Geoffroy articled at Carranza Barristers & Solicitors where he practices exclusively personal injury and insurance litigation since his call to the bar. He regularly argues before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Financial Services Commission and Federal Review Tribunals. He has also worked for one of the world’s largest insurance companies, and for a leading intellectual property law firm in Paris, France.

Geoffroy grew up in Washington, D.C., Paris, and Buenos Aires, before immigrating to Montreal. He obtained law and economics degrees in English, French and Spanish, ranked first at his Master’s project and graduated youngest in his class. In 2010, he also obtained a Certificate in Portuguese from the University of Toronto. His language skills improve solicitor-client communication, which can translate into better case assessments or objections to improper interpretations of evidence during proceedings.

Geoffroy believes that in order to be an effective advocate, you must educate yourself on a variety of subjects in addition to law. His passion outside of his practice is to learn about science, economics, health, and sociology. Geoffroy understands that to build a strong personal injury case and present it to an increasingly diverse audience, you must strive to be both multidisciplinary and multicultural.

Memberships

• Canadian Bar Association
• Ontario Trial Lawyers Association
• Hispanic Ontario Lawyers Association

Education

• Certificate in Portuguese, University of Toronto (2010)
• Admitted to Ontario Bar, Law Society of Upper Canada (2006)
• Master’s in International Trade, University of Madrid Faculty of Economics (M.A., 2004)
• Juris Doctor of Common Law, University of Ottawa Law School (J.D., 2003)
• Bachelor of Civil Law, University of Ottawa Law School (LL.L., 2002)

Noteworthy Cases

• Atwal v. Erb - 83 O.R. (3d) 546) [2006]: Ms. Atwal was injured in a car accident, and sued in Superior Court the driver of the car and the company that owned the car. A year and a half after issuing the lawsuit, it was discovered that the defendant driver of the car was working at the time of the accident. Almost six months later, the Court of Appeal confirmed that employers are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees during work, and are unprotected defendants under the Insurance Act. This means compensation is available from them for certain categories of damages not usually available in car accidents. The insurer for the company tried to prevent our client from adding the allegation of vicarious liability to the claim. Geoffroy Pavillet successfully convinced the Court that the allegations were not a substantive or novel cause of action, and Justice Fragomeni allowed Ms. Atwal to make the changes.
• Poblete v. Wawanesa Insurance - [2009] O.F.S.C.: This case brought before the Financial Services Commission involved the improper denial of accident benefits including income replacement benefits and medical and rehabilitation benefits. Geoffroy Pavillet convinced the Arbitrator that Wawanesa Insurance had acted improperly in reaching its determination. The decision reads that in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary it was not reasonable for Wawanesa Insurance to rely selectively on the Insurer’s Examinations of health practitioners who ignored or downplayed his client’s pain complaints. It was also agreed that the insurer’s behaviour imposed unnecessary financial uncertainty and hardship on Mr. Poblete, which it had sufficient information to have foreseen. In addition to obtaining the retroactive reinstatement of income replacement benefits with interest and the payment of multiple medical benefits, Wawanesa was ordered to pay Mr. Poblete a Special Award.
• Bhardwaj v. Minister of Human Resources & Skills Development [2010]: This case, argued on appeal before a Federal Review Tribunal, involved an assessment of the transferable skills of an immigrant with many years of work experience as an electronics repair technician. Geoffroy Pavillet argued that the only identifiable occupation that was compatible with Mr. Bhardwaj’s education, training and experience was that of appliance technician, in view of changing market demands. The Panel agreed that the job of appliance technician was more physically demanding and therefore incompatible with Mr. Bhardwaj’s fibromyalgia, and Mr. Bhardwaj’s CPP disability benefits were granted.