Catherine E. Bateman

The applicant, an investment fund manager, applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for exemptive relief from the investment restrictions in the securities legislation.

The restrictions prohibit an investment fund from knowingly making an investment in a person or company in which the investment fund is a substantial security holder, or in an issuer in which an officer, director, or substantial security holder has a significant interest.

The relief was sought to permit the top funds to invest in the underlying funds, which are managed by the same manager, in a fund-on-fund structure.

The Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions including that the top funds' securities are distributed solely pursuant to prospectus exemptions and that no duplicative fees are payable.

The respondents Miller, Azeff, and Bobrow brought non-suit motions to dismiss certain allegations of insider trading and tipping at the close of Staff's case.

The Commission dismissed Miller's motions regarding Masonite and Dynatec, but granted his motion to strike an allegation regarding Dynatec as barred by the six-year limitation period.

Bobrow's motion regarding MDSI was granted as Staff failed to make out a prima facie case.

Azeff's motions regarding Dynatec and MDSI were dismissed, as Staff's evidence gave rise to reasonable inferences supporting the allegations.

The applicants, on behalf of various mutual funds and pooled funds, applied for exemptive relief from the Related Securityholder Requirements and Related Issuer Requirements.

The relief sought to permit the funds to invest in non-exchange-traded debt securities of related issuers in primary offerings and the secondary market, provided the securities have a designated rating.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions including independent review committee approval and pricing requirements.

The moving parties sought an adjournment of a scheduled merits hearing regarding insider trading and tipping allegations, arguing that their expert consultant had lost approximately 600 hours of work product.

Staff opposed the adjournment and brought a cross-motion to sever the matter against one respondent if the adjournment was granted.

The Commission dismissed the adjournment motion, finding that the expert consultant was sufficiently prepared to assist counsel with cross-examinations and that the matter, which had been outstanding for four years, needed to proceed in a timely manner.

The cross-motion for severance was also dismissed.