Raymond Kindiak

The applicant sought a hearing and review of IIROC merits and sanctions decisions which found he inappropriately altered signed client documents and suspended his registration for 12 months.

The applicant argued the IIROC Panel erred by admitting unalleged misconduct, reversing the onus of proof, making improper inferences from circumstantial evidence, and imposing excessive sanctions.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC Panel's decisions were reasonable, applied the correct onus of proof, and appropriately relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

In an enforcement proceeding, the respondent Serrano brought a motion seeking disclosure of a Confidential Order and related reasons that redacted portions of a co-respondent's compelled interview transcripts.

Staff argued they were legally prohibited from identifying information relating to the Confidential Order and proposed an ex parte, in camera hearing to make submissions.

The Commission held that it had the inherent authority to control its own procedure and ordered a confidential phase of the hearing.

To address the inherent fairness concerns of excluding the respondents, the Commission appointed an amicus curiae to represent the interests of justice during the confidential phase.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents breached a cease trade order, engaged in unregistered trading, and distributed securities without a prospectus.

The individual respondents admitted to the contraventions and entered into a settlement agreement with Staff.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding the agreed sanctions—including a $30,000 administrative penalty, $10,000 in costs, and a four-year market ban for each individual respondent—to be reasonable and in the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent, the former CEO of Inspiration Mining Corporation, sought approval of a settlement agreement.

The respondent admitted to issuing false and misleading press releases regarding purported negotiations in the cannabis industry and engaging in improper insider trading by selling shares while in possession of material undisclosed facts, realizing a gain of approximately $100,000.

He also failed to file required insider reports.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding the agreed sanctions—including a ten-year market ban, disgorgement of $97,070.82, an administrative penalty of $92,929.18, and $10,000 in costs—to be a reasonable response to the serious misconduct and in the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a reciprocal protective order against the respondent under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act, based on a prior decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondent created and operated a shell company to conceal his involvement and provided misleading information to US regulators.

The Commission found that the threshold under s. 127(10) was met and that it was in the public interest to issue a protective order.

The Commission granted the order, imposing market prohibitions substantially similar to those ordered in British Columbia, with modifications to reflect differences in Ontario securities law, including a prohibition on trading derivatives.

During a merits hearing, the Chair of the Panel was announced as the incoming Acting Chair and CEO of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Panel raised the issue of whether this created a reasonable apprehension of bias, given the Chair's future management responsibilities over Staff.

After receiving submissions, the Panel concluded that a reasonable and informed person might perceive a bias in favour of Staff.

The Chair recused himself from the remainder of the merits hearing and a pending disclosure motion, and the hearing proceeded with the remaining two Panel members.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act against the respondents, following an order by the Nova Scotia Securities Commission (NSSC).

The NSSC had found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and unfair practices.

The Commission found that the threshold under s. 127(10) was met and that it was in the public interest to issue a protective order under s. 127(1).

The Commission issued an order substantially similar to the NSSC order, with an additional prohibition against trading derivatives to protect Ontario investors.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a no-contest settlement agreement between Staff and International Capital Markets Pty.

Ltd. (ICM), an Australian over-the-counter derivatives issuer.

Staff alleged that ICM breached the registration and prospectus requirements of the Securities Act by opening accounts for Ontario investors to trade contracts for differences without being registered or filing a prospectus.

ICM agreed to cease doing business in Ontario, return funds to investors, and pay US$4 million reflecting revenue generated, plus C$650,000 to advance the Commission's mandate and C$25,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest given ICM's exemplary cooperation and the inadvertent nature of the misconduct.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with CoinLaunch Corp., an unregistered crypto-asset service provider.

CoinLaunch admitted to engaging in the business of trading in securities without registration by marketing and promoting two security token offerings (BCZERO and ECOREAL).

The Commission found the tokens constituted investment contracts.

The settlement included a $30,000 administrative penalty, disgorgement of $12,233.06, $10,000 in costs, and a five-year ban on trading or acquiring securities.