Contractual disputes are at the core of our practice. Our expertise in the interpretation of complex commercial contracts is second-to-none.

Soft Informatique Inc. v. Gestion Gérald Bluteau Inc., 2014 QCCA 2330 : Our services were retained by the Appellant following the dismissal of its claim in damages and the substantial award pronounced against it by the Superior Court, at which time our client was represented by another firm.  In appeal, we succeeded in quashing the entire condemnation against our client and were successful in securing a substantial award in damages in its favor, due to misrepresentations in the course of the sale of a company.

BCE Inc. v. Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, docket no. 500-17-047317-089 of the Superior Court: We represented Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in this dispute involving the interpretation of a $1.2 billion break-up fee (liquidated damages) clause further to the termination of the agreement contemplating the $52 billion acquisition of BCE Inc.

BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders,[2008] 3 S.C.R. 560: We represented the purchasers Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in this historic matter where the Supreme Court of Canada approved the transaction whereby our clients were to purchase BCE Inc. for $52 billion and dismissed the contestation by certain Bell Canada bondholders. One of the central questions in dispute was the interpretation of the contracts pursuant to which the bonds were issued.

Construction G.M.R.  inc. v  Michon, 2017 QCCS 5081 and Michon v Dallaire, 2019 QCCA 554: In this matter, Woods succeeded in obtaining the dismissal of an action in warranty launched against its clients, Développement Rescom et its administrator, real estate developers, and of the principal action. The principal action was related to the failure, by the attorney for the Plaintiff and for our clients, to respect professional obligations in the context of the management of deposits made by future home buyers in a condominium construction project. The action in warranty aimed to have our clients pay an eventual damage award in the principal action. Based on the arguments presented by our firm, the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed the principal action and the action in warranty. On one hand, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff did not meet its burden in the principal action, namely regarding the alleged fault and causality.  On the other hand, the Court accepted the argument that the release given by the Plaintiff to our clients, for all of the claims that were the object of the principal action, had the effect of making  the principal action and the action in warranty fail.  To consult the decision, click here

Éolectric Inc. v. Kruger, Groupe Énergie,  500-17-045815-084 (S.C.): We acted for Eolectric, a wind energy prospector, in a suit to recover a $3.5 million success fee against Kruger Energy division further to the award of a power purchase agreement by Hydro-Québec for the development of the St-Rémi wind farm project.

Friedman v. Ruby et Jonar Systems inc., 2012 QCCS 1778: We convinced the Court to dismiss the action launched against our clients following the failure of negotiations for the sale of a business.       

Hooper v. MDS (Canada) inc. (Phoenix International Life Science Inc.), 2009 QCCA 907: We obtained the dismissal of this suit where our client was sued for over $9 million for having allegedly violated its contractual obligations under various agreements.

Automobiles Jalbert Inc. v. BMW Canada Inc., 2006 QCCA 1068: We represented BMW Canada in a matter raising the issue of the termination of dealership agreements as well as good faith and fair dealing in commercial relationships.

Pierre Laurin v. Gestion Jean-Paul Auclair, 2002 CanLII 41247 (QC CA): We convinced the Court of Appeal that certain stock options given in exchange for a loan were void.

Simcoe & Erie General Insurance Company v. Arthur Anderson Inc. (trustee of Partec Lavalin Inc.), J.E. 2002-1689 (S.C.): We secured the dismissal of an action instituted against our clients by their insured Partec Lavalin that sought an indemnification for a $31 million claim.

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.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 743 (S.C.C.): We represented Lac d’Amiante du Québec in an action for reimbursement of over $12 million of expenses, based on multiple agreements between the parties, including joint venture and limited partnership agreements.