<?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; Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/topics/year-in-review/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>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2013</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Mar 2013 13:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions and Other Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing Practices and Telemarketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affleck greene mcmurtry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marketing practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open market economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[refusal to deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulated conduct defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement agreement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=2172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Top Stories, Criminal, Class Actions &#038; Private Actions, Mergers, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, Related Developments, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2013/03/competition-law-review-2013/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-2011</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Mar 2012 13:54:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Criminal Matters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Indirect purchasers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=1259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of major Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, including: Criminal, Reviewable Matters, Mergers, Marketing Practices, Private Enforcement, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Can indirect purchasers sue for price-fixing losses?</li>
<li>Bureau reverses the charges on hidden fees</li>
<li>Court throws the book at Yellow Page business directory scam</li>
</ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2012/03/competition-law-review-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2010</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-year-in-review-2010</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Binetti</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Franchises]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=958</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the past year, plus some US developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Indirect purchasers cannot sue</li>
<li>Damages no longer required?</li>
<li>The wired and the wireless</li>
<li>Winds of change</li>
<li>Credit card rules challenged... priceless?</li>
<li>Rebates, savings and gift cards</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2011/05/competition-law-year-in-review-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>October 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=october-2010-commercial-litigation-update</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:45:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C.</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: The Hon. David C. Dingwall, P.C., Q.C., Kenneth Dekker, Michael Osborne, Fiona Campbell (Articling Student), and Brigid Wilkinson (Summer Student)

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Canada.
<ul><li>Insurance companies hit with $455.7 million class action judgment</li>
<li>Court of Appeal comes to the fork in the road – and takes it</li>
<li>Alberta appeal court overturns unprecedented damages award to dismissed investment advisor</li>
<li>Judgment granted in Ontario’s first-ever environmental tort class action</li>
<li>The International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes – Its time has come!</li>
<li>Court refuses to add to the contractual obligations of the vendor of a business</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/10/october-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christian Farahat</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Jennifer Dyck, and Christian Farahat.

Review of all Canadian Competition Law developments over the last 12 months, plus some US and EU developments, including: Mergers, Criminal, Private Actions, Reviewable Matters, Marketing Practices, The Long Arm of US Antitrust, Across the Pond

<b>Top Stories</b>
<ul><li>Hard time for hard core cartels</li>
<li>Class action requirements loosened</li>
<li>Suncor - Petro-Canada merger gets green light</li>
<li>Nadeau’s feathers ruffled by Tribunal</li></ul>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/04/competition-law-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>January 2010 Commercial Litigation Update</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=january-2010-commercial-litigation-update</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 14:31:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=521</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributers: Kenneth Dekker, Jennifer Dyck, Christian Farahat, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Osborne.

An update on significant commercial litigation decisions released recently in Ontario.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2010/01/january-2010-commercial-litigation-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review &#8211; May 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-review-may-2009</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DRAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Adam Wygodny, and Donna Wilson.

Top stories
Canada’s new competition law
Budget 2009 includes the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in a generation:
•	A new “per se” conspiracy offence makes it illegal for competitors or potential competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or control production of a product, even if there is no effect on competition...and more...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-litigator-2007</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discriminatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Sonny Ingram, Hooman Zardarzadeh

TOP STORIES
Ice storm
Ice supplier Arctic Glacier Inc. tried to crush its fledgling competitor, Polar Ice Express Inc. by unlawfully interfering with its economic relations, an Alberta court found...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=commercial-litigation-update-november-2007</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth A. Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder class action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: KEN DEKKER, MICHAEL OSBORNE, MICHAEL BINETTI,ADAM WYGODNY,AND HOOMAN ZARGARZADEH CANADA&#8217;S TOP COURT DISMISSES SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION AGAINST DANIER LEATHER In October, Canada&#8217;s Supreme Court upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision overturning Canada&#8217;s first-ever securities class action judgment in favour of investors relating to alleged misrepresentations on an initial public offering. &#8230; and more.&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Review of Competition Law &#8211; April 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=review-of-competition-law-april-2007</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2007]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Bureau Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dior]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Givenchy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Intellectual Property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[London Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sears]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=365</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[THE LITIGATOR - Review of Competition Law - April 2007

Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Kyle Peterson , Sonny Ingram, Michael Binetti, and Adam Wygodny 

TOP STORIES 

Appeal court revises test for abuse of dominant position
In identifying anti-competitive acts, one must ask whether the conduct had an intended predatory, exclusionary or disciplinary effect on a competitor, not on competition, the Federal Court of Appeal held in overturning the Tribunal’s 2005 finding that Canada Pipe’s rebate program was not anti-competitive....]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/04/review-of-competition-law-april-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=commercial-litigation-update-november-2006</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: MEREDITH HAYWARD, KENNETH DEKKER, PAUL EMERSON, KYLE PETERSON,AND ADAM WYGODNY SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CONFIRMS LITIGATION PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED DURATION In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it &#8220;expires with the litigation of which it was born.&#8221; &#8230; and&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; June 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/commercial-litigation-update-june-2006/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=commercial-litigation-update-june-2006</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/commercial-litigation-update-june-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:49:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: MICHAEL OSBORNE, JENNIFER CANTWELL, KYLE PETERSON, KENNETH DEKKER, PAUL EMERSON AND STEPHANIE GABOR UNFAIR INTERCORPORATE TRANSACTIONS OPPRESSED FORD CANADA SHAREHOLDERS An unfair intercorporate transfer price system in place between Ford Motor Company of Canada and its US parent, Ford Motor Company, oppressed Ford Canada&#8217;s minority shareholders, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in early&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/commercial-litigation-update-june-2006/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/06/commercial-litigation-update-june-2006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Update &#8211; 2005 Year in Review</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Mar 2006 03:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consent agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rebate programs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shell corporation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[telecommunications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, Angela Yadav, Sonny Ingram, and Michael Binetti

TOP STORIES
Rona keeps Sherbrooke store
In May, the Competition Tribunal rescinded a September 2003 consent agreement, allowing home improvement retailer Rona Inc. to keep the Sherbrooke , Quebec store it agreed to sell to gain Bureau approval of its acquisition of Réno-Dépot. The Tribunal found that Home Depot’s imminent arrival was a change in the circumstances that led to the consent agreement, and that the agreement would not have been made in the present circumstances. The Tribunal rejected the Commissioner’s arguments that it should refuse to rescind the agreement as a matter of discretion.

The Tribunal’s decision is the first time that the Competition Act’s variation / rescission provision (s. 106) has been applied to a consent agreement. Because consent agreements are negotiated and made by the parties, not the Tribunal, the Tribunal must look to the intentions of the parties. The Tribunal also emphasized that the Commissioner must be responsive to changing circumstances.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/03/competition-law-update-2005-year-in-review/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2005</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2005/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=commercial-litigation-update-november-2005</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2005/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:36:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cyber libel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defamation on the internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=384</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: MICHAEL OSBORNE, HARRY MCMURTRY, KENNETH DEKKER DOES WORLD WIDE WEB MEAN WORLDWIDE LIABILITY FOR CYBER LIBEL? The internet&#8217;s nature as a medium that is at once everywhere and nowhere leads to difficulties in applying traditional tests for jurisdiction. Courts in Canada and the Commonwealth have rejected suggestions that special, and more restrictive, rules&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2005/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2005/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>COMPETITION LAW UPDATE &#8211; March 2005</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-update-march-2005</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2005 03:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominant position]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Angela Yadav]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutionality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer protection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lessening of competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private application]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[by Michael Osborne, Jennifer Cantwell, Paul Emerson, and Angela Yadav TOP STORIES Tread carefully when advertising &#8220;sale&#8221; prices: In January 2005, the Tribunal ruled that Sears Canada Inc. exaggerated savings in ads for tires. The &#8220;regular&#8221; prices advertised by Sears were not genuine and bona fide because Sears sold less than 2% of the tires&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2005/03/competition-law-update-march-2005/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; May 2004</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/commercial-litigation-update-may-2004/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=commercial-litigation-update-may-2004</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/commercial-litigation-update-may-2004/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2004 03:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beals v. Saldanha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Corporations Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[causation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class proceeding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreign judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[natural justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[securities act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=382</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[BY KENNETH DEKKER, JENNIFER ROBERTS-LOGAN, MICHAEL OSBORNE AND TANISHA TULLOCH Canada&#8217;s Top Court Highlights the Perils of Ignoring Foreign Actions Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72 Two Ontario residents who were sued on an $8,000.00 (U.S.) Florida land deal are likely regretting their decision to ignore the Florida litigation that ultimately led to a $800,000.00&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/commercial-litigation-update-may-2004/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/05/commercial-litigation-update-may-2004/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Update 2003</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=competition-law-update-2003</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Feb 2004 02:20:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>W. Michael G. Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Administrative monetary penalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anton Piller]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[barcode systems inc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Anti-Competitive Conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mareva injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real and substantial connection]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search warrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[symbol technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TOP STORIES Competition Bureau proposes new &#8220;per se&#8221; conspiracy provision: Agreements between competitors for the purpose of or that have the effect of fixing prices, allocating customers or markets, or restricting output would be illegal even if they do not harm competition. If passed, this provision&#8217;s wide scope could make many existing agreements unlawful. Other&#160;<a href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/">[...]</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2004/02/competition-law-update-2003/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
