Lawyer Profile Detail
Carole J. Piovesan
Osgoode Hall Law School
Carole Piovesan is an associate in our litigation department. Ms Piovesan's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, professional negligence and appellate advocacy.
Ms Piovesan is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School where she obtained her JD in 2010. She is also a graduate of the London School of Economics and Political Science where she received her MSc with distinction. She is the recipient of various awards including the Dean's Gold Key award (Osgoode Hall Law School), the Loch Exhibition award (University of London) and the inaugural Toronto French School Alumni of Distinction award.
Prior to law school Ms Piovesan served as a Policy Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and a Senior Policy Advisor at the Department of Foreign Affairs where she advised on Middle East politics. Ms Piovesan has worked with counterparts throughout North America, Europe, Central American and West Africa. She is proficient in French and Spanish.
Ms Piovesan is a contributor to the Canadian Appeals Monitoring blog and has published in the Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Review. In 2013, Ms Piovesan was featured by ASAP Reporting Services Inc. in its Young Legal Talent Program.
Ms Piovesan is a mentor to law students at Osgoode Hall Law School and sits on the Board of Directors of the school’s International Legal Partnership organization. She is an active member of the firm’s Unaccompanied Minors Project, a pro bono initiative that provides assistance to minors advancing claims for refugee status before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Ms Piovesan is a former executive member of the Ontario Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division and a former director of Working Skills Centre, an academic service that helps people find jobs in Toronto, including immigrants and the long-term unemployed.
- Hayes v. Mahoney, 2014, successfully obtained dismissal of the action on the basis that claim had no merit
- Moghadam v. York University, 2014, successfully responded to judicial review application in which the court dismissed the application on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction to consider any of the issues
- Foster v. Johnston, 2014, successful motion to arrange defence medical assessments of the plaintiff in preparation for trial
- Pettenuzzo v. Medad, successfully defended against allegations of medical malpractice at trial
- Varlukhina v. Gare, 2013, successfully obtained dismissal of the action on the basis that the limitation period had expired and the plaintiff was statute-barred from bringing her claim
- R. v. Muyco, 2012, successfully defended accused who was alleged to have sexually assaulted a patient. This case was featured in The Lawyers Weekly (“Hallucination' defence accepted", May 25, 2012)
- Carterra Management Inc. v. Palm Holdings Canada Inc., 2011, successfully defended against motion to remove McCarthy Tétrault as solicitors of record
- Carterra Management Inc. v. Palm Holdings Canada Inc., 2011, successfully obtained certificate of pending litigation in contract dispute over real property
- Simpler is Better: Third Party Claims Struck for Efficiency and Proportionality in Recent Court of Appeal Decision. (Canadian Appeals Monitor)
- Caution! Forum Selection Clause Does Not Guarantee Your Choice of Forum. (2 C.L.A.R., November 2013)
- Court of Appeal Accepts Ontario Jurisdiction Despite Forum Selection Clause for Germany. (Canadian Appeals Monitor)
- Clock Starts with the Act of Fraud: U.S. Supreme Court Confirms Five-Year Limitation Period for Government Enforcement Proceedings. (Canadian Appeals Monitor)
- Speak Your Mind: Third Party Communications in Class Actions Clarified by Appellate Court. (ASAP Reporting Services Inc., Young Legal Talent Program)
- The Penalty Doctrine: Focus on Substance Not Form Says The High Court of Australia. (Canadian Appeals Monitor)
- The SCC Clarifies the “Real and Substantial Connection Test. (McCarthy Tetrault website)
- Supreme Court of Canada to Rule on “Preferable Procedure” Inquiry in Class Actions. (Canadian Appeals Monitor)
- Providing Debt Financing Does Not Necessarily Equal Control: “Canadian-Controlled” under s.16(3)(c) of the Telecommunications Act Clarified. (Canadian Appeals Monitor
McCarthy Tétrault hosts an Evening with Kathleen Taylor, Chair of RBC