<?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; commission</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/commission/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>Statements to Securities Commission are protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/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/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former member escapes the IDA&#8217;s grasp</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sandra Monardo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[member]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taub]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in <em>Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada</em>, Ontario’s Divisional Court reined in an attempt by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (now known as the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC) to discipline a former investment advisor, despite the fact that he had not been an IDA member for more than a year.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Securities Commission panel decisions criticize regulators’ disclosure practices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stinchcombe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent OSC decisions have sided against securities regulators on issues of documentary disclosure. In one case, an OSC panel found that there had been too much disclosure by OSC staff and, in another case, there had not been enough disclosure.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review of Competition Law &#8211; April 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2007]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Givenchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE LITIGATOR - Review of Competition Law - April 2007

Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Kyle Peterson , Sonny Ingram, Michael Binetti, and Adam Wygodny 

TOP STORIES 

Appeal court revises test for abuse of dominant position
In identifying anti-competitive acts, one must ask whether the conduct had an intended predatory, exclusionary or disciplinary effect on a competitor, not on competition, the Federal Court of Appeal held in overturning the Tribunal’s 2005 finding that Canada Pipe’s rebate program was not anti-competitive....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dominant firms can have loyalty and rebate programs that encourage exclusivity, Tribunal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive dealing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=179</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bibby, a division of Canada Pipe, dominates the market for cast iron drain, waste and vent pipes. Its rebate program encourages its customers to stock its products exclusively. But Bibby’s rebate program is not anti-competitive, and thus Bibby did not abuse its dominant position, the Competition Tribunal ruled in a decision released in February, 2005.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/dominant-firms-can-have-loyalty-and-rebate-programs-that-encourage-exclusivity-tribunal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

