Bernard Larocque Partner, Lawyer

Bureau

  • Montréal

Phone number

514 877-3043

Fax

514 871-8977

Bar Admission

  • Québec, 1995

Languages

  • English
  • French

Profile

Partner

Bernard Larocque is a partner whose practice focuses primarily on civil litigation, including defamation law, insurance law, class actions, professional liability, and administrative disputes. He frequently appears before the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal.

Mr. Larocque regularly speaks at conferences on various subjects such as insurance law, liability, and civil procedure. 

Representative mandates 

  • Represent numerous companies, including news organizations, in defamation suits as either plaintiff or defendant
  • Represent an international engineering consulting firm in a billion-dollar class action related to contaminated soil
  • Represent a major law firm in professional liability proceedings related to a public offering
  • Represent several insurance companies in litigation related to damages totalling tens of millions of dollars as a result of flooding in several municipalities
  • Represent energy company in a class action related to the operation of a hydro-electric dam 

Publications 

  • La proposition d’assurance par internet : où en sommes-nous ? Développements récents en droit des assurances 2016, Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Bernard Larocque and Leïla Yacoubi, Barreau du Québec, Éditions Yvon Blais, vol. 423, p. 49
  • Honesty of financial advisors and discretion of the Autorité des marchés financiers: the Québec Court of Appeal rules, Need to Know 2016, Catherine Pariseault and Bernard Larocque
  • Fraud, nullity and compulsory professional liability insurance: the Québec Court of Appeal rules in, Need to Know 2016, Bernard Larocque
  • The Québec Court of Appeal rules on the duty to defend and the exclusion of liability assumed by contract, Need to Know 2016, Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin and Bernard Larocque
  • The Supreme Court of Canada will not review the duty of the insured to collaborate, Need to Know Express 2016, Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin and Bernard Larocque
  • Overlapping Insurance Policies: The Court of Appeal of Ontario Toes the Line! In Fact and in Law, Mary Delli Quadri and Bernard Larocque, April 2014
  • The Theratechnologies Case, In Fact and in Law Express, Jean-Philippe Lincourt and Bernard Larocque, March 2014
  • Pension Plans and Class Actions: the Vivendi case, In Fact and in Law Express, Josée Dumoulin, François Parent, and Bernard Larocque, January 2014
  • The Robinson Case: the Final Chapter, In Fact and in Law, Bernard Larocque, Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, with the collaboration of Jérôme Bélanger, January 2014
  • The liability insurer's duty to defend: what is the lawyer's role? Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Recent developments in insurance law 2013, Barreau du Québec, Éditions Yvon Blais, vol. 373
  • Professional liability insurance and gross fault: the Court of Appeal sings a different tune, In Fact and in Law Express, Bernard Larocque, September 2012
  • Liability Insurance, professional activities and gross fault: the Québec Court of Appeal sets the record straight, Lloyd’s of London v. Alimentation Denis & Mario Guillemette, In Fact and in Law Express and ChADPresse, Bernard Larocque, August 2012
  • Self-insured retention amounts: what is their scope in civil law?* Louis Charette and Bernard Larocque, Recent developments in insurance law, Barreau du Québec, Éditions Yvon Blais, vol. 337 

Lectures 

  • Panelist at the 14th annual Barreau du Québec national conference on class actions, March 23, 2017, on the topic of class actions in environmental law
  • The lawyer and best litigation practices,* Bernard Larocque, courses given to students at the Barreau du Québec – since 2013
  • Insurance in the context of commercial leasing,* training given by Bernard Larocque to the Real Estate Law Group – October 21, 2014
  • 2016 Annual review of insurance case law,* Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Lavery Symposium, January 27, 2017/ Conférence Jean-Bélanger en assurance de dommages, January 31, 2017 / Chambre de l’assurance de l’assurance de dommages du Québec, February 21, 2017 / Canadian Insurance Claims Managers Association, February 23, 2017
  • 2015 Annual review of insurance case law, * Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Lavery Symposium, January 14 and 15, 2014 / Conférence Jean-Bélanger en assurance de dommages, January 22, 2014 / Canadian Insurance Claims Managers Association, February 12, 2014
  • 2014 Annual review of insurance case law, * Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Lavery Symposium, January 21, 2015 / Conférence Jean-Bélanger en assurance de dommages, January 22, 2015 / Canadian Insurance Claims Managers Association, February 11, 2015
  • 2013 Annual review of insurance case law, * Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Lavery Symposium, January 14 and 15, 2014 / Conférence Jean-Bélanger en assurance de dommages, January 22, 2014 / Canadian Insurance Claims Managers Association, February 12, 2014
  • The liability insurer's duty to defend: what is the lawyer's role? Bernard Larocque, Recent developments in insurance law symposium, Montréal, October 4, 2013
  • The good and the bad of the insurer's duty to defend, Bernard Larocque and Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin, Lavery, October 24 and 25, 2012
  • L’exclusion des travaux de l’assuré : l’arrêt Progressive Homes, 2010 CSC 33, Bernard Larocque with the collaboration of Me Odette Jobin-Laberge, Ad.E., Institut d’assurance de dommages, Montréal, April 4, 2012 

* Title translated from the French.

Distinctions

  • Lawyer of the Year, The Best Lawyers in Canada in the field of Professional Malpractice Law, 2022
  • The Canadian Legal LEXPERT® Directory in the field of Litigation and Commercial insurance, since 2018
  • The Best Lawyers in Canada in the fields of Class Action Litigation and Insurance Law, since 2012
  • The Best Lawyers in Canada in the field of Professional Malpractice Law, since 2020
  • Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers
Best Lawyer 2016 Best Lawyers 2022 Lexpert 2022

Education

  • LL.B., Université Laval, 1994

Boards and Professional Affiliations

  • Chairman of the Board of Directors of Justice Pro Bono, since 2020
  • Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America 
  • Canadian Bar Association
  • Member of the board of directors since 2010, treasurer (2011-2014) and vice-president since 2015 of ProBono Québec
  • Member and chair of the board of directors of Les Deux Mondes theatre company since 2014
  • Member of the task force on the Best Practices Guide of the Barreau du Québec, since 2011
  • Member of the board of directors of Théâtre I.N.K., 2009-2012
  • Lecturer at Université de Montréal, 2008-2010
  • Member and chair of the board of directors of GEIPSI (community organization) 2002-2009
  • Member of the Approval Committee of ProBono Québec, since 2009
  1. Honesty of financial advisors and discretion of the Autorité des marchés financiers: the Québec Court of Appeal rules

    In a decision issued last May 20,1 the Québec Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment2 of the Superior Court of Québec rendered on October 28, 2013, which dismissed the action in damages for more than $7 million brought by a former representative in insurance of persons and in group savings plan brokerage, Mr. Alan Murphy, against the Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”). Facts Mr. Murphy was convicted in 2007 by the Disciplinary Committee of the Chambre de la sécurité financière of 32 charges,3his registration was permanently cancelled, as well as being temporarily cancelled for three years and one year, in respect of his areas of practice, and he was fined a total of $20,000. He then obtained a stay of both the permanent cancellation and the payment of the fines.4 Upon review by the Court of Québec, his sentence was reduced to a temporary cancellation for one year as well as the payment of a $12,000 fine.5 Despite the revocation of his certificate and the numerous notices from the AMF, Mr. Murphy continued acting as a representative, thereby significantly worsening his disciplinary record. Upon the expiry of the period during which his registration was temporarily cancelled, the AMF refused to renew Mr. Murphy’s certificate of practice. Claiming that in doing so the AMF had acted excessively, unreasonably and contrary to the requirements of good faith by multiplying the administrative obstacles, inspections and investigations against him, he sued the AMF in the Superior Court, contending that their actions demonstrated the bad faith required to substantiate a claim for $7 million in damages. Among other things, Mr. Murphy cited the judgment of the Court of Québec which had changed the sanction imposed on him and criticized the AMF. In response, the AMF argued that its refusal to issue a new certificate to Mr. Murphy was justified because he lacked the necessary degree of honesty to practise as a representative in insurance of persons and in group savings plan brokerage. Essentially, the issue raised was whether the AMF was protected by the relative immunity conferred on it for acts performed in good faith in the exercise of its functions, as provided in section 32 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers.6 Judgment of the Court of Appeal Firstly, the Court stated that the clause protecting the AMF is comparable to the clause that protects the Quebec professional orders. It then cited the leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on relative immunity clauses, the Finney case,7 which states that bad faith includes, among other things, intentional fault, which can constitute an abuse of power. This concept also includes serious carelessness or recklessness which “implies a fundamental breakdown of the orderly exercise of authority, to the point that absence of good faith can be deduced and bad faith presumed.”8 Next, to determine whether Mr. Murphy had the necessary honesty to carry on his practice as an advisor in group insurance, the Court considered the numerous decisions which the AMF had rendered against him. It should be noted that Mr. Murphy took all the measures available to him to contest9 the decisions rendered against him, while choosing nonetheless to continue practising his profession, despite the fact he no longer had the certificate authorizing him to practice. As a result, several penal complaints10 were also lodged against him. The Court of Appeal found that the discretionary power conferred on the AMF under section 220 of the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services11 (“ADFPS”) to assess the degree of honesty of persons applying for authorization to practise as a financial advisor, and to issue certificates based thereon, is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the AMF. The fact that Mr. Murphy had illegally engaged in activities reserved for representatives was a sufficient ground which allowed the AMF to conclude that he lacked a sufficient degree of honesty pursuant to sections 219 and 220 of the ADFPS. The Court found that the AMF had adequately assessed Mr. Murphy’s lack of honesty in refusing to issue his certificate. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the AMF benefited from the immunity conferred by section 32 of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers against the action instituted by Mr. Murphy. It therefore upheld the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing his action. Murphy c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2016 QCCA 878. Murphy c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2013 QCCS 5764. Rioux c. Murphy, June 12, 2007, No. CD00-0404. Murphy c. Chambre de la sécurité financière, 2007 QCCQ 7950. Murphy c. Chambre de la sécurité financière, 2008 QCCQ 5427; Murphy c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2010 QCCA 1078; application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed (S.C. Can., 2011-01-27) 33860. Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers, CQLR, c. A-33.2. Finney v. Barreau du Québec, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 17. Ibid., para. 40. 2008-PDIS-0086 (July 25, 2008); 2008-DIST-0090 (September 19, 2008); 2009-PDIS- 0190 (July 23, 2009); Murphy c. Albert, 2009 QCCS 6366; Murphy c. Albert, 2011 QCCA 1147; 2011-PDIS-0249 (October 7, 2011); number unknown (January 10, 2012). Autorité des marchés financiers c. Murphy, 2010 QCCQ 11692; Murphy c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2011 QCCS 3510; Murphy c. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2011 QCCA 1688; Autorité des marchés financiers c. Murphy, 2016 QCCQ 2992. CQLR, c. D-9.2.

    Read more
  2. Fraud, nullity and compulsory professional liability insurance: the Québec Court of Appeal rules in

    On May 16, 2016, the Québec Court of Appeal adjudicated1 on whether a professional liability insurer can plead the nullity of a policy based on misrepresentations or concealment of facts by the insured. This decision is of interest because it addresses the novel issue of whether a liability insurer can claim the nullity of an insurance contract where it is compulsory for the insured to hold such insurance under the applicable legislation. Facts In preparing for their retirement, Jean-Pierre Brunet (“Brunet”) and Giovanni Berretta (“Berretta”) as well as their holding companies, invested more than $2.5M through a group savings plan brokerage firm, Triglobal Capital Management Inc. (“Triglobal”), and its president and director, Thémiskoklis Papadopoulos (“Papadopoulos”), who were registered with the Autorité des marchés financiers. Papadopoulos managed and invested the assets of Brunet and Berretta, as well as those of several other investors, in two offshore funds located in the Bahamas and in the Cayman Islands. Until the beginning of 2008, Axa Assurances Inc. (“Axa”) was the liability insurer for Triglobal and its 200 representatives. In 2007, a newspaper reported that Triglobal, Papadopoulos and another shareholder had engaged in wrongdoing with respect to the offshore funds in which Brunet and Berretta had invested. A few days later, the same newspaper published a corrected version of its previous article. At that time, based on the answers provided by Triglobal and its representatives, Axa decided to extend the coverage of the insurance policies then in effect, and to renew them thereafter. A few months after the renewal of the insurance policies, a freeze order, cease trade order and prohibition against acting as securities advisers were issued against Triglobal and Papadopoulos pursuant to certain provisions of the Act respecting the Autorité des marchés financiers2 and the Securities Act3 which were in force at that time. A provisional director was also appointed. A few days later, Axa informed Triglobal that it was canceling its insurance policy. The facts adduced into evidence revealed that Papadopoulos and one of his acolytes had funnelled certain investments entrusted to Triglobal through the offshore funds with the intention of defrauding certain investors, including Brunet, Berretta and their companies through the use of a fraudulent financial operation, namely a “Ponzi Scheme”. Brunet, Berretta and their companies sued Axa in its capacity as Triglobal’s liability insurer to recover their losses. Judgment of the Superior Court of Québec4 The trial judge held that Axa could seek the nullity of the policy. He found that Triglobal’s officers breached their obligation to disclose circumstances which would materially influence the risk, namely, the fraudulent scheme. Axa was justified in canceling the policy because if it had known all the circumstances surrounding the risk, it would not have agreed to issue the policy.Therefore, the Court dismissed the action brought by Brunet, Berretta and their companies. Judgment of the Court of Appeal La Cour d’appel confirme unanimement le jugement de la Cour supérieure. The Court of Appeal unanimously affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. Firstly, the Court rejected the argument by Brunet and Berretta that Triglobal’s insurance policy could not be canceled because provisions of public order in the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services (“ADFPS”)5 and the Regulation respecting firms, independent representatives and independent partnerships (“RFIRIP”)6 obliged Triglobal and its brokers to hold a liability insurance policy. After reviewing the relevant provisions of the ADFPS and the RFIRIP, it held that nothing in those provisions precluded the application of the fundamental principles governing the relationship between the insurer and the insured. Thus, in accordance with article 2410 of the Civil Code of Québec (“C.C.Q.”), a liability insurer can invoke the nullity of its own insurance policy where material circumstances were not disclosed to it that were likely to influence its decision to accept the risk. It noted that nothing in the cases of Souscripteurs du Lloyd’s c. Alimentation Denis & Mario Guillemette inc.,7 Audet c. Transamerica Life Canada8 or Larrivée c. Murphy9 supported the proposition that provisions of public order which require a professional to hold liability insurance should supersede the principle that the insured must disclose all of the circumstances that are relevant for the insurer’s assessment of the risk. Secondly, the Court of Appeal held that the conditions for the application of article 2410 C.C.Q. had been met. The misrepresentations and concealment of facts by Papadopoulos as to the true nature of his fraudulent activities when the disclosure of risks was made to Axa were attributable to Triglobal since, as director and president, he was its alter ego. In fact, the evidence showed that Triglobal communicated through him when it submitted the relevant information for the assessment of risk by Axa, while hiding the fraudulent scheme, thereby distorting the insured risk. Had the true risk been revealed to Axa, it would not have agreed to issue the insurance policy. This conclusion might have been different however if Papadopoulos had only been an employee of Triglobal. Article 2464 C.C.Q. obliges the liability insurer to pay the indemnity where the insurer covers the insured for harm caused by another person for whom the insured is responsible, such as the employer’s liability for its employee. Conclusion This decision is the first rendered by the Québec Court of Appeal on the issue of whether an insurer can seek the annulment of a liability insurance contract where it is imposed on the insured by law. It confirms that, unless prohibited by an express provision of the legislation, the insurer may apply for the nullity of the insurance policy where the conditions for doing so are met.   Brunet c. Axa Assurances inc., 2016 QCCA 832, juges France Thibault, Yves-Marie Morissette and Mark Schrager CQLR c. A-33.2. CQLR c. V-1.1. Brunet c. Axa Assurances, 2014 QCCS 5227. CQLR c. D-9.2. CQLR c. D-9.2, r. 2. 2012 QCCA 1376. 2012 QCCA 1746. 2014 QCCA 305.

    Read more
  3. The Québec Court of Appeal rules on the duty to defend and the exclusion of liability assumed by contract

    Last April 4, in the case of Aldo Group Inc. v. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada,1 the Court of Appeal ruled on the insurer’s duty to defend its insured and on the interpretation to be given to a clause excluding insurance coverage for liability contractually assumed by the insured. The decision highlights the difficulties of interpretation sometimes faced by the parties and the courts in situations involving complex contracts where the parties have adduced no evidence of what their respective intentions were at the time the contract was concluded. It also illustrates the importance of assessing each insurance policy on a case-by-case basis. Facts Aldo Group Inc. (“Aldo”) had concluded various agreements including, in particular, with Moneris (“Moneris”), an agent of the Bank of Montreal (“BMO”), in order to facilitate purchases made by its clients with MasterCard credit cards. Pursuant to these agreements, Aldo agreed with Moneris to abide by certain IT security standards in order to protect the personal information of its clients. In particular, it undertook to pay penalties and other charges in the event of a breach of these standards. Moneris, in turn, entered into similar agreements with MasterCard. Aldo’s computing system was subsequently hacked, thereby jeopardizing its clients’ data. Pursuant to the aforesaid agreements, MasterCard charged Moneris with more than $4.8M in penalties and other costs, which Moneris in turn charged against Aldo. No debate was held on this issue as these charges were automatically deducted, so that they could not be contested by Aldo. Instead, Aldo filed a claim in Ontario against Moneris and MasterCard, alleging that the amounts were deducted unfairly. Aldo then applied to the Superior Court of Québec for an order against its liability insurer, Chubb Insurance Company of Canada (“Chubb”), to pay for its legal costs, i.e. its defence, in the action instituted in Ontario. Trial judgment The Superior Court dismissed the motion to force Chubb to pay for Aldo’s legal costs2 (its defence) in the action instituted in Ontario against Moneris and MasterCard. While the judge came to the conclusion, after interpreting the terms of the insurance contract between Aldo and Chubb, that the action instituted by Aldo was a valid claim within the meaning of the insurance policy, she found that the exclusion relating to liability assumed by contract applied. She also found that Aldo had contractually waived certain rights that it could have asserted against Moneris or MasterCard, thereby justifying the refusal by Chubb to assume its defence. Court of Appeal judgment Two preliminary comments by the Court of Appeal are important for parties and lawyers faced with resolving problems in the interpretation of insurance policies. Firstly, the Court of Appeal noted that this decision was not intended to “set a precedent” (“translation”), since it dealt with the analysis of contracts between the parties and an insurance policy specific to that case. In other words, each situation must be assessed in light of the particular insurance policy and the specific facts of each situation. Secondly, the Court of Appeal stressed that there was no evidence of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and conclusion of the insurance contract between Aldo and Chubb, including the specific exclusion at issue in this case. In the absence of evidence of the negotiations that led to the conclusion of the contract, or of the application of this exclusionary clause in the past, the court’s analysis was limited to the text of the insurance policy alone, according to the applicable rules of interpretation. On the merits, the Court of Appeal concluded, firstly, that the action instituted by Aldo against Moneris and MasterCard was a claim within the meaning of the insurance policy. Given the terms of the contract, the mere fact that Aldo itself had instituted the proceeding instead of being sued was not a sufficient reason, by itself, to conclude that Chubb’s duty to defend had not been triggered. Secondly, the Court of Appeal held, contrary to the trial judge, that Aldo had not contractually waived the ability to assert certain rights against MasterCard and Moneris, as Chubb had claimed. The mere fact that deductions had been made for the amount of the penalties did not constitute a waiver of the right of contestation. Furthermore, Aldo could not be accused of having failed to cooperate with Chubb. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal confimed the trial judgment and concluded that Moneris’ claim against Aldo was contractual in nature. The exclusion contained in the insurance policy for any liability assumed by contract therefore applied. In interpreting the policy, the Court held that this was a clause by which the insurer excluded claims from the liability insurance policy so as to avoid being held liable for any defaults by the insured in fulfilling its contractual obligations, such as unpaid accounts or other debts to third parties. In addition, the Court held that the exception to this exclusion relating to extra-contractual liability did not apply because Moneris could not have asserted its rights against Aldo in the absence of the contract. The fact that third parties, such as the victims of the leak of personal information, might potentially have been able to assert their rights against Aldo, was not a situation that enabled the exception to the exclusion to apply in this case. The Court of Appeal therefore concluded that Chubb did not have the obligation to pay for Aldo’s legal costs (its defence) in the claim brought in Ontario against Moneris and MasterCard. Conclusions In summary, the Court of Appeal concluded as follows: while no legal action was brought against Aldo, Aldo’s claim against Moneris and MasterCard was a valid claim within the meaning of the insurance policy and the duty to defend it would have been triggered, had it not been for the exclusion; Aldo had not waived the ability to assert any right whatsoever which prejudiced Chubb, and Chubb could therefore not claim on this basis that its duty to defend Aldo was not triggered; Chubb nevertheless had no duty to pay for the legal costs, i.e. the defence, of Aldo’s claim against Moneris and MasterCard because this situation was covered by the clause excluding insurance coverage for any liability contractually assumed by Aldo. As the Court of Appeal noted, this case in no way changes the principles governing the duty to defend. In this regard, Justice Bich wrote as follows: [Translation] [53] One cannot deny the atypical nature of this situation, which is certainly not an ordinary case. But, one must also see that the interpretation reached by the trial judge is not meant to be a general postulate that is intended to transform the duty to defend. It is a specific solution, based on the specific terms of a specific contract. The fact that we are outside the norm does not mean, by itself (subject to a palpable and overriding error), that we are justified in substituting the trial judge’s interpretation of the text of the policy with a reading that would be consistent with Chubb’s conception thereof. [54] The defence contemplated in clause 16 is not therefore limited to contesting a legal action brought against the insured. This is, moreover, in no way incompatible with the meaning given by current dictionaries to the verb “to defend”/”défendre”, which is not limited to a defence against a duly instituted court action, but more generally connotes such concepts as to protect, sustain, help, intercede and support. The Court of Appeal also issued a warning to the parties to the insurance contract: if a contract such as an insurance policy must be interpreted with the help of other elements than the text, then evidence must be presented. Otherwise, only the text will guide the court, in light, of course, of the rules of interpretation as provided in the legislation and case law. Finally, each insurance contract must be construed in accordance with its own wording and the facts of the case. Therefore, even in the presence of similar terms, insurers and insureds must nevertheless avoid speaking in generalities when the time comes for determining whether, for instance, the insurer has the duty to defend or indemnify.   2016 QCCA 554 (Justices Yves-Marie Morrissette, Marie-France Bich and Marie St-Pierre); reasons given by Justice Bich. Aldo Group.inc. c. Chubb Insurance Company of Canada 2013 QCCS 2006 (Justice Marie-Anne Paquette).

    Read more
  4. The Supreme Court of Canada will not review the duty of the insured to collaborate

    On February 18 last, the Supreme Court of Canada1 denied leave to appeal in the matter of Intact Compagnie d’assurance c. 9221-2133 Québec inc.2, thus confirming the principles applicable to the duty of the insured to collaborate. The facts Following the theft of his vehicle, the insured filed a claim with his insurer, but refused to submit to a statutory examination and provide authorizations for obtaining additional information, for example, his driver file at the Société d’assurance automobile du Québec. The judgment At trial, the Court of Québec ordered the insurer to pay its insured the indemnity arising from the theft of the insured’s vehicle but, particularly due to the [TRANSLATION] “lack of collaboration” of the insured, dismissed his claim for trouble and inconvenience. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and concluded that the insured has a duty to closely collaborate with his insurer in the context of settling a loss, which includes the duty to answer the questions of the insurer respecting all the circumstances surrounding the loss and provide all the documentation in support of his claim. The insured must also agree to the collection of the necessary documents and sign the authorizations required for that purpose. The duty of the insured to collaborate is not subject to any duty of the insurer to conduct investigations with third parties. In the circumstances, the Court concluded that since the insured demonstrated bad faith by systematically refusing to answer the questions of the insurer, which suffered harm as a result, he had no right to be indemnified. The refusal of the Supreme Court to review this issue also confirms the principles already established by the Court of Appeal respecting the duty of the insured to collaborate3.   9221-2133 Québec inc., F.A.S.R.S. Centre Mécatech c. Intact Compagnie d’assurance, 2016-02-18, 36569. 2015 QCCA 916. See more particularly the following cases: Northumberland General Insurance v. Genziuk, J.E. 81-1072 (C.A.) and Di Capua c. Barreau du Québec, J.E. 2003-1310 (C.A.).

    Read more
  1. The Best Lawyers in Canada 2023 recognize 67 lawyers of Lavery

    Lavery is pleased to announce that 67 of its lawyers have been recognized as leaders in their respective fields of expertise by The Best Lawyers in Canada 2023. The following lawyers also received the Lawyer of the Year award in the 2023 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada: René Branchaud : Natural Resources Law Chantal Desjardins : Intellectual Property Law Bernard Larocque : Legal Malpractice Law Patrick A. Molinari : Health Care Law   Consult the complete list of Lavery's lawyers and their fields of expertise: Josianne Beaudry : Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Mining Law Laurence Bich-Carrière : Class Action Litigation / Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Product Liability Law Dominic Boivert : Insurance Law (Ones To Watch) Luc R. Borduas : Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Daniel Bouchard : Environmental Law Laurence Bourgeois-Hatto : Workers' Compensation Law René Branchaud : Mining Law / Natural Resources Law / Securities Law Étienne Brassard : Equipment Finance Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Real Estate Law Jules Brière : Aboriginal Law / Indigenous Practice / Administrative and Public Law / Health Care Law Myriam Brixi : Class Action Litigation Benoit Brouillette : Labour and Employment Law Richard Burgos : Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Corporate Law Marie-Claude Cantin : Insurance Law / Construction Law Brittany Carson : Labour and Employment Law Eugene Czolij : Corporate and Commercial Litigation France Camille De Mers : Mergers and Acquisitions Law (Ones To Watch) Chantal Desjardins : Intellectual Property Law Jean-Sébastien Desroches : Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Raymond Doray : Privacy and Data Security Law / Administrative and Public Law / Defamation and Media Law Christian Dumoulin : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Alain Y. Dussault : Intellectual Property Law Isabelle Duval : Family Law Chloé Fauchon : Municipal Law (Ones To Watch) Philippe Frère : Administrative and Public Law Simon Gagné : Labour and Employment Law Nicolas Gagnon : Construction Law Richard Gaudreault : Labour and Employment Law Danielle Gauthier : Labour and Employment Law Julie Gauvreau : Intellectual Property Law Michel Gélinas : Labour and Employment Law Caroline Harnois : Family Law / Family Law Mediation / Trusts and Estates Marie-Josée Hétu : Labour and Employment Law Alain Heyne : Banking and Finance Law Édith Jacques : Energy Law / Corporate Law Pierre Marc Johnson, Ad. E.  : International Arbitration Marie-Hélène Jolicoeur : Labour and Employment Law Isabelle Jomphe : Intellectual Property Law Guillaume Laberge : Administrative and Public Law Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin : Insurance Law Awatif Lakhdar : Family Law Bernard Larocque : Professional Malpractice Law / Class Action Litigation / Insurance Law / Legal Malpractice Law Myriam Lavallée : Labour and Employment Law Guy Lavoie : Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law Jean Legault : Banking and Finance Law / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law Carl Lessard : Workers' Compensation Law / Labour and Employment Law Josiane L'Heureux : Labour and Employment Law Despina Mandilaras : Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Hugh Mansfield : Intellectual Property Law Zeïneb Mellouli : Labour and Employment Law Patrick A. Molinari : Health Care Law André Paquette : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Luc Pariseau : Tax Law Ariane Pasquier : Labour and Employment Law Jacques Paul-Hus : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Hubert Pepin : Labour and Employment Law Martin Pichette : Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law Élisabeth Pinard : Family Law François Renaud : Banking and Finance Law / Structured Finance Law Judith Rochette : Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law Ian Rose FCIArb : Director and Officer Liability Practice / Insurance Law Chantal Saint-Onge : Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Éric Thibaudeau : Workers' Compensation Law André Vautour : Corporate Governance Practice / Corporate Law / Information Technology Law / Intellectual Property Law / Technology Law Bruno Verdon : Corporate and Commercial Litigation Sébastien Vézina : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Yanick Vlasak : Corporate and Commercial Litigation Jonathan Warin : Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law These recognitions are further demonstration of the expertise and quality of legal services that characterize Lavery’s professionals.

    Read more
  2. Bernard Larocque named Lawyer of the Year in Professional Malpractice by The Best Lawyers in Canada 2023

    Lavery is pleased to announce that Bernard Larocque's expertise in Professional Malpractice was recognized with the Lawyer of the Year award as part of The Best Lawyers in Canada 2023.Bernard Larocque is a partner in the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group whose practice focuses primarily on civil litigation, including defamation law, insurance law, class actions, professional liability, and administrative disputes. He frequently appears before the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Larocque regularly speaks at conferences on various subjects such as insurance law, liability, and civil procedure. In addition to being a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, his expertise is also recognized by The Canadian Legal LEXPERT® Directory in the field of Litigation and Commercial insurance since 2018.

    Read more
  3. Bernard Larocque named Lawyer of the Year in Professional Malpractice by The Best Lawyers in Canada 2022

    Lavery is pleased to announce that Bernard Larocque’s expertise in Professional Malpractice was recognized with the Lawyer of the Year award as part of The Best Lawyers in Canada 2022. Bernard Larocque is a partner in the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group whose practice focuses primarily on civil litigation, including defamation law, insurance law, class actions, professional liability, and administrative disputes. He frequently appears before the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada and the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mr. Larocque regularly speaks at conferences on various subjects such as insurance law, liability, and civil procedure. In addition to being a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, his expertise is also recognized by The Canadian Legal LEXPERT® Directory in the field of Litigation and Commercial insurance.

    Read more
  4. The Best Lawyers in Canada 2022 recognize 68 lawyers of Lavery

    Lavery is pleased to announce that 68 of its lawyers have been recognized as leaders in their respective fields of expertise by The Best Lawyers in Canada 2022. Lawyer of the Year   The following lawyers also received the Lawyer of the Year award in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada: Caroline Harnois: Family Law Mediation Bernard Larocque: Professional Malpractice Law   Consult the complete list of Lavery's lawyers and their fields of expertise: Josianne Beaudry : Mining Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Dominique Bélisle : Energy Law Laurence Bich-Carrière : Class Action Litigation René Branchaud : Mining Law / Natural Resources Law / Securities Law Étienne Brassard : Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Real Estate Law / Equipment Finance Law Dominic Boisvert: Insurance Law (Ones To Watch) Luc R. Borduas : Corporate Law Daniel Bouchard : Environmental Law Jules Brière : Administrative and Public Law / Health Care Law Myriam Brixi : Class Action Litigation Benoit Brouillette : Labour and Employment Law Richard Burgos : Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Marie-Claude Cantin : Construction Law / Insurance Law Charles Ceelen-Brasseur : Corporate Law (Ones To Watch) Eugène Czolij : Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law Chantal Desjardins : Intellectual Property Law Jean-Sébastien Desroches : Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law Michel Desrosiers : Labour and Employment Law Raymond Doray, Ad. E : Administrative and Public Law / Defamation and Media Law / Privacy and Data Security Law Christian Dumoulin : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Alain Y. Dussault : Intellectual Property Law Isabelle Duval : Family Law Chloé Fauchon: Municipal Law (Ones To Watch) Philippe Frère : Administrative and Public Law Simon Gagné : Labour and Employment Law Nicolas Gagnon : Construction Law Richard Gaudreault : Labour and Employment Law Danielle Gauthier : Labour and Employment Law Julie Gauvreau : Intellectual Property Law Michel Gélinas : Labour and Employment Law Caroline Harnois : Family Law / Family Law Mediation / Trusts and Estates Marie-Josée Hétu : Labour and Employment Law Alain Heyne : Banking and Finance Law Édith Jacques : Corporate Law / Energy Law Pierre Marc Johnson, Ad. E., G.O.Q., MSRC : International Arbitration Marie-Hélène Jolicoeur : Labour and Employment Law Isabelle Jomphe : Intellectual Property Law Guillaume Laberge: Administrative and Public Law Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin: Insurance Law Awatif Lakhdar: Family Law Bernard Larocque: Class Action Litigation / Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law Myriam Lavallée: Labour and Employment Law Guy Lavoie: Labour and Employment Law / Workers’ Compensation Law Jean Legault: Banking and Finance Law / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law Carl Lessard: Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law Josiane L'Heureux: Labour and Employment Law Hugh Mansfield : Intellectual Property Law Zeïneb Mellouli : Labour and Employment Law Patrick A. Molinari, Ad.E., MSRC : Health Care Law André Paquette: Mergers and Acquisitions Law Luc Pariseau : Tax Law Jacques Paul-Hus : Mergers & Acquisitions Law Ariane Pasquier : Labour and Employment Law Hubert Pepin : Labour and Employment Law Martin Pichette : Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law Élisabeth Pinard : Family Law François Renaud : Banking and Finance Law Marc Rochefort : Securities Law Judith Rochette : Professional Malpractice Law Ian Rose : Director and Officer Liability Practice / Insurance Law Éric Thibaudeau: Workers' Compensation Law Philippe Tremblay : Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation Jean-Philippe Turgeon : Franchise Law André Vautour : Corporate Law / Energy Law / Information Technology Law / Intellectual Property Law / Private Funds Law / Technology Law Bruno Verdon : Corporate and Commercial Litigation Sébastien Vézina : Mergers and Acquisitions Law Yanick Vlasak : Corporate and Commercial Litigation Jonathan Warin : Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law

    Read more