Mary G. Condon

The applicant, Lake Shore Gold Corp., applied for a decision that it is no longer a reporting issuer in the applicable jurisdictions following its acquisition by Tahoe Resources Inc. via a statutory plan of arrangement.

The Ontario Securities Commission, acting as principal regulator, granted the exemptive relief sought, noting that all outstanding securities of the applicant are beneficially owned by Tahoe and the applicant has no intention to seek public financing.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, sought standing to bring an application under section 127 of the Securities Act to delay a special meeting and require corrective disclosure in a management information circular regarding a related party transaction.

The respondent brought a motion to deny standing.

The Commission granted the motion and denied standing, finding that the application raised no novel issues, the alleged disclosure deficiencies had already been widely debated in the market, and intervening at a late stage would unduly interfere with the justified expectations of market participants.

Invesco Canada Ltd. applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for exemptive relief from the requirement under section 117(2) of the Securities Act to file monthly reports for its investment funds regarding trades executed through a related party broker.

The applicant argued that filing segregated monthly reports would be costly and time-consuming, and that similar information is already provided in the funds' annual and interim management reports of fund performance.

The Commission granted the requested exemption, subject to conditions requiring the funds to disclose the related party fees in their management reports and to maintain detailed records of such transactions.

The applicants, trustees of Central GoldTrust and Silver Bullion Trust, brought an application to the Ontario Securities Commission regarding unsolicited take-over bids by Sprott.

The applicants argued the bids violated the identical consideration requirement of the Securities Act and were contrary to the public interest due to misleading statements, confusing structure, and a variation amending powers of attorney.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to hear the application but concluded the bids did not violate the identical consideration requirement.

However, the Commission found the disclosure regarding the variation to the powers of attorney was inadequate and ordered Sprott to issue a notice of change in information providing clear disclosure to unitholders before proceeding with the bids.

The Filer, HCN-Revera Joint Venture ULC, applied for a decision under the securities legislation of multiple jurisdictions that it is not a reporting issuer.

Following a plan of arrangement, the Filer became a wholly-owned subsidiary and no longer has any outstanding securities held by the public.

The Ontario Securities Commission, acting as principal regulator, granted the exemptive relief sought.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought an application for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondents under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a decision of the Alberta Securities Commission.

The ASC had found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and fraud, and imposed permanent market bans on the corporate respondents and 10-year bans on the individual respondents.

The OSC found that the respondents' conduct would have constituted breaches of Ontario securities law and that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors.

The OSC granted the application and imposed reciprocal trading and registration bans on the respondents in Ontario.

The applicant, an investment fund manager, applied for exemptive relief from subsection 5.1(a) of National Instrument 81-105.

The applicant sought permission to pay participating dealers for direct costs related to cooperative marketing initiatives where the primary purpose is to provide educational information concerning financial planning matters.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the exemption, subject to conditions ensuring the information is general, educational, and not tied to sales incentives.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent following a settlement agreement and order by the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The respondent had engaged in unregistered advising in British Columbia.

The Commission found that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors and the integrity of Ontario's capital markets by imposing reciprocal sanctions.

The respondent was ordered to cease trading in securities and was prohibited from becoming registered under Ontario securities law for a specified period, mirroring the British Columbia order.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondents under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior order of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents engaged in an illegal distribution of securities and that the individual respondent perpetrated a fraud by misappropriating investor funds.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Commission found it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors and capital markets by imposing permanent trading, acquisition, and director/officer bans on the respondents, mirroring the non-financial sanctions imposed in British Columbia.

The Applicants brought an application to vary freeze directions issued by the Ontario Securities Commission to allow for the payment of $250,000 in legal fees.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the frozen funds were raised from investors and that the primary purpose of freeze directions is to preserve assets for potential recovery by investors.

The Commission held that it would be prejudicial to the public interest to allow investor funds to be used to fund the Applicants' legal defence, noting that there is no general right to legal counsel and that the Applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of a lack of financial means.

The applicant, a mutual fund dealing representative, applied for a hearing and review of a Director's decision suspending his registration for six months.

Over a ten-year period, the applicant had forged client signatures, obtained pre-signed forms, and provided incorrect answers on compliance questionnaires.

The Commission found that the applicant's conduct was fundamentally dishonest, rendering him unsuitable for registration and in breach of Ontario securities law.

The Commission ordered that the applicant's registration be suspended for six months.

The applicant, Purpose Investments Inc., applied to the Ontario Securities Commission for exemptive relief from the Take-over Bid Requirements on behalf of purchasers of units in the Limited Duration Investment Grade Preferred Securities Fund.

The Commission granted the exemption, provided that any purchaser making an offer to acquire units does not beneficially own or control 20% or more of the total outstanding units of all classes of the Fund as a result of the purchase.

The applicant, who was the subject of an ongoing administrative proceeding before the Ontario Securities Commission, brought a motion for disclosure of certain investigation notes prepared by Commission Staff.

The applicant sought to use the notes in parallel civil proceedings.

The Commission found that the notes relating to a bank were compelled evidence under section 13 of the Securities Act, and the applicant failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating that disclosure was in the public interest.

The Commission also found that the notes relating to three witnesses were voluntary evidence subject to the implied undertaking rule.

The Commission held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a superior public interest in disclosure that would outweigh the need to protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation and the privacy of the witnesses.

The motion was dismissed.

The Filer applied for exemptive relief on behalf of certain top funds to allow them to invest in underlying funds managed by the same manager, despite the substantial securityholder and significant interest restrictions in the Securities Act.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions including that the top funds are distributed solely pursuant to prospectus exemptions, there is no duplication of fees, and investors receive appropriate disclosure regarding the fund-on-fund structure and potential conflicts of interest.

The applicant applied for exemptive relief on behalf of itself and certain mutual funds to permit a fund-on-fund structure.

The relief sought exemptions from restrictions on investing in related issuers and the consent requirement for investing in issuers where a responsible person has a significant interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions including that the top funds are distributed solely on a private placement basis and that no duplicative management or incentive fees are charged.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a no-contest settlement agreement between Staff and the TD Entities regarding alleged inadequacies in internal compliance systems that resulted in investors being charged inappropriate mutual fund fees.

The TD Entities self-reported the issues, undertook to pay over $13 million in compensation to harmed investors, and agreed to make voluntary payments of $650,000.

The Panel found the settlement to be in the public interest, emphasizing the importance of self-reporting, remediation, and improved compliance systems.

The Filer applied for an exemption from the prospectus requirement in connection with the distribution of Class A Units that have been repurchased or redeemed by the Filer.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the exemptive relief, permitting the resale of the units subject to conditions including compliance with National Instrument 45-102 and exchange regulations.

Following a merits decision finding that the Respondents breached the registration and prospectus requirements of the Securities Act, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission first ruled that transcripts from the merits hearing were admissible to provide evidence on sanctioning factors.

The Commission then imposed permanent cease trade orders on the corporate respondent and 10-year cease trade and director/officer bans on the individual respondents.

Administrative penalties totaling $580,000 were ordered against the individual respondents.

The Commission declined to order disgorgement due to uncertainty in calculating the amounts obtained from the illegal conduct.

Costs of $126,216.04 were awarded to Staff, discounted for unproven allegations and unaccepted evidence.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondents under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior order of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities.

The OSC found that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario investors and capital markets by imposing reciprocal sanctions.

The OSC ordered that the respondents cease trading in securities and be prohibited from acting as directors or officers of any issuer for a period of five years, subject to limited exceptions.

The applicants, 1832 Asset Management L.P. and Aurion Capital Management Inc., applied for exemptive relief on behalf of several mutual funds to permit the funds to invest in a secondary offering of CI Financial Corp. shares.

The relief was required because The Bank of Nova Scotia, a substantial securityholder of the applicants, held a significant interest in CI Financial Corp., triggering the investment prohibition in National Instrument 81-102.

The Ontario Securities Commission granted the requested relief, subject to conditions including independent review committee approval, maximum investment limits, and pricing requirements.