Harold P. Hands

The Requesting Parties sought a hearing and review by the Ontario Securities Commission of the TSX's filing of amendments to the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) and the Director's acceptance of that filing.

Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) brought a motion to quash the request, arguing it was moot, premature, and that the RS Hearing Panel had jurisdiction to decide the issues in the first instance.

The Commission held that there was no reviewable decision under sections 8 or 21.7 of the Securities Act, though it retained overriding supervisory jurisdiction under section 21(5).

The Commission declined to exercise its discretion to hear the matter, finding that the application was premature and would unduly fragment the ongoing RS disciplinary proceeding.

The Commission remitted the matter back to the RS Hearing Panel to determine the validity of the UMIR amendments.

The Applicant sought a hearing and review of a Director's decision refusing to grant him registration as an Advising Officer for an Investment Counsel and Portfolio Manager (ICPM) and refusing to register his company as an ICPM.

The Commission found that while the Applicant met the educational requirements, he lacked the requisite work experience in the securities industry, specifically in managing third-party discretionary investment portfolios and being mentored by a registered adviser.

The Commission declined to grant an exemption from the proficiency requirements, concluding that the Applicant's experience in economic research and credit valuation was not equivalent to the required securities industry experience.

The application for registration was denied.

The applicants, minority shareholders of Sterling Centrecorp Inc., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act.

They sought to exclude the votes of certain shareholders who had signed support agreements from the 'majority of the minority' approval required for a going private transaction under OSC Rule 61-501, arguing these shareholders were 'joint actors' with the acquiring insiders.

The Commission found that one major shareholder, a former member of the acquisition group, was a joint actor and ordered his votes excluded.

However, the Commission concluded that the other supporting shareholders were not joint actors merely by virtue of signing the support agreements.

As the transaction still achieved the requisite majority of the minority approval even after excluding the joint actor's votes, the Commission declined to cease trade the transaction or require a new shareholder meeting.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to remove counsel for the respondent, Deborah Weinstein, on the basis of a conflict of interest.

Counsel had previously represented six outside directors of the same company during the investigation phase, and Staff anticipated calling these directors as witnesses.

The Commission found that a potential conflict of interest existed because counsel might have to cross-examine his former clients.

However, balancing the public interest in the administration of justice with the respondent's right to counsel of choice, the Commission ordered a compromise: counsel could remain on the record provided the respondent retained independent counsel to conduct any cross-examination of the former clients, with strict screening measures in place.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Universal Settlements International Inc. (USI) traded in securities without registration or a prospectus by offering viatical products to investors.

The central issue was whether these viatical products—fractional interests in the death benefits of life insurance policies—constituted 'investment contracts' under s. 1(1) of the Securities Act.

Applying the Howey and Pacific Coast tests, the Commission found that the products involved an investment of funds with a view to profit in a common enterprise, where profits were derived from the undeniably significant efforts of USI and its agents.

Consequently, the viatical products were deemed securities, requiring USI to comply with the Act's registration and prospectus requirements.

Following a decision on the merits where the respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the Commission's investigation and hearing, a costs hearing was held to determine the quantum.

The respondents sought an adjournment, arguing that staff's disclosure of costs was insufficient, but the motion was dismissed as out of time.

Staff submitted a bill of costs for $32,332.60, supported by dockets that grouped tasks under generic descriptions.

The Commission found the docket entries insufficiently detailed to justify the full amount claimed and applied a substantial discount, fixing the quantum of costs at $20,000.00 to be paid jointly and severally by the respondents.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement concerning the respondents' involvement in an 'overtrade' of Bioscrypt Inc. shares.

Paradigm Capital Inc., acting as an agent for a private placement, facilitated secondary market trades for a mutual fund manager who had been solicited for the private placement.

This resulted in shares being sold by persons with knowledge of an undisclosed material fact to persons without such knowledge.

The Commission found this conduct contrary to the public interest, reprimanded the respondents, imposed trading restrictions, and ordered settlement payments and costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and advising, and distributed securities without a prospectus, in relation to an 'Asset Securitization Management Portfolio' promoted on their website.

The Commission found that the Trading Program was an investment contract and therefore a security.

The Commission held that offering the program on the internet constituted an act in furtherance of a trade, and that the respondents held themselves out as being in the business of advising.

Given the individual respondent's past criminal convictions for fraud and the highly questionable nature of the investment scheme, the Commission ordered permanent cease trade and director/officer bans.