Craig Hayman

The respondent, a mutual fund dealing representative, managed the investments of an elderly, vulnerable client who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Shortly before her death, the client executed a will and powers of attorney naming the respondent as her power of attorney for property and personal care, alternate executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate.

The respondent failed to report these appointments and the testamentary gift to his dealer firm, contrary to MFDA Rules and the firm's policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondent breached MFDA Rules and his firm's policies, and that his failure to address these conflicts of interest constituted a breach of his statutory obligation under OSC Rule 31-505 to deal with his client fairly, honestly, and in good faith.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents obstructed an investigation by Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Tribunal declined to rule on whether the respondents' crypto assets were securities, finding it inappropriate for a sanctions hearing.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, ordered immediate resignation from any director or officer positions, and imposed a five-year ban on acting as a director, officer, registrant, or promoter.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondents to pay $184,000 in costs, split equally between them, after applying discounts to Staff's requested amount.

The respondent Silvio Serrano brought a motion and application seeking disclosure of a Confidential Order and related reasons that authorized redactions to transcripts of a co-respondent's compelled interview.

Prior to the hearing on the merits, the term of the Commissioner who had presided over preliminary procedural matters expired, and a new panel was assigned.

Serrano brought a motion challenging the new panel's jurisdiction, arguing the original Commissioner's term should be extended under s. 4.3 of the SPPA or the matter heard de novo.

The Commission dismissed the panel composition motion, finding the original Commissioner only made procedural rulings and did not participate in the merits, so s. 4.3 did not apply and procedural fairness was not breached.

On the disclosure motion, the Commission ordered that the respondents be provided with redacted versions of the Confidential Order and Reasons, as well as information regarding the legal basis for the redactions, balancing the need for procedural fairness with the interests protected by the confidentiality.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of IIROC merits and sanctions decisions which found he inappropriately altered signed client documents and suspended his registration for 12 months.

The applicant argued the IIROC Panel erred by admitting unalleged misconduct, reversing the onus of proof, making improper inferences from circumstantial evidence, and imposing excessive sanctions.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC Panel's decisions were reasonable, applied the correct onus of proof, and appropriately relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondents sought approval of a settlement agreement concerning allegations of unregistered trading and illegal distributions.

The respondents, foreign related parties, operated online trading platforms offering contracts for difference to Ontario investors without being registered or filing a prospectus.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, which included a $600,000 administrative penalty, disgorgement of approximately $3 million USD, and $10,000 in costs, finding it to be in the public interest and within a range of reasonable outcomes.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and David Cartu sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations that Cartu permitted two corporate entities to facilitate the sale of binary options to Ontario investors without registration.

Cartu admitted to the breaches and agreed to pay a $300,000 administrative penalty, $15,000 in costs, and to be subject to a seven-year market ban.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondents sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding the respondents' operation of a crypto asset mining business.

The respondents admitted to engaging in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and making prohibited representations to investors.

The Commission found that the respondents raised over $364,000 from 43 investors through investment contracts promising guaranteed returns, while failing to purchase the necessary mining rigs or protect the funds.

The Commission approved the settlement, ordering administrative penalties, disgorgement, costs, and market bans, noting the respondents' cooperation and partial repayment to investors.