H. Lorne Morphy

The respondent brought a motion for a nonsuit at the close of Staff's case, arguing that Staff failed to establish a prima facie case of insider trading.

The Commission held that a nonsuit motion is available in its proceedings and exercised its discretion not to put the respondent to an election on whether to call evidence.

Applying the test of whether there is any evidence which, taken at its highest, establishes a reasonable inference in favour of Staff, the Commission found that a prima facie case had been made out.

The motion for a nonsuit was dismissed.

One Commissioner dissented on the issue of election, finding that the respondent should have been required to elect whether to call evidence.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with the respondent.

The respondent acknowledged engaging in insider trading contrary to s. 76(1) of the Securities Act, failing to file required insider reports under s. 107, and failing to correct a Management Information Circular that incorrectly stated his share ownership.

The Commission found the sanctions, which included a reprimand, fairly reflected the gravity of the conduct and approved the settlement as being in the public interest.

The applicant, a respondent in an insider trading proceeding, brought a pre-hearing motion seeking a ruling that the Commission could not make a public interest order against her under section 127 of the Securities Act if Staff failed to prove the specific allegation of insider trading under section 76(1).

A prior panel had dismissed the same motion as premature.

The Hearing Panel agreed with the prior panel, holding that it was inappropriate to tie the hands of the decision-makers before hearing the evidence and closing submissions.

The motion was dismissed as premature.

The applicant brought a motion requesting the Hearing Panel reconsider a prior panel's decision dismissing a motion to strike certain words from the Statement of Allegations.

The Hearing Panel found it had no jurisdiction to review the prior decision under section 144 of the Securities Act, Rule 9 of the Rules of Practice, or the common law doctrine of functus officio.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the panel would have dismissed the motion, finding that the inclusion of the words 'and contrary to the public interest' did not impair the applicant's right to know the case to meet.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents, including Leslie and Douglas Brown, engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities related to 'F.E.D.I. desks' at an investment seminar.

The Browns had invited friends to the seminar and introduced the main speaker, but did not receive compensation or act on behalf of the promoter.

The Commission found that the Browns' actions did not constitute acts in furtherance of a trade, as they were not acting to promote the sale on behalf of the seller.

The allegations against the Browns were dismissed.

Following a finding that the respondents traded in securities without registration in relation to a high-yield investment program, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions hearing.

The Commission ordered that the corporate respondents cease trading for 15 years, and the individual respondent cease trading for 10 years with carve-outs for personal accounts.

The individual respondent was also banned from acting as a director or officer of an issuer for 15 years, reprimanded, and ordered to pay $150,000 in costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether the respondents breached section 25(1)(a) of the Securities Act by trading in securities without being registered.

The respondents had accepted approximately US $21 million from investors for a "high yield program" involving bank guarantees and medium-term bank notes.

The Commission found that the high yield program constituted an investment contract and therefore a security under the Act.

The Commission further held that the respondents' actions, including accepting funds and providing proof of funds letters, constituted acts in furtherance of trades.

As the respondents were acting as market intermediaries in Ontario, they were not exempt from registration.

The Commission concluded that the respondents traded in securities without registration contrary to the Act, with a subsequent hearing to determine sanctions.