<?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; Corporate Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/corporate-litigation/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>Court pierces corporate veil on alter ego theory of liability</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 15:33:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Chan v. City Commercial Realty Group Ltd., the court &#8220;pierced the corporate veil&#8221; to hold the principals of a real estate brokerage personally liable for the debts of their corporation. The corporate defendant, City Commercial Realty Services (Canada) Ltd. (&#8220;City 1&#8221;), had initially sued the plaintiffs in respect of a real estate transaction, which&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/court-pierces-corporate-veil-on-alter-ego-theory-of-liability/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Request to Admit served during adjournment of trial allowed by court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/request-to-admit-served-during-adjournment-of-trial-allowed-by-court/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=request-to-admit-served-during-adjournment-of-trial-allowed-by-court</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/request-to-admit-served-during-adjournment-of-trial-allowed-by-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Sivaji v. Rajwani, [2011] O.J. No. 6270, 108 O.R. (3d) 478, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed a Request to Admit to be served during a long adjournment of the trial. Justice A.D. Grace found that there is no inviolate rule that service of a Request to Admit has to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/request-to-admit-served-during-adjournment-of-trial-allowed-by-court/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/request-to-admit-served-during-adjournment-of-trial-allowed-by-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oppression class actions now recognized in both British Columbia and Ontario</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 15:40:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=888</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In recent years, much attention has been paid to amendments to provincial Securities Acts across Canada that make it easier for shareholders to sue for misrepresentations by public companies in financial statements and other public documents... <br /><br />During this period significantly less attention has been paid to whether shareholder class actions might be brought under another and potentially much broader statutory remedy: the oppression remedy under one of the provincial or federal business corporations statutes. However, this may be changing.  <br /><br />Originally published in The Lawyers Weekly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/oppression-class-actions-now-recognized-in-both-british-columbia-and-ontario/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
