<?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; Commercial Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-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>Table Manners &#8211; Recipes for Negotiators</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advice and Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mediation and other Alternative Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dispute Resolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Negotiation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, once said:  “A failure to prepare is preparing to fail.”  The same can be said of the negotiator.  Preparation is another crucial determinant of the negotiating process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/04/table-manners-recipes-for-negotiators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>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>Mobile wars heat up: Telus denied injunction against Mobilicity</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 23:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobilicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rogers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Telus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1924</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s deja vu all over again in the mobile telephony industry. On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, The British Columbia Supreme Court denied an application by Telus for an injunction restraining Mobilicity from running television commercials that compare its pricing plans with those of unnamed competitors. Grauer J. held that Telus&#8217; case, at best, &#8220;limps across&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/mobile-wars-heat-up-telus-denied-injunction-against-mobilicity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CRTC cannot make cablecos pay for local TV signals, SCC says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cable and satellite television companies won an important victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on December 13, 2012, that the CRTC has no jurisdiction to force them to pay to redistribute local television broadcasts to their audiences. This decision may herald a trend to confining subordinate bodies like the CRTC more narrowly to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Non-solicitation clause with teeth: dental centre successful at Court of Appeal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 16:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dental practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restraint of trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1882</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court of Appeal for Ontario has upheld the enforcement of a non-solicitation clause in an agreement between a dentist and a dental clinic in its recent decision in Smilecorp Inc. v. Daniel Pesin, 2012 ONCA 853.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/non-solicitation-clause-with-teeth-dental-centre-successful-at-court-of-appeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AGM &#8211; there&#8217;s an App for that.</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=agm-theres-an-app-for-that</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:49:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Wayne Powell (Webmaster)</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blackberry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blackberry app world]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal app]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[smartphones]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://appworld.blackberry.com/webstore/content/19967634/?lang=en" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-1868" alt="Get the AGM thelitigator.ca Blackberry App" src="http://www.thelitigator.ca/litigator/wp-content/uploads/bbappworld_getitat_english_black-300x131.jpg" width="150" /></a>Affleck Greene McMurtry LLP unveils a Blackberry App for the recent redesign of the Litigator website, thelitigator.ca]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/agm-theres-an-app-for-that/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Cautionary Tale in Comparative Advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Oct 2012 20:11:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Masiel A. Matus</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1814</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[National Energy Corporation was recently ordered by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to stop distributing a comparative advertising brochure which contained false and misleading statements about the services and products of its competitor, Direct Energy Marketing Limited. National Energy&#8217;s brochure misled consumers by overstating the price increases Direct Energy had imposed on its customers&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/10/a-cautionary-tale-in-comparative-advertising/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>The Show Goes on for IMAX: Landmark Class Action</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/silver-v-imax-unlimited-landmark-class-action-not-time-barred/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=silver-v-imax-unlimited-landmark-class-action-not-time-barred</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/silver-v-imax-unlimited-landmark-class-action-not-time-barred/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Somerville</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inherent jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver v. IMAX]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1695</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A big reversal just happened in the fast-moving world of securities class action litigation. In the last eight months, it seemed that the Ontario Superior Court, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada were all hitting the brakes on securities class actions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/09/silver-v-imax-unlimited-landmark-class-action-not-time-barred/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>Heated water battle clarifies consumer protection law</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/heated-water-battle-clarifies-consumer-protection-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=heated-water-battle-clarifies-consumer-protection-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/heated-water-battle-clarifies-consumer-protection-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 12:30:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Somerville</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal gave the Consumer Protection Act a pro-consumer interpretation in Weller v. Reliance Home Comfort Limited Partnership,[2] but the “consumer” who brought the Application still lost. Under the Act, judges can bind consumers to contracts that fall short of consumer protection requirements, if annulling the contracts would be unjust.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/heated-water-battle-clarifies-consumer-protection-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mandatory Retirement for Law Firm Partners Upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:20:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[human rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1528</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Partners of limited liability partnerships are partners, not employees of the firm, the BC Court of Appeal ruled on July 19. Provisions in human rights legislation prohibiting discrimination in relation to employment because of age (and presumably other grounds) do not apply to partners and partnerships. Thus the BC Human Rights Tribunal did not have&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/mandatory-retirement-for-law-firm-partners-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</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>Maple Approval Leaves Canada with Regulated Monopoly Stock Exchange</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jul 2012 17:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alpha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CDS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maple Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TMX Group]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1456</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a surprise move, the Competition Bureau cleared the Maple Group's bid to acquire TMX Group, Alpha Group, and Canadian Depository Services on July 4, 2012. On the same day, the OSC issued a recognition order regulating the Maple Group. These approvals leave Canada with one stock exchange that will operate as a regulated monopoly.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/maple-approval-leaves-canada-with-regulated-monopoly-stock-exchange/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Six months&#8217; severance is six months&#8217; severance! Dismissed employee awarded full contractual severance, despite new job</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/six-months-severance-is-six-months-severance-top-ontario-court-rejects-employers-attempt-to-stop-paying-severance-when-dismissed-employee-finds-new-job/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=six-months-severance-is-six-months-severance-top-ontario-court-rejects-employers-attempt-to-stop-paying-severance-when-dismissed-employee-finds-new-job</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/six-months-severance-is-six-months-severance-top-ontario-court-rejects-employers-attempt-to-stop-paying-severance-when-dismissed-employee-finds-new-job/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bowes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goss Power Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1453</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision released on June 21, 2012 in Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425, the Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that where an employer has agreed to continue paying salary to a dismissed employee for a fixed period in a written employment agreement, that is the obligation and it will be enforced.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/six-months-severance-is-six-months-severance-top-ontario-court-rejects-employers-attempt-to-stop-paying-severance-when-dismissed-employee-finds-new-job/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>Justice Brown Reins in Post-Discovery Summary Judgment Motions</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:40:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1435</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his recent Endorsement in 1318214 Ontario Limited v. Sobeys Capital Incorporated (2012 ONSC 2784), Justice David Brown provides his views on an emerging trend in the Toronto Region: requests by litigants to bring lengthy motions for summary judgment after discoveries have been completed.&#160; Justice Brown is concerned with the prevalence of such motions due&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/justice-brown-reigns-in-post-discovery-summary-judgment-motions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Injunction chickens come home to roost</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:37:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Developments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1424</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Competition Tribunal has the power to order an inquiry into damages arising from an interim order granted by the Tribunal, but can refuse to order damages where special circumstances exist.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/06/injunction-chickens-come-home-to-roost/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Denial of Mareva injunction due to Bank’s “dirty hands” upheld</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/denial-of-mareva-injunction-due-to-banks-dirty-hands-upheld/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=denial-of-mareva-injunction-due-to-banks-dirty-hands-upheld</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/denial-of-mareva-injunction-due-to-banks-dirty-hands-upheld/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 16:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle J. Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mareva injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royal bank of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Advancing unfounded allegations of fraud and overstating its case may preclude a party from attaining equitable relief. A panel of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld Justice Stinson's dismissal of a motion to continue an interim Mareva injunction brought by the Royal Bank of Canada.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/denial-of-mareva-injunction-due-to-banks-dirty-hands-upheld/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How high is too high? Appeal court finds that OSC penalties are not high enough to be unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/how-much-is-too-much-appeal-court-finds-that-osc-penalties-are-not-high-enough-to-be-unconstitutional/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=how-much-is-too-much-appeal-court-finds-that-osc-penalties-are-not-high-enough-to-be-unconstitutional</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/how-much-is-too-much-appeal-court-finds-that-osc-penalties-are-not-high-enough-to-be-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 19:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[11(d)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biovail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[penalty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rowan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trading]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1400</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a decision released in March in Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONCA 208, the Ontario Court of Appeal declined to overturn on constitutional grounds the substantial penalties imposed by the Ontario Securities Commission against an investment dealer and several of its officers for breaches of securities laws in relation to their trading in&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/how-much-is-too-much-appeal-court-finds-that-osc-penalties-are-not-high-enough-to-be-unconstitutional/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/how-much-is-too-much-appeal-court-finds-that-osc-penalties-are-not-high-enough-to-be-unconstitutional/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>MFDA panel finds that branch manager might have duty to monitor non-registrants at branch</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 21:00:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Broker/Dealer litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[branch manager]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MFDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual fund dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supervision]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1375</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The self regulatory organization for mutual fund dealers, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (&#34;MFDA&#34;), made an interesting decision on May 8, 2012 on a motion by a branch manager to strike out a regulatory proceeding arising from allegations that he failed to adequately monitor and report the wrongful activities of an insurance salesperson&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/mfda-panel-finds-that-branch-manager-might-have-duty-to-monitor-non-registrants-at-branch/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>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>Supreme Court of Canada sets the rules on when Canadian courts have jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 20:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflicts of Law and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Charron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Club Resorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conrad Black]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Breda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier today, Canada&#39;s Supreme Court released a trilogy of long-awaited decisions in which it set universal rules on when courts across Canada can properly take jurisdiction over claims against foreign defendants. The first two cases, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda et al. and Club Resorts Ltd. v. Charron et al., related to claims brought&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/04/supreme-court-of-canada-sets-the-rules-on-when-canadian-courts-have-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>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>The Extra-Territorial Effect of Orders in the Public Interest</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before entering into a settlement agreement with your provincial Securities Commission, it is important to consider how such consent orders will be viewed and applied in other provinces.&#160; In September, 2008 Patricia McLean entered into a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission; less than two years later, she was before the British Columbia Court&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/12/the-extra-territorial-effect-of-orders-in-the-public-interest/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Whale of a Fight!</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-whale-of-a-fight</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:51:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brigid Wilkinson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=994</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision from the Ontario Superior Court pits Marineland against Seaworld in a battle of contractual interpretation and the application of foreign law for possession of Ikaika, a killer whale.  Ikaika was born in Orlando, Florida in 2002, but since 2006 has been residing in the Marineland facilities in Niagara Falls, Ontario, subject to a Breeding Loan Agreement.  In December 2010, Seaworld gave written notice that they wanted their whale back.  Marineland refused, so Seaworld launched an application seeking immediate possession.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/09/a-whale-of-a-fight/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-year-in-review-2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, plus some US developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Indirect purchasers cannot sue</li>
<li>Damages no longer required?</li>
<li>The wired and the wireless</li>
<li>Winds of change</li>
<li>Credit card rules challenged... priceless?</li>
<li>Rebates, savings and gift cards</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank cannot freeze client’s account at subsidiary absent court order</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/04/bank-cannot-freeze-clients-account-at-subsidiary-absent-court-order/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bank-cannot-freeze-clients-account-at-subsidiary-absent-court-order</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/04/bank-cannot-freeze-clients-account-at-subsidiary-absent-court-order/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 17:32:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitrage scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freeze assets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royal bank of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of Royal Bank of Canada v. Ankur Rastogi[1] , the Ontario Court of Appeal held that RBC could not freeze the accounts of its client at its subsidiary, RBC Direct Investing, pending the determination of its lawsuit against the client. It further held that funds being held by another financial institution pursuant&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/04/bank-cannot-freeze-clients-account-at-subsidiary-absent-court-order/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/04/bank-cannot-freeze-clients-account-at-subsidiary-absent-court-order/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fraud victims may not enjoy priority standing in bankruptcy proceedings</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/court-of-appeal-sets-out-principles-for-constructive-trust-remedy-in-bankruptcy-proceedings/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-sets-out-principles-for-constructive-trust-remedy-in-bankruptcy-proceedings</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/court-of-appeal-sets-out-principles-for-constructive-trust-remedy-in-bankruptcy-proceedings/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 12:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debtor-Creditor and Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bankruptcy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=921</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, The Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified the circumstances under which a constructive trust remedy will be granted in favour of victims of fraud once a fraudster enters bankruptcy proceedings.

In Credifinance Securities Limited v. DSLC Capital Corp,[1] DSLC made a $400,000 loan to Credifinance. Some time later, Credifinance defaulted on the repayment of the loan. DSLC came to suspect that the loan was obtained by way of fraudulent misrepresentations.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/court-of-appeal-sets-out-principles-for-constructive-trust-remedy-in-bankruptcy-proceedings/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>Reasonable notice periods still not “one size fits all”</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You know that “rule of thumb” of one month notice for each year of employment? The one we use as a rough guideline for getting in the ballpark when determining a reasonable notice periods? The Court of Appeal has reminded us that the “rule of thumb” may not even get you near the ballpark when dealing with senior, high salaried employees.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/03/reasonable-notice-periods-still-not-one-size-fits-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shot Gun Control: Parties must comply strictly with terms of shot gun clauses, says Ontario’s highest court</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shot-gun-control</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:06:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jennifer Dyck</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shareholder Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=895</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the recent decision of Zeubear Investments Ltd.&#160;v.&#160;Magi Seal Corporation[1], the Court of Appeal for Ontario had the opportunity to consider the proper interpretation of a shot gun (buy-sell) provision in a shareholders agreement. Ultimately, the court concluded that, in order to obtain the benefit of such a clause, a shareholder must strictly comply with&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/02/shot-gun-control/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>
		<item>
		<title>IIROC Increases mandatory arbitration award limits to $500,000</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment industry regulatory association of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[invetment dealers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mandatory arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sro]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=881</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 14, 2010, the Investment Industry Regulatory Association of Canada (“IIROC”), the self regulatory organization (SRO) that regulates all investment dealers in Canada, enacted what is almost certain to be a major expansion of its 15-year-old mandatory arbitration program.  In particular, IIROC has increased from $100,000 to $500,000 the upper limit on client claims that are required to be resolved through binding arbitration if the client requests it.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/iiroc-increases-mandatory-arbitration-award-limits-to-500000/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank’s “dirty hands” deprive it of Mareva injunction even though test met</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/12/banks-dirty-hands-deprive-it-of-mareva-injunction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=banks-dirty-hands-deprive-it-of-mareva-injunction</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/12/banks-dirty-hands-deprive-it-of-mareva-injunction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:29:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[extraordinary relief]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maeva]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mareva injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royal bank of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stinson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=865</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of <i>Royal Bank of Canada v. Boussoulas</i>, the Ontario Superior Court declined RBC’s request to appoint an interim receiver and grant a <i>Mareva</i> injunction against the defendants, who, it was alleged, were continuing their business through a succession of companies in order to avoid repaying RBC loans.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/12/banks-dirty-hands-deprive-it-of-mareva-injunction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=october-2010-commercial-litigation-update</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C., Kenneth Dekker, Michael Osborne, Fiona Campbell (Articling Student), and Brigid Wilkinson (Summer Student)

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Canada.
<ul><li>Insurance companies hit with $455.7 million class action judgment</li>
<li>Court of Appeal comes to the fork in the road – and takes it</li>
<li>Alberta appeal court overturns unprecedented damages award to dismissed investment advisor</li>
<li>Judgment granted in Ontario’s first-ever environmental tort class action</li>
<li>The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes – Its time has come!</li>
<li>Court refuses to add to the contractual obligations of the vendor of a business</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Magna Plan of Arrangement approved by Ontario Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:51:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disputes among shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magna]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Magna International Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[multiple voting shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan of arrangement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[share structure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stronach]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=826</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice&#8217;s Commercial List recently approved a plan of arrangement that eliminated the dual class share structure at Magna International Inc. (&#8220;Magna&#8221;) and in the process provided a large payout to its former controlling shareholder. Magna is in the business of developing and manufacturing automotive systems, components, and&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/magna-plan-of-arrangement-approved-by-ontario-courts/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>The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes &#8211; Its Time Has Come</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:06:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arbitration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investor-State Disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bill c-53]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[icisid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment disputes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minister of international trade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada&#8217;s ratification of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States (the &#8220;Convention&#8221;) has been a long time coming.&#160;Since signing the Convention in 2006 and passing implementing legislation in 2008 that has yet to come into force, Canada has made no further progress towards ensuring that the International&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/the-international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>BCCA strikes down non-disclosure provision of Securities Act</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/bcca-strikes-down-non-disclosure-provision-of-securities-act/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=bcca-strikes-down-non-disclosure-provision-of-securities-act</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/bcca-strikes-down-non-disclosure-provision-of-securities-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:17:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sandra Monardo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[b.c. court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BC securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure of information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[protection of privacy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent B.C. Court of Appeal decision,[1] a British Columbia lawyer has successfully challenged the constitutional validity of the non-disclosure and confidentiality provisions found in the investigative powers given the B.C. Securities Commission under the B.C. Securities Act, s.148(1),as a breach of his freedom of expression under section 2 of the Charter.&#160; Section 148(1),&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/bcca-strikes-down-non-disclosure-provision-of-securities-act/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/bcca-strikes-down-non-disclosure-provision-of-securities-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal reconsiders test for jurisdiction over foreign defendants</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:38:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conflicts of Law and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alberta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum non conveniens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injury]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interprovincial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morguard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muscutt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[order and fairness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resorts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[United States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Van Breda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Volkswagen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[World-Wide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent decision, a five judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario revised the legal test to be applied when the Ontario courts are asked to assume jurisdiction over a foreign defendant.  The Court’s decision in Van Breda v. Village Resorts Ltd. clarifies the applicable legal principles and should provide greater guidance to Ontario courts on whether and when they can properly take jurisdiction over foreign defendants.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/court-of-appeal-reconsiders-test-for-jurisdiction-over-foreign-defendants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal Upholds $3 Million Judgment in Bad Faith Revocation Case</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/03/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/03/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 14:17:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christian Farahat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Business Interests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad faith]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cardiologist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doctor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hospital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intentional interference with economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physician]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[privileges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revoke]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rosenhek]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Windsor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision released earlier this year in Rosenhek v. Windsor Regional Hospital,[i]  the Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed a $3 million judgment awarded to a doctor in his action against a hospital arising from the denial of hospital privileges to him. The Court concluded that the hospital’s Board of Governors had acted in bad faith in summarily revoking the doctor’s hospital privileges primarily because he didn’t “fit in” with his fellow staff members.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/03/court-of-appeal-upholds-3-million-judgment-in-bad-faith-revocation-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The IMAX Case: Superior Court certifies first-ever Ontario shareholder class action for misrepresentations on the secondary market</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[139.3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accountants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[accounting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[audit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[auditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[films]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial statements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GAAP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IMAX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[movies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[revenue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secondary market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Silver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stocks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theatres]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[van Rensburg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=580</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a pair of decisions released the same day, Justice Katherine van Rensburg of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice became the first judge to consider the statutory remedy created under section 138.3 of the Ontario Securities Act (the “Act”) for shareholders of public companies who suffer damages from public company misrepresentations on the secondary securities market in documents such as annual financial statements and other public documents.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/02/the-imax-case-superior-court-certifies-first-ever-ontario-shareholder-class-action-for-misrepresentations-on-the-secondary-market/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No cause of action for third party claims against solicitors when negligent advice given about mitigation, Ontario Court of Appeal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:12:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donna N. Wilson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIBC World Markets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contribution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Davy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indemnity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharpe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[third party claim]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=573</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision released last Fall in Davy Estate v. CIBC World Markets Inc.  , the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed an Ontario Superior Court order striking out a third party claim in which the defendant had tried to sue the plaintiff’s lawyer.   The third party claim had alleged that the plaintiff’s lawyer had given the plaintiff bad advice on the mitigation of her damages.  In addition to finding that the third party claim against the plaintiff’s lawyer could not succeed at law, the Court of Appeal also cited policy reasons against permitting one party to sue another party’s lawyer for alleged negligence; noting that such claims undermine a lawyer’s loyalty to their client and invade the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/no-cause-of-action-for-third-party-claims-against-solicitors-when-negligent-advice-given-about-mitigation-ontario-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Business judgment rule does not trump unanimous shareholders’ agreement</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%25e2%2580%2599-agreement</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:05:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wrongful Dismissal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholder]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppressive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders' agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful dismissal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Directors of a corporation cannot invoke the business judgment rule to justify decisions that violate a unanimous shareholders’ agreement, the Ontario Divisional Court held recently.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/business-judgment-rule-does-not-trump-unanimous-shareholders%e2%80%99-agreement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=january-2010-commercial-litigation-update</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributers: Kenneth Dekker, Jennifer Dyck, Christian Farahat, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Osborne.

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Ontario.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
