<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Jennifer Dyck</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/jdyck/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Shot Gun Control: Parties must comply strictly with terms of shot gun clauses, says Ontario’s highest court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent decision of Zeubear Investments Ltd.&#160;v.&#160;Magi Seal Corporation[1], the Court of Appeal for Ontario had the opportunity to consider the proper interpretation of a shot gun (buy-sell) provision in a shareholders agreement. Ultimately, the court concluded that, in order to obtain the benefit of such a clause, a shareholder must strictly comply with [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Jennifer Dyck, and Christian Farahat.

Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the last 12 months, plus some US and EU developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Hard time for hard core cartels</li>
<li>Class action requirements loosened</li>
<li>Suncor - Petro-Canada merger gets green light</li>
<li>Nadeau’s feathers ruffled by Tribunal</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributers: Kenneth Dekker, Jennifer Dyck, Christian Farahat, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Osborne.

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Ontario.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Norwich orders: Recent developments in the right to pre-action discovery in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous emails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory emails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet anonymity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norwich order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pre-action discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[production of documents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent Ontario decisions, GEA Group AG v. Ventura Group Co. and York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises and Rogers Communications Inc. have clarified the circumstances under which courts should grant the extraordinary equitable remedy of pre-action discovery, commonly known as a Norwich order.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

