<?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; Securities Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/commercial-litigation/securities-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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>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>Statements to Securities Commission are protected by absolute privilege</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:06:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Attacks on Reputation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolute privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraleigh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MFDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual fund dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newbould]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[qualified privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[quasi-judicial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[salesperson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[slander]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[testimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uniform termination notice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=515</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In his decision this Fall in Fraleigh v. RBC Dominion Securities, Ontario Superior Court Justice Newbould summarily dismissed an action brought by John Fraleigh against RBC Dominion Securities and one of its employees. The action was brought for allegedly false statements and testimony given before the Ontario Securities Commission claiming unusual trading activity in his RBC trading accounts – information that was later published in media reports. In dismissing Fraleigh’s action, Justice Newbould found that the claim arose entirely from testimony and other related communications to the OSC; communications that are protected by absolute privilege.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/12/statements-to-securities-commission-are-protected-by-absolute-privilege/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Investment industry practice can be considered in determining whether contract is formed, Court of Appeal rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 14:28:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christian Farahat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Montreal Stock Exchange]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sands Brothers Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UBS Securities Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verbal agreements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=494</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its decision earlier this year in UBS Securities Canada, Inc. v. Sands Brothers Canada, Ltd., the Ontario Court of Appeal examined the extent to which industry custom and common practice may be utilized in determining whether a contract has been formed between two parties. In particular, the investment industry practice of conducting multi-million dollar deals over the telephone was cited by the Court in finding that a binding agreement for the purchase and sale of shares had been concluded between the parties to this litigation and in ordering specific performance of that agreement.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/10/investment-industry-practice-can-be-considered-in-determining-whether-contract-is-formed-court-of-appeal-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court of Appeal re-establishes IDA’s right to discipline former members</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%25e2%2580%2599s-right-to-discipline-former-members</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 20:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>David N. Vaillancourt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Taub]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal has restored an earlier Ontario Securities Commission ruling, which held that the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (now known as the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC) retains the authority to discipline a former member for up to five years after that member has left the organization.  The ruling also opens the door to IIROC and other SROs levying court-enforceable fines against former members.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/09/court-of-appeal-re-establishes-ida%e2%80%99s-right-to-discipline-former-members/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court nixes challenge to ABCP restructuring</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Nov 2008 02:53:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ABCP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CCAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colin Campbell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[crisis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[financial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jean Coutu Group]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[liquidity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mansfield]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metcalfe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purdy Crawford]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restructuring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 19, 2008, the Supreme Court of Canada refused leave to appeal the approval of an all-encompassing restructuring plan for the Canadian market in Asset-Backed Commercial Paper and put an end to all legal challenges relating to what is now appearing to be merely the first Canadian chapter in a financial crisis that has since swept the globe.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/canadas-top-court-nixes-challenge-to-abcp-restructuring/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former member escapes the IDA&#8217;s grasp</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sandra Monardo</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[member]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taub]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=58</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its recent decision in <em>Taub v. Investment Dealers Association of Canada</em>, Ontario’s Divisional Court reined in an attempt by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (now known as the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, or IIROC) to discipline a former investment advisor, despite the fact that he had not been an IDA member for more than a year.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/former-member-escapes-the-idas-grasp/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Securities Commission panel decisions criticize regulators’ disclosure practices</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:33:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Berry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Capital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discipline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[document]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IIROC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory organization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scotia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement discussions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stinchcombe]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two recent OSC decisions have sided against securities regulators on issues of documentary disclosure. In one case, an OSC panel found that there had been too much disclosure by OSC staff and, in another case, there had not been enough disclosure.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/ontario-securities-commission-panel-decisions-criticize-regulators-disclosure-practices/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSC clarifies when merger negotiations must be disclosed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hooman Zargarzadeh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Companies do not have to disclose merger negotiations as a material change until there is sufficient likelihood that the deal will close, the Ontario Securities Commission held recently in Re AiT Advanced Information Technologies Corp.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Canada’s top court dismisses shareholder class action against Danier Leather but rejects Business Judgment Rule as a defence in securities cases</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=canada%25e2%2580%2599s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 21:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Binnie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[equities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[forecasts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial public offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laskin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lederman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[management decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material changes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[material facts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospectus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonableness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[s.130]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shares]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=209</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Canada’s Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of Canada’s first-ever securities class action judgment in favour of investors relating to alleged misrepresentations on an initial public offering.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/10/canada%e2%80%99s-top-court-dismisses-shareholder-class-action-against-danier-leather-but-rejects-business-judgment-rule-as-a-defence-in-securities-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lenders not liable for failing funds</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kyle J. Peterson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Banking Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[banks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[creditors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lenders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[margin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undermargin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If investors borrow money to invest in mutual funds, and the funds do not perform up to expectations, are the lending financial institutions on the hook? This question was the subject of the recent Court of Appeal decision in Baldwin et al. v. Daubrey et al.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/lenders-not-liable-for-failing-funds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When an expert is not really an expert</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:25:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[admissibility]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[expert witness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gatekeeper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[opinion evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OSC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trial witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=239</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Ontario Superior Court decision serves as a strong reminder that counsel should ensure that their expert witness is in fact an expert and not merely an advocate dressed up as an expert.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/when-an-expert-is-not-really-an-expert/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Departing employees and the ongoing battle over investment firm clients</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brokerage firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clean hands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clients]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidentiality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dominion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fiduciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory injunctions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Merrill Lynch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nesbitt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-solicitation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registered representative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[restrictive covenant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock broker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wellington West]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=219</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Competition is fierce among investment firms for top producing brokers and, more importantly, their books of business. Often this competition rears its head in the form of litigation against departing brokers and the new firms that employ them.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/departing-employees-and-the-ongoing-battle-over-investment-firm-clients/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Intercorporate transactions may be oppressive</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jun 2006 01:39:36 +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[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business judgment rule]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fidiciary duties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[minority shareholders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oppression remedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholders reasonable expectations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[subsidiary companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[transfer pricing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=247</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An unfair intercorporate transfer price system in place between Ford Motor Company of Canada and its US parent, Ford Motor Company, oppressed Ford Canada's minority shareholders, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in early 2006. However, because there was no evidence as to when these shareholders owned their shares, they were each entitled to only one day's damages.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/intercorporate-transactions-may-be-oppressive/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario&#8217;s top court overturns securities class action judgment against Danier Leather</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/ontarios-top-court-overturns-securities-class-action-judgment-against-danier-leather/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ontarios-top-court-overturns-securities-class-action-judgment-against-danier-leather</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/ontarios-top-court-overturns-securities-class-action-judgment-against-danier-leather/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Dec 2005 21:13:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds, Misrepresentation, Deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial public offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prospectus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statutory interpretation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stock market]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=213</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a unanimous decision written by Laskin JA and released late yesterday, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned Canada’s first-ever class action judgment in favour of investors arising from misrepresentations by a corporation prior to its initial public offering ("IPO").]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/ontarios-top-court-overturns-securities-class-action-judgment-against-danier-leather/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSC panel dismisses insider trading allegations against former ATI Technologies CEO</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/osc-panel-dismisses-insider-trading-allegations-against-former-ati-technologies-ceo/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=osc-panel-dismisses-insider-trading-allegations-against-former-ati-technologies-ceo</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/osc-panel-dismisses-insider-trading-allegations-against-former-ati-technologies-ceo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[directors and officers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evidence law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hearsay evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insider trading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public companies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[witnesses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On October 14, 2005 , a three-member panel of the Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the charges of insider trading brought by OSC staff against Kwok Yuen Ho, a former CEO of ATI Technologies Inc., and his wife, Betty. In its reasons dismissing the allegations, the OSC panel highlighted the serious shortcomings in the evidence adduced&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/osc-panel-dismisses-insider-trading-allegations-against-former-ati-technologies-ceo/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/12/osc-panel-dismisses-insider-trading-allegations-against-former-ati-technologies-ceo/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buy, sell or hold: the duty to mitigate</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/buy-sell-or-hold-the-duty-to-mitigate/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=buy-sell-or-hold-the-duty-to-mitigate</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/buy-sell-or-hold-the-duty-to-mitigate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harry McMurtry</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal for ontario]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketable securities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketable security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stockbroker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In two recent cases,[1] the Court of Appeal for Ontario clarified the extent of an investor&#8217;s duty to mitigate when a stockbroker fails to follow instructions. As the breach relates to the purchase or sale of marketable securities, an investor must act quickly to mitigate any losses. The investor may decide to hold a security,&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/buy-sell-or-hold-the-duty-to-mitigate/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/10/buy-sell-or-hold-the-duty-to-mitigate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Securities Litigation Update &#8211; June 2005</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/06/securities-litigation-update-june-2005/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=securities-litigation-update-june-2005</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/06/securities-litigation-update-june-2005/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Jun 2005 02:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[confidential information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial public offering]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[initial purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insider trading]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario superior court of justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder class actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[superior court of justice]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributing Authors: Kenneth A. Dekker , Paul Emerson, and Angela Yadav The future of shareholder class actions in Ontario The times are changing for shareholder class actions in Ontario. Last year, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rendered Canada&#8217;s first-ever shareholder class action judgment arising from misrepresentations on an initial public offering (&#8220;IPO&#8221;) (Kerr v.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/06/securities-litigation-update-june-2005/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/06/securities-litigation-update-june-2005/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Investment Dealers&#8217; Association found not to owe a duty of care to disgruntled investors</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Angela Yadev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty of care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insurance scheme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment dealers association of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment firm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law society of upper canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[negligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada decisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Morgis v. Thomson Kernaghan &#038; Co. (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 321 (C.A.) In a recent decision, Ontario&#8217;s highest Court considered whether liability can be imposed on the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the &#8220;IDA&#8221;) for the economic losses sustained by investors in their margin accounts with an IDA member. As a result of sustaining substantial&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/07/the-investment-dealers-association-found-not-to-owe-a-duty-of-care-to-disgruntled-investors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Know Your Client Rule&#8221; Takes on New Importance</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Feb 1997 02:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter R. Greene</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investment advisors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal terminology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE RULE When asked to speak on the impact of technological changes taking place in the retail stock market on the &#34;Know Your Client Rule&#34;, I was somewhat at a loss in that if you had asked me several months ago what &#34;Surfing the Net&#34; meant I would have thought it was a surf in&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/1997/02/know-your-client-rule-takes-on-new-importance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
