Lawrence E. Ritchie

David Berry, a former employee of Scotia Capital Inc., applied for a hearing and review of a decision by a hearing panel of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) that dismissed his motion to stay an RS proceeding against him.

Berry argued that the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) were not validly adopted by the TSX and that RS lacked jurisdiction over him as a former employee.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding that UMIR are rules of RS, approved by the Commission, and enforceable against TSX Participants and their employees.

The Commission also held that the TSX Act provides the basis for RS's jurisdiction to proceed against Berry as a former employee.

Pala Investments Holdings Limited and its subsidiary applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order to cease trade a shareholder rights plan (poison pill) adopted by the board of Neo Material Technologies Inc. in response to Pala's hostile partial take-over bid.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the board had acted in accordance with its fiduciary duties to protect the long-term interests of the corporation, and that an overwhelming majority of Neo's shareholders had made an informed decision to approve the rights plan in the face of the outstanding bid.

The Commission concluded it was not in the public interest to interfere with the board's decision or the shareholders' ratification at this time.

The RCMP (Crown) applied under s. 17(1) of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

The evidence was sought to assist the Crown in a criminal fraud proceeding against the respondent.

The Commission found that the respondents whose evidence was sought had provided written consent as required by s. 17(3).

Applying the factors from Re Black, the Commission determined it was in the public interest to authorize disclosure, as the consenting respondents waived confidentiality, and the disclosure would not prejudice the respondent's right to make full answer and defence.

The application was granted subject to strict confidentiality and use conditions.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider a proposed Settlement Agreement between Staff and the respondents, Swift Trade Inc. and Peter Beck.

The respondents admitted to making non-wilful misleading statements regarding the beneficial ownership of a major client during a compliance review.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable, and ordered a reprimand, the removal of terms and conditions on Swift Trade's registration, and $20,000 in costs.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Crown) applied under section 17(1) of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

The evidence was sought to assist in the criminal prosecution of the respondent for fraud.

The Commission granted the application, finding that the relevant witnesses had provided written consent to the disclosure and that authorizing disclosure to the Crown, subject to strict confidentiality and use conditions, was in the public interest and would not prejudice the respondent's right to make full answer and defence.

The applicant, Y, applied under section 17 of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled and voluntary evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

Y sought the evidence to make full answer and defence to criminal fraud charges.

The Commission balanced Y's right to make full answer and defence against the privacy interests of the witnesses who provided the evidence.

The Commission granted disclosure for witnesses who consented or did not object, and for those who opposed but were on the Crown's witness list, subject to strict confidentiality terms.

Disclosure was denied for opposing witnesses not on the Crown's witness list.

The respondent, Claudio Fernando Maya, contested the extension of a temporary order prohibiting him from trading in securities.

Staff alleged that the respondent engaged in trading activity without being registered, failed to conduct due diligence, and unjustifiably relied on the representations of others.

The Commission found that the respondent did not provide satisfactory information to justify not extending the temporary order, balancing the public interest and the seriousness of the allegations against the respondent's submissions.

The temporary order was extended to September 30, 2009.

Pala Investments Holdings Limited and its subsidiary applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order to cease trade the shareholder rights plans of Neo Material Technologies Inc. The application was brought in the context of Pala's takeover bid for Neo.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the Second Shareholder Rights Plan was adopted by the Neo Board in response to the Pala Offer, was approved by an overwhelming majority of Neo shareholders, and there was no evidence of coercion or that the Board did not act in the best interests of the corporation.

The Commission concluded it was not in the public interest to grant the relief sought at this time.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider a settlement agreement between Staff and Kwok-On Aloysius Lo.

Lo admitted to executing trades that created a misleading appearance of trading activity and price, including wash trades, and to trading in the accounts of two other individuals without being registered.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest, and ordered a 10-year registration ban, a 5-year trading ban with an RRSP carve-out, disgorgement of $18,641, and $5,000 in costs.

In an insider trading proceeding, the respondents brought a motion for unrestricted disclosure of forensic images of a third party's computer hard drives.

Staff had withheld two images citing the third party's privacy and sensitive commercial information.

The Commission held that while respondents are entitled to a high standard of disclosure akin to Stinchcombe to make full answer and defence, this right must be balanced against the legitimate privacy interests of third parties.

The Commission ordered disclosure of the disputed images but imposed strict conditions, including that the images remain in the custody of counsel or their expert, not be electronically copied, and be used solely for the purpose of the proceeding.

TSX Inc. sought intervenor status in a hearing and review requested by the respondent regarding a decision of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS).

The respondent had challenged the validity of the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) and the TSX's delegation of market regulation to RS.

The Commission granted TSX limited intervenor status, finding that the TSX had a direct interest in the proceeding because its market regulation and enforcement regime was being challenged, and that its participation would be useful without unfairly prejudicing the existing parties.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought to extend a temporary cease trade order prohibiting short selling in the common equity securities of certain financial sector issuers interlisted in the United States.

The initial order was issued to prevent regulatory arbitrage following emergency orders by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Commission found it in the public interest to extend the order to parallel the SEC's extensions, thereby promoting fair and orderly markets in Ontario.

The temporary cease trade order was extended with amendments.

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.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent sought approval of a settlement agreement.

A parallel proceeding involving some of the same respondents and allegations was pending before the Alberta Securities Commission (ASC).

The respondent requested that the settlement agreement and hearing transcripts remain confidential to avoid prejudicing the ASC proceeding.

The Commission granted the confidentiality order, directing that the materials remain confidential until the earlier of the release of the ASC decision or the commencement of the substantive OSC hearing, subject to Staff's disclosure obligations to the other respondents.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to defer the hearing of Constitutional Motions brought by the respondents until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents sought to challenge the constitutionality of the investigation provisions of the Securities Act and the manner in which Staff obtained and used an investigation order.

The Commission granted Staff's motion, finding that Charter challenges should generally be decided on a complete factual record rather than in a factual vacuum.

The Commission concluded that the constitutional issues could not be fairly or completely resolved without regard to the contested facts and anticipated evidence that would be presented at the hearing on the merits.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the respondents' Constitutional Motions until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents' motions challenged the constitutionality of section 11 of the Securities Act and the use of compelled evidence, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The Commission granted Staff's motion, holding that Charter challenges and requests for a stay of proceedings should generally not be decided in a factual vacuum.

The Commission found that a complete factual record, which could only be developed at the hearing on the merits, was necessary to properly assess whether the respondents' Charter rights were violated and what remedies might be appropriate.

The respondents requested that the Commission's Confidential Reasons and Decision dated May 18, 2007 be redacted to remove their names and identifying information prior to public release, relying on the confidentiality provisions in section 16 of the Securities Act.

Staff argued that subsection 17(6) permitted disclosure in connection with a proceeding and opposed a broad sealing order, but did not object to anonymizing the parties.

The Commission held that while it had the authority to release the reasons unredacted, it would exercise its discretion to release a redacted version until the commencement of the hearing on the merits.

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 adjourn the respondents' Constitutional Motions until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents had filed motions challenging the constitutionality of section 11 of the Securities Act and the manner in which an investigation order was obtained and used, alleging violations of their Charter rights.

The Commission held that the Constitutional Motions should be dealt with in the course of the hearing on the merits because a determination in advance would deprive the Commission of the complete factual basis necessary for a proper consideration of the alleged Charter violations.

Staff's motion was granted and the Constitutional Motions were deferred to the hearing panel.