Alan J. Lenczner, QC

The applicant, a registered investment representative, sought a hearing and review of an IIROC decision finding him liable for recommending transactions that caused unnecessary fees to clients and undue commissions to himself, and for borrowing funds from clients.

The applicant argued that IIROC's denial of his adjournment request was procedurally unfair.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the applicant failed to provide required medical evidence to support his adjournment request.

The Commission upheld IIROC's findings on liability, concluding that the applicant's transactions were outside the bounds of good business practice and that borrowing from clients constituted conduct unbecoming.

The Commission also found the penalties imposed by IIROC, including disgorgement and fines, to be proportionate.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an order imposing permanent market bans on the respondent under subsections 127(1) and (10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously been convicted of criminal fraud over $5,000 for operating a $7.5 million mortgage investment Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to seven years in prison.

The respondent conceded to the conditions of the order requested by Staff.

The Commission found that the respondent's conduct was highly abusive and detrimental to the integrity of the capital markets.

To protect the public interest and provide specific and general deterrence, the Commission ordered permanent cease trade and market prohibition bans against the respondent.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a reciprocal order under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act against the respondent, who had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the Alberta Securities Commission.

In the Alberta settlement, the respondent admitted to unregistered trading, advising, and illegal distribution of securities, as well as concealing information from investigators.

The respondent took no position on the Ontario hearing and stated he had no intention to carry on business in Ontario.

The Commission found that the threshold for a reciprocal order was met and that it was in the public interest to impose prospective trading and registration bans mirroring those imposed in Alberta to protect Ontario investors.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order under s. 127(1) and s. 127(10) of the Securities Act against the respondents, based on an order from the Connecticut Department of Banking (CDB).

The CDB had found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and fraud.

The respondents argued that the CDB order should not be reciprocated because they were denied natural justice in the Connecticut proceeding, citing lack of disclosure, refusal of an adjournment, and reliance on deemed admissions.

The Commission rejected these arguments, finding no denial of natural justice.

The Commission concluded it was in the public interest to impose sanctions, ordering trading bans and prohibiting the individual respondent from acting as a director or officer.

However, the Commission declined to impose the permanent bans sought by Staff, finding insufficient evidence that the individual respondent used investor funds for personal benefit.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a reciprocal order under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act based on a final judgment of a U.S. District Court.

The U.S. Court found that the respondents engaged in a Ponzi scheme, securities fraud, and the sale of unregistered securities, raising $1.3 million from investors including Ontario residents.

The Commission found that the respondents' conduct was abusive of the capital markets and would have constituted contraventions of the Ontario Securities Act had it occurred in Ontario.

Applying principles of comity, the Commission granted the reciprocal order, imposing permanent market prohibitions against the respondents to protect the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a reciprocal order under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act based on a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC).

The BCSC had found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities, raising $5.7 million from investors without filing a prospectus.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Commission found that the respondents' conduct was abusive of the capital markets and that it was in the public interest to reciprocate the BCSC's order.

The Commission permanently prohibited the respondents from trading in securities, acquiring securities, and acting as directors or officers of any issuer or registrant in Ontario.

A court-appointed receiver moved to quash a summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission requiring him to produce documents, including interview notes, for a hearing regarding the respondent's alleged participation in a Ponzi scheme.

The Commission granted the motion to quash, finding that a receiver cannot be compelled to produce documents for a proceeding outside the receivership.

Furthermore, the respondent failed to establish that the requested interview notes were likely relevant to his ability to make full answer and defence.