<?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; Attacks on Reputation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/category/commercial-litigation/attacks-on-reputation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:15:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Statements to Securities Commission are protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/12/02/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/12/02/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/index.php/2009/12/02/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Door left open for tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/door_open_tort_privacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/door_open_tort_privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cause of action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit check]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonald's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PIPEDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plain and obvious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pleadings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection of privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statement of claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[striking out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlawful]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If someone has their privacy violated in Ontario, can they pursue a civil remedy in the Ontario courts? Does Ontario law recognise the tort of invasion of privacy? These questions were the subject of a motion brought by McDonald's Restaurants of Canada seeking to strike out a plaintiff's claim for unlawful invasion of his privacy on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/06/13/door_open_tort_privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
