<?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; IIROC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/iiroc/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>IIROC Increases mandatory arbitration award limits to $500,000</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment industry regulatory association of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invetment dealers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sro]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 14, 2010, the Investment Industry Regulatory Association of Canada (“IIROC”), the self regulatory organization (SRO) that regulates all investment dealers in Canada, enacted what is almost certain to be a major expansion of its 15-year-old mandatory arbitration program.  In particular, IIROC has increased from $100,000 to $500,000 the upper limit on client claims that are required to be resolved through binding arbitration if the client requests it.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/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/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>
	</channel>
</rss>

