Posts

Uber Class Action Given the Green Light to Proceed by Ontario Court of Appeal

The Ontario Court of Appeal has now ruled that the proposed class action law suit against Uber is not barred by the Arbitration Clause in Uber’s contract.

I last wrote about the case of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc. in March 13, 2018 in my article Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract puts the Breaks on the Uber Class Action in Ontario. At that time, the Honourable Mr. Justice Paul M. Perell found, among other things, that:

  • the plain language of the Employment Standards Act (the “ESA“), does not restrict the parties from arbitrating; and
  • the arbitration clause was not unconscionable.

Interestingly, Justice Perell seemed to believe that the legal result was “absurd public policy”.

It will come as a relief not only to the thousands of Uber Drivers but many employees in Ontario, that the Court of Appeal has reversed this decision.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Right to Disconnect

Ontario’s Bill 148 may have created a right to disconnect – even for supervisors and managers

The right to disconnect – to leave your work at work, instead of buzzing in your pocket – is regarded as an aspiration instead of a reality for most Ontario employees. But there may already be a legal basis for the right to disconnect sitting right under our noses, in none other than the Employment Standards Act the (“ESA”).

What is the right to disconnect?

Given the ease of communication that modern technology has afforded, the lines between an employee’s work and private life are blurring more than was ever possible. Constant connection to the workplace has become the norm — even the expectation for many jobs.

The right to disconnect is a statutorily-protected right to ignore work-related calls, e-mails, and other electronic messages off-work hours. France was the first jurisdiction to legally adopt the right to disconnect in 2016.

Do Canadian employees have a right to disconnect?

No right to disconnect has been formally adopted in Canada, although the federal government is considering a right to disconnect for employees in federally-regulated industries, such as banks and telecommunications.

Is there any right to disconnect in Ontario?

Up until (arguably) the recent amendments to the ESA, no right to disconnect existed for Ontario employees. While being required to answer calls or e-mails on a Saturday morning, for instance, could entitle an employee to overtime pay, categorically refusing to do so could (in many cases) constitute misconduct.

Enter Bill 148’s new scheduling requirements

In 2017, Ontario passed Bill 148 – a retrofit of its employment standards to adapt to the changing realities of the modern workplace.  One of the changes to the ESA was the addition of Part VII.2, which deals with scheduling and on-call work.

Among other things, Part VII.2 of the ESA says this: in most cases, if your employer requires you to work on a day for which you’re not scheduled, they must provide you with: (a) at least 3 hours’ pay, regardless of how much time is actually spent working; and (b) at least 96 hours’ notice of the work. Without 96 hours’ notice of the work, the employee may refuse to work in most cases.

What do the scheduling requirements have to do with the right to disconnect?

The scheduling requirements in Part VII.2 of the ESA might mean that employees on a day off, for all intents and purposes, have a right to disconnect. That hinges on whether answering e-mails or phone calls constitutes “work” under the ESA.

While “work” is not defined under the ESA, Courts and Tribunals interpret the ESA in a way that extends maximum protection to employees. A court or tribunal is very likely to consider a requirement to answer phone calls or e-mails as “work”. That means that, for instance, if your boss emails you an urgent question about budget reports on Saturday morning, you are likely entitled to wait until Monday to figure out the answer.

What about supervisors and managers?

The conventional wisdom in Ontario is that, since supervisors and managers are exempt from all of the ESA’s rules regarding hours of work, those jobs are 24/7 gigs and employees must stay on top of work e-mails, even on their days off.

Interestingly, however, supervisors and managers are NOT exempt from the scheduling requirements Part VII.2 of the ESA. That means that, if a supervisor or manager has a right to specific days off, that employee also likely has the same right to disconnect as any other employees on those days.

Can employers get around this with creative scheduling?

Since this is fundamentally a matter of scheduling, one might wonder whether employers can get around this by simply “scheduling” their employees to answer work e-mails.

For non-managerial and non-supervisory employees, there are going to be at least some days where employees have a right to be off the grid; all such employees are guaranteed at least 24 hours free from work each week, and at least 48 hours free from work every 2 weeks. Employees cannot be required to work during those periods.

It is less clear whether employers can use this technique on supervisors and managers; there is nothing in the ESA preventing supervisors and managers from being on-call 24/7. However, Courts and Tribunals generally seek to avoid interpretations that allow employers to skirt the ESA and might easily reject an employer’s argument that the job requires 24/7 attention unless that is clearly borne out by the evidence.

Does that mean I can turn my work phone off when I’m not at work?

Probably not, due to the limits on the right to refuse work in this context. First, the right to refuse work only arises in respect of entire days off – for instance, it does not address after-hours e-mails on a workday. Second, the right to refuse work only arises if you have been given less than 96 hours’ notice. Third, the sections require an employee refusing work to “notify the employer of the refusal as soon as possible”, which in many cases sounds like more trouble than it’s worth.

What can I do about it?

We recognize that most employees do not want to create a conflict by insisting on their strict legal rights. If and when things get contentious, speak to a specialized employment lawyer. Call us today for advice on your workplace issue.

 


Contact Nicholas Goldhawk

Contact Nicholas Goldhawk, the author of this article, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7010 or email him at ngoldhawk@btzlaw.ca.

Nicholas is an Associate of the Management-side Labour Group at BTZ. In this role, he advises management on all aspects of employment and labour law, including representation before administrative tribunals, collective agreement negotiations, arbitrations, wrongful dismissal defence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and human rights.

Before joining BTZ, Nicholas articled and worked as an associate at a boutique labour and employment firm in Toronto where he assisted both employee and employer clients in formulating practical solutions for a wide variety of workplace-related issues.

Nicholas was called to the bar in 2017, after earning a J.D. from Osgoode Hall Law School. Prior to attending Law School, Nicholas obtained his Honours Bachelor of Journalism from Carleton University.

Before attending law school, Nicholas worked as an investigative journalist for a Canadian current affairs TV program.

Nicholas Goldhawk


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

How to Change Employment Contracts

Anytime you ask an existing employee to sign a new employment contract, it’s important to proceed cautiously. There are risks and pitfalls that wary employers may wish to avoid when making a change to their employment contracts. A misgauged approach may result in an unenforceable contract, or worse, result in a costly claim of constructive dismissal.

As set out below, the Ontario Courts have clarified generally two methods to change employment contracts. The first method is for when an employee consents and agrees to the changes, and the second is how to change employment contracts when the employee refuses.

Read more

Hours of Work and Breaks

The Law about Hours of Work

In Ontario, the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) sets out the maximum daily and weekly limits on the hours of work. In general, the maximum number of daily and weekly hours are:

  • Eight (8) hours in a day or, if the employer establishes a regular work day of more than eight hours, the number of hours in its regular work day; and,
  • 48 hours of work per week.

An employee’s daily hours of work may exceed the maximum limits in the ESA if the employer and employee agree in writing. Likewise, an employee’s weekly hours of work may exceed the maximum limits if (a) the employee agrees, and (b) the employer obtains approval from the Director of Employment Standards. In addition to the employee’s agreement and the Director’s approval (for excess weekly hours), an employer must provide the employee with the most recent documents published by the Director of Employment Standards on Hours of Work.

If you are looking to apply to the Director of Employment Standards for excess weekly hours, or any reason, please do not hesitate to reach out to me.

Rescinding an Agreement for Excess Work

An employee can revoke an agreement to work excess hours on two weeks notice to the employer. An employer can revoke an agreement to work excess hours on reasonable notice to the employee.

Hours Free from Work

In general, an employee must receive at least:

  • eleven (11) consecutive hours off work each day;
  • eight (8) hours off work between shifts (if combined shifts exceed thirteen (13) hours);
  • either twenty-four (24) consecutive hours off work every week, or forty-eight (48) hours off work in every consecutive two-week period;

Daily Rest: the 11 Hour Rule

The daily rest requirement is mandatory. An employee and an employer cannot agree to less than eleven (11) consecutive hours off work each day. This maximum applies even if there is an excess daily hours of work agreement or an excess weekly hours of work agreement approved by the Director of Employment Standards.

This rule does not apply, however, to an employee who is on call and called in during a period in which the employee would not otherwise be expected to perform work for his or her employer.

It also does not apply in “exceptional circumstances”. The exceptional circumstances exception only applies if the employee is required to avoid serious interference with the ordinary working of the employer’s establishment or operations:

  • To deal with an emergency.
  • If something unforeseen occurs, to ensure the continued delivery of essential public services, regardless of who delivers those services.
  • If something unforeseen occurs, to ensure that continuous processes or seasonal operations are not interrupted. or,
  • To carry out urgent repair work to the employer’s plant or equipment.

Breaks and Lunch

Eating Periods, a.k.a. Lunch Breaks

An employer must provide an employee with an uninterrupted 30-minute eating period (lunch break) at intervals to ensure that the employee goes no more than five consecutive hours of work without a break to eat. If an employee and an employer agree, then the employee can be given two eating periods (i.e. two 15-minute breaks) in each consecutive five-hour period.

Unless the employee’s contract says otherwise, lunch breaks are unpaid. Further, lunch breaks are not included for the purpose of calculating hours of work, rest provisions, overtime pay or minimum wage entitlements under the ESA.

Coffee and Other Breaks

Besides eating periods, employees are not entitled to any other breaks.

If an employer elects to give other breaks to an employee then that break must be paid and included in calculating hours of work, rest provisions, overtime pay or minimum wage entitlements under the ESA, unless that employee is not required to remain at the place of employment.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Equal Pay in the Ontario Workplace

Over the past 30 years there has been a gradual progression to establish equal pay in the Ontario Workplace. For employers and human resource managers it’s important to recognize what your obligations are concerning equal pay and that these obligations are increasing.

The Pay Equity Act

For its time, the Pay Equity Act was revolutionary. Enacted in 1987, it requires equal pay between the sexes, not within one job classification, but for work of all job types that are of equal value. The classic example is the receptionist (which is female dominant) and the warehouse worker (which is male dominant). Both jobs are of equal value but the male dominant role is typically paid more.

The Pay Equity Act requires employers to assess the value of each job class and assign it a value based on the following factors:

  1. What qualifications are required?
  2. How much responsibility does the job class require?
  3. What level of effort is required (physical and mental)?
  4. What are the working conditions like (physical danger, stress-level, customer facing)?

If upon completing this analysis, two jobs are of equal value to the company then those jobs should be equally paid.

Equal Pay Under the Employment Standards Act

While the Pay Equity Act legislates equal pay for different work but of equal value, the Employment Standards Act (“ESA”) mandates that employers pay equally for work that is substantially the same. If two employees engage in work that requires the same skill, effort, responsibility, under the same working conditions and in the same establishment, those employees should be equally paid.

The equal pay provisions of the ESA extend beyond gender discrimination to employment status. Since April 1, 2018, employers must not only pay males and females equally, but part time, temporary and seasonal workers must be paid the same as full time workers so long as they are performing substantially the same job.

There are exceptions, however. differences in pay are permitted so long as they are the result of:

  1. a seniority system – a system that pays employee based on length of service;
  2. a merit system – a system that pays employees based on merit: their skills, education, competence, etcetera;
  3. a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production – a piecemeal system or similar; or
  4. any other factor other than sex or employment status.

I wrote about the new Equal Pay provisions in the ESA as the changes were taking effect at the beginning of April. Read more details about this section in my post Equal Pay for Part Time Work begins April 1, 2018

Employers should be careful to ensure that any system they are using to determine employee pay is being implemented fairly and communicated to employees in advance. Any measurements of quantity or quality should to the greatest extent possible be objective and recorded.

Further, the ESA considers hourly/salary pay, along with overtime and commission. It does not however, specifically discuss whether it includes benefits, stock options or bonuses. Nevertheless, it may be prudent to consider how these extras are distributed to employees and ensure they are done so fairly.

Bill 203, the Pay Transparency Act, 2018.

On April 26, 2018, the Ontario legislature passed the Pay Transparency Act, 2018. This Act continues the Ontario governments trend towards pay equalization by establishing requirements for employers on disclosing compensation information of employees and prospective employees. Ontario is the first province in Canada to have legislation of this kind.

The major pillars of this legislation are as follows:

  1. Employers will be prohibited from asking for or seeking out information on what a prospective employee was or is being paid;
  2. Employers will be required to include expected compensation or range of compensation in any publicly advertised job posting; and
  3. Certain employers (likely those with a larger payroll) will be required to prepare and post publicly “pay transparency reports.” These reports are to include anonymized wage data with respect to gender and other prescribed characteristics, specifically information about the employer, the employer’s workforce composition, and differences in compensation in the employer’s workforce.

These transparency measures come into force and effect on January 1, 2019. The same day as the $15 minimum wage. Employers with more than 250 employees will have to submit their first pay transparency report by no later than May 15, 2020. Employers with between 100 and 249 employees will have submit their first pay transparency report by no later than May 15, 2021.

The Human Resources Take Away

Employers of all sizes need to consider whether they are maintaining pay equity and equal pay in accordance with the Pay Equity Act and the ESA. With the recent increase to minimum wage and the new April 2018 equal pay requirements, now is the right time to review employee wages across the board and ensure there is no unintended breaches of these Acts.

There is also a need to prepare for the Pay Transparency Act. Even if it may not immediately apply to smaller employers, it may be a good corporate practice to implement.

Leslie Dizgun, the co-author of this article conducts a sophisticated commercial litigation and employment law practice at the law firm of Brauti Thorning Zibarass LLP. For further information on this topic, Leslie’s contact information can be found online at BTZLaw.ca

This post has been republished by HR Insider. If you’re a subscriber to HR Insider you can see the article there at: https://hrinsider.ca/equal-pay-in-the-ontario-workplace/ 


 

Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Equal Pay for Part Time Work begins April 1, 2018

For Ontario employers, employing part time and temporary workers is about to become a lot more expensive. On April 1, 2018, the “equal pay for equal work” amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2002 (the “ESA”) by Bill 148, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act 2017, come into legal effect.

Ontario employees have long had the protection of the Pay Equity Act, and similar provisions in the ESA, that prevented women (and men too) from being paid less than their peers on the basis of sex. As of April 1, 2018, the ESA will now provide for an entitlement for equal pay from an employer regardless of a difference in employment status.

“Difference in employment status”, in respect of one or more employees, will now be defined as:

a difference in the number of hours regularly worked by the employees; or a difference in the term of their employment, including a difference in permanent, temporary, seasonal or casual status

As a result, employers will be required to pay casual, temporary, part-time, and seasonal employees the same rate as permanent and full time employees so long as:

  • they perform substantially the same kind of work in the same establishment;
  • their performance requires substantially the same skill, effort and responsibility; and
  • their work is performed under similar working conditions.

The legislature has attempted to define “substantially the same” to mean “substantially the same but not necessarily identical.” How this will be interpreted by the Ontario Courts is anyone’s guess but likely it will be used to grant discretion to the Tribunal, Judge or Jury on whether two similar jobs are “substantially the same”.

Exceptions

Differences in pay between employees of different sex or similar employment status are permitted so long as the difference in rate of pay is the result of:

  • a seniority system – a system that pays employee based on length of service;
  • a merit system – a system that pays employees based on merit: their skills, education, competence, etcetera;
  • a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production – a piecemeal system or similar; or
  • any other factor other than sex or employment status.

Employers should be careful to ensure that any system they are using to determine employee pay is being implemented fairly and communicated to employees in advance. Any measurements of quantity or quality should to the greatest extent possible be objective and recorded.

The Process

Any employee who believes that their rate of pay does not comply with the Equal Pay for Equal Work section of the ESA, may request a review from their employer. Employers are, thereafter, required to either:

  • Adjust the employee’s pay; or
  • Provide a written response setting out the reasons for refusing.

As discussed in my article Important Upcoming Changes to the Ontario Workplace, any written response must be saved according to the new record keeping requirements in the ESA for five (5) years.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

Arbitration Clause in Employment Contract puts the Breaks on the Uber Class Action in Ontario

The Ontario Court has confirmed that an arbitration clause in an employment contract is generally enforceable.

Much to the chagrin of Mr. Heller and his lawyers in the proposed class action brought against Uber, Justice Perell of Ontario Superior Court of Justice stayed the lawsuit against Uber. As a result, Uber drivers in Ontario that want to sue for their rights under the Employment Standards Act, 2002 will need to do so by way of Arbitration in the Netherlands.

In the lawsuit of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., Heller, the proposed class plaintiff for Uber drivers across Ontario, sued Uber for a finding that they were employees, not independent contractors. If correct, then Uber drivers would be entitled to all the benefits granted to employees under the Employment Standards Act. Uber brought a motion to stay the action in Ontario—effectively ending the law suit—on the basis that when Uber drivers signed up on the “Uber App”, they clicked accept to a long list of terms and conditions that included the following clause:

Except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be exclusively governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Netherlands, excluding its rules on the conflict of laws. The Vienna Convention on the International Sale of Goods 1980 (CISG) shall not apply. Any dispute, conflict or controversy, howsoever arising out of or broadly in connection with or relating to this Agreement, including relating to its validity, its construction or its enforceability, shall be first mandatorily submitted to mediation proceedings under the International Chamber of Commerce Mediation Rules (“ICC Mediation Rules”). If such a dispute has not been settled within sixty (60) days after a request for mediation has been submitted under such ICC Mediation Rules, such dispute can be referred to and shall be exclusively and finally resolved by arbitration under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC Arbitration Rules”) …. The Place of the arbitration shall be Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

After finding that the International Commercial Arbitration Act, 2017, applies the Court considered:

  1. Whether the Competence-Competence Principle applied? or
  2. Whether there was some other reason to refuse to send the matter to arbitration.

The Competence-Competence principle holds that in general “a challenge to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction should be first resolved by the arbitrator.” The Court found that this principle did apply and that there were no exception to rely on that would benefit Mr. Heller. The Court held that the arbitration provision was not illegal for being unconscionable.

In short, Mr. Heller’s argument was summarized as follows:

it would be an absurd result and contrary to public policy to enforce an arbitration agreement in an employment contract and thereby deny vulnerable non-unionized employees their rights and protections under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, which precludes employees contracting out of their rights under the Act.

The Court reasoned that it was their role to interpret statute and not enact it and the Employment Standards Act does not, unlike the Consumer Protection Act, preclude arbitration clauses. Therefore, the Court held that the class action lawsuit should be stayed as a result of the arbitration clause in the employment contract, “be the result absurd public policy or not.”

What is the take away?

The decision of Heller v. Uber Technologies Inc., 2018 ONSC 718, confirms that Arbitration clauses in employment agreements are generally enforceable.


Contact Justin W. Anisman

Contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing. Call 416-304-7005 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

I’ve been fired. Does my employer have to tell me why?

In short: no.

Although it can be frustrating for employees, Ontario employers are under no obligation to give a reason after terminating an  employee. In fact, Ontario employers do not need a reason at all to end an employment relationship and, therefore, are not required to prove that the employee did something wrong to explain why they were fired. Instead, an employer simply must provide the employee with reasonable notice.

Read more

How much notice/severance should I get after being fired?

That’s a more complicated question then all of those “online severance calculators” make it seem. Before we delve into the factors which play a role, both employees and employers need a little context and exposition on how the Ontario wrongful dismissal system works.

Overview

Firstly, you need to understand that “notice” and “severance”, though often used interchangeably in common parlance, mean different things. Under the Employment Standards Act, severance pay is defined and is an amount of money an employer needs to pay an employee on termination if certain conditions are met. In addition to severance, employers must give notice of termination to employees.

Severance Pay

An employee is only entitled to severance pay if they have been employed for 5 years or more and:

  1. the termination occurred because of a permanent discontinuance of all or part of an employer’s business at an establishment and the employee is one of 50 or more employees who have their employment relationship severed within a six-month period as a result; or
  2. the employer has a payroll of $2.5 million or more.

If an employee is entitled to severance pay, they are to be paid severance in a lump sum amount equivalent to one week of non-overtime wages per completed year of employment up to a maximum of 26 weeks, within 7 days of termination.

Entitlements to severance are relatively well defined. It is the notice requirements of termination that require a more nuanced analysis.

Reasonable Notice of Termination

In Ontario, employers can give notice of termination to employees in two ways. Either,

  1. An employer can give notice ahead of time; or
  2. An employer can fire an employee right away, but provide “pay in lieu of notice” equivalent to what would have been earned over the notice period.

The first step in calculating the amount of notice depends on whether that employee’s termination is subject to a valid employment contract. If the employment contract contains a  clause that sets out the amount of notice an employee gets upon being fired and the contract is valid, then the employee is entitled only to the reasonable notice set out therein.  These contracts may be invalid or void ab initio (unenforceable from the beginning) for many reasons, including if they provide for less termination entitlements than the minimums established by Employment Standards Act.

If there is no contract, or the contract is not enforceable, then an employee is entitled to what the Ontario Courts call “reasonable notice”. Reasonable notice is always more than the minimum notice. The amount of  reasonable notice depends on many factors and is calculated by the Courts after considering all of the surrounding factors. Considerations include (1) age, (2) length of service, (3) character of employment and (4) availability of similar employment. Employees are entitled to more notice if:

  • they are older;
  • they worked somewhere a very short or a very long period of time;
  • their job was very specialized and it will be difficult to find comparable employment; or
  • the employer convinced them to leave another stable job.

An employee might also be entitled to further money on termination if the employer:

  • acted badly in the manner of termination;
  • fired you for a discriminatory reason;
  • fired the employee for insisting on his/her rights under the ESA;

Contact Justin W. Anisman

To contact Justin W. Anisman, the author of this blog, about any employment law related questions or issues you may be facing, call 416-833-8443 or email him at janisman@btzlaw.ca.

Justin W. Anisman is an Employment Lawyer at the Toronto law firm Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Justin advises both companies and individuals in all aspects of employment law including wrongful dismissal, human rights and discrimination.


The publications made on this website are provided and intended for general introductory information purposes only. They do not constitute legal or other professional advice, or an opinion of any kind. Speak to a professional before making decisions about your own particular circumstances.

 

Important Upcoming Changes to the Ontario Workplace

On November 27, 2017, the Fair Workplaces, Better Jobs Act 2017 received royal assent and became Law in Ontario. Set out below are some of the most important changes to Ontario’s workplaces.

Read more