Mark Sandler

The applicant sought exemptive relief on behalf of several investment funds to facilitate a reorganization into a multi-fund structure.

The reorganization involved transferring the investment portfolio of a Canadian limited partnership to a Cayman Islands master fund through an intermediary Cayman limited partnership.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted relief from the related issuer investment restrictions under the Securities Act, as well as the consent and in specie trade restrictions under National Instrument 31-103, subject to various conditions including disclosure requirements and pricing controls.

The Filer, Gazit-Globe Ltd., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for an order to cease being a reporting issuer in all Canadian jurisdictions.

The Filer had voluntarily delisted its ordinary shares from the Toronto Stock Exchange due to low trading volume and to reduce administrative expenses.

The Commission found that Canadian residents beneficially owned less than 2% of the Filer's outstanding securities and comprised less than 2% of its total securityholders worldwide.

The order was granted, and the Filer ceased to be a reporting issuer in Canada.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Omega Securities Inc. (OSI) regarding OSI's failure to comply with transparency requirements under National Instrument 21-101.

OSI operated two Alternative Trading Systems and disseminated inaccurate information regarding broker identities, order receipt times, and trade execution times across its data feeds.

The settlement included an administrative penalty of $500,000 and the imposition of terms and conditions on OSI's registration to ensure ongoing compliance, including the retention of an independent systems reviewer.

The applicant, a portfolio manager, applied for exemptive relief from the mutual fund conflict of interest reporting requirements under Ontario securities legislation.

The applicant argued that providing monthly segregated reports for each fund would be costly and time-consuming, as substantially similar information is already disclosed in the funds' management reports of fund performance.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions requiring specific disclosures in the annual and interim management reports and in the records of portfolio transactions.

The Filer applied for exemptive relief on behalf of proposed exchange-traded mutual funds.

The requested relief sought exemptions from the requirement to include an underwriter's certificate in the prospectus and from the take-over bid requirements for normal course purchases of securities on the TSX.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested exemptions, subject to conditions regarding the delivery of ETF Facts documents.

The respondent entered into a settlement agreement with Staff of the Commission regarding its failure to provide timely delivery of summary disclosure documents to investors who purchased exchange traded fund securities.

The failure was inadvertent and caused by a software programming error, with no evidence of investor losses or financial benefit to the respondent.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest, and ordered a $700,000 administrative penalty, $35,000 in costs, and the implementation of enhanced control and supervision procedures.

The applicant, Galileo Global Equity Advisors Inc., applied on behalf of two proposed exchange-traded funds for exemptive relief from the underwriter's certificate requirement, the prospectus form requirement, and the take-over bid requirements.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested exemptions, subject to conditions including the filing and delivery of a Summary Document or ETF Facts document in place of the standard prospectus requirements.

The respondent admitted to contravening the Securities Act by selling convertible debentures to 20 individuals without being registered.

Staff of the Commission and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement proposing an administrative penalty, costs, and a ten-year ban from participating in the capital markets.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding its terms reasonable and in the public interest, noting the respondent's cooperation and the deterrent effect of the agreed sanctions.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a three-month extension of a temporary order that included a Removal of Exemptions Order against the respondents.

The central issue was the interpretation of 'hearing' in subsection 127(7) of the Securities Act, specifically whether it could mean a series of attendances at which Staff seeks repeated extensions.

The Commission rejected Staff's interpretation, finding that subsection 127(7) does not authorize the extension of a temporary order beyond the conclusion of a Temporary Order Hearing unless an Enforcement Proceeding has been commenced within fifteen days of the initial order.

The request to extend the Removal of Exemptions Order was denied.

The Filer applied for an order to cease to be a reporting issuer in all applicable Canadian jurisdictions.

Following a share consolidation, the Filer had only three remaining shareholders holding shares for a single beneficial owner.

The principal regulator granted the order, noting the Filer's outstanding securities were beneficially owned by fewer than 15 securityholders in each Canadian jurisdiction and fewer than 51 worldwide.

The corporate respondents brought a motion seeking disclosure of documents and information from the complainants and the Ontario Human Rights Commission, or alternatively, an order striking the complaint.

The Board of Inquiry noted that the hearing on the merits had been bifurcated into liability and remedy phases.

Consequently, the Board ordered disclosure only of documents relating to the liability aspect of the proceedings at this juncture, specifically information concerning the diagnoses of four youths and details regarding the complainants' bankruptcies to establish their entitlement to any potential award.

The complainant, a part-time firefighter with a visual impairment, applied for a full-time position.

He was denied employment because his visual impairment prevented him from obtaining a class F licence, which was required to operate the town's ambulance.

The Board of Inquiry found that the requirement to hold a class F licence was prima facie discriminatory.

The respondents failed to establish that the requirement was a bona fide occupational requirement, as they did not properly consider whether the complainant could be accommodated by performing firefighting duties only, without undue hardship.

The Board concluded that the respondents discriminated against the complainant on the basis of disability.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of handicap, the complainant sought a remedy that included the development of an accommodation policy for the respondent.

The adjudicator granted the firefighters' association leave to intervene to make submissions confined to the issue of the accommodation policy, recognizing its significant interest in the terms of such an order.

The Ancaster Professional Firefighters' Association sought leave to intervene in a human rights complaint alleging discrimination in employment because of handicap.

The Commission requested a remedy that included the development of an accommodation policy for the respondent.

The adjudicator granted the Association leave to intervene to make oral and written submissions confined to the issue of the accommodation policy, recognizing its significant interest in the terms of such an order.