<?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; ontario court of appeal</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/ontario-court-of-appeal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 13:41:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Investment industry practice can be considered in determining whether contract is formed, Court of Appeal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/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/2009/10/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>
		<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>Bank cannot take advantage of mistake, court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donna N. Wilson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvent company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Ellis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laskin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual mistake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rectification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unilateral mistake]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=36</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal recently clarified the difference between mutual and unilateral contractual mistake in the case of <i>Royal Bank of Canada v. El-Bris Limited</i>.   Laskin J.A., writing for the court, explained that the four prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in <i>Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf &#038; Tennis Club</i>  only apply to cases of unilateral, not mutual, contractual mistake.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:05:18 +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[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discriminatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Sonny Ingram, Hooman Zardarzadeh

TOP STORIES
Ice storm
Ice supplier Arctic Glacier Inc. tried to crush its fledgling competitor, Polar Ice Express Inc. by unlawfully interfering with its economic relations, an Alberta court found...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Criminal bank service charges?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/criminal-bank-service-charges/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/criminal-bank-service-charges/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 May 2007 20:50:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash advance transactions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effective interest rate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctive relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mbna canada bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[motion judge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rate of interest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do high service charges exacted by MBNA for credit card cash advances constitute a criminal rate of interest? This is among the issues certified as a class action by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank.  The court held that the bank could not rely on its failure to keep data to escape certification.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/criminal-bank-service-charges/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are courts more willing to enforce restrictive covenants?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2006 20:48:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business relationships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment restrictive covenants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight forwarder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freight services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=198</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Prima facie all covenants in restraint of trade are illegal and therefore unenforceable. Recently, this pillar of the law of contract has been given a new, albeit off-putting, coat of paint.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/are-courts-more-willing-to-enforce-restrictive-covenants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Regulation of businesses in Canada through private litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[businesses in canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate structures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ford motor company of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liability provisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regulation - Court decisions arising from private litigation under the common law (in Quebec, the Civil Code), and statutory remedies that supplement the common law, are an essential and often overlooked component of the regulation of businesses in Canada.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/09/regulation-of-businesses-in-canada-through-private-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Discharged employee cannot recover damages for loss of disability benefits on top of damages for wrongful dismissal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alcatel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alcatel canada inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability benefits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mary Egan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful termination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=223</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A discharged employee cannot recover damages for loss of disability benefits in addition to damages for wrongful dismissal, the Ontario Court of Appeal held in a decision issued on January 10, 2006. Awarding such damages would constitute double recovery, the court said.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/discharged-employee-cannot-recover-damages-for-loss-of-disability-benefits-on-top-of-damages-for-wrongful-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Failure to identify changes in insured risks can render policies voidable</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/failure-to-identify-changes-in-insured-risks-can-render-policies-voidable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/failure-to-identify-changes-in-insured-risks-can-render-policies-voidable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Emerson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure obligations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dishonest employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic funds transfer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial institution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An insured must inform its insurer of any facts that affect its insurability or that an insurer would consider relevant in assessing risk. This duty to disclose such facts exists even in the absence of a specific request for them. An insured may face coverage issues if it breaches this obligation and withholds facts that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/failure-to-identify-changes-in-insured-risks-can-render-policies-voidable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada Post’s monopoly over mail collection confirmed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:16:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada post corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal challenge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mail collection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory privilege]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=181</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Several companies providing outbound international mail collection services in competition with Canada Post have lost a key legal challenge to Canada Post’s monopoly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/canada-post%e2%80%99s-monopoly-over-mail-collection-confirmed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

