, 2014, and February 24, 2014, with the Toronto and York Regional Sheriffs against various properties, including the Church Avenue property, and made a demand of payment by letter dated September 5, 2014. As the Baradarans had not responded or made payment by July 16, 2015, the creditor requisitioned the Enforcement Office of the Superior Court of Justice in Toronto to begin sale proceedings in respect of the Church Avenue property.Mr. and Mrs. Baradaran sought to set aside the sale and have the property returned to them arguing that the sale was improvident, that the required process was not followed, and that they were not given notice. Mr. Baradaran acknowledged that they had received notice of the sale on cross-examination during the hearing of the application. The application was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Baradaran’s application to adduce new evidence and his appeal.

Justin W. Anisman successfully acted for LawPRO through all level of the Court, including Superior Court of Justice, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada.

Allianze Power Corp v Pirouzi

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Small Claims Court


Acting on behalf of the defendant by counterclaim’s subrogating insurance company, Justin Anisman sucesfully dismissed the Allianze’s counterclaim on summary judgment motion.

Price (LawPro) v Lambrinos

2016 ONSC 7877

Successfully defended lawyer-client on behalf of the Lawyer’s Professional Indemnity Company (LawPro) from an unmeritorious claim by a self-represented litigant.

Chapeski v Curtis Trailers

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Small Claims Court


Justin Anisman acted as counsel for the successful plaintiffs and their subrogating insurer against a negligent welder.

Meron v 2182804 Ontario Ltd

2015 ONSC 1966

Represented successful vendor in claim for damages against defaulting purchasers of real commercial property. Purchasers walked away from transaction after changes to Toronto by-laws in week before closing and alleged that the vendor misrepresented the use for which the commercial property could be put.