<?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; Appeals and Judicial Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/appeals-judicial-review/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law,  Commercial Litigation and Arbitration Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 May 2013 01:52:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Win For Ford Nation: Court Finds City Had No Authority To Impose Financial Penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political & Elections Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Superior Court of Justice that removed Toronto Mayor Rob Ford from office for allegedly breaching the provincial Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Act bars all municipal politicians from speaking, voting, or participating in any way in matters in which they had a “pecuniary interest,”&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philthy McNasty&#8217;s case clarifies franchise limitations periods</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arthur wishart act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[franchise fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[notice of rescission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philthy mcnasty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1714</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Philthy McNasty's did not fare well when the Ontario Court of Appeal recently examined the issue of limitation periods in respect of statutory rescission claims under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 (the "Act").]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/philthy-mcnastys-case-clarifies-franchise-limitations-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Wayward Fiduciary entitled to receive bonus from former Employer, says Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:59:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International and Domestic Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mary development corp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rosette]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1137</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mady Development Corp. v. Rossetto, 2012 ONCA 31, reaffirmed the principle that equitable relief is always discretionary and fact specific.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/wayward-fiduciary-entitled-to-receive-bonus-from-former-employer-says-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal at fault, 30 class actions become a total loss</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/court-of-appeal-at-fault-30-class-actions-become-a-total-loss/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-at-fault-30-class-actions-become-a-total-loss</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/court-of-appeal-at-fault-30-class-actions-become-a-total-loss/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Emerson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance Defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appellate jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automotive insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last summer, in David Polowin Real Estate Ltd. v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned its own decision on a question of law it decided just a few years ago in McNaughton Automotive Ltd. v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. In so doing, the Court wrestled with whether and when it could, or should, overrule one of its past decisions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/court-of-appeal-at-fault-30-class-actions-become-a-total-loss/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
