Our firm acts regularly in large, complex and high-stakes litigation or arbitration, in matters of vital importance to our clients. We are there to counsel and to represent our clients, and to defend their interests, whether before the courts of justice or arbitration tribunals, or by way of negotiation or mediation.
A rarity in the field, our firm has vast experience on both plaintiff and defence sides in class actions.
Benabu v. Videotron and al., 2018 QCCS 2207: We obtained the dismissal of a motion for authorization to institute a class action brought against our customer Vidéotron ltée, lead defendant, and several other companies, in the Superior Court. The allegations of the proposed class action dispute the manner in which the defendants marketed subscriptions for service contracts under certain provisions of Québec’s Consumer Protection Act (Act). The Superior Court dismissed the proposed class action at the authorization stage. The Court held that the defendants had committed no fault under the law in offering free trial periods or discounted pricing during promotions, and then automatically charging consumers the regular price for the services after expiration of the promotions. The case is presently pending before the Court of Appeal. This case raises significant issues relating to application of s.230(c) of Québec’s Consumer Protection Act, which has not yet been subject to any judicial interpretation.
Sopropharm and al v. Le Groupe Jean-Coutu (PJC) Inc., 2018 QCCS 4907: we act as barristers for the Plaintiffs in what is the first ever franchisee-franchisor Class Action in the Province of Quebec. The Defendant operates the largest network of pharmacies in Quebec and the Plaintiffs are all owners of the nearly 400 pharmacies operating under the defendant’s banner. The Class Action, which was authorized by the Superior Court in the fall of 2018, seeks the reimbursement of over $400M in undue royalties and the annulment of various clauses of the franchise agreements which are alleged to be against public order.
Télévision communautaire et indépendante de Montréal (TVCI-MTL) v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c., 2017 QCCS 473 and Télévision communautaire et indépendante de Montréal (TVCI-MTL) v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c., 2018 QCCA: We represent Vidéotron ltd in a class action that aims at sanctioning failures to comply with the Broadcasting Distribution Regulations in the field of community television.
Cantin v. Ameublements Tanguay Inc. et al., 2016 QCCS 4546: we obtained the dismissal of a motion for authorization to institute a class action brought against our client, Vidéotron, s.e.n.c., seeking damages regarding infringements and false representations with respect to the sale and offer for sale of additional warranties in virtue of the Consumer Protection Act.
Oubliés du viaduc de la Montée Monette v Consultants SM Inc et al, 2015 QCCS 3308: we obtained the dismissal of a motion for authorization to institute a class action in extra-contractual liability against our client Genivar (now WSP). This action which was brought by a group of citizens seeking damages to compensate delays in the construction of an overpass was valued at several million dollars.
D’Urzo v. Tnow Entertainment Group Inc., 2012 QCCS 3820:We represented Ticketmaster Canada and related entities in a class action alleging violation of the Consumer Protection Act by misleading and false representations in the secondary market for event tickets.
Sonego v. Laboratoire Expanscience, 2011 QCSC 13: We obtained the withdrawal of a proposed class action against our client Laboratoire Expanscience alleging potentially harmful medical consequences from the exposure to their cosmetic products.
Mouvement d’éducation et de défense des actionnaires et Marc Lamoureux v. Société Financière Manuvie, docket no. 200-06-000117-096 of the Superior Court: Our firm defends Manulife Financial in this class action launched by the MÉDAC in relation to Manulife’s duties of continuous disclosure.
Union des consommateurs et Fernand Savoie v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c., docket no. 500-06-000411-070 of the Superior Court: Our firm defends the interests of Videotron in this class action launched by the Union des consommateurs and relating to the uploading limit applicable to certain subscribers of Internet services.
Sauer v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture), docket nos. 500-06-000284-055 of the Superior Court of Quebec and 05-CV-287428CP of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: We act as legal advisors to the Plaintiffs, livestock farmers, in this class action related to exporting prohibitions enacted by the government of Canada with respect to beef.
Myette v. Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d’assurances (CARRA), 2009 QCCS 5144 and 2010 (QC SC) 2797: We represented retired public servants in a claim against the body responsible for the management of their pension funds.
Cooke v. Ipex inc., 2011 (QC SC) 6883: We represented Ipex Inc. in Quebec in the context of a multi-jurisdictional class action pertaining to alleged deficiencies in products sold.
Labonté v. Voyageur Marine Transport Ltd., 2011 (QC SC) 2196, 2012 QCCA 1940: We obtained the dismissal of a motion for certification of a class action seeking damages against the owner of a vessel by the users of a bridge closed further to a maritime accident.
Del Guidice v. Honda Canada inc., 2007 QCCA 922, 2005 CanLII 20593 (QC SC): We secured the dismissal of the motion to authorize a class action against our client Honda Canada.
Buonamici v. Blockbuster Canada Co., 2004 CanLII 31532 (QC SC), 2007 QCCA 468: We successfully defended Blockbuster Canada in this class action instituted by consumers who had paid late fees.
McComber v. GlaxoSmithKline inc., 2005 CanLII 40679 (QC SC): We obtained a stay of class action proceedings for our client GlaxoSmithKline.
Claude Ravary et al. v. Fonds Mutuels Ci et al., docket 500-06-000256-046: Woods represents the interests of CI Investments Inc. whose liability is sought along that of other mutual funds managers in the context of a class action. The Plaintiffs, who hold units in certain mutual funds, allege that these mutual funds managers have allowed or omitted to prevent the practice of market timing in these funds.