Russell Juriansz

The respondents moved to stay an enforcement proceeding and requested the Tribunal issue summonses to five members of OSC Staff to testify at the stay motion hearing.

The respondents sought evidence regarding the OSC's decision to include compelled evidence in a receivership application without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate issues already decided in a previous motion for documentary disclosure, and that the respondents failed to establish a reasonable basis that the summonses would lead to relevant evidence of abusive conduct.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought a motion to adjourn their motions for a stay of proceedings, the merits hearing, and related filing dates until their judicial review application of a prior Tribunal decision is determined by the Divisional Court.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the pending judicial review application did not constitute an 'exceptional circumstance' under Rule 29(1) of the Tribunal's Rules of Procedure.

The Tribunal emphasized the public interest in proceeding expeditiously and noted that the mere filing of a judicial review application does not automatically warrant an adjournment.

The respondents raised $10 million from investors through secured debentures, representing that the funds would be used exclusively to finance a specific real estate project (Bayview Creek).

Instead, the respondents diverted approximately $3.39 million of the proceeds back to the corporate respondent and to other real estate projects controlled by the individual respondent.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondents engaged in a course of conduct that they knew perpetrated a fraud on investors, contrary to s. 126.1(1)(b) of the Securities Act.

David and Natasha Sharpe brought motions for disclosure of various documents to support their motions for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged abuse of process.

The alleged abuse was the Ontario Securities Commission's filing of their compelled testimony in a public court record for a receivership application without first obtaining a section 17 order.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the disclosure motions, finding that the Sharpes failed to establish a tenable case of abuse of process, as the disclosure occurred in a separate proceeding, did not affect the adjudicative fairness of the current proceeding, and there was no evidence of bad faith by OSC Staff.

The respondent brought a motion to restrict Staff's use of documents that were also used in a parallel criminal proceeding against the respondent and his company.

The respondent argued that the documents should be subject to the screening process established in D.P. v Wagg.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Wagg process did not apply because Staff obtained the documents through its own investigation, rather than receiving them as Crown disclosure.

The Tribunal noted that applying Wagg would improperly impose unnecessary constraints on Staff.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and Aux Cayes Fintech Co. Ltd. sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations of unregistered trading and illegal distributions.

Aux Cayes operated an online crypto asset trading platform accessible to Ontario investors without being registered or filing a prospectus.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest.

Aux Cayes admitted to the contraventions and agreed to pay a $600,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $514,950 USD in revenue, and pay $25,000 in costs.

A non-party whose motion for intervenor status was previously dismissed brought an application under section 25.0.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to keep the Tribunal's decision and reasons confidential.

The applicant argued the panel misunderstood her submissions and the reasons might impact investors.

The Tribunal summarily dismissed the application, finding it improper as it was merely an expression of dissatisfaction with the previous decision and an attempt to re-litigate the matter.

Alice Zhou brought a motion seeking intervenor status in an enforcement proceeding against Xiao Hua (Edward) Gong for alleged securities fraud and unregistered trading.

Zhou claimed to represent investors in China and raised concerns about Gong's identity and potential forged documents.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Zhou was not directly affected by the proceeding, would not likely make a unique and useful contribution, and had other avenues to communicate her concerns, such as contacting Staff.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of binary options, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The respondents operated an interconnected global business that raised over $1.4 million from Ontario investors using deceptive practices.

The Tribunal ordered significant market participation bans, administrative penalties of $1,000,000 and $500,000, joint and several disgorgement of $1,407,278.63, and costs of $400,000.