William Furlong

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents created and sold a crypto asset called GXToken without registration or a prospectus.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the GXTokens were investment contracts and therefore securities.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities contrary to the Securities Act.

The respondents were ordered to pay administrative penalties, disgorge funds obtained from the non-compliance, and pay costs, in addition to being subject to market participation and director/officer bans.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations that the respondent, as CEO of a reporting issuer, made misleading or untrue statements in news releases and filings.

The statements concerned an intellectual property licensing agreement and failed to disclose the relationship between the issuer and the licensee.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, which included a $75,000 administrative penalty, $15,000 in costs, and a five-year director and officer ban, finding the terms fell within a reasonable range of outcomes and were in the public interest.

The applicant sought a review of a decision by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) finding that he breached CIRO rules and imposing a registration ban, a $50,000 fine, and $10,000 in costs.

The applicant argued that the CIRO Panel denied him procedural fairness by refusing to admit his treating psychiatrist's medical opinion, denying his motion for an indefinite adjournment, and demonstrating bias.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the CIRO Panel did not err in law.

The Tribunal held that the psychiatrist's evidence was properly excluded as partisan advocacy, the applicant was fit to participate in the hearing, and there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal also upheld the CIRO Panel's findings on the merits and the sanctions imposed.

The applicant brought a motion to stay a sanctions order issued by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) pending a review application before the Capital Markets Tribunal.

The applicant also requested a confidential hearing and redactions to the adjudicative record due to sensitive mental health information.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion, finding the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as he had not been registered in the industry for over five years and provided no medical evidence that a stay would prevent harm to his health.

The Tribunal granted the confidentiality requests in part, ordering specific medical details redacted from the record while maintaining the public nature of the hearing transcript.

A portion of the applicant's brief referencing privileged settlement discussions was also struck.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and respondent Stephen Kelley sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations of unregistered trading, breaching a temporary cease trade order, and making misleading representations to investors in the Buffalo Grand Hotel project.

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

Kelley agreed to a $15,000 administrative penalty, a two-year market participation ban, and to cooperate with Staff in ongoing proceedings against the remaining respondents.

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 moving party, David Sharpe, sought a stay of an earlier Tribunal decision that dismissed his request to keep certain portions of the adjudicative record confidential.

He sought the stay pending his application for judicial review of that decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to stay a final decision on confidentiality.

The Tribunal further held that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not grant the stay because Sharpe failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in the transparency of Tribunal proceedings.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Global RESP Corporation.

The firm admitted to failing to implement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with a 2014 settlement, which prohibited its CEO from acting as an officer.

The approved settlement imposed terms and conditions on the firm's registration, an administrative penalty of $50,000, costs of $25,000, and a reprimand.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought a three-month extension of a temporary order that included a Removal of Exemptions Order against the respondents.

The central issue was the interpretation of 'hearing' in subsection 127(7) of the Securities Act, specifically whether it could mean a series of attendances at which Staff seeks repeated extensions.

The Commission rejected Staff's interpretation, finding that subsection 127(7) does not authorize the extension of a temporary order beyond the conclusion of a Temporary Order Hearing unless an Enforcement Proceeding has been commenced within fifteen days of the initial order.

The request to extend the Removal of Exemptions Order was denied.

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.