<?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>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>MFDA panel finds that branch manager might have duty to monitor non-registrants at branch</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 21:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broker/Dealer litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branch manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MFDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual fund dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supervision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1375</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The self regulatory organization for mutual fund dealers, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (&#34;MFDA&#34;), made an interesting decision on May 8, 2012 on a motion by a branch manager to strike out a regulatory proceeding arising from allegations that he failed to adequately monitor and report the wrongful activities of an insurance salesperson [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mutual fund leveraging class action certified</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[borrowing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leveraging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Concepts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shaughnessy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suitability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In&#160; a decision released in February, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. B. Shaughnessy certified a class action against mutual fund dealer Investia Financial Services Incorporated, its franchisee, Money Concepts (Barrie), and two of its former registered salespersons, David Karas and James Stephenson, relating to allegedly improper leveraging strategies that were used in the purchase of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada sets the rules on when Canadian courts have jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:31:37 +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[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Club Resorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conrad Black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Breda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier today, Canada&#39;s Supreme Court released a trilogy of long-awaited decisions in which it set universal rules on when courts across Canada can properly take jurisdiction over claims against foreign defendants. The first two cases, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda et al. and Club Resorts Ltd. v. Charron et al., related to claims brought [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>
	</channel>
</rss>

