<?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; supreme court of canada</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/supreme-court-of-canada/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>Competition Law Review &#8211; May 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:05:05 +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[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Adam Wygodny, and Donna Wilson.

Top stories
Canada’s new competition law
Budget 2009 includes the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in a generation:
•	A new “per se” conspiracy offence makes it illegal for competitors or potential competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or control production of a product, even if there is no effect on competition...and more...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSC clarifies when merger negotiations must be disclosed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hooman Zargarzadeh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Companies do not have to disclose merger negotiations as a material change until there is sufficient likelihood that the deal will close, the Ontario Securities Commission held recently in Re AiT Advanced Information Technologies Corp.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court dismisses shareholder class action against Danier Leather but rejects Business Judgment Rule as a defence in securities cases</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Binnie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forecasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial public offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laskin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lederman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material facts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospectus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonableness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s.130]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada’s Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Canada’s first-ever securities class action judgment in favour of investors relating to alleged misrepresentations on an initial public offering.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court removes plaintiff’s counsel after its receipt of privileged documents</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Wygodny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp. the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously favoured protecting solicitor-client privilege over the right to be represented by one’s solicitor of choice.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-removes-plaintiff%e2%80%99s-counsel-after-its-receipt-of-privileged-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court of Canada confirms litigation privilege of limited duratio</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:36:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it 'expires with the litigation of which it was born.']]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/supreme-court-of-canada-confirms-litigation-privilege-of-limited-duratio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: MEREDITH HAYWARD, KENNETH DEKKER, PAUL EMERSON, KYLE PETERSON,AND ADAM WYGODNY SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CONFIRMS LITIGATION PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED DURATION In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it &#8220;expires with the litigation of which it was born.&#8221; &#8230; and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/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>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>Contractor pays for mistake in bid price</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/contractor-pays-for-mistake-in-bid-price/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/contractor-pays-for-mistake-in-bid-price/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction (including Performance and L&M Bond Defense)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gottardo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ttc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A contractor who made a mistake in price in a tender cannot walk away from its bid, even if the tender instructions call for submission of additional documentation, in which the mistake becomes obvious, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently held.[1] This decision is an important re-affirmation of the principle that contractors are bound by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/contractor-pays-for-mistake-in-bid-price/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Investment Dealers&#8217; Association found not to owe a duty of care to disgruntled investors</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty of care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealers association of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law society of upper canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Morgis v. Thomson Kernaghan &#038; Co. (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.) In a recent decision, Ontario&#8217;s highest Court considered whether liability can be imposed on the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the &#8220;IDA&#8221;) for the economic losses sustained by investors in their margin accounts with an IDA member. As a result of sustaining substantial [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

