<?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; Constitutional Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/constitutional-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>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>No defined limit on AMPs, court says</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2012 20:19:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1415</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal upholding the Ontario Securities Commission power to impose administrative monetary penalties, or AMPs, of up to $1 million suggests that even higher AMPs provided for in the Competition Act would also be upheld. (The case is Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission. For a summary of this&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/05/no-defined-limit-on-amps-court-says/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democracy and the rule of law</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=democracy-and-the-rule-of-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2012 18:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Constitutional Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democracy and the rule of law are cornerstones of the Canadian constitution. These concepts have been appealed to by both sides in the dispute over the Harper government&#8217;s plan to end the Canadian Wheat Board&#8217;s monopoly, and have resulted in two conflicting court decisions. In December, a Federal Court judge said that the government&#8217;s plan&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/democracy-and-the-rule-of-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
