Ken Dekker, a partner of the firm, is a successful trial and appellate lawyer who is valued by his clients as a resourceful and practical litigation counsel. Over more than 25 years, Ken has litigated noteworthy cases in a range of fields that include class action defence, securities and broker-dealer litigation and regulatory defence, corporate and shareholder disputes (including oppression and winding up cases), defamation, civil fraud litigation, disputes over contracts, injunctions, professional liability litigation, employment litigation and cross-border litigation issues. Ken has appeared before all levels of courts in Ontario, including the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal for Ontario, as well as before the Supreme Court of Canada. Ken has also represented and advised clients in regulatory matters before the Investment Industry Organization of Canada (IIROC), the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (MFDA), both of which are now known as the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO). Ken has also represented clients before the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), the Financial Planning Canada Standards Council (FPCSC), and the CPA Ontario Tribunal. Ken has been ranked for Corporate and Commercial Litigation by Best Lawyers of Canada, for Securities Litigation by Lexpert, and he has been given the highest available rating of AV, or pre-eminent, by his peers on "Martindale-Hubbell."
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. [more] Full article
Ontario’s Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision in Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. that held large cable operator Cogeco Cable liable for telling a cable subcontractor, Mastec Canada, that it would not allow its employee, Mr. Drouillard, to work on Cogeco equipment. [more] Full article
It has not taken long for Ontario litigants to begin feeling the impact of the recent decision by Canada’s Supreme Court that protection of solicitor-client privilege required the removal of plaintiff’s counsel in Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition. If there was any doubt as to the serious consequences that can flow from counsel’s receipt and review of an opposing party’s privileged documents, that doubt was surely erased for a defendant that was recently deprived of its counsel of choice at the beginning of trial. [more] Full article
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. [more] Full article
This past summer, Ontario's highest court made it clear that contracting parties who choose a particular nation's courts for the litigation of their disputes will almost always be held to their choice - even where that forum may not conform to the traditional Canadian concepts of democracy and fairness. [more] Full article
Follow Us
