Judgments of note
The judgments on this page are only an illustration of the some of the judgments pleaded by IMK's lawyers. IMK makes no representation about their representivity in terms of the number of cases pleaded by IMK's lawyers, or the results obtained.
ADAMS V. AMEX BANK OF CANADA
Areas of practice: class actions; consumer protection; legislative interpretation
Peter Kalichman, Catherine McKenzie and Mathieu Bouchard successfully represented the Plaintiff in this class action against Amex Bank of Canada for charging hidden foreign conversion fees to its customers from 1993 until 2003. The judgment awarding class members $13,097,896 was subsequently confirmed by the Québec Court of Appeal. A leave application brought by Amex is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.
BLUE BOX INTERNATIONAL LTD. V. MEGA BRANDS INC.
Areas of practice: contractual obligations; damages calculations
Peter Kalichman and Julien Lussier represented Mega Brands, who was sued by a Chinese manufacturer which claimed that Mega Brands had not fully paid for the toys it had purchased. Mega Brands counter-sued for the profit it lost as a result of the manufacturer’s poor performance. The Superior Court maintained Mega Brands’ claim for lost profit of $1,349,800, and the Court of Appeal maintained that decision.
AUDET V. TRANSAMERICA LIFE CANADA
Areas of practice: professional liability; insurance law
Doug Mitchell and Catherine McKenzie successfully represented the plaintiffs, who suffered significant losses as a result of negligent financial advice. Before the Court of Appeal, they secured compensation for the plaintiffs from their financial advisor as well as from his insurer, which had sought to deny coverage.
INDIGO BOOKS & MUSIC INC. V. IMMEUBLES RÉGIME XV INC. ET AL.
Areas of practice: leasing obligations; contractual interpretation; testimonial evidence
Peter Kalichman and David Éthier represented Indigo, who took injunction proceedings to prevent the landlord of a major lifestyle center from leasing space to one of Indigo's major competitors. The Superior Court sided with Indigo and the Court of Appeal affirmed its decision.
IHAG-HOLDING, AG V. INTRAWEST CORPORATION
Areas of practice: contractual interpretation; evidence
Doug Mitchell represented the Defendant, Intrawest Corporation, against a claim for $7 million relating to the sale by Intrawest of a ski resort to the Plaintiff. The dispute related to whether or not there was a drafting error in the contract of sale. The court accepted the Defendant's evidence that the contract contained a material error and dismissed the Plaintiff's claim; the trial decision was maintained on appeal.
THE ESTATE OF ZAHRA KAZEMI V. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN ET AL.
Areas of practice: human rights; legislative interpretation; extra-contractual liability
The late Zahra Kazemi was a Canadian photojournalist who was brutally assaulted, raped and murdered by government officials in Iran. Kurt Johnson, Mathieu Bouchard and Audrey Boctor represented her Estate and her son, Stephan Hashemi, in their recourse seeking accountability from Iran and its officials. The case raised novel legal issues concerning the applicability of the State Immunity Act to acts of torture, and the courts’ obligation to provide Canadians with a forum for redress when no other one is available. A leave application brought by the Plaintiffs is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.
PARENT V. STOCOLA (ESTATE OF)
Areas of practice: wills and estates; legislative interpretation
Janet Michelin represented the liquidators of the Stocola estate, who were contesting the validity of a will which had been jointly prepared by the deceased and his spouse. This case provided the Court of Appeal with its first opportunity to interpret article 704 of the Civil Code of Quebec, which proscribes joint wills. The Court of Appeal maintained the Superior Court decision and confirmed that the will in question was joint, and therefore null.
ROSSO V. AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS
Areas of practice: class actions
Doug Mitchell and Sophie Perron successfully defeated a request to authorize a class action against the Autorité des marchés financiers. The request for authorization was brought by a group of investment advisers and was related to the Norbourg scandal. This decision was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, and leave was refused by the Supreme Court of Canada.
DORÉ V. BARREAU DU QUÉBEC
Areas of practice: freedom of expression; constitutional interpretation; legislative interpretation
Mathieu Bouchard and Audrey Boctor represented the intervener, the Young Bar Association of Montréal, at the Supreme Court of Canada, in this case involving the scope of the Barreau du Québec’s power to sanction lawyers for their speech.
MORGAN V. ATWATER BADMINTON AND SQUASH CLUB
Areas of practice: unjust dismissal; contractual interpretation
Janet Michelin represented the plaintiff employee, who was terminated without cause after working for the defendant for 17 years. Concluding that the plaintiff was employed for an indefinite term after years of successive renewals of his employment contracts, the Superior Court awarded him $122,091.83 in damages. The case is presently on appeal.
BROUILLETTE ET PARTNERS LLP V. CHADWICK
Areas of practice: extra-contractual liability; corporate personality
Julien Lussier successfully represented the defendant, who was sued personally by the plaintiff attorneys after the company to which it rendered services went bankrupt. The decision rendered by the Court of Québec affirms that an insolvent company commits no fault by continuing its operations while insolvent, nor do its employees engage their personal liability in the process.
PARTITIONS GF SYSTÈMES INTÉRIEURS INC. V. DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION GIFFELS QUÉBEC INC.
Areas of practice: construction law; secured transactions
David Éthier successfully represented the respondent company before the Québec Court of Appeal. The court’s decision clarified the existing law and established a precedent that a damages claim by a sub-contractor does not give rise to a legal hypothec in absence of associated construction works.
FRANÇOIS BEAUDOIN V. BANQUE DE DÉVELOPPEMENT DU CANADA
Areas of practice: pensions; employment law
Doug Mitchell and Sophie Perron represented Mr. Beaudoin, the ex-president of the Business Development Bank of Canada ("BDC") in this case which successfully sought the re-establishment of the retirement pension that had been granted to Mr. Beaudoin at his dismissal.
HEEG V. HITECH PIPING (HTP) LTD.
Areas of practice: shareholder remedies; unjust dismissal
Janet Michelin successfully represented a former employee-shareholder who was dismissed without cause. The Superior Court condemned the employer to compensate Mr. Heeg for his wrongful termination for 10 months beyond the date when he found new employment, and ordered that his shares be repurchased for an amount some $67,000 more than what was argued by defendants.
AUTON V. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Areas of practice: human rights; discrimination
Doug Mitchell represented the intervener, Michelle Dawson, at the Supreme Court of Canada. The case involved the government’s obligation to provide specific forms of treatment for autistic children.
BEAULIEU IMMOBILIER V. INDUSTRIELLE ALLIANCE
Areas of practice: contractual obligations; legislative interpretation
Doug Mitchell and Eric Cadi represented an independent business broker claiming the payment of a commission following government subsidies which had been granted by the Quebec government to Industrielle Alliance. Industrielle Alliance was alleging that the brokerage contract was null since the Plaintiff's activities were proscribed by virtue of the Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Act. The broker's claim was granted, and confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
BUESCO CONSTRUCTION INC. V. THE ROYAL INSTITUTION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF LEARNING ET AL.
Areas of practice: construction law; contractual obligations
Peter Kalichman and Sophie Perron represented a builder whose contract on a major renovation project had been cancelled. The claim to recover the contractor’s damages was successful and was never appealed. The case establishes certain important principles involving the termination of construction contracts.
BANK OF MONTREAL V. BAIL LTÉE
Areas of practice: contractual obligations; good faith
Colin Irving represented the Bank of Montreal in this seminal decision of the Supreme Court that established the existence of the duty to inform in contractual matters. This decision has had a major impact on the law of contractual relations in the Province of Quebec, particularly as regards the duty to act in good faith.
ROBERT CONYERS V. BIO SYNTECH (CANADA) INC.
Areas of practice: employment law; contractual obligations
Kurt A. Johnson represented the plaintiff following his termination. The Superior Court confirmed his entitlement to stock options on the basis of a commitment made by the Defendant's President outside the company's stock option plan.
COMMISSION D’ENQUÊTE SUR LES COMMANDITES (COMMISSION GOMERY)
Area of practice: public inquiries
Doug Mitchell and Sophie Perron represented the Liberal Party of Canada during the Commission of Inquiry.
LE PROCUREUR GÉNÉRAL DU QUÉBEC V. BRIGITTE HERRMANN-BUSSON ET ALS.
Following an epic, seven-year battle with the Government of Quebec, Kurt A. Johnson obtained ownership on behalf of the plaintiffs of the lakefront portion of their property first by the Superior Court and subsequently by the Quebec Court of Appeal. The disputed piece of property had been incorporated by the government and the local MRC into a bicycle and snowmobile path commonly referred to as the "corridor aérobique".
LA LIGUE CATHOLIQUE POUR LES DROITS DE L'HOMME V. MICHAEL HENDRICKS ET ALS.
Areas of practice: constitutional principles; discrimination
The judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal in this case legalized gay marriage in Quebec. Colin K. Irving and Catherine McKenzie together with Martha McCarthy from Toronto argued the appeal for the successful respondents.
PAUL-LOUP SULITZER V. BANQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA, TRUST BANQUE NATIONALE INC. ET DELPHINE JACOBSON ET ALS.
Areas of practice: trust law
Peter Kalichman and Sophie Perron successfully defended in a case involving a complicated trust that had been established in Quebec and a multi-million dollar claim brought by a prominent French author. The case was upheld in appeal.
LA PROCUREURE GÉNÉRALE DU CANADA ET LA SOCIÉTÉ CANADIENNE DU CANCER V. JTI-MACDONALD CORP.
Areas of practice: constitutional principles; freedom of expression; legislative interpretation
This case involved a challenge by JTI-Macdonald and Canada's other leading tobacco companies to the constitutionality of the Tobacco Act, which severely restricted their right to advertise. Doug Mitchell and Catherine McKenzie argued this case in first instance, at the Court of Appeal, and at the Supreme Court of Canada.
BETTY RHIND V. DIGITAL WORLD FINANCIAL INC. ET ALS.
Areas of practice: civil liability; insurance law
Kurt A. Johnson successfully recovered for the plaintiff close to a million dollars in savings which had been invested in what amounted to be an illegal investment scam. Both the Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal confirmed the responsibility of the professional liability insurers on the basis that the co-defendant mutual fund representative was indeed acting in the performance of his functions when the faithful investments were made.
RJR-MACDONALD INC. V. CANADA (P.G.)
Areas of practice: constitutional principles; freedom of expression; legislative interpretation
Colin Irving and Doug Mitchell acted in first instance, at the Court of Appeal and at the Supreme Court in a successful challenge of the Tobacco Products Control Act, which had broadly prohibited tobacco advertising. The case also involved an interim decision involving a stay of proceedings which was also decided at the Supreme Court. Both the final decision – which struck down the legislation as constitutionally invalid – and the decision on the stay of proceedings remain of high precedential value to this day.