Sandra Blake

The applicant, a former registered representative, applied for a hearing and review of CIRO decisions finding he misappropriated client funds, effected unauthorized trades, and failed to cooperate with an investigation.

The applicant, who was self-represented, argued he was denied procedural fairness due to his health and that the findings were incorrect.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed most of the application, finding the CIRO panel did not err in denying an adjournment or proceeding with a two-member panel.

However, the Tribunal set aside the finding that the applicant misappropriated funds from two specific clients, concluding the CIRO panel overlooked material documentary evidence (a promissory note and a complaint letter) supporting the applicant's claim that the funds were a personal loan.

The matter regarding those two clients was remitted to CIRO Staff to decide whether to rehear the allegation.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to summarily dismiss the respondent's motion to stay the enforcement proceeding for abuse of process.

The respondent alleged that Staff failed to adequately protect privileged documents obtained during a related criminal investigation.

The Tribunal held that the applicable standard for summary dismissal of a stay motion is the 'tenable case' standard, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Haevischer does not apply outside the criminal context.

The Tribunal found that Staff failed to establish that the respondent's motion had no reasonable prospect of success, as the alleged breach of privilege could potentially undermine the integrity of the justice system even if it did not compromise the fairness of the hearing.

Staff's motion was dismissed.

Binance Holdings Limited applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal under s. 144(1) of the Securities Act to revoke an investigation order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission under s. 11.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on whether it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the 2022 amendments to the Securities Act separated the Commission's executive and adjudicative functions, and that the word 'Commission' in s. 144(1) does not include the Tribunal.

Consequently, only the Commission, exercising its executive function, can revoke its own s. 11 order.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and made false or misleading statements in connection with raising funds for a hotel redevelopment project.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondents distributed securities without a prospectus and breached a temporary cease trade order.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the allegations of unregistered trading, finding that the capital raising was ancillary to the underlying hotel business, and dismissed the allegations of false statements because no trading relationship existed.

The Tribunal also found the respondents engaged its public interest jurisdiction by failing to segregate funds and maintain accurate records.

The respondents, David and Natasha Sharpe, brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding against them, alleging abuse of process.

They argued that the Ontario Securities Commission improperly filed their compelled testimony in a court application for a receiver without obtaining a section 17 order under the Securities Act, thereby prejudicing their right to a fair hearing and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motions, finding that the public availability of the compelled evidence did not prejudice their right to a fair hearing, as any potential witness tainting could be addressed through cross-examination.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the Commission's conduct, while based on a mistaken interpretation of the law, was not in bad faith and did not constitute the rare and exceptional circumstances required to justify a stay of proceedings.

The respondent, Marc Judah Bistricer, brought a motion seeking additional disclosure from Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding documents obtained during its investigation.

Staff alleged that the respondents engaged in abusive short selling and other transactions contrary to the animating principles of the Securities Act.

Bistricer sought documents relating to similar transactions by others and all materials obtained under section 11 investigation orders.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the disclosure request was too vague and imprecise.

Furthermore, even interpreting the request generously, the Tribunal held that the requested documents were irrelevant, as the standard for the respondents' conduct is not determined by the prevalence of similar conduct by others in the market, and Staff's disclosure obligation does not extend to all materials obtained during an investigation.

The applicants, David and Natasha Sharpe, sought to vary an earlier Tribunal decision that denied their request for disclosure in support of their pending motions to stay the proceeding for abuse of process.

They argued that the Supreme Court of Canada's recent decision in R v Haevischer, which established a 'manifestly frivolous' standard for summary dismissal of stay applications in criminal cases, changed the applicable law.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Haevischer applies specifically to criminal cases and summary dismissals of stay applications, not to disclosure requests in administrative proceedings where the onus lies on the party seeking disclosure.

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.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought motions seeking further witness summaries from the respondents and the dismissal of the respondents' stay motions.

The respondents argued that the scheduling of these motions should be delayed pending their application for judicial review of a previous Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal held that the judicial review application should not delay the proceeding.

The Tribunal scheduled the motion for further witness summaries to be heard orally, treated Staff's motion to dismiss the stay motions as withdrawn, and set a schedule for the exchange of materials for the stay motions.

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.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of two decisions of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC) pending the disposition of his application for a hearing and review.

The applicant also requested that his oral testimony at the stay motion hearing be kept confidential.

The Tribunal applied the three-part test for a stay and found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion.

Regarding the confidentiality request, the Tribunal applied the open court principle and found that only limited portions of the transcript containing sensitive health and personal information should be redacted to prevent an affront to the applicant's personal dignity.

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.

The respondent, former Chief Compliance Officer of Bridging Finance Inc., brought a motion for an expedited or separate merits hearing regarding the allegations against him, citing financial constraints.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and other respondents opposed the motion.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations against the moving party were inextricably intertwined with those against the other respondents, and that his proposed mechanisms would not result in a just, expeditious, and cost-effective proceeding.

The Capital Markets Tribunal issued its reasons and decision on sanctions and costs following a merits decision that found the respondents engaged in insider trading, tipping, and misleading Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

The Tribunal imposed significant market participation bans ranging from 3 to 15 years, administrative penalties totaling $2.95 million, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains totaling over $1.4 million, and costs of approximately $735,000.

The Tribunal emphasized the seriousness of insider trading and tipping, noting that such conduct undermines investor confidence and the integrity of the capital markets.

The respondents David and Natasha Sharpe brought motions to stay the enforcement proceeding, alleging abuse of process related to the Commission's use of compelled evidence without a section 17 order.

The Tribunal held a scheduling hearing and determined that the stay motions should be heard before the merits hearing, as the potential efficiencies outweighed the risk of duplicated effort.

The Tribunal also declined to delay the stay motions pending the outcome of a related judicial review application, citing the public interest in proceeding expeditiously.

A schedule was set for the disclosure motions, stay motions, and the merits hearing.

The applicant sought a confidentiality order to redact certain documents in the Record of Original Proceeding for his application to review IIROC decisions.

The Tribunal granted the agreed-upon redactions concerning the applicant's intimate personal medical information.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's contested requests to redact his doctor's professional contact information and a letter of reprimand from his former employer, finding that neither met the standard required to depart from the principle of open proceedings.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Plateau Energy Metals Inc. made misleading statements in news releases and filings regarding the status of its mining concessions in Peru, and that its CEO and CFO authorized or acquiesced in these contraventions.

Staff also alleged the CEO made selective disclosure to certain shareholders.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement wherein the respondents agreed to pay administrative penalties totaling $750,000 and investigation costs totaling $300,000.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it fell within a range of reasonable outcomes and was in the public interest.

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.