<?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; Class Actions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/class-actions/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>Tim Hortons Franchisees Must Be Content With Profits from Coffee, Not Food</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 17:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2014</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tim Hortons franchisees have lost their challenge to Tim Hortons&#8217; &#8220;Always Fresh&#8221; model that allegedly reduced the profitability of donuts, TimBits, and other food items. In Fairview Donut Inc. v. The TDL Group Corp., the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lengthy lower court decision that on the one hand certified a class action against&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/tim-hortons-franchisees-must-be-content-with-profits-from-coffee-not-food/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Timminco tossed by Supreme Court of Canada</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Timminco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada typically agrees to hear only about 10 &#8211; 15% of the cases that seek its attention. Not only does a proposed appellant need to explain why the court(s) below got it wrong, but an appellant also has to explain how and why a particular case raises matters of such importance&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/08/timminco-tossed-by-supreme-court-of-canada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BC Court Slams Door on Waiver of Tort for Breach of Statute</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 03:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1507</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waiver of tort is not available as a tool to force disgorgement of profits in cases under British Columbia&#8217;s consumer protection legislation, the BC Court of Appeal held last week in Koubi v. Mazda Canada. The court declined, however, to rule on the issue of whether waiver of tort is a stand-alone cause of action&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/bc-court-slams-door-on-waiver-of-tort-for-breach-of-statute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banker Beware: Bank may be liable to third parties for its client’s fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/banker-beware-bank-may-be-liable-to-third-parties-for-its-clients-fraud/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=banker-beware-bank-may-be-liable-to-third-parties-for-its-clients-fraud</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/banker-beware-bank-may-be-liable-to-third-parties-for-its-clients-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bank may be liable to non-customers who are victims of a fraud carried out by a customer of the bank if the bank had constructive knowledge (but not actual knowledge) of the customer&#8217;s fraud, according to a recent decision by an Ontario court.&#160; In Pardhan v. Bank of Montreal, 2012 ONSC 2229, Justice Horkins&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/banker-beware-bank-may-be-liable-to-third-parties-for-its-clients-fraud/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/banker-beware-bank-may-be-liable-to-third-parties-for-its-clients-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mutual fund leveraging class action certified</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:36:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[borrowing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Karas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[leveraging]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Money Concepts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shaughnessy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[suitability]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In&#160; a decision released in February, Ontario Superior Court Justice J. B. Shaughnessy certified a class action against mutual fund dealer Investia Financial Services Incorporated, its franchisee, Money Concepts (Barrie), and two of its former registered salespersons, David Karas and James Stephenson, relating to allegedly improper leveraging strategies that were used in the purchase of&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/mutual-fund-leveraging-class-action-certified/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeal court refuses to reconsider shareholder class action certification</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/divisional-court-denies-leave-to-appeal-in-imax-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=divisional-court-denies-leave-to-appeal-in-imax-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/divisional-court-denies-leave-to-appeal-in-imax-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 19:44:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divisional Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Corbett]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver v. IMAX]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Divisional Court has recently denied the Imax Corporation and certain of its directors leave to appeal a lower court decision that gave a green light to a class action lawsuit by certain of IMAX’s former shareholders.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/divisional-court-denies-leave-to-appeal-in-imax-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judgment granted in Ontario’s first environmental tort class action</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/judgment-granted-tort/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=judgment-granted-tort</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/judgment-granted-tort/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2010 19:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Fiona Campbell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[port colborne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smith v. inco]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a judgment released last July in Smith v. Inco. the Ontario Superior Court recently decided Ontario&#8217;s first-ever environmental tort class action judgment by awarding an estimated $36 million to approximately 7,000 homeowners in the Port Colborne area of Ontario.&#160; The defendant, Inco, was sued for the loss of property values suffered by class members&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/judgment-granted-tort/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/judgment-granted-tort/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/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=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>Passing-on no defence; unlawfully collected taxes must be refunded, Supreme Court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:31:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[1867; restitution; Competition law; passing-on defence; indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional law; provincial powers; indirect taxes; Constitution Act; Chadha; Kingstreet; Canfor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=316</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Governments must refund money they collect through unconstitutional taxes, and cannot rely on the so-called ""passing-on"" defence to avoid repayment, the Supreme Court ruled in January 2007.The court's rejection of the passing-on defence may have major implications in private litigation, particularly competition (antitrust) cases.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/01/passing-on-no-defence-unlawfully-collected-taxes-must-be-refunded-supreme-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restitution or windfall?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=restitution-or-windfall</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constructive trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equitable remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can consumers who obtain a defective product for free recover profits earned by the manufacturer, even though those consumers suffer no damages whatsoever? Most non-lawyers would likely say:  no. However, the Ontario Divisional Court recently affirmed a decision certifying a class action against Johnson &#038; Johnson that raises this question.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No class action where arbitrator has jurisdiction, court holds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stephanie Gabor, Summer Student</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension plans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Class action legislation does not give courts jurisdiction over cases that would otherwise be dealt with by tribunals or arbitrators, the Supreme Court held in Concordia v. Bisaillon.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/no-class-action-where-arbitrator-has-jurisdiction-court-holds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Appeals Court reverses &#8220;chilling&#8221; decision on class action certification</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/appeals-court-reverses-chilling-decision-on-class-action-certification/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=appeals-court-reverses-chilling-decision-on-class-action-certification</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/appeals-court-reverses-chilling-decision-on-class-action-certification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:44:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[certification motion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Proceedings Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[environmental litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ken Dekker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=320</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent unanimous decision in Pearson v. Inco., the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision of Superior Court Justice Ian Nordheimer that had refused to certify an environmental class proceeding against Inco Ltd. and made a substantial costs award against the representative plaintiff that many observers characterized as having a 'chilling' effect on future class proceedings.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/01/appeals-court-reverses-chilling-decision-on-class-action-certification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting Interest Rates Right</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=getting-interest-rates-right</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 May 2004 16:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cash advances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[credit cards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interest rates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mbna canada bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[service charges]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In April 2004, the Supreme Court ordered Enbridge Gas Distribution to pay back late payment penalties charged to gas customers that exceeded the limit on interest rates in the Criminal Code. This decision provides a reminder that companies that are not careful in setting interest rates can get into trouble.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/getting-interest-rates-right/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
