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.
Even in business, there is no such thing as the law of the jungle. Many legal standards govern business practices so as to maintain fair competition in the markets.
Bell Canada v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c.,2015 QCCS 1884 (C.S.M.: 500-17-087821-156and 500-17-087822-154): We represent Vidéotron s.e.n.c. in injunction proceedingsbrought by Bell to restrain thedistribution and broadcastingof certain advertisementduring the 2015 National Hockey League playoffs. Bell invokes amongst others the Competition Act, the Consumer Protection Act and the Trade-marks Act. We obtained the dismissal of the provisional injunction requested by Bell (2015 QCCS 1884). The proceedings are following their course and the next important step is the hearing on the interlocutory injunction.
Vidéotron, G.P. v. Bell ExpressVu, l.p.– 2015 QCCA 422 : Our clients, Vidéotron and TVA, obtained a condemnation in capital of over $82,000,000 to compensate for their losses of revenues as a consequence of Bell’s negligence to adequately control the piracy of its own satellite signals for the distribution of television services. This award represents one of the most important condemnations awarded in Canadian judicial history.
IMS Health Canada Inc. v. Think Business Insights Ltd., 2013 QCCS 16: We obtained the dismissal of the injunction proceedings brought by a competitor in an attempt to restrain our client from engaging in certain activities.
Bell Canada v. Vidéotron s.e.n.c., docket no.500-17-075017-122 of the Superior Court: We successfully defended Videotron in this case where Bell sought injunctions against our client’s advertising campaign.
Transcontinental inc. v. Publications TVA inc., 2005 QCCA 786: We obtained an order for an interlocutory injunction to force a competitor to cease providing printing and pre-printing services in respect of a magazine. We also obtained the dismissal of the request for permission to appeal the order.
Valeurs mobilières Desjardins Inc. v. Lambert, 2009 QCCS 4278: We secured orders on behalf of Desjardins Securities preventing two ex-employees and RBC Dominion Securities from disclosing confidential information and from soliciting their clients.
Câblage QMI inc. v. Société en commandite Bell ExpressVu,  R.D.I. 466, J.E. 2002-1054 (S.C.): We sought and obtained for Câblage QMI an injunction and safeguard orders preventing Bell from accessing our client’s cable network without permission.
Commissioner of Competition v. Gestion Lebski inc., 2012 Comp. Trib. 25: We convinced the Competition Tribunal to quash a seizure performed by the Commissioner of Competition on amounts of money awarded by the Court to our client in a separate matter.