Use of cookies by
Norton Rose Fulbright
We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details and instructions on how to disable those cookies are set out at By continuing to use this website you agree to our use of our cookies unless you have disabled them.

Caroline Deschênes

Senior Associate

Caroline  Deschênes


T:+1 514.847.6071

Caroline Deschênes is a commercial and civil litigator dealing mainly with matters relating to class actions, privacy and access to information, product liability, construction and professional liability. She acts on behalf of clients before the trial and appeal courts and the administrative tribunals of Quebec. She also advises clients on cybersecurity and privacy breaches, including in the life sciences and healthcare sector.

Ms. Deschênes has represented clients in a number of pharmaceutical liability, consumer law and civil liability class actions. She has also participated in proceedings involving insurers and professionals, including before disciplinary bodies. Ms. Deschênes also handles lottery disputes.


[+Open all]
  • Education

    LL.M., University of Cambridge, 2006
    B.C.L./LL.B., McGill University, 2004

  • Admissions
    • Quebec 2007
  • Rankings and recognitions
    • Dean’s List, Faculty of Law, McGill University
  • Publications
    • Commentary on Lalande v. Compagnie d'arrimage de Québec ltée – The Superior Court interprets new Article 221 CCP regarding examinations on discovery, November 2016 (Article in French only : Commentaire sur la décision Lalande c. Compagnie d'arrimage de Québec ltée – La Cour supérieure interprète le nouvel article 221 C.p.c. sur l'interrogatoire préalable, Repères, November 2016, EYB2016REP2080 (La Référence))
    • Quebec Superior Court dismisses the first class action tried on the merits in the pharmaceutical area, Legal update, Norton Rose Fulbright, November 2016
    • Class actions and privacy: how to avoid them?, September 2016 (Article in French only: Chronique – Les actions collectives et la vie privée : comment les éviter ? Repères, September 2016, EYB2016REP2032 (La Référence))
    • Commentary on Gagnon v. General Motors of Canada – staying an application for authorization to institute a multijurisdictional class action under the Code of Civil Procedure and taking into account the interest of the Quebec members, July 2016 (Article in French only:  Commentaire sur la décision Gagnon c. General Motors of Canada – La suspension d'une demande d'autorisation d'une action collective multiterritoriale en vertu du nouveau Code de procédure civile et la considération de l'intérêt des membres québécois, Repères, July 2016, EYB2016REP2032 (La Référence))
    • Regulated contracts: Quebec Court of Appeal confirms applicable laws and regulations of public order are not external clauses, Legal update, Norton Rose Fulbright, February 2015
    • Commentary on Léonard v. Quebec (Attorney General) – The fact a class action is instituted and led by plaintiffs' counsel does not have a determining impact on the analysis of the criterion set out in Article 1003(d) CCP, January 2015 (Article in French only:  Commentaire sur la décision Léonard c. Québec (Procureure générale) – Le fait que le recours soit intenté et dirigé par les avocats en demande n'a pas d'impact déterminant   sur l'analyse du critère de l'article 1003d) C.p.c., Repères, January 2015, EYB2015REP1637 (La Référence))
    • Commentary on Cooperstock v. United Air Lines inc., April 2014 (Article in French only:  Commentaire sur la décision Cooperstock c. United Air Lines inc. – La Cour d'appel a de nouveau l'occasion de préciser l'application des articles 54.1 et suivants C.p.c., Repères, April 2014, EYB2014REP1513 (La Référence))
    • Examination of class members: summary of case-law principles and application, September 2014 (Article in French only:  Chronique – L'interrogatoire des membres du groupe : rappel des principes et application jurisprudentielle, Repères, September 2014, EYB2014REP1581 (La Référence))
    • Commentary on Lorrain v. Petro-Canada, May 2013 (Article in French only:  Commentaire sur la décision Lorrain c. Petro-Canada – La preuve de préjudice statistique dans le cadre d'une demande d'autorisation d'exercer un recours collectif : la Cour d'appel se prononce, Repères, May 2013, EYB2013REP1346 (La Référence))
    • Appropriate evidence at the class action authorization stage: where does the expert report fit in?, November 2012 (Article in French only:  Chronique – La preuve appropriée au stade de l'autorisation d'exercer un recours collectif : qu'en est-il du rapport d'expertise ? Repères, November 2012, EYB2012REP1268 (La Référence))
  • Memberships and activities
    • Canadian Bar Association
    • Montreal Association of Insurance Women