Lawrence E. Ritchie

The filer, Local Matters, Inc., applied for exemptive relief from the prospectus and registration requirements under the Securities Act to permit the posting of electronic roadshow materials on a commercial website during the waiting period of a cross-border initial public offering.

Compliance with U.S. securities laws required unrestricted access to these materials, which conflicted with Canadian requirements.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the relief, subject to the condition that purchasers in Canada are provided a contractual right of action for any misrepresentations in the materials.

The applicant, Sherritt International Corporation, applied for exemptive relief from the identical consideration requirement under the Securities Act in connection with its take-over bid for Royal Utilities Income Fund.

The applicant sought to provide US and foreign unitholders with cash proceeds from the sale of shares rather than the shares themselves, to avoid violating foreign securities laws.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, permitting the use of a vendor placement mechanism for foreign unitholders.

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 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.

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.

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.