Philip Anisman

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for a reciprocal order under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act based on a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents engaged in a 'pump and dump' market manipulation scheme and imposed permanent market prohibitions and administrative penalties.

The respondents did not participate in the written hearing.

The Commission granted the reciprocal order, imposing permanent trading and registration bans with minor modifications to the carveouts to protect Ontario investors.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Clayton Smith, the directing mind of Crystal Wealth Management System Limited.

Smith admitted to fraudulently misappropriating approximately $11.8 million from mutual funds he managed and failing to disclose conflicts of interest.

The settlement imposed permanent market prohibitions, a reprimand, and a $250,000 administrative penalty.

The Commission approved the settlement, noting that while the monetary penalty was small and potentially uncollectible due to a carveout provision and a receivership over Smith's assets, the permanent market prohibitions and the avoidance of a lengthy hearing made the sanctions fall within a reasonable range of appropriateness.

The respondent breached a prior Commission order permanently prohibiting him from trading in securities by selling securities to repay a personal debt.

Staff and the respondent reached a settlement agreement imposing a $120,000 administrative penalty, $5,000 in costs, and a second reprimand.

The Commission approved the settlement, affirming that the traditional reasonableness standard applies to securities regulatory settlements rather than the more stringent standard for criminal joint submissions established in Anthony-Cook.

The respondent brought a motion to adjourn the hearing on the merits pending his appeal to the Divisional Court regarding a dismissed motion for a stay based on solicitor-client privilege.

Staff opposed the adjournment, citing its pending motion to quash the appeal.

The Commission found that proceeding with the hearing would not significantly expedite the matter, as the majority of the hearing would occur in September regardless of the outcome of Staff's motion.

The motion to adjourn was granted, and the hearing was rescheduled to September.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional order against the respondent based on a settlement agreement with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

Staff elected to proceed by way of an expedited written hearing.

The Commissioner determined that an oral hearing was required to fully consider the issues, including the implications of the SEC's findings, the respondent's admission of those findings for specified purposes, and the potential for sanctions relating to registration that were not requested in the Statement of Allegations.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for a reciprocal order against Lance Sandford Cook and CBM Canada’s Best Mortgage Corp. based on a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents distributed securities without a prospectus and imposed market prohibitions and monetary sanctions.

The Commission granted the application and issued a reciprocal order imposing market prohibitions on the respondents to protect Ontario investors and deter similar conduct.

Following findings that the respondents engaged in three separate frauds involving the sale of shares at an inflated value, undisclosed use of investor funds to pay dividends, and misappropriation of funds, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered the individual respondents to disgorge over $3.3 million obtained through their fraudulent conduct.

In addition, the Commission imposed administrative penalties of $600,000 each on the individual respondents and $300,000 on the corporate respondent, ordered permanent market prohibitions, and awarded $550,000 in costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a no-contest settlement agreement between Staff and the Assante Dealers regarding excessive management expense ratios charged to clients.

The Assante Dealers self-reported the issue, cooperated with Staff, implemented a remediation program, and paid $3.6 million in compensation to affected clients, along with voluntary payments to the Commission.

The panel found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.

The applicants, Techocan International Co. Ltd. and Haiyan (Helen) Gao Jordan, applied under section 144 of the Securities Act to vary a settlement agreement they had entered into with Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

They argued that a subsequent settlement between Staff and co-respondents in the same proceeding resulted in a gross and unjustified disparity in sanctions, as the co-respondents faced no monetary penalties and minimal costs.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the two settlements were based on different facts, admitted contraventions, and individual circumstances.

The Commission held that absent exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as a subsequent finding that the admitted conduct was lawful, it would be prejudicial to the public interest to allow a party to resile from a settlement agreement based on a co-respondent's later, more favourable settlement.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a reciprocating order under subsection 127(1) of the Securities Act based on a settlement agreement and order made by the British Columbia Securities Commission against the respondent.

The respondent had admitted to acting in furtherance of trades in securities contrary to prospectus requirements by signing promissory notes as a director of a guarantor.

The Commission granted the reciprocating order, prohibiting the respondent from trading in securities, acting as a director or officer of an issuer, registrant, or investment fund manager, and acting as a registrant, investment fund manager, or promoter, mirroring the BC Order with necessary modifications for Ontario.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider whether to issue a reciprocal order against the respondent, who had entered into a settlement agreement with the Alberta Securities Commission admitting to insider trading.

The respondent did not appear but consented to the order.

The Commission issued an order prohibiting the respondent from trading in or purchasing securities for a three-year period, reciprocating the substance of the Alberta settlement agreement to protect investors in Ontario.

The Ontario Securities Commission issued a reciprocal order against the respondent, David Gregor McClure, following a settlement agreement he entered into with the Alberta Securities Commission.

The respondent admitted to unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and making misrepresentations.

The Commission modified the non-monetary sanctions from the Alberta agreement to align with its jurisdiction under the Ontario Securities Act, prohibiting the respondent from acquiring securities, acting as a director or officer of any issuer or registrant, and acting as a registrant or promoter.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Electrovaya Inc. and its CEO, Dr. Sankar Das Gupta.

The respondents admitted to publishing unbalanced and incomplete news releases and failing to update forward-looking information, resulting in overly optimistic disclosure.

The settlement required the respondents to retain an independent consultant to review corporate governance and disclosure policies, appoint an independent director as chair, and restructure the disclosure committee.

Dr. Das Gupta was reprimanded, prohibited from acting as a director or officer of any other reporting issuer for one year, and paid a $250,000 administrative penalty.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the RBC Registrants failed to establish sufficient controls and supervision, resulting in certain clients paying excess fees.

The RBC Registrants promptly self-reported the inadequacies, cooperated with Staff, and entered into a no-contest settlement agreement.

Under the settlement, the RBC Registrants agreed to pay over $21 million in compensation to affected clients, make a voluntary payment of $925,000 to the Commission, and pay $50,000 for costs.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it to be in the public interest given the prompt self-reporting, cooperation, and comprehensive corrective actions taken by the registrants.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent based on a British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) order.

The respondent had obtained leave to appeal the BCSC decisions and a stay of execution of the sanctions from the British Columbia Court of Appeal.

Staff requested an adjournment pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Commission granted the adjournment sine die, noting that because of the stay of execution, the BCSC order was not currently operative, and an order in Ontario would impose restrictions to which the respondent was not currently subject in British Columbia.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under subsections 127(1) and (10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously been found by the British Columbia Securities Commission to have engaged in fraudulent conduct and was subject to a permanent market prohibition in British Columbia.

The respondent did not appear at the written hearing.

The Commission found it was in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order permanently prohibiting the respondent from participating in Ontario's capital markets.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with Sentry Investments Inc. and Sean Driscoll regarding failures to comply with National Instrument 81-105 – Mutual Fund Sales Practices.

The respondents admitted to sales practices involving prohibited payments and gifts to registered dealers, as well as systemic supervisory failures.

The settlement included a significant administrative fine for Sentry, a $100,000 reparation payment by Driscoll, and a ban on Driscoll acting as a director or officer of a registrant until completing regulatory compliance courses.

The Commission found the agreed sanctions were within a reasonable range of appropriateness and in the public interest.