Anna Markiewicz

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her Statement of Claim to include a new cause of action under a second life insurance policy, beyond the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The court found that the plaintiff met the discoverability criteria under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the relevant underwriting documents were not disclosed until the defendants served their Affidavit of Documents.

However, the court refused the amendment, concluding that the proposed new cause of action was legally untenable because the insured had a clear duty to disclose a material change in health (a seizure) before the delivery of the policy, and the alleged ambiguity in the insurance documents was without merit.

The respondent, a former registered representative of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (IDA), resigned from the IDA.

Over a year later, the IDA instituted disciplinary proceedings against him.

The respondent challenged the IDA's jurisdiction over former members.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) upheld the IDA's jurisdiction, finding that s. 21.1(3) of the Securities Act did not limit disciplinary jurisdiction to current members.

The Divisional Court overturned this decision, finding it unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of review for the OSC's decision was reasonableness and that the OSC's interpretation of the Securities Act was reasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the OSC's decision was restored.

The appellants appealed a decision refusing to set aside an order noting them in default.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to consider prejudice or the possible merits of the defence.

Given the lack of prejudice and the defence put forward, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the noting in default, despite the inadequate representation by the appellants' previous counsel.

Following a finding that the respondents engaged in an illegal scheme to induce vulnerable individuals to transfer locked-in RSPs into private companies, the Commission held a hearing on sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent cease trade orders, director and officer bans, and reprimands against the architects of the scheme.

The registrant involved had his registration terminated and was subject to a five-year cease trade order.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs totaling $108,000, apportioned based on their degree of responsibility.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing regarding allegations that the respondents participated in an illegal distribution of shares in four private companies.

The scheme involved convincing individuals to access locked-in retirement savings plans by transferring funds to purchase shares in the private companies, after which the respondents would lend a portion of the invested amount back to the investors.

The Commission found that Cornwall, Simpson, and Xavier participated in an illegal distribution of securities without a prospectus or available exemption.

Xavier, a registrant, was also found to have failed his know-your-client and suitability obligations and failed to process trades through his sponsoring dealer.

All respondents, including Cook who provided qualification letters, were found to have engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest.