Brian Greenspan

In an extradition proceeding, the court reviewed the unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) and redacted audio/visual recordings to determine if the redactions were justified.

The court found that the redactions fell within the ambit of public interest privilege, as they were necessary to protect an ongoing police investigation and public safety.

The court ruled that the Attorney General of Canada had satisfied its disclosure obligations and ordered the unredacted ITO to be held under seal.

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 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.

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 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 applicant in a human rights proceeding brought a Request for Order During Proceedings seeking production of contact information for a security company and a lease agreement from the respondents and a third party.

The Tribunal ordered the production of the security company's contact information, finding it arguably relevant to the issues in dispute.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for the lease agreement, finding it was not relevant to whether the respondents complied with their duty to accommodate.

The respondents brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging that Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission failed to conduct a fair investigation, misrepresented facts to obtain a section 11 order, and failed to protect confidential information.

The Commission dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the serious allegations against Staff could not be properly assessed on the limited affidavit evidence available on a preliminary motion.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the respondents renewing their request at the hearing on the merits.

The Commission ordered Staff to produce a written itemized inventory of relevant documents it did not intend to disclose, along with the basis for withholding them.

The respondents brought a motion for particulars regarding allegations of illegal trading and distributions under the Securities Act.

They argued that the Statement of Allegations and the voluminous disclosure provided by Staff were insufficient to allow them to know the case to meet.

The Commission held that while Staff is not required to meet the strict standard of a criminal proceeding, the duty of procedural fairness requires sufficient particularization of the material facts.

The Commission directed Staff to provide additional specific particulars regarding the alleged illegal distributions, solicitation meetings, and representations, but dismissed the motion to enforce an alleged undertaking by Staff.

Following his criminal conviction for insider trading, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether to impose public interest sanctions against the respondent under s. 127 of the Securities Act.

The respondent, while an officer and director of a reporting issuer, had sold shares with knowledge of undisclosed material negative assay results, avoiding significant losses.

The Commission found his conduct egregious and a breach of fiduciary duty.

To protect the capital markets, the Commission ordered a 15-year cease trade order and a 15-year ban on acting as a director or officer of any reporting issuer, with limited carve-outs for personal trading.