<?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; Injunctions</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/injunctions-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>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>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>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>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>Courts have power to grant injunctions against parties outside their jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:15:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sonny Ingram</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enforcement of Foreign Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian travel company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[enforcement of foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forum non conveniens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mexican corporations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[puerto vallarta hotel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quebec superior court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior court of quebec]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Late last spring, a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the provinces' Superior Courts have the jurisdiction to issue injunctions with purely extraterritorial effects.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/01/courts-have-power-to-grant-injunctions-against-parties-outside-their-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
