<?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; Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/professional-negligence/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>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>Law firm must return fees earned by faithless fiduciary</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/law-firm-must-return-fees-earned-by-faithless-fiduciary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=law-firm-must-return-fees-earned-by-faithless-fiduciary</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/law-firm-must-return-fees-earned-by-faithless-fiduciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:28:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british columbia court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conflicts of interest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entertainment corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislative amendments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax shelters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There is a new development in the saga of Monarch Entertainment, Robert Strother and Davis &#038; Company. Strother&#8217;s former law firm, Davis &#038; Company, has been ordered by the British Columbia Court of Appeal to disgorge fees paid to it by Monarch plus the profits it earned from another client because it acted in a&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/law-firm-must-return-fees-earned-by-faithless-fiduciary/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/law-firm-must-return-fees-earned-by-faithless-fiduciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Tale of a Faithless Fiduciary</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2005 01:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Professional Negligence and Discipline Hearings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of fiduciary duty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[british columbia court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[entertainment corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[limited partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tax shelters]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[3444920 Canada Inc. v. Strother , 2005 BCCA 35[1] A recent decision of the B.C. Court of Appeal has hit a senior Vancouver lawyer, and possibly his firm, with a judgment worth more than $30 Million as a result of the lawyer&#8217;s breach of fiduciary duty to a client. The lawyer is Robert Strother, formerly&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/04/a-tale-of-a-faithless-fiduciary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
