Lawyer, Partner - Montréal
Véronique Roy is a litigation practitioner at Langlois lawyers, LLP in Montreal.
She acts in matters primarily involving civil and professional liability, insurance law and constitutional law. She also advises clients involved in contract disputes. She is frequently called upon to draft appeal factums and legal opinions on complex issues, and works on files at all levels of the civil courts.
She has also developed significant expertise in negotiating out-of-court dispute settlements.
She has published articles on contractual, extra-contractual, constitutional matters, as well as on the subject of arbitration.
After graduating from law school with Great Distinction, she clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada for Justice Louis LeBel in 2007-2008.
Involved in the community and dedicated to the cause of access to justice, Véronique has acted pro bono in a number of matters. She is also actively involved in the Legal Information Clinic at McGill University and has sat on its board of directors since 2010. In 2017, she was nominated for an award in the Social Involvement /Pro bono category at the Leaders of Tomorrow gala of the Montreal Young Bar association.
B.C.L./LL.B. (High Distinction), McGill University, 2006
M.A. (Political Science), McGill University, 2003
B.A. (Communications), University of Québec in Montréal, 2000
Areas of Practice
Victory for a Langlois Client at the Supreme Court of Canada
Langlois’ appellate advocacy group acted as advisory counsel to the appellant in the context of the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Teva Canada Ltd. v. TD Canada Trust, a significant decision in banking and fraud law.
Represents the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court of Québec in a reference on the constitutionality of certain legislative provisions conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Québec.
Represents insurers in defence against actions based on civil and professional liability.
Represented a corporation in injunctive proceedings to enjoin breach of contract inducement.
Represented a corporation in litigation involving the ownership of a navigable and floatable lake.
Represented a corporation in a contract dispute involving the Copyright Act and the Act respecting the Development of Quebec Firms in the Book Industry.
Represented hospitals and health & social services centres, as well as their employees, in the area of civil and professional liability.
Represented a federal and a provincial Crown corporation in defence against various class actions.
Represented on a pro bono, on two occasions, basis a not-for-profit organization in a constitutional law case involving physician-assisted dying.
Co-author with Sean Griffin, “Commentaire sur la décision R. c. Comeau – La Cour suprême confirme le précédent de l’arrêt Gold Seal, 100 ans plus tard” (Case comment on R. v. Comeau – the Supreme Court confirms the Gold Seal precedent, 100 years on) in Repères, EYB2018REP2477, June 2018.
“Commentaire sur la décision Gendron c. Bourassa Chevrolet Buick GMC ltée – La Cour supérieure confirme l’existence d’un recours récursoire entre débiteurs in solidum” (Case comment on Gendron v. Bourassa Chevrolet Buick GMC ltée – the Superior Court confirms that a recursory action lies between joint and several debtors), in Repères, EYB2018REP2426, March 2018
Co-author with Sean Griffin of “Commentaire sur la décision Association canadienne pour les armes à feu c. Procureure générale du Québec – Un débat constitutionnel à plusieurs facettes : à qui revient le pouvoir de légiférer quant au contrôle des armes à feu ?” (Case comment on Association canadienne pour les armes à feu v. Procureure générale du Québec – A multi-facetted constitutional debate: which jurisdiction has the power to legislate on gun control?) in Repères, EYB2018REP2413, February 2018
“Commentaire sur la décision Lalande v. Dumais – Une limite à la liberté d’expression d’un élu: l’atteinte à la réputation de son propre conseiller municipal” (Case comment on Lalande v. Dumais – A limit on the freedom of expression of an elected official: reputational damage to his own municipal councillor) in La Référence, EYB2017REP2356, November 2017
“Commentaire sur la décision Séguin c. Pelletier – La frontière ténue entre le respect du débat démocratique et la diffamation” (Case comment on Séguin v. Pelletier – the fine line between democratic debate and defamation), in Repères, EYB2017REP2268, July 2017.
“Commentaire sur la décision Gauthier c. Salehabadi – La Cour supérieure réaffirme la liberté d’expression d’une journaliste dans le contexte d’un article d’opinion” (Case comment on Gauthier v. Salehabadi – The Superior Court reaffirms the freedom of expression of a journalist in the context of an opinion piece), in Repères, EYB2017REP2146, February 2017.
Co-author with Marie-Josée Hogue of an article on conventional arbitration (L’arbitrage conventionnel) in a collective work on alternative dispute resolution overseen by Professor Pierre-Claude Lafond entitled Régler autrement des différends, LexisNexis, 2015 (second edition to be published in 2018).
Co-author with Marie-Josée Hogue of an article on arbitration (Arbitrages) published in fascicule 27 of the loose-leaf publication JurisClasseur Québec –Procédure civile II, LexisNexis.
2005-2006; 2010-present: Legal Information Clinic at McGill University
2013-2014: Quebec Association for the Right to Die with Dignity
Since 2017 – Member of the health committee of the FCCQ
Since 2017 – Member of the Association of Québec Women in Finance