Bogdan Catanu

Attorney in Montreal, QC
Bogdan Catanu is a partner of the firm.

He has a diverse commercial litigation practice and represents public and private corporations, as well as their officers, directors, shareholders, auditors, contractual partners or creditors in commercial disputes.

He has a solid experience in complex contractual matters, liability of professionals, such as lawyers and accountants, oppression remedies and rights of shareholders. He has also represented clients on many occasions in the context of injunction proceedings and in commercial arbitrations.

In recent years, he played a leading role in the defense of BCE Inc.'s privatization worth approximately 52 billion, which was being contested by a group of bondholders, and subsequently in defending the purchasers sued by BCE Inc. for a 1.2 billion break - up fee. He also played a key role in the litigation surrounding the restructuring of the Asset - Backed Commercial Paper market worth 32 billion.


Portee des clauses de non - concurrence dans un contrat de vente d'entreprise versus dans un contrat de travail - quelques distinctions importantes, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 497.

Tout mecanisme contractuel pourra etre juge contraire a l'ordre public s'il permet a une partie d'etre exoneree des consequences de sa faute lourde, meme si la victime du prejudice n'est pas privee de reparation, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 505.

L'admissibilite en preuve de l'enregistrement d'une conversation effectue a l'insu d'une partie dans une instance civile, Bogdan Catanu, CRL Blog, (2011) CRL 502.

Measuring the Results of Class Actions, Bogdan Catanu & James A. Woods, International Bar Association Conference on Class Actions, Rome, 2007.

Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitral Awards in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, James A. Woods & Bogdan Catanu, First Annual Energy Dispute Resolution Conference, Alberta, 2006.

Civil Rights Wronged: the Supreme Court Has Stacked the Deck in the Government's Favour in Upholding B.C.'s Right to Sue the Tobacco Industry, Bogdan Catanu, National Post, 2005.

Supreme Court of Canada Favours Broad Whistle - Blower Protection, Bogdan Catanu, Canadian Employment Law Today, 2005.


Named by the Lexpert magazine amongst the best attorneys in Canada under the age of 40 -Lexpert Rising Stars: Leading Lawyers Under 40 in November 2014.

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating N/A help_info

Areas of Law

  • Civil Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corporate Litigation
  • Contract Litigation
  • Administrative Law
  • Insolvency
  • Corporate Partnerships
  • Corporate Law
  • Class Actions
  • Public Law
  • Real Estate
  • Securities Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Real Estate Foreclosures
  • Business Litigation
  • Banking Litigation
  • Lenders Security
  • Security Enforcement


Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in 2002, Quebec Bar

Additional Payment Information
  • Fixed Hourly Rates
  • Law School Attended

    Université de Montréal, Faculty of Law
    Class of 2001
    Bachelor in Law


    English; French; Romanian; Spanish; German

    Associations & Memberships

    Montreal Bar School, teacher in civil liabilityASSOCIATIONS
    Qu... More

    Representative Cases

    REPRESENTATIVE MANDATES: Complex contractual disputes and corporate litigation Representing Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board, Providence Equity Partners, and Madison Dearborn Capital Partners in defense against BCE Inc.'s claim for a $1.2 billion break-up fee following the termination of BCE Inc.'s proposed privatization. Representing Ontario T... More

    Contact Information




    Send email to Bogdan Catanu

    Woods LLP (Montreal, Quebec)

    About Client Rating
    About Peer Rating

    Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

    Determining a Rating

    The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

    • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
    • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
    • 1-2.9 Rated

    Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

    The Reviewers

    Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


    Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

    Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

    Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

    Martindale-Hubbell's role

    Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

    It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.