<?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; Administrative Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/competition-law/administrative-law-competition-law/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>Win For Ford Nation: Court Finds City Had No Authority To Impose Financial Penalty</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 16:42:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Appeals and Judicial Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Municipal Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political & Elections Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Divisional Court set aside the decision of the Superior Court of Justice that removed Toronto Mayor Rob Ford from office for allegedly breaching the provincial Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. The Act bars all municipal politicians from speaking, voting, or participating in any way in matters in which they had a “pecuniary interest,”&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/01/win-for-ford-nation-court-finds-city-had-no-authority-to-impose-financial-penalty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CRTC cannot make cablecos pay for local TV signals, SCC says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2012 03:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CRTC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cable and satellite television companies won an important victory when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on December 13, 2012, that the CRTC has no jurisdiction to force them to pay to redistribute local television broadcasts to their audiences. This decision may herald a trend to confining subordinate bodies like the CRTC more narrowly to&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/12/crtc-cannot-make-cablecos-pay-for-local-tv-signals-scc-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Osborne comments on Etobicoke Centre election case for SUN TV&#8217;s Daily Brief</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 15:27:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[elections law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Etobicoke centre riding]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1491</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/search/all/source/dailybrief/interpreting-the-elections-act/1727669996001/600_advance_polling_election_canada2_110422/" rel="attachment wp-att-1495 external" target="_blank"><img class="alignleft size-thumbnail wp-image-1495" style="border-style: initial; border-color: initial; margin-left: 10px; margin-right: 10px; border-width: 0px;" title="Source: Elections Canada" src="http://www.thelitigator.ca/litigator/wp-content/uploads/600_advance_polling_election_canada2_110422-150x150.jpg" alt="Source: Elections Canada" width="150" height="150" /></a>Michael Osborne summarized both sides of the argument in the Etobicoke Centre election case that was recently heard by the Supreme Court for Sun TV’s Daily Brief.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/07/osborne-comments-on-etobicoke-centre-case/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>Raising the AMPerage</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=raising-the-amperage</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Jan 2011 20:30:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative Monetary Penalty System]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AMPS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=872</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[AMPs have become widespread in administrative schemes in Canada because they fill a gap between traditional administrative and criminal enforcement tools. This paper explores the rationales that are behind the spread of AMPs in Canadian law. It outlines a number of AMP schemes in federal and provincial legislation. Finally, it discusses three issues that commonly arise in AMP proceedings: the availability of a due diligence defence, whether AMP provisions apply retrospectively, and interpretive difficulties raised by the novelty of language used in AMP provisions.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/01/raising-the-amperage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Are Lobbyists Citizens?</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/are-lobbyists-citizens/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=are-lobbyists-citizens</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/are-lobbyists-citizens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[administrative law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cabinet minister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[donating money]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election campaign]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[karen shepherd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lobbying commissioner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lobbyist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index.php/2010/09/07/783/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Clarifications” from Canadian Lobbying Commissioner may prevent lobbyists from being members of political parties. On August 23, 2010, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada Karen Shepherd issued “clarifications” on when political activities by lobbyists create a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, these clarifications lack specifics and the Commissioner’s restrictions on political activities by lobbyists remain too broad. Indeed, they may bar some lobbyists from joining political parties.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/09/are-lobbyists-citizens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
