Law in Quebec

News about Quebec legal developments


Legal business

  • Three Court of Quebec judges appointed

    Quebec Minister of Justice Stéphanie Vallée announced the appointment of three more Court of Quebec judges, with Stéphane Davignon and Luc Huppé appointed to the civil division in Montreal and Dany Pilon to the youth division in Saint-Jérôme.

    Davignon, a graduate from the Université de Montréal, was admitted to the Barreau du Québec in 1994 and became a partner with Clément Davignon in 1998.

    Huppé, admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1984 after graduating from Université Laval, was a partner with de Grandpré Joli-Cœur since 2008. He has been an assessor with the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal since 2009. He has also written extensively; his latest tome is entitled “La déontologie de la magistrature Droit canadien – Perspective internationale.”

    Pilon began her career working with the City of Montreal after being admitted to the Bar in 1990. A graduate of the l’Université de Montréal, she has been working with the Centre communautaire juridique Laurentides-Lanaudière since 1999.

  • Most U.S. & EU companies still not prepared for new privacy law

    The majority of European and American firms are not yet ready to comply with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), reveals a recent report.

    Many organizations fail to give the GDPR the attention it deserves, according to Seizing the GDPR Advantage: From Mandate to High-Value Opportunity,” a report by France-based legal tech consultant Capgemini that surveyed 1,000 executives and 6,000 consumers.

    The report notes that nearly one in five organizations fail to make the GDPR a top priority, 31 per cent feel that the sole purpose of their program is to comply with the mandate by the deadline, and only 28 per cent see the GDPR as an opportunity to gain consumer trust and competitive advantage, in addition to being a compliance mandate. Moreover, it reveals that 51 per cent of organizations are either lagging or feel they will be only partially compliant by the deadline.

    The report underscores that there is a “significant perception gap” between organizations and consumers around consumer data privacy and security performance. A staggering 80 per cent of executives believe that consumers trust their organization with the privacy and security of personal data. Consumers have a different take: only 52% of consumers agree with executives.

    “This overconfidence can blind organizations to the improvements they need to make in data practices and prevent sufficient investment,” said the report. “Such organizations will eventually lose out as consumers increasingly demand a best in-class data protection experience.”

    The global tech consultant leader strongly argues that GDPR is in fact a new opportunity waiting to be tapped but only for “organizations that get it right.” Besides enhancing employee loyalty, it maintains that consumers are “more willing to engage with organizations that protect data.”

    When consumers are convinced that an organization is protecting their personal data in line with the GDPR mandate, nearly half would share their positive experiences with friends and family. Just as importantly, more than one in three consumers (39 per cent) will spend more with an organization when convinced that the organization protects their personal data.

    More ominously, over 70 per cent of consumers said they are prepared to decrease spend and stop doing business with organizations in breach of GDPR compliance. In addition, 64 per cent of consumers said they are likely to request non-EU companies to delete their data if they find organizations non-compliant once the GDPR comes into effect.

    Categories: ,
  • Gender pay gap exists within in-house counsel

    Female general in-house counsel make approximately 78 per cent of the average total compensation that their male counterparts make, according to a study by executive search firm BarkerGilmore.

    The study, entitled “2018 In-House Counsel Compensation Report,” also found that gaps in average total pay at managing counsel and senior counsel levels, with women making 90 per cent and 89 per cent respectively of what their male counterparts made. But despite the disparity in total compensation, female in-house counsel in 2018 experienced a base pay increase equivalent to that of male in-house counsel, 3.8 per cent.

    Interestingly, Bob Barker, managing partner of BarkerGilmore said there does not appear to be any disparity in job offer compensation between men and women. Rather, the disparity appears to “grow up through an organization,” added Barker.

    Other findings by the report, which surveyed 1,700 individuals, include:

    • The median annual salary increase rate for all positions across industries dipped to 3.8 per cent, down 0.5 per cent from the previous year, with the life sciences sector experiencing the highest median increase rate of 5.2 per cent from 2016 to 2017.

    • 41 per cent of all respondents believe their compensation is below or significantly below that of their peers in other organizations, with labor & employment lawyers and litigators reporting the greatest dissatisfaction. Those in the energy and banking/finance practice areas express the highest levels of satisfaction with over 24 per cent reporting compensation above or significantly above average.

    • A staggering 41 per cent of respondents said they would consider a new position within the next year due to compensation issues.

    • Not surprisingly, there is a significant disparity in pay for general counsel at publicly traded companies and those at private ones. Public companies also pay consistently more at all three levels of in-house counsel.

  • Montreal lawyer disbarred for 10 years for misappropriation

    A month after an Ottawa lawyer with serious memory problems was disbarred after failing to help the Law Society of Ontario investigate complaints made by a raft of clients who are collectively owed more than $2.5 million, a Montreal lawyer who misappropriated approximately $130,000 suffered nearly the same fate.

    Antonella Petrolito, a member of the Barreau du Quebec since 1989 but no longer practicing since she went bankrupt in 2016, has been disbarred by the Quebec Bar’s disciplinary committee for 10 years and ordered to pay the victims a total of $137,900, the amounts she pilfered, after she pled guilty to the charges.

    Petrolito, now working as a legal assistant for a lawyer, has a history of misappropriating funds. In 1999, the disciplinary committee sanctioned her for misappropriated on three occasions amounts totaling $3,350.

    “In spite of three decisions rendered against her in 1999, one in which she was struck from the roll for two years, she did not change her conduct and blatantly disregarded her ethical obligations,” said the disciplinary committee.

  • Court of Quebec judge absolved by inquiry committee

    A Court of Quebec judge under fire for allegedly lending more than $9 million in loans over the past few years has been absolved of any ethical breaches by a five-member panel of the Committee of Inquiry of the Conseil de la magistrature du Québec.

    The inquiry committee concluded that Judge Manlio Del Negro, nominated as a Court of Quebec judge on March 2017, did not infringe article 129 of the Quebec Courts of Justice Act nor did he breach the Quebec Judicial Code of Ethics. Under article 129 of the Act, the office of judge is exclusive. In other words, a lawyer appointed judge is legally required to refrain from any activity which is not compatible with his functions, including carrying out – even indirectly — commercial activities.

    (more…)

  • Total amount of legal fees not necessarily covered by solicitor-client privilege rules Quebec appeal court

    The total amount of professional billings paid to lawyers working on a mandate for public bodies is not necessarily automatically protected by solicitor-client privilege ruled the Quebec Court of Appeal.

    In what is described as a precedent-setting ruling, the Quebec appeal court decision provides much-needed guidance and strikes a delicate balance between professional secrecy and public access to documents, according to legal experts.

    “The importance of this lies with the distinction the Quebec appeal court makes between professional secrecy and public access to documents regarding legal fees paid by public bodies to lawyers,” said Pierre Trudel, a former director of Université de Montréal’s Public Law Research Centre. “The decision provides helpful guidance over what should remain protected by professional secrecy and what should be accessible to ensure public access to documents.”

    But Bernard Pageau, who successfully plead the case, is under no illusions. Even if a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is not filed or if the decision is not overturned, Pageau expects the ruling to upend longstanding practices by Quebec public bodies and the provincial Access to Information Commission gradually and begrudgingly.

    “If it is a final decision, it will take some time before public bodies react and implement the changes,” said Pageau, the senior director of legal affairs at Québecor Média inc. “There may be public bodies that erroneously interpret the ruling or who will refuse (to grant access to documents) and we will end up having to bring the matter before the Quebec Access to Information Commission. But having a hearing before the Commission takes up to a year. That is a denial of democracy which prevents a citizen from exercising his democratic rights.”

    In a unanimous decision, the Quebec appeal court held that legal billings are prime facie protected by professional secrecy because it generally contains a description of accomplished tasks, services rendered and often advice given but the total amount of legal fees paid to a lawyer working on a mandate for public bodies, such as municipalities or school commissions, are not automatically covered by solicitor-client privilege.

    In a bid to reconcile the fundamental importance of privilege attached to the solicitor-client relationship with the principle of public access to documents, Trudel points out that Quebec appeal court Justice Paul Vézina introduced a two-step test. The first part of the test involves determining the “scope of the secrecy, that is whether the information is covered by solicitor-client privilege,” said Justice Vézina in a 19-page ruling in Kalogerakis c. Commission scolaire des Patriotes, 2017 QCCA 1253. Justices Robert Mainville and Denis Jacques (ad hoc) concurred with the August 22nd decision.

    If it is, then the second part of the test comes into play: “whether or not this is one of the rare cases where it is justified to dismiss and allow the disclosure of information that is otherwise inaccessible,” added Justice Vézina in a decision that overturned the judicial review by Quebec Superior Court Justice Suzanne Courchesne and restored a decision by Court of Quebec Justice Diane Quenneville in Kalogerakis c. Commission scolaire des Patriotes, 2014 QCCQ 4167.

    “With this decision, citizens and taxpayers will have more access to the total amount of legal fees disbursed by public bodies,” said Pageau. “There will be exceptions. It will always depend on whether disclosing the total amount will disclose confidential information. But now the burden of proof rests with public bodies to prove that.”

    The case dates back to 2010 when a journalist working for the tabloid Journal de Montréal sought to find out the amount that a Montreal suburb paid lawyers in a suit launched by a citizen. The newspaper also wanted to know how much four Quebec school commissions paid in legal fees in a class action suit that was filed against them. In both cases the Quebec Access to Information Commission refused to provide the information, holding that the amount of legal billings is information protected by solicitor-client privilege as per section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Commission relied, as it has for more than a decade, on the decision Commission des services juridiques c. Gagnier, [2004] CAl 568 – a ruling that held that legal billings are automatically protected by professional secrecy. “Since 2004, we could obtain nothing,” said Pageau. “It was systematic. As soon as we made a request for an access to information document asking how much in legal fees was spent in a case, they would simply respond we cannot because it was covered by solicitor-client privilege.”

    The City of Terrebonne, a Montreal bedroom community, and the four school commissions argued that disclosing legal billings would reveal the financial means it has to defend itself and could compromise its ability to reach an out-of-court settlements.

    Justice Vézina dismissed the arguments as speculative and unconvincing. He said that disclosing the total amount of legal billings does not infringe solicitor-client privilege in these cases because it does not reveal the services or advice provided by lawyers.

    Just as importantly, Justice Vézina held that the objective of the province’s Act respecting Access to documents held by public bodies and the Protection of personal information is to spur “informed debate” and that cities and elected officials are accountable to voters.

    “Municipalities have public funds to manage, and it is in the public’s interest to know what kind of resources a municipality devotes to legal fees,” noted Trudel. “That can be an indicator of how a municipality is managed. That is of public interest.”

    Legal counsel for both the City of Terrebonne and the school commissions did not return calls.

    This article originally appeared in The Lawyer’s Daily, published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.

  • Quebec notaries and lawyers lose legal battle against title insurers

    The governing bodies of the Quebec legal and notary professions lost a suit against American-based insurers after Quebec Superior Court held that they did not overstep their bounds in preparing, registering and discharging mortgages on real estate.

    In an eagerly-awaited decision that highlights the growing impact of technology on the legal profession, Justice Chantal Chatelaine held that insurers that offer title insurance do not practice law, do not provide legal opinions, and do not prepare or draw up mortgages.

    “The importance of the case has to do with the obstacles which can be put in the way of modernization and efficiency,” remarked Simon Potter, Ad. E., a Montreal lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault LLP who successfully plead the case on behalf of FCT Insurance and First Canadian Ltd, part of the global company FAF International.

    “This case revolved around whether rules governing who could do certain acts could be done only by lawyers or notaries or whether they could also be done by people trying to make life easier for banks or their borrowing customers. The judgment doesn’t at all say that lawyers and notaries should be worried about losing the exclusivity or monopoly over things which the statutes make exclusive for them.”

    But François Brochu, the director of the master’s program in notarial law at the Université Laval, described the ruling as “explosive” as it provides yet more clear-cut evidence that technology is “muddying the waters” in the legal marketplace.

    The decision also has the potential to increase title defects in Quebec, added Brochu. At present, titles in Quebec are generally in “very good shape” because notaries have systematically corrected defects, asserted Brochu. That in turn explains why the province is an enticing market for title insurers as there is very little risk to them, said Brochu.

    “There is a risk that titles will deteriorate in Quebec because title insurance does not really solve problems,” said Brochu. “It lets defects remain in place until it bursts which in turn can lead to higher insurance premiums. That is a real fear because that is what has happened virtually everywhere where title insurance has been established.”

    Sylvain Lussier, Ad. E., a Montreal lawyer with Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, who too successfully plead the case for Chicago and FNF Canada, whose parent company is US-based Fidelity National Financial Inc., doesn’t buy it. He believes this case boils down to a turf war.

    “Instead of looking forward, professional orders look back and drape themselves around the notion of the protection of the public even though the public is very happy because it costs them less,” said Lussier. “Since title insurance came to Quebec, there have been no complaints by the public. It’s only about corporatism, to protect its members, which is not part of the duty of professional corporations.”

    In a comprehensive 63-page ruling, Quebec Superior Court Justice Chantal Chatelain dismissed that viewpoint just as she dismissed arguments by the Chambre des notaires and the Barreau du Québec that the insurance companies performed acts that should be restricted only to their members. Both professional corporations sought a declaratory injunction to halt the practice by title insurers of “controlling the entire process” of preparing and drawing up legal acts, including verifying claims to land and providing legal advice and consultations. They also argued that it was title insurers who determine and pay fees to the acting notary. In short, acting notaries working for title insurers were but a “smokescreen,” argued the two organizations.

    Justice Chatelain pointed out that the Chambre de notaires affirmed numerous times over a stretch of several years, from 2003 to 2008, that the services provided by title insurers was legal and legitimate. Only when there was a change of leadership did the Chambre shift its position, noted Justice Chatelain. She also noted that the Chambre’s or the Barreau’s investigating officer never brought penal charges against any title insurers for the illegal practice of the profession.

    Echoing findings made by the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick in Law Society of New Brunswick v. FCT Insurance Company, 2009 NBCA 22, Justice Chatelain found that title insurers do not draw up or prepare mortgages.

    “They provide a processing service that essentially consists of filing in the blanks of a form in an automated fashion, with the help of information obtained by lending institutions,” said Justice Chatelain in Chambre des notaires du Québec c. Compagnie d’assurances FCT ltée/FCT Insurance Company Ltd., 2017 QCCS 3388.

    She also dismissed the contention made by the Chambre and the Barreau that notaries working for these firms were exempted from analyzing and verifying the filled-out forms that they receive. In fact, Justice Chatelaine pointed out that notaries are required to examine the information contained in the deed, provide advice and explanations to the lender, and execute notarial acts.

    “The court essentially ruled that nothing that the companies were doing was covered by the exclusive practice provisions,” noted Potter.

    The Chambre and the Barreau are now examining the ruling, and declined to comment.

    This article originally appeared in The Lawyer’s Daily , thelawyersdaily.ca published by LexisNexis Canada Inc.

  • Quebec Superior Court judges launch suit against governments

    In an extraordinary development at a time when the justice system in Quebec is grappling with the after-effects of the landmark Jordan ruling, Quebec Superior Court judges have launched a suit against the federal and provincial government over the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Quebec in some civil matters.

    (more…)

  • More than half of Quebec Bar members are women

    The number of lawyers in Quebec has grown by 17 per cent over the past decade, with women leading the charge and now representing more than half of the Quebec Bar, according to a survey by the Quebec legal society.

    (more…)

  • In-house counsel see salaries climb to 4.3% but are still unhappy

    The average annual salary of in-house counsel has risen over the past year yet massive numbers would not hesitate to scamper off to a new job, revealed a recent report.

    The median annual salary increase rate for all positions across industries climbed by 4.3 per cent, up a fraction from 2016, according to the BarkerGilmore 2017 In-House Counsel Compensation Report. More than 1,500 in-house counsel in the United States responded to the online survey that was conducted from March to May 2017.

    But that modest increase was not uniform across all sectors. In-house lawyers working in the tech sector experienced the largest upturn, with salaries up by 4.9 per cent, followed by those working in the professional services segment, with salaries rising by 4.8 per cent. At the tail end, in-house counsel employed by the financial sector and industrial and manufacturing received a paltry salary increase of 3.7 per cent, while those employed by the energy sector fared slightly better with a 3.9 per cent increase.

    Regardless of the salary increase, in-house counsel are not happy campers. A little less than half, or 43 per cent, believe their compensation is below or significantly below than their peers working elsewhere, with litigators reporting the greatest dissatisfaction. Those working in real estate and banking or finance however expressed the highest levels of satisfaction, with over 20 per cent reporting compensation or significantly above average.

    It’s no wonder then that at least one in three in-house counsel across all sectors assert there is a high or very high chance that they would consider a new job because of compensation issues. The figures are even more dismal when broken down by sector:

    • 47 per cent working in the energy sector say there is a high or very chance they will look elsewhere;
    • 44 per cent working in consumer, industrial and manufacturing, and technology sectors would do the same;
    • Those figures drop to 39 per cent working in financial, 38 per cent in life sciences and professional services, and 36 per cent in healthcare.

    The report also reveals compensation averages for general counsel, managing counsel, and senior counsel. And the gap between those working in the public and private sector is staggering. The size of the gap decreases however as the position level decreases.

    General counsel working for public companies, in the healthcare and technology sector, were the best paid, coming in at $857,343 and $837,500. General counsel working in the professional services sector were the lowest paid, with compensation standing at $412,900 for those employed by public companies and $272,500 in the private sector. All told, the variation swings from a low of $272,500 for in-house working in the private sector to a high of $495,000. Compensation for general counsel working for public companies was far more generous, ranging between $412,900 and nearly $860,00.

    Managing counsel fared even worse, with compensation ranging from $246,000 to $407,000 for those working in the private sector to $276,000 to $407,000 in the public sector.

    Senior counsel, the rank-and-file lawyers in a legal department, earned no more than $300,000, regardless of whether they worked in the private or public sector. The highest paid jobs for senior counsel were in life sciences, ranging between $227,500 and $281,927, while the lowest were those in the professional services, between $175,000 and $209,219.

    “Many leaders overlook the fact that creating a competitive advantage…requires not only an in-depth evaluation of the current legal spend, but a detailed comparison with specific data and information pertaining to counsel compensation,” warned the report. “Likewise, organizations must hire and/or retain the talent necessary to consistently improve efficiencies and find ways to maximize the business’ competitive advantage.”

    With great numbers of in-house counsel seeking greener pastures, it appears that leaders and organizations have their work cut out for them.

  • New Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs appointed

    Marc Giroux, who has expressed some reservations about Bill C-337, the bill that would compel judges who hear sexual assault matters to take mandatory legal education, has been appointed as Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, announced Federal Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould.

    Giroux, a 1989 graduate of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ottawa and three years later from the university’s Faculty of Law, has worked at the Office of Federal Judicial Affairs for the past 12 years, holding the positions of both Deputy Commissioner and Interim Commissioner.

    The Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs (FJA) was created in 1978 under an Act of Parliament of Canada to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and put federally appointed judges at arm’s length from the Department of Justice. It also prepares a list of judicial vacancies, oversees the application process, supports the 17 judicial advisory committees that assess candidates, and prepares for the minister a list of eligible candidates from which to appoint. The commissioner and the office independent from the Department of Justice.

    Tabled by interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose in February, Bill C-337 or the Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act, appears to be a solid idea but has raised concerns over the independence of the judiciary.

    Giroux, while deeming it to “completely fair and appropriate, in light of certain cases, that questions be asked about the training of judges in sexual assault law,” believes however that “the issue at stake is finding out the best way to achieve the objective.”

    In testimony before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women this April, Giroux points out that the bill as it currently stands would have those who want to become judges complete education in the area of sexual assault law before they are appointed. As an administrator of the judicial appointments process, his office normally receives over 500 applications per year generally. This year however it has received 700 applications in less than six months.

    “If education is to be provided before applicants become judges—that is, during the assessment process—and to a large number of candidates, our concern is that it will be more difficult to ensure they are properly educated, and that such training will not be exhaustive enough,” said Giroux.

    “The important priorities of, on the one hand, ensuring an efficient assessment process for candidates, and on the other, ensuring that candidates are properly educated in the area of sexual assault law may come into conflict, and one or both of these priorities may suffer as a result. The effects in essence could be twofold: the assessment of candidates may be delayed, and on the other hand, the education candidates receive on sexual assault law may be less than adequate.”

    Giroux believes that it may be best to provide such education once judges are newly appointed. The course could “perhaps” be approved by the Canadian Judicial Council.

    Giroux has also shown that he has some mettle.

    In 2014 Giroux, while FJA’s acting director, was involved in an imbroglio with the Public Service Commission, an independent agency charged with making appointments to the public service. But those powers can be delegated, in which case the PSC retains a supervisory function. The PSC granted the Federal Judicial Affairs its appointment and appointment-related powers — until it took away. And that in turn became the subject of a decision by the Federal Court of Canada.

    Here’s what happened. The FJA has since 1996 coordinated the involvement of the Canadian judiciary in international exchanges and in judicial and court reform projects abroad. But in April 2011 the program was in danger of collapsing after the director of its international programs division unexpectedly quit.

    Giroux, then the FJA’s acting director, approached Oleg Shakov, an Ottawa consultant who had done a similar job for the FJA from 2005 to 2009 and had the necessary skills and experience. Shakov initially declined but relented after another FJA official, Nikki Clemenhagen, proposed a one-year appointment. The new position was created, with an “English essential” language requirement. Shakov’s appointment became permanent in December 2012.

    In 2013, the investigative branch of the Public Service Commission got involved after it conducted a routine audit of the Federal Judicial Affairs and “discovered” possible irregularities in the appointment process. After a documentary review, and interviewing several people, the investigation concluded that both Giroux and Clemenhagen acted improperly by tailoring the position’s language requirements to fit Shakov’s unilingual profile, and by opting for a non-advertised process without justification. As a result, the PSC revoked Shakov’s appointment “even though he had no hand in it,” suspended Giroux’s and Clemenhagen’s appointment powers, and rescinded the FJA’s delegated authority to reappoint Mr. Shakov to a different position.

    But in 2015, days before Christmas, Federal Court of Canada Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer overturned the decision, holding that the PSC’s decision was unreasonable because it “failed to understand the quandary the FJA was in.”

    “The choices made by the Acting Commissioner came within his broad managerial discretion, as intended by Parliament in enacting the Public Service Employment Act,, considering the situation with which he was faced,” said Justice Tremblay-Lamer in Shakov v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 FC 1416. “His actions were an entirely reasonable short-term solution immediately available – and indeed it seems to have been the only possible decision.”

  • New federal director of Public Prosecutions appointed

    Federal Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould announced the appointment of Kathleen Roussel, a former criminal lawyer, as the next director of Public Prosecutions.

    Roussel, who graduated from the University of Ottawa’s French Common Law Program in 1992 and called to the bar in 1994, practised criminal law in Ottawa before joining the Department of Justice in 2001 as senior Counsel and director of the Canadian Firearms Centre Legal Services. Roussel then served as senior General Counsel and executive director of the Environment Legal Services Unit at the Department of Justice Canada (2005-2008) until her appointment as deputy director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in April 2013.

    Roussel, a native of Baie-Comeau, Quebec, will serve as the new director for the next seven years, in accordance with the Director of Public Prosecutions Act.

    The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), created on December 2006, with the coming into force of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, is an independent prosecution service mandated to prosecute offences under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. The PPSC reports to Parliament through the Attorney General of Canada.

    Here is a video of Roussel responding to questions about her appointment as director of Public Prosecutions before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

  • Quebec Bar president donates part of his salary

    The new president of the Quebec Bar is donating a quarter of his salary, or approximately $80,000, to either an access to justice initiative or a scholarship fund.

    (more…)

  • Federal government announced two new appointments as well as a reshuffle in the Quebec courts

    Barely a week after Quebec Minister of Justice Stephanie Vallée called on the federal government yet again to quickly appoint 10 new Superior Court justices in the province, the federal government announced two new appointments as well as a shake-up in the Quebec courts.

    The latest appointments still falls short of what the Quebec government has been demanding. The president of the Quebec Bar, Paul-Matthieu Grondin, said in a tweet published shortly after the nominations that “the federal government MUST appoint judges to the Quebec Superior Court. Yesterday’s appointments are far from enough.”

    Still, the new appointments and the reshuffle is nevertheless widely expected to make a dent in the backlog of cases that have plagued the Quebec criminal justice system, particularly since the landmark Jordan decision by the Supreme Court of Canada issued last summer.

    Despite significant investments and the appointment of 20 Court of Quebec judges over the past six months by the Quebec government to curb delays in the criminal justice system, Quebec is struggling. The number of Jordan-related requests for a stay of proceedings keeps on surging. There were 895 Jordan applications as of late May, up from 684 at the end of March 2017.

    Provincial attorney generals across the country hoping the SCC would back down from the trial timelines set by the Jordan ruling were disappointed after the nation’s highest court unequivocally reaffirmed them recently in R v. Cody 2017 SCC 31. In a unanimous decision, the SCC made it plain that it will not yield to provincial attorneys general struggling with the Jordan timelines.

    Thanks to the appointments and reorganization, there will be four more Quebec Superior Court judges. Over the past month federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Jody Wilson-Raybould appointed seven new Quebec Superior Court judges.

    Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Étienne Parent and his colleague Jean-François Émond are heading back to Quebec Superior Court while Quebec Superior Court Justices Simon Ruel and Jocelyn Rancourt were appointed to the appeal court. Also Montreal lawyer Peter Kalichman and Quebec City family lawyer Marie-France Vincent were appointed as Quebec Superior Court Justices.

    Biographies

    Quebec Court of Appeal Justice Étienne Parent, who was appointed as a puisne judge in June 2015, was appointed as a Superior Court judge in Shawinigan. He replaces Quebec Superior Justice Raymond Pronovost, who chose to become a supernumerary judge in July 2016. A 1982 graduate from Université Laval who was admitted to the Québec Bar the following year, Justice Parent led the Quebec Superior Court Commercial Division for the District of Québec from 2007 to 2011, and then became coordinating judge for the District of Arthabaska, a position he held until his appointment to the Court of Appeal.

    In a case of musical chairs, Quebec Appeal Court Justice Jean-François Émond was appointed as a Quebec Superior Court judge for the district of Quebec City, replacing Justice Simon Ruel, who has been elevated to the Quebec Court of Appeal. Justice Émond, received his civil law degree from Université Laval in 1988 and was called to the Quebec Bar in 1989, practised law with the firms of Stein Monast from 2007 to 2009, Desjardins Ducharme Stein Monast from 2003 to 2007, and Huot Laflamme (Marquis Huot) from 1988 to 2003. In May 2009, Justice Émond was named a judge of Quebec Superior Court, and became the coordinating judge of the Commercial Division for the district of Quebec City from 2010 to 2014. In June 2014, Justice Émond was appointed to the Quebec Court of Appeal.

    Justice Ruel, who was appointed to the Quebec Superior Court in 2014, practised mainly in public and administrative law and government affairs while a lawyer. A member of the Quebec Bar (1995) and of the Law Society of Upper Canada (2007), he began his career with the firm Grey Casgrain, and then became a litigator and counsel to the federal Department of Justice, the Privy Council Office, and the Department of Finance. Before his appointment, he was a partner with the firm BCF Business Law in Quebec City; previously, he had been a partner with Heenan Blaikie.

    Justice Ruel participated as counsel in numerous federal and provincial public inquiries and investigations, including the federal Commission of Inquiry into the Sponsorship Program and Advertising Activities, the Cornwall Public Inquiry, and the Commission of Inquiry on the Process for Appointing Judges. He also participated in the coroner’s inquest into deaths caused by Legionnaires’ disease in Quebec City in 2012 and represented the Manitoba Commission of Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Phoenix Sinclair. Justice Ruel currently serves on the executive of the Canadian Bar Association Judges’ Forum.

    Newly appointed Quebec appeal court justice Rancourt received a Bachelor’s of Social Science (industrial relations) from Université Laval in 1981 and a law degree from the same university in 1984. Admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1985, he began his legal career with McDougall Caron in Montreal. In 1988, he joined the firm of Ogilvy Renault (now Norton Rose Fulbright) to practise labour and employment law. Justice Rancourt was national chair of the firm’s labour and employment law group and a member of its national executive committee until his appointment to the Superior Court of Quebec in June 2015. Justice Rancourt published numerous articles and made presentations at conferences on topics related to human rights, labour law, and occupational health and safety.

    Superior Court Justice Kalichman, a well-known Montreal civil and commercial litigator, was prior to his appointment a partner at Irving Mitchell Kalichman LLP. A B.A. graduate from McGill University before attending the Université de Montréal, where he earned a law degree, Justice Kalichman practised as a trial lawyer. He also acted as an arbitrator on the Conseil d’arbitrage des comptes des avocats du Barreau du Québec. Throughout his career, Justice Kalichman received wide recognition for his accomplishments as a trial lawyer, including being named a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which is recognized as the preeminent organization of trial lawyers in North America. Apart from his involvement in law, Justice Kalichman has been an active member of Montreal’s Jewish community over the past 25 years.

    Justice Vincent, who too graduated from Laval University in 1995, was admitted to the Quebec Bar in 1996. She specialized in family law and became a certified family mediator in 2007. She served as a board member of the Association des familialistes de Québec where she from 2009 and was president from 2011 to 2013.

     

     

  • Quebec government appoints three new judges

    The Quebec government is ramping its judicial appointments to ease the growing backlog of cases in the justice system.

    (more…)

Law in Quebec
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognizing you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.