<?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; Meredith Hayward</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/mhayward/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>Reasonable notice periods still not “one size fits all”</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know that “rule of thumb” of one month notice for each year of employment? The one we use as a rough guideline for getting in the ballpark when determining a reasonable notice periods? The Court of Appeal has reminded us that the “rule of thumb” may not even get you near the ballpark when dealing with senior, high salaried employees.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Contracting parties beware: Court of Appeal implies duty of good faith</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/contracting-parties-beware-court-of-appeal-implies-duty-of-good-faith/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/contracting-parties-beware-court-of-appeal-implies-duty-of-good-faith/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty of good faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entire agreement clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[implied terms]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=192</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently held that, in certain circumstances, contracting parties owe a duty of good faith to one another and, further, that an "entire agreement" clause will not preclude the implication of a duty of good faith as a term of a contract.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/12/contracting-parties-beware-court-of-appeal-implies-duty-of-good-faith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When an expert is not really an expert</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Ontario Superior Court decision serves as a strong reminder that counsel should ensure that their expert witness is in fact an expert and not merely an advocate dressed up as an expert.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada confirms litigation privilege of limited duratio</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it 'expires with the litigation of which it was born.']]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: MEREDITH HAYWARD, KENNETH DEKKER, PAUL EMERSON, KYLE PETERSON,AND ADAM WYGODNY SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CONFIRMS LITIGATION PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED DURATION In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it &#8220;expires with the litigation of which it was born.&#8221; &#8230; and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Foundations of Effective Cross-Examination</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Sep 2006 20:58:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cross-examine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examining witnesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[impeachment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International and Domestic Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[questioning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witness statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=203</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cross-examination is an invaluable tool at trial. The ultimate challenge for a trial lawyer is to extract information from the opponent's witnesses to support their client's case and/or undermine the credibility of the opponent's position. While no substitute exists for experience I have tried to outline some practical guidelines to assist those who are developing their own style and techniques.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/foundations-of-effective-cross-examination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mediation Confidentiality Preserved: Rudd v. Trossacs Investments</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 May 2006 19:20:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alternate dispute resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limited partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mediator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meredith Hayward]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[without prejudice privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=284</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Mediators breathed a collective sigh of relief when the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the confidentiality of mediations by refusing to compel a mediator to testify about communications between parties at a mediation. Rudd v. Trossacs Investments]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/05/mediation-confidentiality-preserved-rudd-v-trossacs-investments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Tale of a Faithless Fiduciary</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british columbia court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entertainment corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limited partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax shelters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3444920 Canada Inc. v. Strother , 2005 BCCA 35[1] A recent decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal has hit a senior Vancouver lawyer, and possibly his firm, with a judgment worth more than $30 Million as a result of the lawyer&#8217;s breach of fiduciary duty to a client. The lawyer is Robert Strother, formerly [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mediation Confidentiality At Risk?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/mediation-confidentiality-at-risk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/mediation-confidentiality-at-risk/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:02:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lederman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory mediation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario superior court of justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement negotiations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=340</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rudd v. Trossacs Investments Inc. [1] Last July, Justice Lederman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice surprised many in making an exception to mediation confidentiality by ordering a mediator to be examined as a witness on a pending motion. Recently, the Divisional Court has granted leave to appeal Lederman J.&#8217;s ground-breaking decision in Rudd [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/mediation-confidentiality-at-risk/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

