What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 6pm Tuesday 9am - 6pm Wednesday 9am - 6pm Thursday 9am - 6pm Friday 9am - 3pm Saturday 11am - 3pm

https://www.facebook.com/105132067828006/

Gina H. Kim Litigation Paralegal, Thornhill, ON (2026)

01/24/2026

📌 1. Occupiers’ Liability Act(점유자 책임법)란?

Occupiers’ Liability Act는 간단히 말해, 어떤 장소를 ‘관리·통제’하는 사람이 그 장소에 들어오는 사람들의 안전에 대해 법적 책임을 진다
는 내용을 담은 법입니다.

여기서 점유자(Occupier)는 반드시 소유자일 필요는 없습니다.

점유자에 해당할 수 있는 사람
• 집주인(랜드로드)
• 세입자(공간을 실제로 관리하는 경우)
• 상가·사업체 운영자
• 건물 관리자, 관리회사
• 해당 장소의 상태나 이용을 통제하는 사람

📌 2. 기본 의무 (법 문구는 그대로, 기준은 더 엄격)

점유자는
합리적인 주의(reasonable care)를 기울여
방문자가 합리적으로 안전하도록 해야 합니다.

❗ 중요한 점
• 완벽함(perfection)을 요구하지는 않음
• 하지만 “합리적이었는지”는 점점 더 엄격하게 판단됨

📌 3. ‘업데이트’된 핵심 변화 (법 개정이 아니라 판례·실무 변화)

최근 몇 년간 법 조문은 크게 바뀌지 않았지만,
👉 법원이 적용하는 기준이 훨씬 까다로워졌습니다.

① “몰랐다”는 변명이 거의 안 통함

이제 법원은 이렇게 봅니다:

“실제로 몰랐는가?” ❌
“알았어야 했는가?” ⭕

즉,
• 정기 점검을 했어야 했고
• 위험을 발견할 수 있었고
• 예방이 가능했다면

👉 몰랐다는 이유로 면책되기 어렵습니다

② 눈·얼음 사고 (Slip & Fall) 책임 강화 ❄️

최근 판례 흐름상:
• 눈/얼음 제거 시기
• 소금 살포 여부
• 눈 온 뒤 대응 속도
• 관리 기록(log)

이 매우 중요합니다.

⚠️ 제설업체에 맡겼어도
• 소유주·점유자 책임이 완전히 사라지지 않습니다.

③ “경고문만 붙여두면 끝” ❌

예전처럼

“미끄러움 주의” 표지판만 두는 것은 이제 거의 방어가 안 됩니다.

법원은 묻습니다:
• 왜 아직 고쳐지지 않았는가?
• 위험이 얼마나 오래 방치됐는가?
• 실제 조치를 했는가?

👉 경고 + 실질적 조치가 있어야 합니다.

④ 무단침입자·레크리에이션 이용자

무단침입자나
• 숲길
• 공터
• 시골 토지
• 트레일

이용자에 대해서는 책임이 낮아집니다.

하지만 점유자는:
• 함정을 만들어서는 안 되고
• 고의적·무모한 위험을 방치하면 안 됩니다

⚠️ 인공적으로 만든 숨겨진 위험은 여전히 책임 발생 가능

📌 4. 임대주택·랜드로드 책임 (가장 분쟁 많은 영역)

랜드로드가 자주 책임지는 경우:
• 공용 계단 미끄러짐
• 조명 불량
• 난간 파손
• 바닥 울퉁불퉁
• 알고도 수리 안 한 결함

❗ 중요한 판례 원칙:

세입자가 위험을 알고 있었어도
랜드로드 책임이 사라지지 않는다

📌 5. 책임을 제한할 수 있을까?

✔️ 가능
• 명확한 면책문구
• 잘 보이는 위치의 안내
• 합리적인 범위

❌ 불가능
• 고의
• 중과실
• 법으로 보호되는 영역 (주거 임대 등)

📌 6. 요즘 법원이 가장 먼저 보는 질문 5가지
1. 누가 해당 장소를 통제했는가?
2. 사고는 예측 가능했는가?
3. 예방이 가능했는가?
4. 합리적인 조치를 했는가?
5. 그걸 증명할 기록이 있는가?

👉 기록이 없으면 “안 한 것”으로 봄

⸻

📌 7. 현실적인 결론 (아주 중요)

요즘 기준에서 점유자는 이렇게 준비돼 있어야 안전합니다:
• 정기 점검
• 유지보수 기록
• 신속한 수리
• 내부 관리 기준
• 제설·청소 로그

이제 핵심 질문은:

“잘못할 의도가 있었나?” ❌
“법정에서 합리적이었다는 걸 증명할 수 있나?” ⭕

01/24/2026

1️⃣ What the Occupiers’ Liability Act (OLA) is (in plain English)

The Occupiers’ Liability Act (Ontario) says:

If you control a property, you have a legal duty to keep people reasonably safe while they are on it.

An “occupier” is not just the owner. It can be:
• A landlord
• A tenant in control of space
• A business operator
• A property manager
• Anyone who has control over the condition of the premises or activities on it

2️⃣ The core legal duty (still the same, but applied more strictly now)

An occupier must take reasonable care to ensure that people entering the property are reasonably safe.

This applies to:
• Visitors (customers, guests)
• Tenants
• Contractors
• Delivery drivers
• Even trespassers (with limits — see below)

⚠️ Important:
The duty is not perfection — it’s reasonableness.

Courts now focus heavily on:
• Foreseeability of harm
• Preventability
• Documentation and inspections

3️⃣ What has “effectively changed” (modern updates & court trends)

There hasn’t been a dramatic legislative rewrite recently, BUT how the Act is applied has evolved through case law and enforcement.

🔹 A. Higher expectations for inspections & records

Courts now expect occupiers to:
• Conduct regular inspections
• Keep written maintenance logs
• Address known hazards promptly

👉 “I didn’t know” is no longer a strong defence if you should have known.

🔹 B. Snow & ice liability is stricter

Recent court decisions emphasize:
• Timely snow/ice removal
• Proper salting
• Reasonable response times after snowfall
• Contracts with snow-removal companies do not fully protect you

⚠️ Owners can still be liable even if a contractor failed.

🔹 C. Warning signs alone are often NOT enough

Putting up a sign like:

“Caution: Wet Floor”

is no longer sufficient if:
• The hazard existed too long
• No steps were taken to fix it
• The danger was foreseeable

Courts look for actual corrective action, not just warnings.

🔹 D. Trespassers & recreational users

For:
• Trespassers
• People using land for recreation (trails, rural land, vacant lots)

The duty is lower:
• You must not create traps
• You must not act with reckless disregard

BUT — if the danger is man-made and hidden, liability can still arise.

4️⃣ Landlords & rental properties (big area of exposure)

Landlords are frequently found liable for:
• Slips on common-area stairs
• Poor lighting
• Broken railings
• Uneven flooring
• Unrepaired known defects

Key point:

Even if a tenant knew about the risk, the landlord can still be liable if it was foreseeable and fixable.

5️⃣ Can liability be limited or excluded?

Yes — but carefully.

✔️ Waivers & signs
• Can limit liability
• Must be clear, visible, and reasonable
• Do NOT protect against gross negligence

❌ You cannot waive:
• Intentional harm
• Reckless disregard
• Certain statutory protections (e.g., residential tenancies context)

6️⃣ What courts now ask first (modern test)

Judges typically ask:
1. Who had control of the premises?
2. Was the harm foreseeable?
3. Was the risk preventable?
4. Were reasonable steps taken?
5. Was there documentation to prove those steps?

Lack of records = higher risk of liability.

7️⃣ Practical takeaway (especially for landlords & businesses)

If you control property, you should be able to prove:
• Regular inspections
• Prompt repairs
• Clear policies
• Maintenance logs
• Reasonable response times

Think less “Did I mean harm?”
Think more “Could I prove I acted reasonably?”

01/23/2026

Employment Standards Act (ESA) 최신 업데이트 요약 (2025–2026)

이번 개정의 핵심은 채용 투명성 강화 + 근로자 정보 보호입니다.
특히 구인공고, 인터뷰, 신입 채용 단계에서 큰 변화가 있습니다.

1️⃣ 구인공고에 급여 공개 의무
• 직원 25명 이상 사업장
• 모든 공개 채용 공고에:
• 💰 급여 또는 급여 범위 반드시 명시
• 급여 범위를 쓸 경우:
• 최저–최고 차이 $50,000 초과 불가
• ❌ 연봉 $200,000 초과 직무는 예외

📌 “면접 와서 협의” 방식은 이제 위법 소지

2️⃣ ‘캐나다 경력 필수’ 요구 전면 금지
• 구인공고·지원서에서
❌ Canadian experience required 문구 사용 불가
• 신규 이민자·워홀·유학생 차별 방지 목적

3️⃣ AI 사용 채용 시 반드시 공개
• 이력서 선별, 점수화, 자동 랭킹 등
• AI 또는 알고리즘을 사용하면
👉 구인공고에 명시 의무
• 단순 워드 필터 수준도 포함될 수 있음

4️⃣ 실제 공석 여부 명시해야 함
• 해당 채용이:
• ✔ 현재 비어 있는 자리인지
• ✔ 향후 충원/예비 포지션인지
👉 구인공고에 명확히 표시

5️⃣ 인터뷰 후 45일 내 결과 통보 의무
• 면접(또는 마지막 면접) 후
• 45일 이내에 채용 여부 통지
• 이메일·온라인·구두 모두 가능
• ❌ “아무 연락 없음” → 법 위반 가능

6️⃣ 구인공고·지원서 3년 보관 의무
• 고용주는:
• 구인공고
• 지원서 양식
👉 공개 종료 후 3년간 보관

7️⃣ 신규 입사자에게 ‘사전 서면 정보’ 제공
• 첫 근무일 전(또는 가능한 빨리)
• 다음 정보 서면 제공 의무:
• 고용주 법인명·연락처
• 근무 장소
• 시급/급여
• 급여 지급 주기
• 예상 근무시간

📌 구두 설명만으로는 부족

⚠️ 실무상 매우 중요한 포인트

✔ 고용주
• 구인공고 하나 잘못 올려도 ESA 위반
• HR·채용 담당자 교육 필수

✔ 근로자
• 급여 미공개 채용
• 인터뷰 후 무응답
• AI 사용 미고지
👉 ESA 위반 근거로 문제 제기 가능

01/23/2026

1️⃣ 📊 Salary / Compensation Disclosure in Job Postings
• Employers in Ontario with 25+ employees must include expected pay or a compensation range in all publicly advertised job ads.
• If using a range, the difference between the lowest and highest amount cannot exceed $50,000.
• This doesn’t apply if the expected compensation is over $200,000 per year.

2️⃣ 🚫 No “Canadian Experience” Requirement
• Job ads cannot require Canadian work experience in the advertisement or application form — a major step toward reducing barriers for newcomers to the workforce.

3️⃣ 🤖 AI Disclosure in Hiring
• If an employer uses artificial intelligence (AI) to screen, assess, or select applicants, this must be clearly stated in the job posting.
• “AI” includes tools that analyze resumes, rank candidates, or otherwise influence hiring.

4️⃣ 🧾 Vacancy Status Must Be Clear
• Job postings need a statement saying whether the position is for an existing vacancy (versus a future role or new job).

5️⃣ 📩 Interview Notification Requirement
• Employers must tell applicants whether a hiring decision was made within 45 days of their interview (or last interview if the process has multiple rounds).
• Notification can be in person, by email, or electronically.

6️⃣ 📁 Record-Keeping Rules
• Employers must keep copies of every publicly advertised job posting and related application form for 3 years after it’s removed from public view.

7️⃣ ✍️ New Hire Written Information
• Employers must give new employees written details before their first day (or as soon as reasonably possible). This includes things like:
• Employer’s legal name and contact info
• Where the person will work
• Starting wage or rate
• Pay period and payday
• Expected hours of work
(Updated under 2025-26 changes.)

🧠 Why These Changes Matter

These updates are part of Ontario’s effort to make hiring more transparent and fair by:
• helping job seekers know pay before they apply,
• preventing exclusionary criteria (like Canadian experience),
• improving clarity about hiring tools (like AI), and
• ensuring better communication with candidates and new hires.

01/23/2026

Ontario Bill 60 주요 변경사항 (LTB / RTA 관련)

Bill 60은 임대차 분쟁을 더 빠르게 처리하는 데 초점이 맞춰진 개정안으로, 세입자·임대인 모두에게 절차상 변화가 있습니다.

1️⃣ 월세 미납(N4) → 퇴거 신청까지 더 빨라짐
• 기존: 보통 14일 이상 대기
• 변경: 7일 경과 후 바로 퇴거 신청 가능
👉 임대인에게 유리, 세입자는 훨씬 빠른 대응 필요

2️⃣ 월세 미납 청문회에서 ‘집 문제’ 주장하려면 조건 추가
• 세입자가 수리 불량·권리 침해(T2 유형 주장) 등을
**월세 미납 청문회(L1)**에서 같이 주장하려면
• 👉 임대인이 주장하는 체납액의 최소 50%를 사전 납부해야 함
• 미납액을 전혀 안 낸 상태에서는 방어권이 제한될 수 있음

3️⃣ LTB 결정 재검토(Review) 신청 기한 단축
• 기존: 30일
• 변경: 15일
👉 결정 나오면 즉시 대응 전략 필요

4️⃣ 자가 사용 퇴거(N12) – 보상 면제 가능
• 임대인이 120일 이상 사전 통지한 경우
• 👉 1개월치 보상금 지급 의무 면제 가능
• (본인 또는 직계가족 실제 거주 요건은 여전히 엄격)

5️⃣ LTB 양식(Form) 사용 의무 강화
• 모든 퇴거·종료 통지는
👉 LTB 공식 양식 사용 필수
• 비공식 문서, 문자, 이메일만으로는 무효 위험

6️⃣ ‘지속적 연체(persistent late payment)’ 등 정의를 정부가 규정 가능
• 법에 구체적 정의를 직접 두지 않고
👉 추후 규정(Regulation)으로 정하도록 위임
• 향후 N8 / 반복 연체 퇴거에 영향 가능

7️⃣ LTB 절차 전반 ‘속도전’ 구조
• 연기(adjournment) 남발 제한
• 쟁점 단순화
• 처리 속도 우선 원칙 강화
👉 즉석에서 준비 안 되면 불리

실무적으로 중요한 포인트

✔ 세입자:
• “나중에 T2로 다투면 되지” 전략 위험
• 미납 + 권리침해 혼합 사건은 설계가 핵심

✔ 임대인:
• N4 → L1 → Hearing 타임라인이 훨씬 공격적
• 절차 오류 없이 진행하면 레버리지 상승

01/23/2026

Key Updated Rules Under Bill 60 (2025)

1. Shorter Eviction Notice for Non-Payment
• Landlords can now issue an eviction application for unpaid rent after 7 days instead of the previous 14–15 days of missed rent following an N4 notice.

2. Raising Issues at Rent Arrears Hearings
• Tenants can still raise problems (like repairs or landlord issues) at a non-payment hearing, but now they must pay at least 50 % of the rent the landlord claims is owed before the hearing if they want those issues heard.

3. Shorter Window to Request an LTB Review
• The timeframe to ask the LTB to review or reconsider a decision has been reduced from 30 days to 15 days.

4. Personal-Use Evictions (N12 Notices)
• If a landlord gives at least 120 days’ notice that they or a close family member need the unit, they no longer must pay compensation (like a month’s rent) to the tenant.

5. Standardized Forms and Procedures
• All termination and eviction notices must be on Board-approved forms with no exceptions.

6. Government Regulation Powers
• Bill 60 lets the province define terms like “persistent late payment” and set criteria for when the LTB can postpone or refuse eviction orders — meaning some details will be filled in later through regulations.

7. Faster LTB Adjudication
• The law includes measures to speed up hearings and reduce delays, like encouraging faster scheduling and narrowing the circumstances for postponements or extended reviews.

🧾 What Hasn’t Changed (So Far)
• Bill 60 does not remove rent control on existing units or create entirely new eviction grounds. The core legal framework (grounds for eviction, eligibility to defend a hearing) still exists.

📌 Practical Takeaways

✔ Landlords now have faster timelines to begin non-payment eviction cases and clearer procedures for building use evictions.

✔ Tenants still have rights to defend eviction claims, but now must act more quickly and sometimes provide partial payment to have issues heard.

✔ Both sides need to pay close attention to the new 15-day review window after an LTB order.

12/18/2025

Key Legal Points from the Yaniv waxing cases

1. No discrimination where a service is not normally offered

A business can refuse a requested service if:
• the service is not one they normally provide, and
• the refusal is not based on a protected ground, but on legitimate service limitations (e.g., training, safety, equipment).

The Tribunal found the estheticians did not offer waxing services for male genitalia and were not trained to do so.

⸻

2. Human rights protections apply, but must balance with other legitimate factors

The Tribunal confirmed that:
• transgender people are protected under the Human Rights Code, but
• service providers still retain rights related to:
• health and safety
• ability to provide services competently
• bodily-integrity concerns

So providers may decline certain services if legitimate non-discriminatory reasons exist.

⸻

3. Complaints dismissed for “improper purpose”

The Tribunal used s. 27(1)(e) of the BC Human Rights Code, which allows dismissing a complaint if it was:
• filed for an improper purpose,
• sought financial gain in a way inconsistent with human rights protections,
• or abused the tribunal process.

They found evidence suggesting some complaints were filed to pressure settlements rather than genuinely enforce rights.

⸻

4. Costs awarded for misconduct

Human rights proceedings rarely award costs, but they can when:
• a party’s conduct abuses the tribunal process,
• wastes tribunal resources,
• or causes unnecessary prejudice to respondents.

Costs were ordered against Yaniv for litigation misconduct.

⸻

5. Tribunals balance rights with respondents’ dignity and autonomy

The Tribunal emphasized workers’ rights, including:
• personal boundary autonomy,
• right to refuse intimate services when untrained or uncomfortable,
• safety concerns for working from private homes.

These factors may justify a refusal without it being discriminatory.

⸻

6. Complaint must show a clear connection to protected grounds

To succeed, a complaint must prove:
• services were denied because of gender identity or expression, not other reasons.
The Tribunal found respondents’ refusals were due to service limitations, not protected characteristics.

⸻

Why this decision matters in Canadian law

This case is now widely cited for clarifying:
• limits of discrimination claims in service contexts,
• misuse of human rights processes,
• protections for service providers performing intimate procedures.

Tribunals now frequently refer to this case when ruling on:
1. improper purpose applications
2. boundaries in intimate service provision
3. legitimate vs discriminatory refusal

Gina H. Kim Litigation Paralegal

01/24/2026

01/24/2026

01/23/2026

01/23/2026

01/23/2026

01/23/2026

12/18/2025

Address

Opening Hours

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Category

Listing takedown request

Monday	9am - 6pm
Tuesday	9am - 6pm
Wednesday	9am - 6pm
Thursday	9am - 6pm
Friday	9am - 3pm
Saturday	11am - 3pm