<?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; IDA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/ida/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>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>Court of Appeal re-establishes IDA’s right to discipline former members</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Taub]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal has restored an earlier Ontario Securities Commission ruling, which held that the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (now known as the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC) retains the authority to discipline a former member for up to five years after that member has left the organization.  The ruling also opens the door to IIROC and other SROs levying court-enforceable fines against former members.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</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>Lenders not liable for failing funds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lenders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[margin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undermargin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If investors borrow money to invest in mutual funds, and the funds do not perform up to expectations, are the lending financial institutions on the hook? This question was the subject of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Baldwin et al. v. Daubrey et al.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When an expert is not really an expert</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Ontario Superior Court decision serves as a strong reminder that counsel should ensure that their expert witness is in fact an expert and not merely an advocate dressed up as an expert.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Know Your Client Rule&#8221; Takes on New Importance</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Greene</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal terminology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE RULE When asked to speak on the impact of technological changes taking place in the retail stock market on the &#34;Know Your Client Rule&#34;, I was somewhat at a loss in that if you had asked me several months ago what &#34;Surfing the Net&#34; meant I would have thought it was a surf in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

