Judith Rochette Partner, Lawyer

Profile

Partner

Ms. Rochette is a partner in the Litigation and Conflict Resolution group. She practices primarily in the field of professional liability and insurance.

Ms. Rochette holds a master’s degree from the Université de Sherbrooke in health law and has acquired expertise in litigation in this specific area. She also represents clients in life and disability insurance litigation.

As a litigator, Ms. Rochette has acquired extensive experience over the years in representing a wide range of clients, particularly insurers and their individual, corporate or professional insureds, in actions brought against them in the civil courts. She has handled a number of large cases involving various areas of the law: firefighting cases, defamation actions against professionals, construction cases in which the parties include members of different professions, and more. She also defends lawyers against professional liability claims, as counsel for the Barreau du Québec’s professional liability fund, and assists professionals who are the subject of disciplinary investigations or in proceedings before their disciplinary committees.

In addition, Ms. Rochette’s practice extends to the education system, covering cases that involve teachers, administrators or members of management of academic institutions, an example of this being actions brought by post-doctoral students or medical residents concerning their training program.

Ms. Rochette also represents clients in financial services cases involving the liability of representatives in insurance of persons, brokerage firms, and financial institutions.

Ms. Rochette has always maintained close ties with the academic community. She is regularly invited to speak on subjects in her areas of expertise.

Publications

  • Commentaire sur la décision R.N. c. Camiré – La preuve par experts est-elle toujours utile ? With Julie Savard, Repères, EYB2014REP1588 (September 2014)
  • Commentaire sur la décision St-Arnaud c. L (C.)-Le rôle du juge du procès et l’appréciation de son travail par la Cour d’appel, Repères, EYB (2013)
  • La solidarité des défendeurs en matière de responsabilité médicale et hospitalière : où en sommes-nous ? Julie Savard and Judith Rochette, La Collection Blais, volume 14-2012, pp 129-162 (2013)
  • Commentaire sur la décision Lalonde c. Tessier – La conduite d’un médecin traitant à nouveau scrutée par le tribunal : consentement, suivi, prescription et solidarité, EYB 2011 REP 1110, Repères (November 2011)
  • L’obligation d’information et de conseil du pharmacien, Co-author of an article published in Bulletin No. 1, November 2008, of the Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle of the Ordre des pharmaciens du Québec (FARPOPQ) (2008)
  • L’industrie de l’assurance et le passage à l’an 2000, Assurances, volume 66, No. 4, January 1999, p. 529 (1999)
  • Le phénomène des médecines alternatives au Québec : problèmes et esquisses de solutions, Master’s degree in health law, thesis presented to Jean-Marie Lavoie, Université de Sherbrooke (1990)

Conferences

Chantiers de construction : principaux enjeux dans le cadre de la défense de réclamations contre les professionnels (A&E) et dynamique d’un chantier d’envergure (2022)

Demi-journée de formation sur les notions de base en assurances de personnes et revue de la jurisprudence récente, avec Me Marie-Nancy Paquet, 30 septembre 2022

Conférence en droit de la construction avec Me François Bélanger et Me Frédéric Bélanger, 23 août 2022

Gestion des dossiers d'invalidité par l'assureur et l'employeur : une réalité conciliable ou irréconciliable?, en collaboration avec Me Catherine Deslauriers, Open Forum, février 2022

L'invalidité à l'ère du virtuel, comment gérer efficacement un litige, en collaboration avec Me Anne-Marie Asselin, Open Forum, février 2021

Impacts de la COVID-19 sur la gestion des dossiers de litige : les attentes de la magistrature et le rôle des avocats pour une justice efficace, en collaboration avec Me Anne-Marie Asselin, Barreau de Québec, 17 février 2021

Duty to Defend : Reminder of well-known principles, and new provision, en collaboration avec Me Florence Forest, Me Frédéric Bélanger et Me Sophie Gauvin-Sassevile, 21 septembre 2021

Demi-journée de formation, Développements récents en droit universitaire, 2 décembre 2021, Université Laval (avec Me Chloé Fauchon et Me Anne-Marie Asselin)

Recent developments in Property and Liability Insurance Caselaw in 2019, en collaboration avec Me Florence Forest, Mai 2020

Demi-journée de formation aux juges du Tribunal administratif du Québec : Principes en matière de filature, en collaboration avec Me Valérie Belle-Isle, 23 octobre 2020

Journée de formation pour les médiateurs : Développements juridiques récents en matière de médiation, en collaboration Me Véronique Morin et Dre Anne-Marie Marsolais, 4 décembre 2020, Université Laval

Le devoir de représentation de l'avocat en droit des assurances : jongler avec les intérêts de deux clients différences, en collaboration avec Me Florence Forest, octobre 2019

Les expertises et le nouveau Code de procédure civile : 3 ans plus tard, où en sommes-nous? En collaboration avec Me Florence Forest, octobre 2019

Revue de la jurisprudence 2016-une année favorable pour les assureurs ?, Presentation given at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” (disability insurance claims and litigation management) symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2017)

L’utilisation des réseaux sociaux dans les dossiers d’invalidité, Presentation given at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2016)

Le nouveau Code de procédure civile : son impact sur votre pratique en assurance invalidité, Presentation given at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2015)

Les stratégies pour faire vos expertises, Presentation given jointly with Dr. Françoise Chagnon at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2015)

Comment aborder une enquête avec un syndic, Presentation given at the “Droit disciplinaire” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2015)

Revue jurisprudentielle 2013 : y a-t-il une lumière au bout du tunnel?, Presentation given at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2014)

Gestion du dossier d’assurance et questions d’accès : à quoi l’assuré a-t-il droit ? Private mini-symposium, Lévis (2013)

Leçons à tirer des décisions récentes de nos tribunaux pour la gestion future de vos dossiers d’invalidité : revue jurisprudentielle québécoise 2012. Presentation given at the “Gestion des réclamations et litiges en assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien à Montréal (2013)

La responsabilité et l’indemnisation dans le domaine des services financiers, Jeune Barreau du Québec (2013)

La solidarité des défendeurs en matière de responsabilité médicale et hospitalière : où en sommes-nous ?  Presentation given with Me Julie Savard at the symposium on medical liability organized by Les Éditions Yvon Blais in Montréal and Quebec City (2012)

Les obligations du pharmacien sous la loupe de la Cour d’appel, Presentation given at the AQPP congress (2011)

Lever du rideau sur les ressources non institutionnelles, Symposium organized in partnership with the Association québécoise des établissements de santé et de services sociaux (AQESSS). Member of the steering committee (2011)

Protection des renseignements personnels : accent sur le droit d’accès, Presentation given at the conference for lawyers organized by the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA), Quebec City (2011)

Gestion du dossier d’assurance et questions d’accès : à quoi l’assuré a-t-il droit ?, Presentation given to the Association des femmes d’assurance de Québec (2010)

Les comités et conseils professionnels relevant du conseil d’administration d’un établissement (de santé) : un leadership à partager, One-day symposium in Quebec City and Montreal organized in partnership with the Association québécoise des établissements de santé et de services sociaux (2009-2010)

Jurisprudence récente en matière d’assurance invalidité, Presentation given at the “assurance invalidité” symposium organized by the Institut canadien (2009)

Les assurances dans le domaine de la construction (2009), Training session given at a luncheon meeting organized by the Association des femmes d’assurance de Québec (AFAQ) (2009)

La gestion de l’information en situation de crise : quoi, quand et comment communiquer (2008), One-day symposium in Quebec City and Montreal organized in partnership with the Association québécoise des établissements de santé et de services sociaux. Speaker and member of the organizing committee (2008)

Soins à domicile et en hébergement : entre légalité et légitimité, One-day symposium given on three occasions in Quebec City and Montreal in partnership with the Association québécoise des établissements de santé et de services sociaux (AQESSS). Speaker and member of the organizing committee (2007-2008).

Concept « milieu de vie » : comment concilier les demandes des familles ou des usagers et les contraintes des établissements, Half-day mini-symposium in Quebec City and Lévis for managers in the healthcare network (2006)

Code de procédure civile, de la mise en demeure au jugement : impact du nouveau CPC, Presentation given to the Association des femmes d’assurance de Québec (AFAQ) (2003)

La controverse entourant l’utilisation de la contention, Presentation given at the symposium on seniors’ rights organized by the Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Sherbrooke (IUGS) (2002)

Formation en droit de la santé, Seminar given for nurses in the Lac-Mégantic region (2002)

La controverse entourant l’utilisation de la contention, Presentation given at the “L’état mental et l’inviolabilité de la personne” symposium organized by the Université de Sherbrooke  (2002)

Achat d’assurances et gestion municipale, Training day given for the Corporation of the Chartered Municipal Officers of Québec, Hôtel Québec (1999)

Urgence Sinistres An 2000 : réflexion sur différents scénarios et questions de couverture d’assurance, Participation as a resource person, Meeting of members of the Insurance Bureau of Canada (IBC) (1999)

Comment le nouveau Code civil affecte la façon de régler les sinistres, Presentation given at a convention of Groupe Ultima insurance brokers (1999)

L’industrie de l’assurance et le Bogue de l’an 2000 : reste-t-il quelque chose à faire ?, Presentation given to the Association des femmes d’assurance de Québec (AFAQ) (1999)

Les implications légales du passage à l’an 2000, Presentation given at a symposium organized by the Order of chartered administrators, property sector, Quebec City region (1999)

L’industrie de l’assurance et le passage à l’an 2000, Presentation given to the Association des femmes d’assurance de Montréal (AFAM) (1999)

Achievements

  • Ms. Rochette taught the Life and Health Insurance course at McGill University in the spring of 2020
  • Ms. Rochette is a guest facilitator at the Université de Sherbrooke’s training seminar on trial advocacy where she leads and participates in demonstrations (2015-2017)
  • She taught the legal segment of the health law course at the Université de Sherbrooke faculty of nursing from 2001 to 2004
  • She taught the healthcare sector professional law course in the master of health law program at the Université de Sherbrooke in the winter of 2001
  • She taught the civil liability course in the bachelor of laws program at the Université de Sherbrooke in the winter of 2001
  • She designed and taught a health law course for healthcare network managers in the spring and fall of 2000
  • She taught the civil liability insurance course at the Institut d’assurance de dommages in 1999
  • She taught the health law course for the certificate in law at the Université de Montréal in 1997
  • Ms. Rochette taught the insurance and sales course at the Barreau du Québec’s Bar School in 1995

Professional and community activities

  • Member of the board of directors of Violons du Roy since 2013, and Vice-President since 2015
  • Member of the Barreau du Québec’s petitions committee (2010-present)
  • Chair of the board of directors of the Syndicat de la copropriété du Boisé-de-Sillery (2010 to 2016)
  • Member of single expert subcommittee (2007-2008)
  • Member of the Superior Court committee (2005-2008)
  • Member of the Barreau du Québec’s discipline committee (1999-2003)
  • Member of the Association des Femmes d’Assurance de Québec (AFAQ) since 1991, and President from 1995 to 1997

Distinctions

  • The Canadian Legal LEXPERT® Directory in the field of Litigation and Commercial insurance, since 2021
  • Fellow de l'American College of Trial Lawyers
  • The Best Lawyers in Canada in the field of Professional Malpractice Law, since 2021
Best Lawyers 2022 Lexpert 2022

Education

  • LL.M., Université de Sherbrooke, 1990 (Master in Health Law)
  • LL.B., Université Laval, 1988

Specialities

  • Certified mediator
  1. Impact of technology on the practice of law

    Technology is now a part of our day-to-day lives, and we’ve learned how to use it. But what about our judicial institutions? What impact does technology have on the administration of proof and the practice of law? The Court of Appeal provides us with some solutions (and grounds for discussion) in its recent case of Benisty v. Kloda 1 Charles Benisty (hereinafter “the appellant”) initiated an appeal in June 2009 against Samuel Kloda (hereinafter “the respondent”) as well as CIBC Wood Gundy (hereinafter “CIBC”). The appellant is claiming that the respondent committed errors in fulfilling the mandate that he had entrusted to him with regard to certain financial transactions completed between November 2004 and September 2008. The respondent was a financial consultant and Executive Vice-President of the Montréal branch of the CIBC. Prior to the initiation of legal proceedings, the appellant recorded some of their telephone conversations, as part of discussions that took place between the respondent and himself, without the knowledge of the respondent. He states that he acted in this manner because he was convinced that the appellant was lying to him and was conducting unauthorized transactions in his accounts. In total, 60 conversations were recorded between April and October 2008. In first instance, judge Benoît Emery overturned the appellant’s recourse. He allowed the respondent’s objection with the introduction into evidence of a series of audio recordings of telephone conversations between the respondent and the appellant.  Judge Emery considers that the recordings are not a technological document, but rather a material element that must be subject to separate proof to establish its authenticity and legal value.  In fact, Judge Emery states: “It is clear from listening to the recordings, that they are fraught with interruptions, cut-offs, or voluntary or non-voluntary deletions”, and therefore they are not authentic. He goes on to say: “[...] these incomplete and sometimes incoherent excerpts that, at times support the appellant’s cause, and at times, the respondent’s, seem to reveal everything and its opposite – wherein lies the need for evidence that is independent from its reliability and authenticity.2” The appellant is appealing the Superior Court judgement. He purports namely that the judge erred by declaring the audio recordings inadmissible as evidence. He reiterates the argument to the effect that the cassettes, on which audio recordings of the telephone conversations he had with the respondent were made, constitute technological documents within the meaning of the Act to Establish a Legal Framework for Information Technology3 (hereinafter “LFIT Act”).  He says that the cassettes benefit from the presumption of authenticity stipulated in article 2855 QCC and, consequently, it is the respondent’s responsibility to establish that this technological support does not ensure the integrity of the document and its authenticity. For his part, the respondent is rather of the opinion that the audio recordings on a magnetic medium do not fall within the scope of the LFIT Act. He therefore considers that it is the appellant’s responsibility to establish authenticity. The Court of Appeal says that the application and interpretation of the LFIT Act, which came into force in 2001, was never actually subject to the decisions of the courts and, therefore, it feels that it is useful to analyze the matter brought before it by the parties. The Court of Appeal was, in connection with this matter, facing a specific situation: in fact, in the first instance, the appellant had presented six (6) audio cassettes on which were recorded his conversations with the respondent, for a total recording duration of about six (6) hours. However, in appeal, the appellant had selected 50 excerpts of these conversations that he had transferred onto a CD for a listening duration of roughly one (1) hour. In other words, the appellant chose to substitute a CD for the cassettes produced in the Superior Court, under the same evidence docket (P-60). First off, judge Lévesque, who drafted the motives to which judges Dufresne and Healy subscribe to, qualifies these audio recordings in this matter as “material elements of proof”. He explains that when “a person is recorded without his knowledge during a telephone conversations or interview, this is considered a material element of proof, whereas a person who records himself and recites a dictation attempts instead to establish a testimony”4. Consequently, judge Lévesque reiterates that for a recording to be admitted as evidence, its authenticity must be proven 5. Consequently, the Court of Appeal asked the question as to whether the audio recording is a “technological document” within the meaning of the LFIT Act.  In this respect, judge Lévesque points to the existence of a doctrinal controversy that qualifies an audio recording on magnetic tape differently, more commonly referred to as a cassette, from a recording on a USB key or on CD. According to author Mark Philips, on whom the respondent is basing his argument, a cassette is not a “technological document” since the technology relative to the cassette is “analog”, whereas the most recent technologies are digital (such as magnetic hard drive, USB key, CD, etc.). According to this author, the definition given by the LFIT Act of a “technological document” therefore excludes analog documents. The Court of Appeal does not uphold the theory posited by author Mark Phillips.  It prefers the interpretation under which a recording on magnetic tape is considered a technological document. Despite the noted discrepancies in the text of article 2874 CCQ in comparison with those of the provisions in the LFIT Act, judge Lévesque considers it necessary to retain the interpretation that most closely complies with the purpose of the Act and the lawmaker’s intention.  He notes that the LFIT Act came into force in 2001, whereas the Civil Code of Québec was cam into effect ten (10) years before that.  Thus, on the one hand, this specific Act must take precedence over the provisions of the Civil Code, whose scope is more general in nature.  Moreover, judge Lévesque refers to two (2) case study maxims that make it possible to deduce the lawmaker’s intention: [77] Two case study maxims make it possible to deduce the lawmaker’s intention. Under the first, “precedence must be given to the most recent legislation, the legislative standard that is subsequent to the other standard in conflict”. In fact, when a new law is passed, the lawmaker is deemed to be aware of those laws that already exist. We could, therefore, presume that he wanted to implicitly repeal those standards that were not compatible with the new ones. The second principle stipulates that precedence must be given to the specific statute as compared with the statute of general application. The Court of Appeal therefore arrived at the conclusion that a recording on magnetic tape, such as a cassette, is a technological document.  More generally, it retains that a “technological document” must be considered a document whose medium uses information technologies, whether this medium is analog or digital6; Subsequently, the Court of Appeal examined articles 2855 and 2874 of the Civil Code, along with articles 5, 6 and 7 of the LFIT Act, in order to outline the principles applicable to the legal value to be assigned to a technological document. When is there presumption of authenticity? When is there presumption of integrity? When is there exemption of proof for a party when a technological document is introduced as proof? After analyzing various theories supported by different authors, the Court of Appeal retained the following regarding the procedure to follow when introducing a technological document as evidence: [99] […] articles 2855 and 2874 CCQ require the demonstration of distinct or separate proof of authenticity of a document presented as evidence. Thus, a technological document generally includes an inherent documentation, such as metadata, making it possible to identify an author, the date of creation, or even whether modifications were made to the document. Since such metadata constitute inherent proof of a technological document — and not a distinct or separate proof, as is required by the first part of articles 2855 and 2874 CCQ — and that they fulfill the same role as a traditional proof of authenticity, the lawmaker exempts that party from additionally establishing a separate proof. [100] Thus, article 7 LFIT Act does not create presumption of integrity of a document, but only a presumption that the technology used by its medium makes it possible to ensure its integrity, which I refer to as technological reliability. The nuance arises from the fact that an attack on the document’s integrity may come from various sources; for example, we can mention that the information may be altered or manipulated by an individual without technology being at fault. [101] Articles 2855 and 2874 CCQ indicate that a separate proof of authenticity is required in the case indicated in the third paragraph of article 5 EFIT., i.e., in the case where the medium or technology does not make it possible to either confirm or deny whether the document’s integrity is ensured. [102] Hence, the idea that a technological medium is deemed reliable (article 7 LFIT Act.) differs from the notion that such a medium may effectively ensure the document’s integrity (article 5 al. 3 LFIT Act.). It is a subtle distinction. A technology may, therefore, be reliable (7 LFIT Act.) without making it possible to affirm that we may conclude that the integrity of the document is ensured: this added insurance is provided by the technological documents that include an inherent documentation, or metadata, that prove the integrity of the document. [103] In other words, the exemption of proving the document’s authenticity applies where the medium or technology used make it possible to ensure the integrity of the document. This is not a case of presumed technological reliability under article 7 LFIT Act., but of the specific case of technological documents that include metadata and that, consequently, prove their own integrity. [104] However, in the absence of intrinsic documentation making it possible to ensure the document’s integrity, which is the case set out by article 5, al. 3 LFIT Act., the party that wants to produce such a document must establish this distinct traditional proof of its authenticity: […] [105] Thus, when an audio recording is accompanied by metadata and this documentation satisfies, in the court’s opinion, the authenticity requirement of the document, the party that produces this recording will be exempt from proving its authenticity. […] To summarize, the party seeking to present as evidence the audio recording must prove its authenticity7, but will not be required to prove the reliability of the technological medium used by virtue of the presumption established by article 7 LFIT Act. This article establishes a “presumption of reliability” of the technological medium by virtue of which the technology used makes it possible to ensure the document’s integrity.  This integrity itself is not presumed8. Applying these principles in the case under analysis, the Court of Appeal arrives at the conclusion that the judge of first instance erred by deciding that the cassettes did not constitute a technological document. It maintains, however, that the first judge was correct in affirming that the authenticity of the audio recordings must be proven for them to be accepted as evidence.  Therefore, in appeal, the appellant did not provide the same technological medium as that which was presented during the first instance. Six (6) cassettes were presented in the Superior Court, whereas one CD representing a summary of these recordings was presented instead in the Court of Appeal. Thus, it was not sufficient in the Court of Appeal to compare the technology and the different mediums of the proof presented, since it was impossible to distinguish the content of the cassettes from those of the CD in order to determine whether they presented the same information. By virtue of the rules of proof, the reproduction of an original may be made by a copy or a transfer9.  The copy shall be made on the same medium, whereas the transfer will be made on a technological medium that is different from the original.  Since the Court had no way to determine with certainty that the content of the CD was the same as that of the cassettes, it concluded that it simply did not have the same legal value. Lastly, the Court concluded that the appellant did not discharge his burden of demonstrating that the first instance judge had made an error that could justify their involvement. This ground of appeal was therefore rejected10. Overall, the Court of Appeal rejected in any case all of the other claims put forth by the appellant, noting that the latter faces a critical challenge: he was not persuasive. Our takeaway from this case is that the administration of a piece of evidence on a technological medium is no simple matter, and it must not be taken lightly. It is not easy to navigate the various provisions set out in both the Civil Code and the LFIT Act in order to extract the principles applicable to matters of proof. The Court of Appeal retains that the presumption of integrity set out in article 7 of the LFIT Act applies exclusively to the technological medium and not its content. It emphasizes that there should not be confusion between the integrity of a document and the capacity of a technology to ensure it.  Also, it suggests referring to the presumption set out in article 7 of the LFIT Act as a “presumption of technological reliability” instead of a “presumption of integrity of medium”. Lastly, it specifies that establishing the authenticity of an audio recording comprises two (2) components: 1)    The qualities related to the methods of creation; and, 2)    The qualities related to the information itself contained on the technological medium. A party seeking to dispute the reliability of a technological medium must, by virtue of article 89 of the CCQ, produce an affidavit “indicating in specific detail the facts and motives that make an attack on the integrity of the document likely”. An example of the administration of such technological proof may be found in the matter of Forest v. Industrial Alliance11. In this matter, photographs taken from the appellant’s Facebook account were submitted as an element of material proof. Attached was an affidavit, proclaiming the authenticity of the document, from the intern who took the screen capture. Regarding the identity of the informants, the appellant’s spouse confirmed, during the hearing, that it was in fact he himself who had taken the photographs in question. Since the opposing party did not offer any objection, the authenticity was established. While the Civil Code of Québec and its related laws strive to cover every situation that may arise in connection with presenting evidence on a technological medium, it is undeniable that technology is progressing at a rate that is far outpacing that set by lawmakers. That being the case, it is also the responsibility of attorneys to collaborate and innovate in the administration of their proof so as not to find themselves in an endless debate when seeking to determine the authenticity of specific evidence they are attempting to present.   2018 QCCA 608. Judgement on appeal, par. 97 CQLR, c. C-1.1. Paragraph 60 Art. 2855, the CCQ. 9, par. 119 of the decision. CCQ., art. 2855 and 2874. 9, par. 120 of the decision LFIT Act, art. 12, 15, 17 and 18 and CCQ, art. 2841. We should note that the other grounds of appeal presented by the appellant were all rejected as well, and that the Court, in a written judgement rendered by the Honorable Jacques J. Lévesque, j.c.a., rejected the appeal with legal fees. 2016 QCCS 497.

    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. 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
  3. 29 partners from Lavery ranked in the 2021 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory

    Lavery is proud to announce that 29 partners are ranked among the leading practitioners in Canada in their respective practice areas in the 2021 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory. The following Lavery partners are listed in the 2021 edition of The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory: Asset Securitization Brigitte Gauthier Aviation (Regulation & Liability) Louis Charette Class Actions Myriam Brixi Louis Charette Construction law Nicolas Gagnon Corporate Commercial law Jean-Sébastien Desroches Yves Rocheleau André Vautour Corporate Finance & Securities Josianne Beaudry René Branchaud Corporate Tax Audrey Gibeault Employment Law Marie-Josée Hétu, CIRC Guy Lavoie Family Law Elisabeth Pinard Infrastructure Law Jean-Sébastien Desroches Intellectual Property Chantal Desjardins Isabelle Jomphe Alain Y. Dussault Insolvency & Financial Restructuring Yanick Vlasak Labour Relations Michel Desrosiers Richard Gaudreault Simon Gagné Danielle Gauthier, CHRP Michel Gélinas Marie-Josée Hétu, CIRC Guy Lavoie Zeïneb Mellouli Litigation - Commercial Insurance Bernard Larocque Judith Rochette Litigation - Product Liability Louis Charette Mergers & Acquisitions Jean-Sébastien Desroches Mining Josianne Beaudry René Branchaud Sébastien Vézina Occupational Health & Safety Éric Thibaudeau Property Leasing Richard Burgos Workers' Compensation Guy Lavoie Carl Lessard Éric Thibaudeau The Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory is the most comprehensive publication to legal talent in the country and it identifies leading practitioners in over 60 separate practice areas and leading law firms in over 40 practice areas. It is a reference guide for Canadian and foreign corporate counsels and law firms in need of specialized legal services in Canada. For more information, please visit Lexpert’s website at: http://www.lexpert.ca/directory.

    Read more
  4. The Best Lawyers in Canada 2021 recognize 64 lawyers of Lavery

    Lavery is pleased to announce that 64 of its lawyers have been recognized as leaders in their respective fields of expertise by The Best Lawyers in Canada 2021. The following lawyers also received the Lawyer of the Year award in the 2021 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada: René Branchaud : Natural Resources Law Raymond Doray, Ad. E : Administrative and Public Law  Édith Jacques : Energy Law André Vautour : Technology Law Consult the complete list of Lavery's lawyers and their fields of expertise : Pierre-L. Baribeau : Labour and Employment Law 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 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 Louis Charette : Aviation Law / Insurance Law / Product Liability Law / Transportation Law 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 Philippe Frère : Administrative and Public 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 Jean Hébert : Insurance 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 Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin : Insurance Law Awatif Lakhdar : Family Law Bernard Larocque : Class Action Litigation / Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law Guy Lavoie, CRIA : Labour and Employment Law / Workers’ Compensation Law Jean Legault : Banking and Finance Law / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law Guy Lemay, CRIA : Class Action Litigation / Labour and Employment Law Carl Lessard : Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law Hugh Mansfield : Intellectual Property Law Zeïneb Mellouli : Labour and Employment Law Patrick A. Molinari, Ad.E., MSRC : Health Care Law Luc Pariseau : Tax Law Jacques Paul-Hus : Mergers & Acquisitions Law Ariane Pasquier : Labour and Employment Law Louis Payette, Ad. E. : Banking and Finance 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 Raphaël H. Schachter , c.r., Ad. E. : Criminal Defence Gerald Stotland : Family Law / Family Law Mediation 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