Anne Marie Ryan

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondents entered into a settlement agreement regarding allegations of market manipulation.

During the material time, the respondents engaged in approximately 60 incidents of "spoofing" on the Montreal Exchange, using non-bona fide direct electronic access orders to manipulate the National Best Bid or Offer and trade at artificial prices, profiting by approximately $250,000.

The respondents admitted to breaching s. 126.1(1)(a) of the Securities Act.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding the agreed sanctions, which included administrative penalties totaling $970,000, trading bans, and costs of $30,000, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Omega Securities Inc. (OSI) regarding OSI's failure to comply with transparency requirements under National Instrument 21-101.

OSI operated two Alternative Trading Systems and disseminated inaccurate information regarding broker identities, order receipt times, and trade execution times across its data feeds.

The settlement included an administrative penalty of $500,000 and the imposition of terms and conditions on OSI's registration to ensure ongoing compliance, including the retention of an independent systems reviewer.

The respondent, former general counsel for Pacific Rubiales Energy Corporation, traded in the company's debentures while the company was involved in a due diligence process regarding a potential acquisition.

As the person responsible for supervising the company's Insider Trading Policy, the respondent failed to adhere to the high standard of conduct expected of him by not erring on the side of caution, despite his good faith belief that he did not possess material undisclosed information.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement wherein the respondent admitted his conduct was contrary to the public interest, agreed to a $30,000 voluntary payment, a reprimand, $10,000 in costs, and undertakings to obtain external legal advice for future trades and complete an educational program.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent dealers failed to establish sufficient controls and supervision, resulting in clients paying excess fees.

The dealers self-reported the inadequacies, co-operated with Staff, and agreed to pay approximately $11 million in compensation to affected clients, along with voluntary payments totalling $490,000.

The Commission approved the no-contest settlement, finding it in the public interest given the prompt self-reporting, remediation efforts, and significant compensation paid to clients.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents breached Ontario securities law by mishandling principal protected notes and causing a $1.2 million deficiency, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered the respondents to jointly and severally disgorge $1,181,397.89, representing the funds obtained through unsupported redemption requests.

The Commission also imposed administrative penalties of $200,000 each, 10-year market participation bans, and joint and several costs of $487,950.34, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence given the deliberate and dishonest nature of the misconduct.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of a Director's decision refusing his application for registration as a mutual fund dealing representative.

Following the Director's decision, the applicant's sponsoring firm withdrew its sponsorship.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to review the decision despite the withdrawal of sponsorship.

On the merits, the Commission concluded that the applicant lacked both the proficiency and integrity required for registration.

The applicant failed to meet the proficiency requirements as he had not gained 12 months of relevant securities industry experience in the preceding three years.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated a profound lack of integrity through a history of regulatory non-compliance, including the use of pre-signed forms, unsuitable leverage recommendations, off-book trading, and repeated dishonesty.

The application was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

Following findings that the respondents engaged in three separate frauds involving the sale of shares at an inflated value, undisclosed use of investor funds to pay dividends, and misappropriation of funds, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered the individual respondents to disgorge over $3.3 million obtained through their fraudulent conduct.

In addition, the Commission imposed administrative penalties of $600,000 each on the individual respondents and $300,000 on the corporate respondent, ordered permanent market prohibitions, and awarded $550,000 in costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a no-contest settlement agreement between Staff and the Assante Dealers regarding excessive management expense ratios charged to clients.

The Assante Dealers self-reported the issue, cooperated with Staff, implemented a remediation program, and paid $3.6 million in compensation to affected clients, along with voluntary payments to the Commission.

The panel found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for a temporary order to suspend the registration of Omega Securities Inc. (OSI) and require it to cease trading, alleging breaches of Ontario securities law related to inaccurate time stamps and data feed discrepancies.

The Commission found that while the allegations were serious and supported by prima facie evidence, a complete suspension and cease trade order was not in the public interest due to the likelihood of irreparable harm to OSI and the steps OSI was taking to rectify the issues.

Instead, the Commission imposed terms and conditions on OSI's registration to ensure compliance and protect the capital markets.

The applicant, a registered representative, sought a review of an IIROC decision finding he facilitated off-book share purchases for two clients without his firm's knowledge and approval.

The central issue was whether the purchasers were 'clients' at the time of the transactions.

The Commission applied a contextual approach, finding that the applicant gave investment advice, directed the transaction through his firm, and the purchasers reasonably believed they were clients.

The Commission concluded the IIROC panel correctly found a client relationship existed and dismissed the application for review.

The applicants applied under section 144 of the Securities Act to vary a merits decision that found they had committed numerous contraventions of Ontario securities law.

Staff of the Commission brought a motion to dismiss the application on the basis that it failed to demonstrate a tenable legal basis.

The Commission granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicants' arguments regarding alleged conflicts of interest, disclosure issues, and factual errors were essentially an appeal of the merits decision.

The evidence presented was neither new nor compelling, and the applicants failed to meet the standard for section 144 relief.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the RBC Registrants failed to establish sufficient controls and supervision, resulting in certain clients paying excess fees.

The RBC Registrants promptly self-reported the inadequacies, cooperated with Staff, and entered into a no-contest settlement agreement.

Under the settlement, the RBC Registrants agreed to pay over $21 million in compensation to affected clients, make a voluntary payment of $925,000 to the Commission, and pay $50,000 for costs.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it to be in the public interest given the prompt self-reporting, cooperation, and comprehensive corrective actions taken by the registrants.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought proceedings against the respondent for insider trading and tipping.

The respondent admitted to receiving confidential information about an acquisition and using it to purchase shares, as well as passing the information to another individual who also traded on it.

The Commission approved a settlement agreement, noting the respondent's significant cooperation, and ordered a two-year market participation ban, a $5,500 administrative penalty, and $5,500 in disgorgement.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in the illegal distribution of securities and unregistered trading through a complex trading software license scheme, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered disgorgement of the net funds obtained from investors, administrative penalties, and significant market participation bans ranging from 6 to 10 years.

The majority held that the unlawful scheme must be terminated entirely, rejecting the respondents' request to continue receiving payments from existing investors.

A partial dissent would have allowed an exception for existing investors to maintain their contracts if they chose to do so.

The Ontario Securities Commission found that Pro-Financial Asset Management Inc. (PFAM) and its CEO, Stuart McKinnon, committed numerous breaches of Ontario securities laws.

PFAM acted as a market intermediary for principal protected notes (PPNs) and failed to deal fairly, honestly, and in good faith with its clients, resulting in a $1.2 million deficiency in the PPN trust account due to unsupported redemption requests and price variances.

PFAM also breached its standard of care as an investment fund manager, failed to maintain minimum working capital, failed to keep satisfactory records, and failed to maintain adequate compliance systems.

McKinnon, as a director and officer, was found to have authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in these breaches and failed to fulfill his responsibilities as Ultimate Responsible Person (URP) and Ultimate Designated Person (UDP).

The conduct was found to be contrary to the public interest.

The respondents admitted to engaging in the business of trading and advising in securities without registration, in contravention of subsections 25(1) and 25(3) of the Securities Act.

The individual respondent also engaged in dishonest conduct by impersonating clients when dealing with registrants.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest despite the individual's history of regulatory misconduct, given his cooperation, remorse, and the efficiency of resolving the matter without a contested hearing.

The Ontario Securities Commission found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities through the 'Strictrade Offering', a complex software licensing scheme marketed for its tax benefits.

The Commission determined the offering was an 'investment contract' under the Pacific Coast Coin test.

The respondents breached registration and prospectus requirements, and the registrant respondents failed to meet their know-your-client, know-your-product, and suitability obligations.

Allegations of misrepresentation in the contracts were dismissed.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the CIBC Dealers entered into a settlement agreement regarding inadequacies in the dealers' systems of controls and supervision.

These inadequacies resulted in certain clients paying excess fees on mutual funds, structured notes, exchange-traded funds, and closed-end funds held in fee-based accounts.

The CIBC Dealers self-reported the issues, cooperated with Staff, and agreed to a compensation plan estimated at $73,260,104 for affected clients, along with voluntary payments of $3,000,000 to the Commission and $50,000 for costs.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest.

The CIBC Dealers self-reported inadequacies in their systems of controls and supervision that resulted in certain clients paying excess fees.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the CIBC Dealers entered into a Settlement Agreement.

The Commission approved the Settlement Agreement, noting the CIBC Dealers' prompt self-reporting, cooperation, implementation of a compensation plan estimated at $73.2 million for affected clients, and voluntary payments of $3 million to the Commission and $50,000 for costs.

The applicant, a registered mutual fund salesperson, applied for a hearing and review of an MFDA decision that permanently prohibited him from conducting securities-related business and imposed a fine and costs for failing to cooperate with an investigation.

The applicant argued the MFDA lacked jurisdiction to investigate his 'outside business activity' because it was a personal philanthropic venture, and claimed his professional obligations as an accountant prevented him from providing information.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the MFDA had jurisdiction to investigate client complaints and the applicant failed to present any new and compelling evidence to justify intervening in the MFDA's decision.