James D. Carnwath, Q.C.

During the 117th day of a protracted hearing on the merits, four respondents brought a motion requesting permission to file written witness statements in lieu of oral examinations-in-chief for their remaining witnesses.

The respondents argued this was necessary to ensure the hearing concluded by the scheduled deadline and to prevent the exhaustion of their funding, relying on the Supreme Court's direction in Hryniak regarding proportionality and access to justice.

Staff opposed the motion, arguing that credibility was at issue and written statements would provide a 'varnished version' of the facts.

The Panel granted the motion, finding that the slight prejudice to Staff in not observing the witnesses during examination-in-chief was outweighed by the necessity to complete the hearing efficiently and the significant costs already incurred by all parties.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading and advising in commodity futures contracts and misled Staff, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against the respondents, administrative penalties of $200,000 each against Khan and his company, disgorgement of $366,324.71, and costs of $191,252.43.

The Commission found the respondents' conduct to be serious and noted Khan's unmanageable behaviour during the hearing, concluding that significant sanctions were necessary for specific and general deterrence.

Following a merits decision finding the respondents engaged in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme, unregistered trading, and other contraventions of Ontario securities law, the Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market participation bans against the respondents, administrative penalties of $600,000 each against the corporate and individual respondents (excluding the bankrupt entity), and disgorgement of over $3 million.

The respondents were also ordered to pay $200,000 in costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought allegations against the respondents for breaches of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities by selling previously unissued shares to foreign investors through a non-existent investment bank.

The corporate respondents, directed by a de facto officer, perpetrated a fraud by making false statements and depleting investor funds for personal expenses.

The individual respondent, as a director and officer, was deemed to have authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the corporations' non-compliance with Ontario securities law.

The Commission concluded that the respondents breached the Act and acted contrary to the public interest.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and securities fraud through a complex telemarketing scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing on sanctions and costs.

The respondents did not participate.

The Commission found that the respondents' conduct was egregious and warranted severe sanctions to protect the public interest and provide specific and general deterrence.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, administrative penalties totaling $900,000, disgorgement of $359,200, and costs of $50,000 against the respondents.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and securities fraud through three interconnected schemes involving BFM Industries Inc., Liquid Gold International Corp., and Nanotech Industries Inc. The Commission found that Sandy Winick orchestrated the schemes, using a fictitious investment bank to sell shares in inactive companies to foreign investors, and misappropriated the funds for personal use.

Winick and Gregory J. Curry were found to have contravened the Securities Act, including provisions against unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and fraud, and were deemed liable as directors/officers.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and fraud in connection with a foreign exchange trading scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The directing minds of the scheme, Singh and Martinez, misappropriated investor funds and perpetuated a fraud resulting in over $1.1 million in losses.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, administrative penalties of $250,000 each, disgorgement of $1,071,269, and costs of $85,856 against the directing minds and their company.

A referring agent, Levy, who was deceived by the directing minds but still breached registration and prospectus requirements, was ordered to serve 5-year market bans, pay a $5,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $59,849 in referral fees, and pay $5,000 in costs.

Following a merits hearing where the Respondents were found to have perpetrated a fraud on investors and breached their duties as investment fund managers, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission found that the Respondents' conduct was egregious and caused significant financial losses to investors.

The Commission ordered the termination of the Respondents' registrations, permanent and temporary market prohibitions, and director/officer bans.

Additionally, the Commission ordered administrative penalties totaling $1.3 million, disgorgement of $6.74 million in profits obtained from the non-compliance, and costs of $435,000 against the individual respondents.

The respondent, Caroline Myriam Frayssignes, brought a motion requesting that all documentary evidence relied upon by Staff at the merits hearing be translated into French.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that there is no absolute right to the translation of third-party documents or internal investigation evidence under the French Language Services Act, as such evidence does not constitute a 'service' provided to the public.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the respondent failed to demonstrate any actual prejudice to her right to make full answer and defence that would warrant an order for translation on procedural fairness grounds.