<?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; Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/misrepresentations/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>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>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>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>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>Employment agency liable for not checking references</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 01:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contributory negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misappropriation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[placement agency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recruiting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recruitment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[references]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[treaty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year, the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed a trial decision awarding damages against an employment placement agency for not checking the references of an employee who would later go on to defraud her employer of more than $263,000.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/employment-agency-liable-for-not-checking-references/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restitution or windfall?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=restitution-or-windfall</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:15:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constructive trust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Equitable remedies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waiver of Tort]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=348</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Can consumers who obtain a defective product for free recover profits earned by the manufacturer, even though those consumers suffer no damages whatsoever? Most non-lawyers would likely say:  no. However, the Ontario Divisional Court recently affirmed a decision certifying a class action against Johnson &#038; Johnson that raises this question.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/restitution-or-windfall/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best Practices for Assessing your Risk of Fraud</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/10/best-practices-for-assessing-your-risk-of-fraud/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=best-practices-for-assessing-your-risk-of-fraud</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/10/best-practices-for-assessing-your-risk-of-fraud/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:54:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Wygodny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[influence peddling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[maintenance agreement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[procurement fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public sector]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supplemental payments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the public sector, fraud prevention begins with understanding the main types of fraud that occur, including:  a) contracting/procurement fraud; b) claims/benefits fraud;  and c) corruption/influence peddling.  It is important to have in place mechanisms to both prevent and minimize the risk of fraud and to monitor and investigate situations in which fraud might be occurring.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/10/best-practices-for-assessing-your-risk-of-fraud/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Shareholder/director not liable for “presumptive benefit” or “duty to explain”</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%25e2%2580%259cpresumptive-benefit%25e2%2580%259d-or-%25e2%2580%259cduty-to-explain%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:50:26 +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[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Endorsements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royal bank of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[summary judgment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Major shareholders and directors of corporation are not liable for torts of the corporation because they &#8220;presumptively benefit&#8221; from those torts, or because of a duty to be aware of, explain, and correct, the tortious behaviour, the Court of Appeal recently held in A-C-H International v. Royal Bank of Canada.[1] The court also re-affirmed the&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/shareholderdirector-not-liable-for-%e2%80%9cpresumptive-benefit%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cduty-to-explain%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>It&#8217;s Not Just the Exchange Rate or the Spelling</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/handling-cheque-check-fraud-claims-implications-for-insurers/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=handling-cheque-check-fraud-claims-implications-for-insurers</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/handling-cheque-check-fraud-claims-implications-for-insurers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Jan 2005 16:17:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter R. Greene</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bills of exchange act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian payments association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial litigation; banking litigation; insurance defence; fraud]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic funds transfers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[electronic payment systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation and deceit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Canada, “check” is spelled “cheque”; and cheques are, of course, generally written in Canadian dollars and drawn on Canadian banks. Those are not, however, the only differences between Canadian and US law and banking practices relating to cheques.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/01/handling-cheque-check-fraud-claims-implications-for-insurers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3Com wins nearly US$10 million in two grey marketing fraud cases</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/3com-wins-nearly-us10-million-in-two-grey-marketing-fraud-cases/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=3com-wins-nearly-us10-million-in-two-grey-marketing-fraud-cases</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/3com-wins-nearly-us10-million-in-two-grey-marketing-fraud-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2004 13:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[grey market computers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=432</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3Com, a manufacturer of computer networking equipment and voice over IP telephones, won a total of US$9.9 million in damages in two recent Ontario decisions. 

On April 29, 2004, Mr Justice Juriansz awarded 3Com US$6.5 in damages against re-seller Zorin International Corp. and its principals, Sam Marotta and Domenic Sicilia for deceit. Earlier, on March 19, 2004, Madam Justice Lang awarded 3Com US$3.4 million in damages against re-seller Intelligent Decisions Inc. (IDI). These are believed to be the largest damage awards ever in grey marketing fraud cases in North America.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/3com-wins-nearly-us10-million-in-two-grey-marketing-fraud-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
