Dale Ponder

The applicant, newly self-represented, sought an adjournment of a long-scheduled merits hearing two weeks before it was to commence.

He argued he needed time to prepare, respond to a parallel injunction hearing, and gather new evidence.

The Capital Markets Tribunal applied the test under subrule 34(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which requires exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's change in representation, the parallel proceeding, and his desire to adduce new evidence did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment motion was dismissed.

Katanga Mining Limited applied under section 17 of the Securities Act for permission to disclose confidential documents obtained during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation to its parent company, Glencore plc, for use in civil proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Katanga did not establish that the disclosure was in the public interest.

The Tribunal held that disclosure of information protected by section 16 for use in private civil proceedings is generally not in the public interest, and a foreign court order requiring production cannot alone satisfy the statutory public interest analysis.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and respondent Stephen Kelley sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations of unregistered trading, breaching a temporary cease trade order, and making misleading representations to investors in the Buffalo Grand Hotel project.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest.

Kelley agreed to a $15,000 administrative penalty, a two-year market participation ban, and to cooperate with Staff in ongoing proceedings against the remaining respondents.

The applicant sought a confidentiality order to redact certain documents in the Record of Original Proceeding for his application to review IIROC decisions.

The Tribunal granted the agreed-upon redactions concerning the applicant's intimate personal medical information.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's contested requests to redact his doctor's professional contact information and a letter of reprimand from his former employer, finding that neither met the standard required to depart from the principle of open proceedings.