<?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; absolute privilege</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/tag/absolute-privilege/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>Letter to Dental College body protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/01/12/letter-to-dental-college-body-protected-by-absolute-privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/01/12/letter-to-dental-college-body-protected-by-absolute-privilege/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2006 21:19:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angela Yadav]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional malpractice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=217</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has made it clear that professionals who are the subject to defamatory statements made during disciplinary proceedings that merely repeat allegations made in the initial complaint cannot sue the maker of such statements – no matter how false and egregious the statements might be and no matter how malicious their intent. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2006/01/12/letter-to-dental-college-body-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
