<?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; Attacks on Reputation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/attacks-on-reputation/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>Law suit alleging defamation by Competition Bureau allowed to proceed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:41:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1144</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario&#39;s top court recently allowed parts of a claim that the Competition Bureau defamed suspects when it an announced bid-rigging charges against them to proceed to trial. In February 2009, the Bureau announced that criminal bid-rigging charges had been laid against 14 individuals and seven companies accusing them of rigging bids for federal government contracts.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/02/law-suit-alleging-defamation-by-competition-bureau-allowed-to-proceed/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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 A. 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>Door left open for tort of invasion of privacy in Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/door_open_tort_privacy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=door_open_tort_privacy</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/door_open_tort_privacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:33:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle J. Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cause of action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit check]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invasion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McDonald's]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PIPEDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plain and obvious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pleadings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection of privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statement of claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[striking out]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unlawful]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=272</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If someone has their privacy violated in Ontario, can they pursue a civil remedy in the Ontario courts? Does Ontario law recognise the tort of invasion of privacy? These questions were the subject of a motion brought by McDonald's Restaurants of Canada seeking to strike out a plaintiff's claim for unlawful invasion of his privacy on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/door_open_tort_privacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
