<?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; Kenneth Dekker</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/kdekker/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Oppression class actions now recognized in both British Columbia and Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In recent years, much attention has been paid to amendments to provincial Securities Acts across Canada that make it easier for shareholders to sue for misrepresentations by public companies in financial statements and other public documents... <br /><br />During this period significantly less attention has been paid to whether shareholder class actions might be brought under another and potentially much broader statutory remedy: the oppression remedy under one of the provincial or federal business corporations statutes. However, this may be changing.  <br /><br />Originally published in The Lawyers Weekly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IIROC Increases mandatory arbitration award limits to $500,000</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment industry regulatory association of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invetment dealers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sro]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 14, 2010, the Investment Industry Regulatory Association of Canada (“IIROC”), the self regulatory organization (SRO) that regulates all investment dealers in Canada, enacted what is almost certain to be a major expansion of its 15-year-old mandatory arbitration program.  In particular, IIROC has increased from $100,000 to $500,000 the upper limit on client claims that are required to be resolved through binding arbitration if the client requests it.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</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=835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C., Kenneth Dekker, Michael Osborne, Fiona Campbell (Articling Student), and Brigid Wilkinson (Summer Student)

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Canada.
<ul><li>Insurance companies hit with $455.7 million class action judgment</li>
<li>Court of Appeal comes to the fork in the road – and takes it</li>
<li>Alberta appeal court overturns unprecedented damages award to dismissed investment advisor</li>
<li>Judgment granted in Ontario’s first-ever environmental tort class action</li>
<li>The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes – Its time has come!</li>
<li>Court refuses to add to the contractual obligations of the vendor of a business</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal reconsiders test for jurisdiction over foreign defendants</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflicts of Law and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alberta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum non conveniens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interprovincial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morguard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muscutt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order and fairness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Breda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volkswagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World-Wide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario revised the legal test to be applied when the Ontario courts are asked to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.  The Court’s decision in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. clarifies the applicable legal principles and should provide greater guidance to Ontario courts on whether and when they can properly take jurisdiction over foreign defendants.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/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>Kenneth Dekker</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>Statements to Securities Commission are protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraleigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MFDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual fund dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newbould]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quasi-judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uniform termination notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his decision this Fall in Fraleigh v. RBC Dominion Securities, Ontario Superior Court Justice Newbould summarily dismissed an action brought by John Fraleigh against RBC Dominion Securities and one of its employees. The action was brought for allegedly false statements and testimony given before the Ontario Securities Commission claiming unusual trading activity in his RBC trading accounts – information that was later published in media reports. In dismissing Fraleigh’s action, Justice Newbould found that the claim arose entirely from testimony and other related communications to the OSC; communications that are protected by absolute privilege.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Recent Ontario cases highlight the scope of the oppression remedy – and its limitations</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/03/recent-ontario-cases-highlight-the-scope-of-the-oppression-remedy-%e2%80%93-and-its-limitations/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/03/recent-ontario-cases-highlight-the-scope-of-the-oppression-remedy-%e2%80%93-and-its-limitations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bondholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bulls eye]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colin Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[complainant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cumming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debentureholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fedel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[J.S.M.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Colin Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario superior court of justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shopping mall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While the corporate oppression remedy is a broad remedy that can provide relief to a wide range of shareholders and certain other stakeholders harmed when a corporation is run contrary to their reasonable expectations, it will not provide relief to arm’s length contracting parties who later find that their contract does not give them the protection they want.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/03/recent-ontario-cases-highlight-the-scope-of-the-oppression-remedy-%e2%80%93-and-its-limitations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court nixes challenge to ABCP restructuring</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABCP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CCAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colin Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jean Coutu Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liquidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mansfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metcalfe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purdy Crawford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructuring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the approval of an all-encompassing restructuring plan for the Canadian market in Asset-Backed Commercial Paper and put an end to all legal challenges relating to what is now appearing to be merely the first Canadian chapter in a financial crisis that has since swept the globe.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Securities Commission panel decisions criticize regulators’ disclosure practices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stinchcombe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent OSC decisions have sided against securities regulators on issues of documentary disclosure. In one case, an OSC panel found that there had been too much disclosure by OSC staff and, in another case, there had not been enough disclosure.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose book of business is it, anyway?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:13:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adviser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[book of business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=166</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are few, if any, legal issues affecting the investment industry that are more cloudy and less certain than whether investment firm clients belong to the investment advisor or to the investment firm. And there are arguably few issues more important.&#160; An investment firm&#8217;s financial bottom line is tied to the number of clients and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/whose-book-of-business-is-it-anyway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

