Commercial

Overview

We understand the importance of skilfully negotiating and concluding business agreements and transactions of all kinds, and we put all the efforts to assist you strengthen your market position, diversify your activities, and reach your business objectives.

Our commercial law group strategically advises companies of all sizes in various types of business transactions such as the implementation of distribution networks and the negotiation of supply, service, and license agreements. Lavery’s expertise in this field is recommended by the Canadian Legal LEXPERT Directory.

Whatever your size or sector, we can devise personalized legal strategies and solutions that are optimized from a legal and business perspective. The integration of our team of lawyers with different levels of experience and expertise allows us to act for clients efficiently without ever sacrificing quality.

Services

  • Acquisitions and mergers
  • Joint venture agreements
  • Strategic partnerships
  • Analysis of business projects
  • Arrangements, reorganizations, and restructurings
  • Due diligence
  • Partnership agreements, shareholder agreements, subscription agreements, and investment agreements
  • Distribution agreements
  • Franchise agreements
  • Supply agreements
  • Consignment agreements
  • Purchase and sale agreements
  • License agreements and other agreements related to intellectual property
  • Commercial leases and rental agreements
  • Employment and consulting agreements
  • Outsourcing agreements

Representative mandates

  • Eolectric Inc. and Vents du Kempt Inc.: We represented the interests of Eolectric Inc. and Vents du Kempt Inc. in the creation of the Eolectric Club, L.P., investment fund; in a capital (equity) investment in Vents du Kempt Wind Power, L.P.; and in the acquisition by Vents du Kempt Wind Power of the assets of the Vents du Kempt wind farm project. This transaction entailed the implementation of a complex acquisition structure and the creation of various corporate entities and limited partnerships.
  • Fiera Axium Infrastructure: We represented Fiera Axium Infrastructure in the creation of an infrastructure investment fund in Canada and in the raising of investment commitments for high-quality projects related to new or existing Canadian infrastructure in the transport, energy, and social infrastructure sectors.
  • Freestone International LLC and GNL Quebec Inc.: We represent and act as lead counsel to Freestone International LLC and GNL Quebec Inc. in all aspects of the US$7 billion project development to implement a liquefied natural gas (LNG) export facility on a site administered by the Saguenay Port Authority. In particular, Lavery participated in the drafting and negotiation of the land option agreement with the Port of Saguenay, in legal opinions related to several aspects of the project, in the creation of the corporate and tax structure of ownership as well as in the creation of the investment vehicle and in the related several rounds of equity financing.
  • GS Pretium Holdings, Inc.: We acted as Québec counsel for the purchase of Pretium Holding, LLC, particularly with regard to its Québec-based plants manufacturing made-to-measure rigid plastic containers, and the related acquisition financing.
  • Hydro-Québec: We participated in the negotiation and conclusion of an alliance between the German firm Sud-Chemie A.G., Université de Montréal, and France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique to facilitate the dissemination of metals and materials technology.
  • Major Québec venture capital fund: Equity investment in a Montréal-based technology company controlled by foreign interests. We participated in the initial investment and in subsequent investment phases
  • Lallemand Inc.: We represented Lallemand Inc. in the acquisition of Harmonium International Inc. and negotiations with the Fonds FTQ and other parties involved in the transaction.
  • Réseau Sélection: We represented Réseau Selection, a Québec company specialized in the design, construction, management, and administration of retirement home complexes, in a major joint venture transaction with Revera Inc., a major Canadian supplier of housing, care, and services to senior citizens.

To skilfully handle every aspect of each transaction, our professionals combine their expertise with that of Lavery lawyers in other areas of practice such as taxation, financial services, real estate, environmental, labour law, intellectual property, and antitrust law.

Logo Chambers 2020

Canadian Legal Lexpert Directory

  1. Publicity contests no longer regulated by the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux

    On June 2, 2021, the Québec government reduced the administrative burden relating to international publicity contests by excluding them from the jurisdiction of the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux (the “Régie”). It has now followed suit with all types of publicity contests launched on or after October 27, 20231. In concrete terms, this means that businesses launching publicity contests aimed at Quebec participants after this date no longer have to meet reporting obligations or pay prescribed fees to the Régie. Businesses in all sectors of activity use the well-known marketing strategy of publicity contests to attract new customers and build customer loyalty. Quebec has long been sidelined because of the Régie’s distinct requirements in this respect. For businesses wishing to increase their visibility through such contests, the province’s situation is now equivalent to that prevailing in the rest of Canada.  That said, contests launched before October 27, 2023, remain subject to previous requirements—namely the payment of prescribed fees, the posting of a security where required and the filing of a report with the Régie within 60 days of the date on which the winner(s) is (are) declared—if they offer prizes the total value of which exceeds $2,000. We advise you to be careful, however. Despite the eased burden we have mentioned, publicity contests in Quebec must still comply with the requirements of the Criminal Code,2 the Competition Act,3 the Consumer Protection Act4 and the Charter of the French Language,5 as well as applicable privacy, labelling and advertising laws. Bill 17, An Act to amend various provisions for the main purpose of reducing regulatory and administrative burden, S.Q. 2023, chapter 24, sections 75 and following. RSC 1985, c. C-46. RSC 1985, c. C-34. CQLR, c. P-40.1. CQLR, c. C-11.

    Read more
  2. The forgotten aspects of AI: reflections on the laws governing information technology

    While lawmakers in Canada1 and elsewhere2 are endeavouring to regulate the development and use of technologies based on artificial intelligence (AI), it is important to bear in mind that these technologies are also classified within the broader family of information technology (IT). In 2001, Quebec adopted a legal framework aimed at regulating IT. All too often forgotten, this legislation applies directly to the use of certain AI-based technologies. The very broad notion of “technology-based documents” The technology-based documents referred to in this legislation include any type of information that is “delimited, structured and intelligible”.3 The Act lists a few examples of technology-based documents contemplated by applicable laws, including online forms, reports, photos and diagrams—even electrocardiograms! It is therefore understandable that this notion easily applies to user interface forms used on various technological platforms.4 Moreover, technology-based documents are not limited to personal information. They may also pertain to company or organization-related information stored on technological platforms. For instance, Quebec’s Superior Court recently cited the Act in recognizing the probative value of medical imaging practice guidelines and technical standards accessible on a website.5 A less recent decision also recognized that the contents of electronic agendas were admissible as evidence.6 Due to their bulky algorithms, various AI technologies are available as software as a service (SaaS) or as platform as a service (PaaS). In most cases, the information entered by user companies is transmitted on supplier-controlled servers, where it is processed by AI algorithms. This is often the case for advanced client relationship management (CRM) systems and electronic file analysis. It is also the case for a whole host of applications involving voice recognition, document translation and decision-making assistance for users’ employees. In the context of AI, technology-based documents in all likelihood encompass all documents that are transmitted, hosted and processed on remote servers. Reciprocal obligations The Act sets out specific obligations when information is placed in the custody of service providers, in particular IT platform providers. Section 26 of the Act reads as follows: 26. Anyone who places a technology-based document in the custody of a service provider is required to inform the service provider beforehand as to the privacy protection required by the document according to the confidentiality of the information it contains, and as to the persons who are authorized to access the document. During the period the document is in the custody of the service provider, the service provider is required to see to it that the agreed technological means are in place to ensure its security and maintain its integrity and, if applicable, protect its confidentiality and prevent accessing by unauthorized persons. Similarly, the service provider must ensure compliance with any other obligation provided for by law as regards the retention of the document. (Our emphasis) This section of the Act, therefore, requires the company wishing to use a technological platform and the supplier of the platform to enter into a dialogue. On the one hand, the company using the technological platform must inform the supplier of the required privacy protection for the information stored on the platform. On the other hand, the supplier is required to put in place “technological means” with a view to ensuring security, integrity and confidentiality, in line with the required privacy protection requested by the user. The Act does not specify what technological means must be put in place. However, they must be reasonable, in line with the sensitivity of the technology-based documents involved, as seen from the perspective of someone with expertise in the field. Would a supplier offering a technological platform with outmoded modules or known security flaws be in compliance with its obligations under the Act? This question must be addressed by considering the information transmitted by the user of the platform concerning the required privacy protection for technology-based documents. The supplier, however, must not conceal the security risks of its IT platform from the user since this would violate the parties’ disclosure and good faith requirements. Are any individuals involved? These obligations must also be viewed in light of Quebec’s Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which also applies to private companies. Companies that process information on behalf of third parties must do so in accordance with the principles set out in the Charter whenever individuals are involved. For example, if a CRM platform supplier offers features that can be used to classify clients or to help companies respond to requests, the information processing must be free from bias based on race, colour, sex, gender identity or expression, pregnancy, sexual orientation, civil status, age except as provided by law, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, a handicap or the use of any means to palliate a handicap.7 Under no circumstances should an AI algorithm suggest that a merchant should not enter into a contract with any individual on any such discriminatory basis.8 In addition, anyone who gathers personal information by technological means making it possible to profile certain individuals must notify them beforehand.9 To recap, although the emerging world of AI is a far cry from the Wild West decried by some observers, AI must be used in accordance with existing legal frameworks. No doubt additional laws specifically pertaining to AI will be enacted in the future. If you have any questions on how these laws apply to your AI systems, please feel free to contact our professionals. Bill C-27, Digital Charter Implementation Act, 2022. In particular, the U.S. Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, October 30, 2023. Act to establish a legal framework for information technology, CQLR c C-1.1, sec. 3. Ibid, sec. 71. Tessier v. Charland, 2023 QCCS 3355. Lefebvre Frères ltée v. Giraldeau, 2009 QCCS 404. Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, sec. 10. Ibid, sec. 12. Act respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector, CQLR c P-39.1, sec. 8.1.

    Read more
  3. Smart product liability: issues and challenges

    Introduction In 2023, where do we stand in terms of liability where smart products are concerned? The rules governing product liability set out in the Civil Code of Québec were introduced early in the 20th century in response to the industrial revolution and the growing number of workplace accidents attributable to tool failures.1 Needless to say, the legislator at the time could not have anticipated that, a century later, the tools to which this legislation applied would be equipped with self-learning capabilities enabling them to perform specific tasks autonomously.  These “smart products,” whether they are intangible or integrated into tangible products, are subject to the requirements of general law, at least for the time being. For the purposes of our analysis, the term “smart products” refers to products that have: Self-learning capabilities, meaning that they can perform specific tasks without being under a human being’s immediate control. Interconnectivity capabilities, meaning that they can collect and analyze data from their surroundings. Autonomy capabilities, meaning that they can adapt their behaviour to perform an assigned task more efficiently (optional criterion).2 These capabilities are specific to what is commonly referred to as artificial intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “AI”). Applying general law rules of liability to smart products Although Canada prides itself on being a “world leader in the field of artificial intelligence,”3 it has yet to enact its first AI law. The regulation of smart products in Quebec is still in its infancy. To this day, apart from the regulatory framework that applies to autonomous vehicles, there is no legislation in force that provides for distinct civil liability rules governing disputes relating to the marketing and use of smart products. There are two factors that have a major impact on the liability that applies to smart products, namely transparency and apportionment of liability, and both should be considered in developing a regulatory framework for AI.4  But where does human accountability come in? Lack of transparency in AI and product liability When an autonomous product performs a task, it is not always possible for either the consumer or the manufacturer to know how the algorithm processed the information behind that task. This is what researchers refer to as “lack of transparency” or the “black box” problem associated with AI.5 The legislative framework governing product liability is set out in the Civil Code of Québec6 and the Consumer Protection Act.7 The provisions therein require distributors, professional sellers and manufacturers to guarantee that the products sold are free from latent defects. Under the rules governing product liability, the burden of proof is reversed, as manufacturers are presumed to have knowledge of any defects.8 Manufacturers have two means to absolve themselves from liability:9 A manufacturer may claim that a given defect is the result of superior force or a fault on the part of the consumer or a third party; or A manufacturer may argue that, at the time that the product was brought to market, the existence of the defect could not have been known given the state of scientific knowledge. This last means is specifically aimed at the risks inherent to technological innovation.10 That being said, although certain risks only become apparent after a product is brought to market, manufacturers have an ongoing duty to inform, and how this is applied depends on the evolution of knowledge about the risks associated with the product.11 As such, the lack of transparency in AI can make it difficult to assign liability. Challenges in apportioning liability and human accountability There are cases where the “smart” component is integrated into a product by one of the manufacturer’s subcontractors.In Venmar Ventilation,12 the Court of Appeal ruled that the manufacturer of an air exchanger could not be exempted from liability even though the defect in its product was directly related to a defect in the motor manufactured by a subcontractor. In this context, it would be reasonable to expect that products’ smart component would be likely to result many similar calls in warranty, resulting in highly complex litigation cases, which could further complicate the apportionment of liability. Moreover, while determining the identity of the person who has physical custody of a smart product seems obvious, determining the identity of the person who exercises actual control over it can be much more difficult, as custody and control do not necessarily belong to the same “person.” There are two types of custodians of smart products: The person who has the power of control, direction and supervision over a product at the time of its use (frontend custody); The person who holds these powers over the algorithm that gives the product its autonomy (backend custody)13. Either one of these custodians could be held liable should it contribute to the harm through its own fault. As such, apportioning liability between the human user and the custodians of the AI algorithm could be difficult. In the case of a chatbot, for example, determining whether the human user or the AI algorithm is responsible for defamatory or discriminatory comments may prove complex. C-27: canadian bill on artificial intelligence Canada’s first AI bill (“Bill C-27”) was introduced in the House of Commons on June 16, 2022.14 At the time of publication, the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology was still reviewing Bill C-27. Part 3 of Bill C-27 enacts the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act. If adopted in its current form, the Act would apply to “high-impact AI systems” (“Systems”) used in the course of international and interprovincial trade.15 Although the government has not yet clearly defined the characteristics that distinguish high-impact AI from other forms of AI, for now, the Canadian government refers in particular to “Systems that can influence human behaviour at scale” and “Systems critical to health and safety.”16 We have reason to believe that this type of AI is what poses a high risk to users’ fundamental rights. In particular, Bill C-27 would make it possible to prohibit the conduct of a person who “makes available” a System that is likely to cause “serious harm” or “substantial damage.”17 Although the Bill does not specifically address civil liability, the broad principles it sets out reflect the best practices that apply to such technology. These best practices can provide manufacturers of AI technology with insight into how a prudent and diligent manufacturer would behave in similar circumstances. The Bill’s six main principles are set out in the list below.18 Transparency: Providing the public with information about mitigation measures, the intended use of the Systems and the “content that it is intended to generate”. Oversight: Providing Systems over which human oversight can be exercised. Fairness and equity: Bringing to market Systems that can limit the potential for discriminatory outcomes. Safety: Proactively assessing Systems to prevent “reasonably foreseeable” harm. Accountability: Putting governance measures in place to ensure compliance with legal obligations applicable to Systems. Robustness: Ensuring that Systems operate as intended. To this, we add the principle of risk mitigation, considering the legal obligation to “mitigate” the risks associated with the use of Systems.19 Conclusion Each year, the Tortoise Global AI Index ranks countries according to their breakthroughs in AI.20 This year, Canada ranked fifth, ahead of many European Union countries. That being said, current legislation clearly does not yet reflect the increasing prominence of this sector in our country. Although Bill C-27 does provide guidelines for best practices in developing smart products, it will be interesting to see how they will be applied when civil liability issues arise. Jean-Louis Baudouin, Patrice Deslauriers and Benoît Moore, La responsabilité civile, Volume 1: Principes généraux, 9th edition, 2020, 1-931. Tara Qian Sun, Rony Medaglia, “Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare”, Government Information Quarterly, 2019, 36(2), pp. 368–383, online EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, Civil Law Rules on Robotics, European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (2015/2103(INL)), available online at  TA (europa.eu). GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document, online. EUROPEAN COMMISSION, White Paper on Artificial Intelligence:  a European approach to excellence and trust, COM. (2020), p. 3. Madalina Busuioc, “Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account”, Public Administration Review2020, online. Civil Code of Québec (CQLR, c. C-1991, art. 1726 et seq. Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1, s. 38. General Motors Products of Canada v. Kravitz, 1979 CanLII 22 (SCC), p. 801. See also: Brousseau c. Laboratoires Abbott limitée, 2019 QCCA 801, para. 89. Civil Code of Québec (CQLR, c. CCQ-1991, art. 1473; ABB Inc. v. Domtar Inc., 2007 SCC 50, para. 72. Brousseau, para. 100. Brousseau, para. 102. Desjardins Assurances générales inc. c.  Venmar Ventilation inc., 2016 QCCA 1911, para. 19 et seq. Céline Mangematin, Droit de la responsabilité civile et l’intelligence artificielle, https://books.openedition.org/putc/15487?lang=fr#ftn24; See also Hélène Christodoulou, La responsabilité civile extracontractuelle à l’épreuve de l’intelligence artificielle, p. 4. Bill C-27, An Act to enact the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, the Personal Information and Data Protection Tribunal Act and the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts, Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. Bill C-27, summary and s. 5(1). The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document, Government of Canada, online. The Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA) – Companion document canada.ca. Bill C-27, s. 39(a). AIDA, Companion document Bill C-27, s. 8. TORTOISE MEDIA, The Global AI Index 2023, available at tortoisemedia.com.

    Read more
  4. Planned obsolescence: Possible amendments to the Consumer Protection Act to keep an eye on

    Introduction On June 1, 2023, the Minister of Justice, Simon Jolin-Barrette, tabled and presented Bill 29 entitled An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods 1 (hereinafter the “Bill”) before the National Assembly. The Bill mainly provides for amendments to the Consumer Protection Act 2 (“CPA”) and reaffirms the government’s desire to protect consumers, in particular by improving the legal warranties available to them and introducing the notion of planned obsolescence into Quebec law. The date on which the new provisions will come into force has not yet been set, but the Bill is nonetheless worthy to consider right now. Proposed amendments to the Consumer Protection Act Purpose of the amendments to the CPA The main purpose of the Bill is to put an end to the business of trading in goods subject to planned obsolescence, defined as a “technique aimed at reducing the normal operating life” of a good3. Warranties The CPA already provides a framework for the legal warranty of quality that may apply to goods forming the object of a contract between a consumer and a merchant. This warranty supplements the warranty provided for in articles 1726 and following of the Civil Code of Québec. Under section 38 of the CPA, goods “must be durable in normal use for a reasonable length of time, having regard to their price, the terms of the contract and the conditions of their use4.” That being said, the Bill would further protect consumers by introducing “a warranty of good working order” for certain new goods that are the object of a contract of sale or long-term contract of lease5. The duration of such warranty would be determined by regulation6. If left unchanged, the warranty would apply to the following goods: Refrigerator; Dishwasher; Washing machine; Dryer; Television set; Desktop or laptop computer; Electronic pad; Cellular telephone; Video game console; Air conditioner; Heat pump. As for additional warranties, commonly referred to as “extended warranties,” merchants would now be required to inform consumers of the terms of their right to resolve a contract that includes an additional warranty7, adding to their obligation to inform consumers of the legal warranty before offering an additional warranty8. Merchant and manufacturer's obligations The Bill would impose a number of new obligations on merchants and manufacturers, particularly as regards display. For example, merchants would have to indicate the duration of the warranty of good working order near the goods concerned, in a manner as equally prominent as their price9. The Bill introduces a warranty of “availability” for goods of a nature that requires maintenance work. Merchants or manufacturers bound by the warranty of availability would have to make the replacement parts, repair services and information necessary to maintain or repair the goods available for a reasonable length of time and at a reasonable price after the contract has been concluded10. Seriously defective vehicles Under the Bill, automobiles would be declared “seriously defective” in the following circumstances, in particular11: After one or more unsuccessful repair attempts for defects under the manufacturer’s conventional warranty, including three unsuccessful repair attempts for the same defect; If the defects appear within three years of the first sale or long-term lease of the automobile where it has not covered more than 60,000 kilometres; The defects render the automobile unfit for the purposes for which it is ordinarily intended. Where all of the above apply, the automobile in question would be deemed to be affected by a latent defect. Penalties As concerns penal fines, the Bill provides for a significant increase in the amounts involved and introduces new offences, such as the following: Failure to meet the obligation to disclose the legal warranty of good working order. This could give rise to a fine of $3,000 to $75,000 in the case of a legal person and of $1,500 to $37,50012 in the case of a natural person. Trading in goods for which obsolescence is planned. Offending companies could be fined a minimum of $5,000 or an amount equal to twice the pecuniary benefit derived from the commission of the offence, whichever is greater. The maximum fine will be $125,000, or an amount equal to four times the pecuniary benefit derived from the commission of the offence, whichever is greater13. The Bill also proposes administrative monetary penalties for “objectively observable” failures to comply with the CPA14. The maximum penalty for a legal person will be $3,500 for each day the failure continues15. Moreover, the Bill provides that officers and directors of a company having committed an offence under the CPA would be presumed to have committed the offence themselves. It would be possible to rebut this presumption insofar as the person concerned is able to establish either that they exercised due diligence or that they took “all necessary precautions” to prevent the commission of the offence16. Conclusion The Bill aims to put a stop to planned obsolescence. The obsolescence of goods is planned where a “technique aimed at reducing its normal operating life is used on them17.” The proposed amendments to the CPA establish a new warranty of “good working order.” It will be interesting to see whether it will tie in with the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on the legal warranty of quality in the landmark Domtar decision18. How the notion of planned obsolescence will be applied in practice will also be something to watch closely, as the Courts will be confronted with it for the first time. Certain issues could arise, especially with the burden of proof and evidence aspects. The amendments to the CPA will also entail new obligations for manufacturers and merchants, particularly in terms of disclosure and information regarding the warranty of good working order and the additional warranty. The proposed amendments in the Bill also include a legal warranty of availability of parts and services for goods of a nature that requires maintenance work. The severity of the fines applicable to goods for which obsolescence is planned will be something to consider. In short, this Bill is definitely one to watch!  An Act to protect consumers from planned obsolescence and to promote the durability, repairability and maintenance of goods, Bill29 (Introduction – June 1, 2023), 1st Sess., 43rd Legis. (Qc) (“B.”) Consumer Protection Act, CQLR c. P-40.1 B., s. 14; CPA, s. 227.0.4, para. 2 CPA, s. 38 B., s. 3; CPA., s. 38.1 B., s. 3; CPA, s. 38.1, para. 2 Current obligation under the CPA, s. 228.1., para. 1 B., s. 15; CPA, s. 228.3 B., s. 3; CPA, s. 38.8 B., s. 3; CPA, s. 39, para. 1; s. 39.3, para. 1 B., s. 5; CPA, s. 53.1 B., s. 19; CPA, s. 277 Id. B., s. 18; CPA, s. 276.1 B., s. 18; CPA, s. 276.1, para. 2; s. 276.2 B., s. 19; CPA, s. 282.1 B., s. 14; CPA, s. 227.0.4, para. 2 ABB Inc. v. Domtar Inc., 2007 SCC 50

    Read more
  1. Lavery announces appointment of Paul Martel, a leading expert in corporate law

    Mr. Martel is recognized for his ability to provide pragmatic, innovative solutions to the most complex legal issues in corporate law. He was a law professor for over 25 years and has contributed to most major corporate law journals, including La Revue du Barreau du Québec. “I’m so pleased and excited to be starting the fifth chapter of my professional career at Lavery, a firm I hold in high esteem. I look forward to putting my expertise to good use with the firm’s clients, as well as helping to consolidate the multidisciplinary service offering for which Lavery is renowned in the legal and business markets,” said Paul Martel, partner at Lavery. As a leading expert in corporate law, and a respected teacher, lecturer and author, he regularly advises government authorities on major legislative changes, including those to the Civil Code of Québec, Quebec’s Companies Act, the Canada Business Corporations Act and the Act respecting the legal publicity of enterprises. He has also acted as a consultant to the Minister of Finance of Quebec in developing and drafting the new Business Corporations Act, and to the Agence du Revenu du Québec in updating the Quebec Enterprise Register. “Paul Martel has authored several landmark legal works on corporate law, and his outstanding track record and extensive expertise in the legal and business industries of Quebec, Canada and the United States will further strengthen the quality of Lavery’s services in this area of practice. He will certainly be a great inspiration to us all, and his presence at the firm will have a major impact on our teams, as he assists our Business Law group,” concluded René Branchaud, Head of practice of Lavery’s Business Law group.

    Read more
  2. Lavery involved in the construction of the new Île-aux-Tourtes bridge

    Following a qualification process, the Ministère des Transports et de la Mobilité durable du Québec (MTMD) issued a call for tenders in 2022 for the construction of the new Île-aux-Tourtes bridge pursuant to the project delivery method known as design-build-finance (DBF). Since this was a DBF, the financing of this project had to be included in the proposals made by the selected candidates. Lavery represented the successful consortium made up of Dragados Canada Inc., Roxboro Excavation Inc. and Construction Demathieu & Bard Inc. Our role required expertise in the following areas: (a)   Governance and corporate law  (b)  Project financing (banking and securities)  (c)   Public procurement (d)  Construction law (e)   Commercial agreements (f)    Taxation  Lavery represented the consortium from the call for proposals to the financial close, including the drafting phase leading up to the awarding of the contract to the consortium. The financing was the most complex part of this transaction. Under the hybrid approach retained for that project, a major credit facility to be granted by a bank syndicate had to be set up, as well the private placement of two tranches of bonds. This involved adjusting the rights and obligations of creditors on both sides within a sophisticated intercreditor agreement. The financing also required parent company guarantees, including from French and Spanish corporations, which required us to find common ground to accommodate the typical requirements of a North American financing and the specific corporate and commercial features applicable in France and Spain. To meet this challenge, we put together a multidisciplinary team, divided up the work in accordance with our professionals’ diverse expertises, and dedicated a team member exclusively to interactions with the MTMD, its lawyers and the issuers of performance bonds typical for this kind of projects. Sound project management practices were essential to the success of this team effort. It is a privilege for Lavery to have participated in this essential project allowing the people of Quebec to obtain a new bridge linking the regions of Montérégie and Montréal. The Lavery team was led by Josianne Beaudry, Nicolas Gagnon, Édith Jacques, David Tournier and André Vautour, and included Véronik Bonneville-Pesant, Katerina Kostopoulos, Jean-François Maurice, Joseph Gualdieri, Siddhartha Borissov-Beausoleil, Alexandre Turcotte, Luc Pariseau, Charles Hugo Gagné, Mickaël Pageau, Jean-Vincent Prévost-Bérubé and Yohann Lévy.

    Read more
  3. Lavery assists Agendrix in obtaining two ISO certifications for data security and privacy

    On February 6, 2023, Agendrix, a workforce management software company, announced that it had achieved certification in two globally recognized data security and privacy standards, ISO/IEC 27001:2013 and ISO/IEC 27701:2019. This made it one of the first staff scheduling and time clock software providers in Canada to obtain these certifications. The company is proactively engaging in all matters related to the security and confidentiality of the data processed by its web and mobile applications. The ISO/IEC 27001:2013 standard is aimed at improving information security systems. For Agendrix’s customers, that means its products comply with the highest information security standards. ISO/IEC 27701:2019 provides a framework for the management and handling of personal information and sensitive data. This certification confirms that Agendrix follows best practices and complies with applicable laws. A Lavery team composed of Eric Lavallée, Dave Bouchard, Ghiles Helli and Catherine Voyer supported Agendrix in obtaining these two certifications. More specifically, our professionals assisted Agendrix in the review of their standard contract with their customers, as well as in the implementation of policies and various internal documents essential to the management of personal information and information security. Agendrix was founded in 2015, and the Sherbrooke-based company now has over 150,000 users in some 13,000 workplaces. Its personnel management software is a leader in Quebec in the field of work schedule management for small and medium-sized businesses. Agendrix’s mission is to make management more human-centred by developing software that simplifies the lives of front-line employees. Today, the company employs more than 45 people.

    Read more