<?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; Sonny Ingram</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/author/singram/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>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>Sonny Ingram</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>Sonny Ingram</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>Oppression does not guarantee relief</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:41:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1976]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[248]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[debentureholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Hu v. Sung,  Superior Court Justice David Brown confronted the question of what to do when a shareholder in a private corporation has wrongfully excluded another from the affairs of the company, but by the time of trial the company has ceased operations, has not turned a profit and there is no evidence the offending shareholder personally benefited from the oppression.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/11/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Courts have power to grant injunctions against parties outside their jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian travel company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement of foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum non conveniens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mexican corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[puerto vallarta hotel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quebec superior court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior court of quebec]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Late last spring, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the provinces' Superior Courts have the jurisdiction to issue injunctions with purely extraterritorial effects.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The letters rogatory that got away</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:28:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflict of laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[depositions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[examination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[judicial assistance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters of request]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[letters rogatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sudan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Talisman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=190</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last fall, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned an order enforcing a request for international judicial assistance (also known as letters rogatory) that sought to compel a former executive of a Talisman Energy Inc. subsidiary to be deposed in a U.S. action.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/the-letters-rogatory-that-got-away/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are courts more willing to enforce restrictive covenants?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business relationships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment restrictive covenants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight forwarder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prima facie all covenants in restraint of trade are illegal and therefore unenforceable. Recently, this pillar of the law of contract has been given a new, albeit off-putting, coat of paint.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Unclear whether Internet information is considered &#8220;broadcast&#8221; under the Libel and Slander Act</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/unclear-whether-internet-information-is-considered-broadcast-under-the-libel-and-slander-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/unclear-whether-internet-information-is-considered-broadcast-under-the-libel-and-slander-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 01:59:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broadcaster]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory material]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel and slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolving conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Bahlieda v. Santa[1], the question of whether information placed on a website and made available through the Internet is &#8220;broadcast&#8221; within the meaning of the Ontario Libel and Slander Act remains unanswered. The Ontario Court of Appeal recently overturned a motions judge&#8217;s finding that placing material on the Internet via a website, constitutes a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/unclear-whether-internet-information-is-considered-broadcast-under-the-libel-and-slander-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

