<?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; Commercial Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/category/commercial-litigation/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>Court of Appeal reconsiders test for jurisdiction over foreign defendants</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/04/19/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/04/19/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</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/index.php/2010/04/19/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal Upholds $3 Million Judgment in Bad Faith Revocation Case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/03/26/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/03/26/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christian Farahat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Business Interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cardiologist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hospital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intentional interference with economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privileges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rosenhek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windsor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision released earlier this year in Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital,[i]  the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a $3 million judgment awarded to a doctor in his action against a hospital arising from the denial of hospital privileges to him. The Court concluded that the hospital’s Board of Governors had acted in bad faith in summarily revoking the doctor’s hospital privileges primarily because he didn’t “fit in” with his fellow staff members.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/03/26/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The IMAX Case: Superior Court certifies first-ever Ontario shareholder class action for misrepresentations on the secondary market</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/02/05/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/02/05/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[139.3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[films]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GAAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theatres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[van Rensburg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pair of decisions released the same day, Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice became the first judge to consider the statutory remedy created under section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act (the “Act”) for shareholders of public companies who suffer damages from public company misrepresentations on the secondary securities market in documents such as annual financial statements and other public documents.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/02/05/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No cause of action for third party claims against solicitors when negligent advice given about mitigation, Ontario Court of Appeal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/26/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/26/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donna N. Wilson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIBC World Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indemnity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharpe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[third party claim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision released last Fall in Davy Estate v. CIBC World Markets Inc.  , the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed an Ontario Superior Court order striking out a third party claim in which the defendant had tried to sue the plaintiff’s lawyer.   The third party claim had alleged that the plaintiff’s lawyer had given the plaintiff bad advice on the mitigation of her damages.  In addition to finding that the third party claim against the plaintiff’s lawyer could not succeed at law, the Court of Appeal also cited policy reasons against permitting one party to sue another party’s lawyer for alleged negligence; noting that such claims undermine a lawyer’s loyalty to their client and invade the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/26/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppressive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders' agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Directors of a corporation cannot invoke the business judgment rule to justify decisions that violate a unanimous shareholders’ agreement, the Ontario Divisional Court held recently.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/14/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/11/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/01/11/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/index.php/2010/01/11/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/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>Oppression does not guarantee relief</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/11/05/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/11/05/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/index.php/2009/11/05/oppression-does-not-guarantee-relief/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Norwich orders: Recent developments in the right to pre-action discovery in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/27/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/27/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous emails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory emails]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet anonymity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[norwich order]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pre-action discovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[production of documents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent Ontario decisions, GEA Group AG v. Ventura Group Co. and York University v. Bell Canada Enterprises and Rogers Communications Inc. have clarified the circumstances under which courts should grant the extraordinary equitable remedy of pre-action discovery, commonly known as a Norwich order.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/27/norwich-orders-recent-developments-in-the-right-to-pre-action-discovery-in-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Investment industry practice can be considered in determining whether contract is formed, Court of Appeal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/08/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/08/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christian Farahat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montreal Stock Exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sands Brothers Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UBS Securities Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verbal agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision earlier this year in UBS Securities Canada, Inc. v. Sands Brothers Canada, Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal examined the extent to which industry custom and common practice may be utilized in determining whether a contract has been formed between two parties. In particular, the investment industry practice of conducting multi-million dollar deals over the telephone was cited by the Court in finding that a binding agreement for the purchase and sale of shares had been concluded between the parties to this litigation and in ordering specific performance of that agreement.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2009/10/08/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
