|
The following is a list of various files in which the members of the firm Woods LLP have worked with success.
|
|  Cinegrand Montreal, Inc. v. The Forum Entertainment Centre Company, 2006 QCCA 1579, J.E. 2007-60 (C.A.); At trial, the appellants had been ordered to pay an amount of almost five million dollars ($5,000,000) pursuant to a commercial lease and guaranty still in force between them and the respondent. In appeal, we successfully argued that a substantial amount of the additional rent had not been incurred by the respondent itself, but by related corporations, and could not be claimed under the terms of the lease. The Court of Appeal accepted this argument and reduced the amount payable by over six hundred fifty thousand dollars ($650,000). The appellants subsequently obtained a satisfactory settlement with regard to the remaining time on the lease. |
| Automobiles Jalbert Inc. v. BMW Canada Inc., [2006] QCCA 1068, J.E. 2006-1694; a matter raising the issue of the termination of dealership agreements as well as good faith and fair dealing in commercial relationships. The Court of Appeal, adopting most of the arguments raised by Woods on behalf of BMW, overturned the trial judgement which had decided that a “reasonable notice” of termination was a period of more than 11 years in this case. The Court rejected the main argument of Auto Jalbert that in the absence of a serious cause of termination (fraud, bankruptcy and similar fundamental breaches) a car manufacturer is bound to renew contracts with its dealers, and also rejected the argument that BMW was not allowed to terminate their relationship even upon reasonable notice. The Court found that reasonable notices of termination were given to Auto Jalbert and, accordingly, the Kirkland and Québec City dealership contracts between Auto Jalbert and BMW would expire on December 31, 2006. The Court found that the obligation of “good faith and fair dealing” incumbent on BMW did not modify the contracts and that an award of damages was the proper remedy if this obligation is breached. The Court of Appeal also modified the trial judge’s award of $2,504,000 with respect to the facility funds program, reducing the amount to $1,336,032. |
| David Tait v. E.B. Eddy Forest Products Ltd., J.E. 98-1892 (S.C.); judgment rendered by Anne-Marie Trahan J., granting an action for the payment of a finder’s fee in excess of $918,060. Our client had identified for the defendants an opportunity for the acquisition of a business in the pulp and paper industry which the defendants subsequently purchased. We successfully established that our client was the effective cause of the sale while defining the particular nature of the consulting contract. |
| Créalise Conditionnement Inc. v. ASM Canada Ltd., J.E. 97-1383 (S.C.); in this matter Pierre Dalphond J. of the Superior Court allowed an action to reduce the sale price of a business, ordering the defendant to pay a sum of $1,455,000 in light of the failure by the seller to respect certain representations and warranties. A further judgment was also rendered declaring certain property transfers effected by the defendant unopposable to our client (J.E 97-1446 (S.C.)). The appeal was dismissed on a motion following the defendant's failure to deposit costs required as a result of the apparent frivolity of his appeal. |
| Pierre Laurin v. Gestion Jean-Paul Auclair, J.E. 2002-1912 (C.A.); Woods & Partners represented the Defendant in this case, in which the Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgement validating stock purchase options granted to Plaintiffs on shares owned in Prometic Sciences de la Vie Inc. The Court of Appeal concluded in favour of the Defendant, reasoning that the interpretation submitted by the Defendant was more consistent with the different clauses in the contracts, took into account the circumstances and, in particular, made good business sense. In contrast, the position taken by Plaintiffs would lead to an aberrant situation and was inconsistent with sound commercial reasoning. |
| BCE Inc., et al. v. A Group of 1976 Debentureholders, et al. (20 June 2008), file no. 32647 (S.C.C.) ; Woods LLP acted as counsel for the Purchaser of BCE Inc. in the arrangement proceedings in which BCE Inc. and the Purchaser sought approval of one of the largest privatization transactions in history. The proceedings were contested by certain bondholders of Bell Canada, whose claims were dismissed by the Superior Court of Quebec after more than thirty days of proof and hearing, making this one of the largest and most complicate “real-time” litigations to occur in Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously confirmed the decision of the Superior Court of Quebec.
|
| C.R.K.C. Realties Inc.. v. BPO Properties Ltd., 500-11-020837-031, June, 30 2003 (S.C.) ; In this matter we represented BPO Properties Ltd., a public company which had issued a circular to solicit the votes of its shareholders in favour of a proposed amalgamation between itself and 4162897 Canada Limited, which it wished to submit to its shareholders during the company's annual meeting. Certain minority shareholders who opposed the proposed amalgamation commenced proceedings for provisional and interlocutory injunctions aimed at postponing the annual meeting by 45 days in order to allow themselves the time to send their own circular to all of the minority shareholders setting out the reasons for their opposition to the proposed amalgamation. The Superior Court dismissed the demand for an injunction after concluding, as argued by Woods & Partners, that the petitioners had not shown that they would suffer any irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured them. |
| Frankel v. Garfield Container Transport Inc; in this case we advised and defended a corporation which had dismissed a 24% shareholder who had been a director, corporate secretary and employee of the corporation for 24 years. The corporation was subject to a motion for relief under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act, the oppression remedy. We successfully defended the company on a motion for interim relief with respect to the payment of substantial bonuses by the corporation to the remaining two shareholders. The file was then settled. |
| Steinberg Inc. v. Caisse-Socanav Inc; a file in which we represented with success virtually all the preferred shareholders of Steinberg Inc. whose shares had not been acquired during the forced take-over by the Caisse-Socanav group. The file was settled, the preferred shares being bought back by the company for an amount of approximately $90 million. |
| Myette c. Commission administrative des régimes de retraite et d’assurances (CARRA), 2009 QCCS 5144 et 2010 QCCS 2797; The Superior Court granted the class action instituted by Mr. Myette against the CARRA, who was refusing to pay him his full pension benefits on the basis that fiscal rules provided against it. We successfully defended the interests of this group of public sector pensioners by convincing the Court that CARRA had specifically told them they could opt into a more advantageous pension plan, without seeing their benefits capped. The honourable Claude Auclair concluded in favour of Mr. Myette and the members of the group, finding that CARRA was extracontractually liable for the erroneous information communicated to the members in that respect. The Court also noted the numerous opportunities CARRA had failed to seize to rectify the situation after its initial mistake. The members were granted their shortfall for the years preceding the judgment and their future benefits were adjusted accordingly. This decision illustrates the principles applicable to the liability of public agencies with regard to the information they circulate and upon which beneficiaries rely on account of the agency’s expertise. |
| Del Guidice v. Honda Canada Inc., [2007]6 R.J.Q. 1496 (C.A.), conf. J.E. 2005-1302 (S.C.); The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed the dismissal of the Motion for authorization to commence a class action presented by Mr. Mario del Guidice against Honda Canada Inc. Mtres. Christopher Richter and Claudine Lagacé had argued on behalf of Honda that the class proceedings were not an appropriate procedure in the circumstances of the case, notably because of the necessity to examine each vehicle individually in order to determine membership in the class. The Court of Appeal found that the judge in first instance had made no error in finding that the petitioner had failed to prove the existence of a group of claimants large enough to warrant class proceedings, and that the representative had not taken the steps required to demonstrate that he would be an appropriate representative of such a class. In conclusion, the Court underlined the difficulties of demonstrating that class action procedures are appropriate in cases alleging defects in automobile manufacture. The decision demonstrates an evolution in the case law concerning class proceedings in Quebec, which had previously minimized the petitioner’s burden. |
| Buonamici v. Blockbuster Canada Co.,[2007]4 R.J.Q.776 (C.A.), aff'g [2004] R.J.Q. 2724 (C.S.); In this case, we successfully defended a class action brought on behalf of all Quebec consumers having paid extended viewing fees to Blockbuster between 1994 and 2002. Plaintiffs were arguing that the extended viewing fees charged by Blockbuster constituted objective lesion under the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. We successfully argued that Plaintiffs’ claim did not correspond to the commercial reality of the video rental business and that the fees charged by Blockbuster were a fair compensation for the anticipated damages. The class action brought on behalf of Quebec consumers was dismissed in its entirety, with costs. This decision was affirmed on appeal. |
| McComber v. GlaxoSmithKline inc., B.E. 2006BE-20 (S.C.); We successfully obtained an order of the Superior Court to suspend the Motion for authorization to commence a class action presented by Mr. Cornelius McComber and other petitioners, arguing that the proposed Quebec proceedings were an abuse of process and that the doctrines of lis alibi pendens and forum non conveniens should apply because the same petitioners, acting through the same attorneys, had commenced almost identical class proceedings in Saskatchewan and Ontario. Bédard J. found that a situation of lis alibi pendens existed and suspended the Quebec proceedings. This decision is an important precedent concerning the handling of multiple class action proceedings between competing jurisdictions. |
| Câblage QMI Inc. v. Bell ExpressVu LP, [2002] R.D.I. 466, J.E. 2002-1054 (S.C.); Woods & Partners represented Plaintiff, owner of inside wire in thousands of multiple-unit dwellings, which wire is used, inter alia, to deliver broadcast services to individual tenants in the buildings. Woods & Partners sought and obtained a provisional injunction and then a series of safeguard orders to prevent Defendants from using the inside wire without Plaintiff's permission. In granting a safeguard order, the Court held that Plaintiff had a prima facie right to the order requested, noting that Defendants’ position with regard to Plaintiff's ownership of the inside wire was inconsistent with their position before the CRTC. Defendants’ unauthorized use of the wire was held to have caused serious harm, and the balance of convenience was held to favour Plaintiff. |
| Les Services Investors Ltd. v. Berkshire Investments Inc., D.T.E. 2000T-1030 (S.C.); in this case we successfully defended three former Investors Group ("IG") managers and their new employer, Berkshire Investments Inc., against a motion seeking interlocutory relief preventing former IG sales representatives and Berkshire from soliciting clients which these representatives formerly serviced at IG and representatives presently working for Investors. We successfully argued that there was no evidence of illegal solicitation and that, in any event, there was no irreparable harm. Leave to appeal was denied. |
| Groupe DMR Inc. v. I.S.M. Information Systems Management Corp., 500-05-012256-952 (S.C.); file in which we represented I.S.M., a subsidiary of IBM, following the purchase of Groupe DMR Inc. by Amdahl. I.S.M. wished to put an immediate end to a service contract by which DMR acted as a sub-contractor of I.S.M. DMR requested a provisional interlocutory injunction in the judicial district of Montreal. The Court rejected this motion for an injunction. The file was subsequently settled out of Court. |
| Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Windheim, J.E. 2003-2172 (C.A.) ; in this matter, Woods & Partners successfully appealed a trial judgement on behalf of the Toronto-Dominion Bank, which had been sued for cashing fraudulently endorsed cheques. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judgement on the basis that the Bank had not acted negligently in accepting the endorsements and permitting the deposit of the cheques in question. The Court of Appeal noted that the history of use of the bank account by the customer and the customer's behaviour, must both be taken into account when evaluating the decisions of the Bank to determine whether those decisions were taken negligently.
|
| Télé-Métropole International v. National Bank of Canada, J.E. 95-1135 (C.A.); confirmation of the trial judgment of Gilles Arsenault J. allowing an action by the Bank on a guarantee made in the context of the financing of a film, and rejecting the arguments of Télé-Métropole on the release of the guarantor and the exception for non-performance. |
| Arpa Laurent Travel Agency v. Amex Bank of Canada, [1995] R.R.A. 823 (C.Q.); we defended with success an action in damages for abuse of rights and defamation. The plaintiff alleged that Amex Bank of Canada had illegally and abusively cancelled its corporate credit card. |
| Michaud v. Steinberg Inc., [1993] R.J.Q. 1684 (C.A.); file in which we contested with success the arrangement deposited by Steinberg under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act which arrangement contained several provisions which had provided for the release and discharge of any liability on the part of the directors. These clauses were invalidated by the Court of Appeal. |
| In the Matter of the Bankruptcy of Calais Development, J.E. 2000-247 (S.C.); in this matter, the Petitioner, relying on the Bankruptcy Act , attempted to declare null certain transactions respecting a large tract of land on the South Shore of Montreal. We represented successfully a buyer who had in good faith purchased this property. The Court not only dismissed the claim but also declared the Petitioner and his companies to be abusive litigants and ordered that they not institute further actions in the Province of Quebec with regard to the property of our client. Petitioner appealed and his appeal was dismissed as being frivolous. |
| Forget v. Société financière Desjardins-Laurentienne inc., [1999] R.J.Q. 460 (S.C.); in 1992, respondent Desjardins took over the operations of respondent La Laurentienne. Following the takeover, 39 of 41 La Laurentienne officers were dismissed. Mr Forget made an application for benefits pursuant to an indemnification policy and payment of his pension following his dismissal. Mr Forget was given the indemnification policy benefits a few days before Desjardins’ takeover.
Woods & Partners successfully proved that Mr. Forget was entitled to benefits with respect to the indemnification policy following his dismissal. Taking into account the common law rule by which judges cannot intervene in directors’ business decisions, the judge concluded that the indemnification policy was adopted in good faith on the basis that it was in the company’s best interest that its senior officers were treated well upon their departure. The evidence did not demonstrate that the directors acted in bad faith, that they abused their discretion, or that they procured a personal benefit to themselves to the detriment of the company. Further, Mr. Forget was not a director; he was a senior officer.
|
| Stewart v. Standard Broadcasting Corp., [1994] R.J.Q. 1751 (C.A.); the appeal of our client, Standard Broadcasting Corp., was allowed in part and the conclusions contained in the trial decision respecting moral damages were struck out. This decision is now authority on the limited circumstances in which a court will grant moral damages as a result of a dismissal. |
| Doudeau v. Standard Radio Inc., [1994] R.J.Q. 1782 (C.A.); decision of the Court of Appeal in which it was held that a former employee has a duty to minimise her damages resulting from dismissal by making a reasonable effort to obtain work in the same or a connected field, and to accept any offer of new employment which is reasonable in the circumstances. This decision is now repeatedly applied on the obligation of the employee to mitigate damages. |
| Hagopian v. Standard Broadcasting Corp., D.T.E. 97T-841 (S.C.); judgment by the Honorable Danielle Grenier dismissing a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal. The Court found that the employee had acquiesced to the cancellation of the programs which he hosted, and that the employer's desire to reach a new market with new programs was a legitimate reason for cancelling these programs. |
| Lessard v. Commission d’enquête sur le département de radio-oncologie de l’hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, J.E. 2004-755 (C.S.); In this matter, we represented the interests of a radiation oncologist working at the Maisonneuve- Rosemont Hospital, in a motion for judicial review and for declaratory judgment. This motion aimed at the annulment of certain extracts of a report from the defendant commission, which were prejudicial to our client. The grounds raised to obtain the annulment were, inter alia, the obvious bias of the commissioners having made the inquiries and having drafted the report of which the annulment was sought. The Superior Court granted our motion and annulled the totality of the extracts of the report for which the annulment was sought, stating that: (translation) “The narration of the facts related to the bias before the hearing, during the hearing and in the decision itself is sufficiently clear, without the need of more comments, to arrive at the conclusion that the commission was biased. If we were to conclude that there was no bias, the doubt entertained by a reasonable person being well informed of the facts would be sufficient to arrive at the same conclusion.” All the recommendations contained in the report which were prejudicial to our client, including those that recommended the dismissal of our client from the hospital, were therefore annulled by the Superior Court. |
| Khalifé v. Centre Universitaire de santé McGill, 2010 QCCS 5386 (S.C.);; Khalifé v. Centre Universitaire de santé McGill, 2010 QCCS 5386 (S.C.); We acted on behalf of Co-Defendant McGill University, which was sued jointly with the McGill University Health Centre (“MUHC”) and a doctor working within these institutions. The Plaintiff was also a doctor working within the MUHC and as a professor at McGill University. The Plaintiff’s recourse sought his reinstatement as a part time professor, position which had been terminated following a decision by the Defendants not to renew the Plaintiff’s status based on his refusal to contribute to the practice plan of the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The Plaintiff argued, inter alia, being the victim of discrimination in his work place which had, according to him, justified the Defendants’ decision not to renew his position as professor. The Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s action with costs, notably because the internal procedures of McGill University and the MUHC had been respected and as a result, the Plaintiff was awarded the appropriate notice under the circumstances. The Court, applying the principals established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Indian Head School and Dunsmuir, concluded that there was no breach of the principals of natural justice because the Plaintiff was awarded sufficient notice as provided for in his contract. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had failed to discharge his burden to prove the discrimination alleged. |
| Florida Marlins, LLP v. American Home Assurance Co., arbitration award, August 10th 2004; our client, the Florida Marlins, sought our assistance to obtain the advances for defence costs to which it had a right under the directors and officers liability insurance policy issued by the defendant, who refused to advance these costs because it alleged there was no coverage under the policy. These defence costs amounted to several million dollars, incurred to defend the Marlins and its managing general partner in an underlying dispute commenced by other partners in the United States. In order to force the insurer to advance these defence costs, we instituted an arbitration award pursuant to the Ontario Arbitration Act, 1991, as required by the insurance policy. We were successful in obtaining an arbitration award forcing the insurer to advance the costs, which award was obtained rapidly to ensure that all of our clients’ substantial costs were covered by the insurer, plus pre- and post-judgment interest. The arbitrator also agreed that our clients should benefit from the increasing value of the Canadian dollar, and awarded them costs on a substantial indemnity scale.
|
| Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company v. Arthur Anderson Inc. (trustee of the bankrupt Partec Lavalin Inc.) [2002] R.R.A. 966, J.E. 2002-1689 (S.C.) ; In this matter, we represented notably Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company, and were asking the Superior Court to declare that our clients were not obliged to defend their insured Partec Lavalin (“Partec”) in an action instituted by a co-insured, Bell Lavalin. In its cross-demand, Partec was claiming more than thirty-one million dollars CDN, which represented notably a judgement rendered against it and in favour of Bell Lavalin. The honorable Mr. Justice Guthrie concluded that the proceedings, instituted by a co-insured, Bell Lavalin, were not covered by the insurance policy and dismissed the counter-claim against our clients. |
| Groupe M.I.L. v. American Home Assurance Co., [1995] R.R.A. 41 (S.C.); appeal dismissed; leave to the Supreme Court of Canada refused; judgment rendered by Nicole Duval Hesler J., allowing an action to recover on an insurance policy for an amount in excess of $2,000,000.00. This judgment recognizes that work effected to prevent further loss may be recovered as damages under an all-risk insurance policy. |
| La Sécurité, Compagnie d’assurances générales du Canada v. Gérard Filion, [1990] R.J.Q. 349 (C.A.); the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judgment which ordered the appellant to assume the defence of the defendant to an action taken by the Attorney General of Canada, which action alleged, among other things, negligence, fraud and conspiracy. The Court of Appeal indicated that because good faith must be presumed and no proof of fraud had been made, the appellant was obliged to defend Mr. Filion. |
| Vollant v. Sioui (13 April 2006), Federal Court No. T-1532-04 and T-1837-04; Woods represented the interests of the Plaintiff, who requested that the Federal Court annul two resolutions adopted by the Innu Takuaikan Uashat Mak Mani-Utenam Band's Council (I.T.U.M. Council) on the grounds that these were adopted illegally. These resolutions were adopted by circulation among certain counsellors in order to obtain signatures from a majority thereof without convening all of the elected counsellors to an assembly. The Federal Court concluded that it was illegal and contrary to the Indian Act, as well as to the principles of democracy, to adopt decisions by "flying resolution" (circulation of the resolution in order to obtain a majority of signatures). The Federal Court dismissed the Defendants' argument that the adoption of the resolution by "flying resolution" was a custom within the I.T.U.M. Council. |
| Bombardier Inc. v. Hermes Aero LLC, J.E. 2004-233, EYB 2004-69693 (S.C.); Woods & Partners obtained the dismissal of an application by Bombardier Inc. for the renewal of a safeguard order which prevented our client, Hermes Aero LLC, from drawing on a standby letter of credit in the context of a dispute relating to an aircraft purchase agreement. Hermes terminated the agreement after Bombardier insisted that it accept delivery of an aircraft which had been struck and damaged by lightning. Hermes attempted to draw on the letter of credit in order to obtain repayment of the amount of deposits it made on the purchase price of the aircraft plus interest when Bombardier obtained a safeguard order enjoining it from doing so. (Hermes was not represented by Woods & Partners at that time.) In dismissing Bombardier's application to renew the safeguard order, the Court adopted our arguments that the disagreement between the parties as to the interpretation of the underlying purchase agreement was not constitutive of fraud, which was the only exception to Hermes' right to draw on the letter of credit. Based on Woods & Partners' submissions, the Court also dismissed Bombardier's argument to the effect that the letter of credit was not a true autonomous letter of credit, but was rather a guarantee which required proof of the alleged breach of contract before it could be honoured. |
| Entrepreneur Minier Talpa Inc. v. Dynatec Mining Ltd., 500-05-006451-932, September 20th, 1993; in this case, we represented the defendant, Dynatec Mining Ltd., which was engaged in a joint venture with the plaintiff. A seizure before judgment had been performed by the plaintiff and a motion for sequestration had been presented. We successfully challenged the seizure as well as the principal action itself on the basis that the joint venture agreement contained a perfect arbitration clause. The motion for sequestration was also dismissed because there was no immediate danger and the Court was of the opinion that this matter could also be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration procedure was settled, to the satisfaction of our client. |
| Williams Communications Canada Inc. v. Ville St-Laurent, 500-05-061886-006, December 12th, 2000
; in this matter we successfully sought a provisional injunction on behalf of a corporation which had tendered on a call for tenders by the City of St-Laurent for a telephone system. We argued that the city had illegally modified the call for tenders
documents without notifying our client and that as a result the whole bidding process was contrary to public order. The order for provisional injunction was extended by way of a safeguard order. |
| Rendez-vous à la rivière pour l'an 2000 v. Genivar inc., 2011 QCCS 7215; The Superior Court dismissed the action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants on the basis that the latter designed an inflatable dam for recreational purposes on the Chaudière River. Defendants were not charged with the supervision of the work. After a few years of operation, erosion was endangering the dam, which consequently required substantial repairs of which the value was claimed by the plaintiff. After reviewing exhaustive expert reports, the Honourable Yves Alain ruled that the design made by our clients, GENIVAR and one of its engineers, was not faulty. We successfully represented our clients’ interests by convincing the Court that the plaintiff had itself to blame for having neglected to hire engineers to supervise the construction of such a complex work of civil engineering, and by further demonstrating that the loss of the work resulted from faulty construction. This decision confirms the extent of the design engineer’s liability in cases where the latter does not supervise construction. It also confirms the nature of the burden that the plaintiff has to meet in such circumstances by reiterating that it cannot benefit from any presumption of liability against the engineer. Finally, the Court ruled that a plaintiff cannot enrich itself to the expense of the defendant by claiming the costs of repairs that increase the value of the work. |
| Laidley v. Kovalik, [1994] R.R.A. 429 (C.A.); judgment of the Superior Court, confirmed by the Court of Appeal, granting an action for damages taken by our client, the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant accountant had acted with negligence in his function as tax advisor, thereby failing to live up to his professional duty to advise. |
| Robert Thibault et al. v. Bélanger Hébert et al.; judgment of Thomas Tôth J., confirmed by the Court of Appeal, rejecting an action in civil liability against our clients, the defendant accountants, following a sale of shares the price of which had been based on the value of the enterprise established by the accountants. |
| Nancy Sargent v. David Smith et al., [1995] R.R.A. 907 (S.C.); judgment rendered by Jean Guibault J., allowing an action in civil liability taken by the tenant of a building, our client, against the corporate landlord and the officers of that corporation for an amount of $200,000.00. Our client had suffered serious injuries in a fire which occurred in the building. |
| New Jersey (Department of the Treasury of the State of), Division of Investment v. Trudel, 2009 QCCA 86, [2009] R.J.Q. 46; ; Woods LLP obtained the dismissal of the action against the State of New Jersey on the basis of state immunity and invalid service of the proceedings on a foreign state. The public pension fund of the State of New Jersey was sued in defamation alleged to have taken place in the course of legal proceedings in Quebec in which it had intervened. The Court of Appeal held that state immunity is a matter of public order which must be decided by the Court at the outset of proceedings. It also held that none of the exceptions to state immunity applied: the intervention by the State fund in one proceeding did not constitute waiver of immunity for the purposes of the defamation suit, which suit did not relate to a “commercial activity” or to “personal or bodily injury”. |
| Shamji v. Tajdin, J.E. 2006-625 (C.A.); Woods LLP was asked to take carriage of this matter on appeal from a decision of the Superior Court granting summary dismissal of the Defendants’ declinatory exception. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Plaintiff had not met his burden of proof with respect to proving the elements required to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of Quebec. Importantly, the Court of Appeal found that signature of a schedule of proceedings does not necessarily amount to attornment to the jurisdiction of the court. |
| Parent v. Singapore Airlines Ltd. v. Civil Aeronautics Administration, J.E. 2003-2160 (S.C.); our client, the Civil Aeronautics Administration (“CAA”) of Taiwan, was called in warranty by the defendant airline to assume liability for the damages allegedly suffered by Mr. Parent, a passenger aboard an aircraft which was involved in an accident at the Taipei International Airport. CAA is the part of the government on the island of Taiwan responsible for airport administration. We presented a motion to dismiss the claim in warranty, based upon the sovereign immunity of the CAA under section 3 of the State Immunity Act of Canada. The judge held that Taiwan is a state as defined in international law and is entitled to immunity from the jurisdiction of Canadian courts, based upon the evidence submitted. She rejected the airline’s argument that the Government of Canada’s refusal to issue a certificate under section 14 of the Act indicated a refusal to recognize the government on Taiwan, despite a similar conclusion by the courts of Singapore between the same parties. The claim against CAA was therefore entirely dismissed. |
| Conserviera S.p.A. v. Paesana Import-export inc., [2001] R.J.Q. 1458 (C.A.); Woods & Partners represented the American co-defendants of the Quebec company Paesana Import-export inc. Two of the American co-defendants were accused of participating with Paesana Import-export inc. and its operator in customs fraud involving the import of Italian tomatoes to the United States by way of Montreal. Another two of the American co-defendants were accused of writing false cheques in New York City. Woods & Partners successfully obtained judgment from the Superior Court of Quebec dismissing the actions against all of the American co-defendants for want of jurisdiction in Quebec (J.E. 2001-642). The Court of Appeal partially overturned the Superior Court, reinstating the action alleging participation in customs fraud but accepting the Superior Court's finding that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case concerning the allegedly false cheques. |
| Morales Moving and Storage Co. v. Chatigny-Bitton, [1996] R.D.J. 14, J.E. 96-72 (C.A.); in this file we represented one of the transportation companies being sued in civil liability. This case is interesting because it became the first case of the Court of Appeal interpreting the new Civil Code with respect to the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts in matters of civil liability. The Court upheld our challenge to a declinatory exception presented by a transportation company from Miami thereby ensuring that the case would proceed in Quebec. |
| Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company v. Arthur Andersen Inc., [1995] R.J.Q. 2222 (S.C.); in this case, we acted for six insurance companies suing Lavalin in the context of the execution of engineering and construction contracts in Alaska. Litigation already existed in Alaska in which Lavalin had been ordered to pay significant sums to the project builders. We contested with success the motion to dismiss our clients’ action based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens, that is, that Quebec was not an appropriate jurisdiction in which to try the case. Guthrie J.’s decision in this regard is one of the leading cases on forum non conveniens in Quebec. |
| Groupe TVA Inc. v. Société en commandite Bell Express Vu, J.E. 2004-1270 (C.S.); J.E. 2004-2114 (C.A.); In this matter, we represented the interests of the television channel TVA, acting for its specialty channel, Le Canal Nouvelles (LCN). An action was brought against Bell ExpressVu General Partnership (Bell ExpressVu), because of the alleged violation by Bell ExpressVu of the verbal affiliation contract entered into between the parties. Bell ExpressVu raised the absence of jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Superior Court to hear the dispute, alleging that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) would be the only competent tribunal in that regard. This motion for declinatory exception was dismissed by the Superior Court and by the Court of Appeal, because it is the role of the Superior Court to interpret a contract in its entirety and in its context as well as the relationship between the parties in the enforcement of said contract. Our client was therefore specifically allowed to continue its proceedings in the Superior Court to obtain compensation for the damages suffered. |
| Lac d’Amiante du Québec Ltée v. 2858-0702 Québec Inc. and Lac d’amiante du Canada, Ltée, [1999] R.J.Q. 970 (C.A.),Confirmed on appeal: [2001]2 S.C.R. 743, 204 D.L.R. (4th) 331 (S.C.C.); ordered to disclose thousands of pages of documentation relating to its contractual claims for reimbursement of legal expenses, our client, the plaintiff LAQ, instructed us to ensure that the documentation disclosed on discovery would remain confidential for as long as possible. Woods & Partners successfully argued before the Court of Appeal of Quebec that all information and documents collected from the opposing party during discovery are the subject of an implied undertaking of confidentiality by the attorney and party who collect the information and may not be used for any purpose but the advancement of the proceedings in question. This is the first time that the implied undertaking of confidentiality has been recognized in Quebec and marks a major change in the rules of discovery in Quebec civil actions. |
| Sonigem Products Inc. v. U S West, Inc. (16 June 2000), (F.C.T.D. case no. T-266-00), [2000] F.C.J. No.1055; decision by Master Richard Morneau granting leave under Rule 194(a) of the Federal Court Rules to our client, Sonigem, to file a third party claim for indemnity, damages and loss of profit resulting from the breach of the legal warranty provided by section 8 of the Trade Mark Act. This is one of few cases interpreting either section 8 or Rule 194(a). |
| Lac d'amiante du Canada Ltée. v. Lac d'amiante du Québec Ltée, J.E. 2000-889 (S.C.); revision of the taxation of a bill of costs. Pierre Dalphond J. held that the additional fee of one per cent of the claim available under section 42 of the Tariff of Judicial Fees of Advocates does not apply in the case of an action for an anti-suit injunction. The object of the action was the protection of the jurisdiction of the Quebec courts, not the evaluation of the merits of the claim; therefor, the claim is not quantifiable in money and section 42 did not apply. |
| |
