<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:10:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>New conspiracy provision of the Competition Act in action</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 21:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Bureau garnered its first conviction under the amended conspiracy provision of the Competition Act yesterday, as Domfoam International Inc. and Valle Foam Industries (1995) Inc. plead guilty to conspiracy and were fined $12.5 million. The investigation into the price-fixing of polyurethane foam has been ongoing since February 2010 and received cooperation through both [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/01/new-conspiracy-provision-of-the-competition-act-in-action/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Quebec court raps plaintiffs’ knuckles</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:08:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Quebec Superior Court recently granted an unusually strict protective order to defendants in a class action to prevent evidence from the class action finding its way into parallel criminal proceedings against them. The defendants are a group of gas station owners (both corporations and individuals) who have been charged with conspiring to fix retail [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/quebec-court-raps-plaintiffs-knuckles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Extra-Territorial Effect of Orders in the Public Interest</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before entering into a settlement agreement with your provincial Securities Commission, it is important to consider how such consent orders will be viewed and applied in other provinces.&#160; In September, 2008 Patricia McLean entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission; less than two years later, she was before the British Columbia Court [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGM defeats school’s attempt to expel boy with Tourettes</title>
		<link>http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school</link>
		<comments>http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Renai Williams</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1065</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school" rel="attachment wp-att-1078"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1078" style="margin-right: 12px; margin-bottom: 12px;" title="Renai Williams, Affleck Green McMurtry LLP" src="http://www.thelitigator.ca/wp-content/uploads/star-williams.jpg" alt="" width="160" height="200" /></a>AGM associate <a href="http://www.agmlawyers.com/team-rwilliams.php" target="_blank">Renai Williams</a> recently helped a boy with Tourettes stay in school. The school wanted to expel him because of behaviours associated with his disability. Read <a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school" target="_blank">the full story</a> in The Toronto Star…
<strong><a href="http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school" target="_blank">More</a></strong>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1099993--education-when-students-face-expulsion-from-school/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Hon. David Dingwall appointed to the Board of Directors of the Canada China Business Council</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-hon-david-dingwall-appointed-to-the-board-of-directors-of-the-canada-china-business-council/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-hon-david-dingwall-appointed-to-the-board-of-directors-of-the-canada-china-business-council/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:39:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Canada China Business Council]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David C. Dingwall]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C., Counsel at Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP, has been appointed to the Board of Directors of the Canada China Business Council (CCBC).

The CCBC is a private, not-for-profit business association and acts as Canada’s bilateral trade and investment facilitator, impetus and advocate. In 2011, China’s investment in Canada exceeds $20 billion to date.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-hon-david-dingwall-appointed-to-the-board-of-directors-of-the-canada-china-business-council/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class action waiver upheld in competition case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Amway]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action waiver]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1043</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Canada enforced a class action waiver and an arbitration clause in a private action under section 36 of the Competition Act.[1] The decision is significant because it clearly states two important principles: Class action waivers will be enforced unless they are contrary to statute Claims alleging breaches [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/class-action-waiver-upheld-in-competition-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indirect Purchaser Cases to be Heard by Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:37:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Archer Daniels Midland Company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft Corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sun-Rype Products Ltd.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 1, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear appeals in two cases that raise the issue: can indirect purchasers sue to recover losses arising from a price fixing conspiracy?[i] This issue has bedevilled Canadian courts for years. Direct purchasers are purchasers who buy directly from the participants in a price fixing [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/indirect-purchaser-cases-to-be-heard-by-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>International arbitrations get deference on merits but not jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:52:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Somerville</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investor-State Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NAFTA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review of arbitral decision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1026</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal shed new light on the standard of review for international arbitrations in <i>United Mexican States v. Cargill, Inc.</i> Courts must review an arbitral tribunal’s assumption of jurisdiction on a correctness standard. But the merits of the tribunal’s decision attract the utmost deference. The Court found that the NAFTA Chapter 11 Arbitral Tribunal under review correctly assumed its jurisdiction, upholding the Tribunal’s $77.3 million award against Mexico.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/international-arbitrations-get-deference-on-merits-but-not-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Joint Venture Decision Criminal, Alberta Court Says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 16:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[joint venture]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1009</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An Alberta court has held that a decision by joint operators of an oil field to sole source a contract constituted a conspiracy contrary to section 45 of the Competition Act, a criminal offence, and awarded damages to the company that lost out on the business.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/11/joint-venture-decision-criminal-alberta-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Whale of a Fight!</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court pits Marineland against Seaworld in a battle of contractual interpretation and the application of foreign law for possession of Ikaika, a killer whale.  Ikaika was born in Orlando, Florida in 2002, but since 2006 has been residing in the Marineland facilities in Niagara Falls, Ontario, subject to a Breeding Loan Agreement.  In December 2010, Seaworld gave written notice that they wanted their whale back.  Marineland refused, so Seaworld launched an application seeking immediate possession.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

