Joël Larouche Senior Associate

Joël Larouche Senior Associate

Profile

Senior Associate

Joël is a member of the Lavery's Litigation and Dispute Resolution group and focuses his practice mainly on commercial litigation, insolvency and restructuring. He has extensive experience with injunctions of all kinds, including Anton Piller, Norwich and Mareva injunctions, as well as those used in breaches of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses and the theft of personal and confidential information, among others. He frequently acts as an independent supervising lawyer in the context of Anton Piller order enforcement.

Joël works with clients in a variety of industries, providing strategic advice and representing them before all Quebec courts, including the Court of Appeal and arbitration boards.

He is regularly mandated to act in shareholder and transactional disputes, as well as in regulatory investigations and in the resolution of corporate governance issues. His practice leads him to represent both large private and institutional corporations, in particular in the financial, technology and construction sectors.

Pragmatic and meticulous, Joël stands out for his ability to adopt a both practical and strategic approach to deliver cutting-edge, innovative solutions to his clients.

Representative mandates

  • Representation of financial and IT companies in applications for Anton Piller injunctions following the theft of personal information and confidential data.
  • Involvement as an independent supervising lawyer appointed by the Superior Court in the enforcement of Anton Piller orders.
  • Representation of a financial institution to obtain the issuance of a Norwich injunction order.
  • Representation of financial institutions, financial services firms and brokers in matters of banking and professional liability, as well as breach of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses.
  • Defence of clients against abusive proceedings.
  • Representation of contractors and subcontractors in complex construction industry disputes, including the conviction of public general contractors for abuse of process.
  • Representation of creditors and debtors in applications for the appointment of a sequestrator.
  • Representation and counsel to investors and directors in investigations conducted by the Autorité des marchés financiers and the Autorité des marchés publics.
  • Representation of shareholders and directors in a variety of complex shareholder disputes.
  • Representation of commercial lessees in proceedings against lessors.

Publications and lectures

Publications

  • "Fardeau de la preuve, présomption de bonne foi et connaissance judiciaire" (co-author Marc-André Landry), in JurisClasseur Québec encyclopedia
  • "L'injonction interlocutoire" (co-author Marc-André Landry), in JurisClasseur Québec encyclopedia
  • "Les clauses standards dans les contrats commerciaux : leur raison d'être et leurs effets pratiques" (co-author Marc-André Landry) in Développements récents en droit des affaires, vol. 540 (2023), Service de la formation continue du Barreau du Québec
  • "Créativité, équilibre, protection : les mesures de sauvegarde offertes aux parties dans les recours en oppression" (co-author Marc-André Landry) in Développements récents en droit des affaires, vol. 500 (2021), Service de la formation continue du Barreau du Québec
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Ville de Québec c. Constructions BSL inc. – Un nouvel arrêt de principe en droit de la construction sur le devoir d'information des donneurs d'ouvrage publics," co-author Félix Tessier, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, April 2023, EYB2023REP3609
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Abandonato c. Corporation Steckmar – Les demandes d'enquête sous la Loi sur les sociétés par actions : quand prête-nom et oppression ne font pas bon ménage," co-author Marianne Paquet, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, January 2023, EYB2023REP3579
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Gestion Philippe Girard inc. c. Clinique de réhabilitation prosthodontique de Québec inc. – Oppression et clause de non-concurrence : quand l'intérêt de la société s'oppose à l'intérêt des patients," Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, November 2022, EYB2022REP3540
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Djamad c. Banque Royale du Canada – Mise en garde aux institutions bancaires : les clauses d'exonération de responsabilité ne sont pas infaillibles," Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, May 2021, EYB2021REP3272
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Canada c. Canada North Group Inc. – Restructuration et créances de la Couronne : priorité aux charges super prioritaires lorsque nécessaire," Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, October 2021, EYB2021REP3353
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt GBI Experts-conseils c. Ville de Montréal – La Loi 26 et l'absence de compétence exclusive de la Cour du Québec," co-author Félix Cotton, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, May 2020, EYB2020REP3043
  • "Commentaire sur la décision Copley Investments Trinity Inc. c. Chu – La multiplicité des créances au sens de l'article 700 C.p.c," co-author Félix Cotton, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, May 2021, EYB2020REP3041
  • "Commentaire sur la décision Supermarché Saint-Hilaire inc. c. Ville de Mont-Saint-Hilaire – La présomption de validité d'un règlement municipal et l'injonction interlocutoire," co-author Marc-André Landry, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, January 2020, EYB2020REP2890
  • "Commentaire sur l'arrêt Brunette c. Legault Joly Thiffault, s.e.n.c.r.l. - Quand la confusion dans les allégations entraîne la peine capitale," co-author Marc-André Landry, Repères, Éditions Yvon Blais, March 2019, EYB2019REP2719

Lectures

  • Lecture on standardized clauses in commercial contracts at the invitation of the Barreau du Québec as part of Développement récents en droit des affaires (2023)
  • Lecture on disputes between shareholders at the invitation of the Barreau du Québec as part of Développement récents en droit des affaires (2021)

Distinctions

Ones to Watch, The Best Lawyers in Canada in the field of Corporate and Commercial Litigation, 2025

Best Lawyers - Ones to Watch 2026

Education

  • LL.B., Université Laval, 2015

Boards and Professional Affiliations

  • Young Bar of Montreal
  • Canadian Bar Association
  • The Advocates’ Society
  1. Public construction: Prompt payments and simplified dispute resolution

    On July 30, 2025, the Regulation respecting prompt payments and the prompt settlement of disputes with regard to construction work (hereinafter the “Regulation”) was published in the Gazette officielle du Québec. Since September 8, 2025, the Regulation has been coming into force gradually,1 in response to requests from some involved the construction industry. The Regulation applies to the majority of construction contracts concluded with public bodies covered by the Act respecting contracting by public bodies (chapter C-65.1, r. 8.01) (hereinafter the “ACPB”). The Regulation aims to fix chronic payment delays in the construction industry by establishing binding standards to speed up the payment process for contractors and subcontractors involved in public contracts covered by the ACPB. It also introduces a rapid dispute resolution process. The Regulation thus complements An Act mainly to promote Québec-sourced and responsible procurement by public bodies, to reinforce the integrity regime of enterprises and to increase the powers of the Autorité des marchés publics.2 The following is a summary of some of the Regulation’s key provisions. Cases of application and exclusions The Regulation applies to all public construction contracts and subcontracts subject to the ACPB, with the following exceptions:3 contracts entered into in an emergency because of a threat to the safety of persons or property contracts entered into for the purpose of activities on foreign soil of a delegation general, a delegation or another form of representation of Québec abroad a monetary claim to compensate for a loss of profit, productivity or a business opportunity that a contractor considers it has suffered because of a change relating to the scope of the work specified in a public contract or public subcontract, or to the conditions for its performance Deadlines and schedule imposed by the Regulations The Regulation establishes a rigid payment request, refusal and payment schedule: Request for payment4 Sent by the general contractor to the public body: 1st day of the month Sent by the subcontractor to the general contractor: 25th day of the month Refusal to pay5 Sent by the general contractor to the subcontractor: 21st day of the month Sent by the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month Payment deadline (if applicable)6 By the public body to the general contractor: Last day of the month By the general contractor to the subcontractor: 5th day of 2nd month From a subcontractor to another: 10th day of 2nd month If the subcontracting chain has more than two subcontracting levels, the payment deadline is extended by five days for each additional level. These deadlines are intended make the payment process uniform and predictable. It is possible for parties to amend their requests after they have been sent.7 Request for payment A request for payment must be in writing and contain the following information : the name and address of the contractor and the contact information of the representative of the contractor the number of the public contract a detailed description of the work carried out, the expenses incurred and any other element for which a sum of money is claimed the periods associated with elements claimed a breakdown of the total amount claimed8 If the public body requires the presentation of supporting documents with a request for payment from a contractor party to a contract, it must include such condition in the contract and specify which documents are required. The same principle applies to subcontracts between contractors and their subcontractors.9 Importantly, the public body may allow the contractor to amend the request for payment to correct any deficiency, except for requests rendered invalid by the date on which they were sent. If no question of invalidity has been raised with the contractor before the deadline to indicate a refusal to pay, the payment request will be deemed valid.10 Refusal to pay A refusal to pay must be expressed in a written notice containing the following information: the part of the total amount claimed that is refused a description of the work, expenses or elements of the request for payment to which the refusal applies the grounds for the refusal and the contractual or legal provisions on which they are based11 The refusal of a request for payment cannot be based solely on the fact that the work carried out is the result of a change to the contract and that, when the request for payment was sent, the value of the change had yet to be agreed on or determined.12 Payments and withholdings In certain circumstances, the public body may withhold any sum claimed by the contractor: A sum sufficient to cover any reservations for apparent defects or poor workmanship in the work.13 A sum sufficient to repair any damage caused by the general contractor or a subcontractor to the work.14 A sum previously paid to the general contractor for work performed by one of its subcontractors to ensure that the latter’s claims are paid by the general contractor or to enable the public body to pay these claims itself. This right to withhold exists regardless of whether the subcontractor can invoke a legal hypothec on the construction or not.15 A sum sufficient to pay the claims of persons other than the contractor’s subcontractors can invoke a construction legal hypothec on the work and who have given notice of their contract to the contractor, for work completed or the materials or services supplied after the notice was given.16 Up to 10% of the sum owed to ensure performance of the contract, provided that this possibility and its terms are stipulated in the contract. A general contractor may, in turn, withhold sums from its subcontractors, provided that a written agreement allows this and that the withholding does not exceed the withholding applied to the contractor by the public body. Each level of subcontracting can avail itself of this right, with the necessary modifications.17 All sums payable to the contractor if it has not provided all closeout documents, including the certificate issued by the CNESST in accordance with the law and final acquittances from subcontractors.18 Except in the last two cases, a general contractor may offer the public body sufficient security in lieu of the withholding, such as a bond or a letter of guarantee from a bank. In turn, the general contractor may deduct from a payment owed to one of its subcontractors an amount representing the sum claimed by that subcontractor for work, where that work has been identified in a notice of refusal issued by another debtor in the contracting chain. To avail itself of this right, the contractor must first have sent the subcontractor a copy of the notice of refusal on which it is relying.19 Subcontractors, for their part, must send the notice of deduction to their own subcontractors, if any, within two days of receiving the notice.20 In all cases, the Regulation provides for the release of the deductions applied when the conditions for release are met. Prompt dispute settlement The Regulation introduces a dispute settlement process by which the parties have recourse to a third-person decider after having attempted to settle the dispute amicably.21 Initiated by a “request for intervention,” the process is intended to be rapid, with decisions to be made within 50 days of the designation of the third-person decider.22 More specifically, this mechanism provides for the following stages and deadlines: Stages Time allowed Request for intervention 90 days after work accepted or completed* Other contracting party’s response 5 days Designation of the third-person decider 5 days Outline of claims by applicant 5 days Detailed response from other contracting party 15 days Decider’s decision 50 days from the designation date (this period may be extended for a maximum of 15 days) Payment, if any 20 days after decision rendered *    In the case of a contract between a general contractor and a public body, the request for intervention must be notified to the other contracting party no later than 90 days after the date on which the work was accepted without reservation, or, if accepted with reservation, the date on which the public body declares that it is satisfied with the repairs or corrections made to the work. In the case of a subcontract, the request for intervention must be notified no later than 90 days from the date the work the parties agreed on is completed.23 The Regulation also provides for the following: One dispute, one request for intervention – Although a request for intervention can relate to one dispute alone, a party cannot dissociate the constituting elements of the dispute in order to file multiple requests or otherwise act to abuse the right to have recourse to a third-person decider. Choice of third-person decider – Only persons whose names appear in the register kept by the Minister of Justice under the Regulation may act as third-person deciders. It is up to the party proposing a third-person decider to ensure that the person is available. In the event of disagreement, the parties draw lots. Procedure – As long as they ensure that the procedure is equitable and complies with the principle of proportionality, the third-person decider can conduct the intervention according to the procedure they determine. Also, unless the third-person decider decides otherwise, the proceedings are conducted orally, whereas testimony is given by way of a written affidavit. No lawyers – Parties cannot be represented by a lawyer during proceedings, although a lawyer may advise them. Confidentiality – The entire intervention remains confidential, subject to agreement between the parties or legal obligations. Third-person decider’s fees – As a general rule, the third-person decider’s fees are allocated equally between the parties (50-50), although the third-person decider may depart from this allocation if they consider that a party’s actions during the intervention were harmful, in particular because of abusive conduct or failure to meet deadlines. The third-person decider’s fees are capped according to the value of the dispute. Conclusion This new compulsory scheme now imposes, for cases covered, a prompt payment process and speeds up the settlement of disputes arising during the performance of the majority of public construction contracts. It will have major repercussions on the practices of contractors, subcontractors and public bodies alike. The imposition of the strict deadlines by the Regulation could require contractors and subcontractors to improve their internal processes to better process payment requests and properly document potential claims. Although the Regulation is intended to simplify and accelerate payments, some contractors and subcontractors may find it difficult to meet the imposed deadlines, especially in large-scale projects involving many stakeholders, as delays are likely to be passed on from one level of subcontractor to another. Whether this system will be successful will depend on the ability of the parties to quickly adapt to the new requirements and to make effective use of the third-person decider to resolve disputes. If you have any questions or need advice, we invite you to contact a member of our specialized construction law team at Lavery. Section 94 of the Regulation. SQ, 2022, c. 18. Sections 32 and 33 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 10 of the Regulation. Section 15 of the Regulation. Sections 7 and 8 of the Regulation. Section 5 of the Regulation. Section 6 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 6 of the Regulation. Section 11 of the Regulation. Section 12 para. 1 of the Regulation. Section 22 of the Regulation. Section 23 of the Regulation. Section 25 of the Regulation. Section 26 of the Regulation. Section 20 of the Regulation. Section 28 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Section 16 of the Regulation. Sections 34 to 76 of the Regulation. Section 63 of the Regulation. Section 34 of the Regulation.

    Read more
  1. 86 Lavery lawyers recognized in The Best Lawyers in Canada 2026

    Lavery is pleased to announce that 86 of its lawyers have been recognized as leaders in 42 areas of expertise in the 20th edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada in 2026. This ranking is based entirely on peer recognition and rewards the professional achievements of the country's top lawyers. Three partners from the firm were named Lawyer of the Year in the 2026 edition of The Best Lawyers in Canada directory: Josianne Beaudry: Mining Law  Marie-Josée Hétu: Labour and Employment Law  Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin: Insurance Law See below for a complete list of Lavery lawyers and their areas of expertise. Please note that the practices reflect those of Best Lawyers. Geneviève Beaudin: Employee Benefits Law / Labour and Employment Law  Josianne Beaudry: Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Mining Law / Securities Law  Geneviève Bergeron: Intellectual Property Law  Laurence Bich-Carrière: Administrative and Public Law / Class Action Litigation/ Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Product Liability Law  Dominic Boisvert: Insurance Law  Luc R. Borduas: Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law  René Branchaud: Mining Law / Natural Resources Law / Securities Law  Étienne Brassard: Equipment Finance Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Project Finance Law / Real Estate Law / Structured Finance Law / Venture Capital Law  Jules Brière: Aboriginal Law / Indigenous Practice / Administrative and Public Law / Health Care Law  Myriam Brixi: Class Action Litigation / Product Liability Law  Benoit Brouillette: Labour and Employment Law  Marie-Claude Cantin: Construction Law / Insurance Law  Brittany Carson: Labour and Employment Law  André Champagne: Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law  Chantal Desjardins: Advertising and Marketing Law / Intellectual Property Law  Jean-Sébastien Desroches: Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law  Raymond Doray: 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 / Trusts andEstates  Ali El Haskouri: Banking and Finance Law / Venture Capital Law  Philippe Frère: Administrative and Public Law  Simon Gagné: Labour and Employment Law  Nicolas Gagnon: Construction Law  Richard Gaudreault: Labour and Employment Law  Julie Gauvreau: Biotechnology and Life Sciences Practice / Intellectual Property Law  Marc-André Godin: Commercial Leasing Law / Real Estate Law  Caroline Harnois: Family Law / Family Law Mediation / Trusts and Estates  Alexandre Hébert: Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Venture Capital Law  Marie-Josée Hétu: Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law  Édith Jacques: Corporate Law / Energy Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Natural Resources Law  Marie-Hélène Jolicoeur: Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law  Isabelle Jomphe : Advertising and Marketing Law / IntellectualProperty Law  Nicolas Joubert: Labour and Employment Law  Guillaume Laberge: Administrative and Public Law  Jonathan Lacoste-Jobin: Insurance Law  Awatif Lakhdar: Family Law / Family Law Mediation  Marc-André Landry: Alternative Dispute Resolution / Class Action Litigation / Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Product Liability Law  Éric Lavallée: Privacy and Data Security Law / Technology 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   Paul Martel: Corporate Law  Zeïneb Mellouli: Labour and Employment Law / Workers' Compensation Law  Isabelle P. Mercure: Tax Law / Trusts and Estates  Patrick A. Molinari: Health Care Law  Marc Ouellet: Labour and Employment Law  Luc Pariseau: Tax Law / Trusts and Estates  Ariane Pasquier: Labour and Employment Law  Martin Pichette: Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law  Élisabeth Pinard: Family Law / Family Law Mediation  François Renaud: Banking and Finance Law / Structured Finance Law  Marc Rochefort: Securities Law  Judith Rochette: Alternative Dispute Resolution / Insurance Law / Professional Malpractice Law  Ouassim Tadlaoui: Construction Law / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law  David Tournier: Banking and Finance Law  Vincent Towner: Commercial Leasing Law  André Vautour: CorporateGovernance Practice / Corporate Law / Energy Law / Information Technology Law / Intellectual Property Law / Private Funds Law / Technology Law / Venture Capital Law  Bruno Verdon: Corporate and Commercial Litigation  Sébastien Vézina: Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Mining Law / Sports Law  Yanick Vlasak: Banking and Finance Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Insolvency and Financial Restructuring Law  Jonathan Warin: Insolvency and Financialanick Vlasak: Banking and Finance Law / Corporate  We are pleased to highlight our next generation, who also distinguished themselves in this directory in the Ones To Watch category: Anne-Marie Asselin: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) Rosemarie Bhérer Bouffard: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) Frédéric Bolduc: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) Marc-André Bouchard: Construction Law (Ones To Watch) Céleste Brouillard-Ross: Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Karl Chabot: Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation / Medical Negligence (Ones To Watch) Justine Chaput: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) James Duffy: Intellectual Property Law (Ones To Watch) Francis Dumoulin: Corporate Law / Mergers and Acquisitions Law (Ones To Watch) Joseph Gualdieri: Mergers and Acquisitions Law (Ones To Watch) Katerina Kostopoulos: Banking and Finance Law / Corporate Law (Ones To Watch) Joël Larouche: Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Despina Mandilaras: Construction Law / Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Jean-François Maurice: Corporate Law (Ones To Watch) Jessica Parent: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) Audrey Pelletier: Tax Law (Ones To Watch) Alexandre Pinard: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch Camille Rioux: Labour and Employment Law (Ones To Watch) Sophie Roy: Insurance Law (Ones To Watch) Chantal Saint-Onge: Corporate and Commercial Litigation (Ones To Watch) Bernard Trang: Banking and Finance Law / Project Finance Law (Ones To Watch) Mylène Vallières: Mergers and Acquisitions Law / Securities Law (Ones To Watch) 

    Read more
  2. Lavery welcomes two lawyers, bolstering its expertise in commercial litigation

    Lavery is delighted to welcome Marc-André Landry and Joël Larouche to its Litigation and Dispute Resolution team, who will bolster the firm's expertise in commercial litigation. Marc-André Landry is joining the team as a partner. Having solid experience in dispute resolution, he assists his clients in particular with negotiation, mediation or arbitration, or before the various courts of law.He acts for a wide range of clients in sectors as diverse as construction, real estate, renewable energy, conventional energy, new technologies, financial services and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Landry is regularly consulted in cases involving fraud or corporate data theft. Using his knowledge of extraordinary remedies (Anton Piller and Norwich orders, seizures, requests for confidentiality, among others) he is able to protect his clients' interests effectively. He also defends business people accused of violating securities laws by the Autorité des marchés financiers."Lavery's vision and the strength of its team persuaded me to join the firm—and I did the right thing. Clients already benefit from and appreciate Lavery's multiservice platform, which meets the needs of SMEs as well as those of the largest institutions," says Marc-André. Joël Larouche joins the team as Senior Associate. He focuses his practice primarily on commercial litigation issues such as insolvency and restructuring. Over the years, he has gained extensive experience with injunctions of all kinds, including Anton Piller, Norwich and Mareva injunctions, as well as those used in breaches of non-solicitation and non-competition clauses and the theft of personal and confidential information, among others. He frequently acts as an independent supervising lawyer in the context of Anton Piller order enforcement. He is sought out by clients to act in various situations, including shareholder and transactional disputes, as well as in regulatory investigations and in the resolution of corporate governance issues. His practice leads him to represent both large private and institutional corporations, in particular in the financial, technology and construction sectors. "I'm delighted to be joining the Lavery family, which has a passionate and meticulous team with a proven track record. The idea of working for a leading independent firm quickly appealed to me, but above all, I was convinced when I saw how people-centered the firm is," says Joël.The combined expertise of these two professionals consolidates Lavery's commercial litigation offer, affirming the firm's position as a leader in Quebec.

    Read more