Cameron Watson

The appellants appealed the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission to construct a driveway and single detached dwelling on a vacant lot located in the flood plain of the Rideau River.

The Tribunal found that the subject property constitutes hazardous lands and a floodway, and that the appellants failed to demonstrate the proposed development would have no negative impacts on flood control.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed development did not comply with Ontario Regulation 174/06, was not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and was not consistent with the Conservation Authority's policies.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a family law trial where the applicant wife was largely successful, she sought costs of $11,042.34 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the settlement offers and found the applicant's offer was reasonable while the respondent's was not.

However, considering the respondent's difficult personal circumstances, including health problems and unemployment, the court tempered the costs award and ordered the respondent to pay $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for trading in securities without registration and while subject to a prior cease-trade order.

They argued the trial judge erred in finding they had knowledge of the order, that the Ontario Securities Commission lacked jurisdiction because the trades involved foreign companies and investors, and that the custodial sentences were unfit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the offences were strict liability, that a real and substantial connection to Ontario gave the province jurisdiction under the Libman test, and that the sentences were appropriate given the appellants' moral blameworthiness and prior breaches.

Accused charged with trading in securities without registration, issuing securities without filing prospectus, and representing that securities would be listed on exchange with intention of effecting trade.

Accused developed website for company (Asia Global/Asia Power) which stated company would be listed on exchange in future.

Website made clear company was not currently listed and no shares available for purchase.

Unregistered sales representatives defrauded private investors by selling non-existent shares.

Evidence did not establish connection between accused and sales representatives or investors, or that website was created to induce share purchases.

Creation of website not constituting act in furtherance of trade.

Accused not trading in or issuing security and not making representation with intention of effecting trade.

All charges dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of violating section 122(1)(c) of the Ontario Securities Act.

The first violation involved entering into a joint venture agreement that qualified as an investment contract and security without being registered to trade in securities.

The second violation involved breaching a Cease Trade Order by entering into promissory note agreements while prohibited from trading in securities.

The accused, a former police officer, had promoted U.S. real estate properties to Canadian investors, making representations about turn-key investments and property management.

Many properties were in poor condition and promises were not fulfilled.

The court imposed fines, probation, community service, and restitution orders rather than a custodial sentence, finding the conduct closer to carelessness than deliberate fraud.

The accused pleaded guilty to engaging in securities trading without being registered in violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

She was a hospital file clerk who provided names of new mothers to an investment company representative in exchange for payment, facilitating high-pressure sales tactics targeting vulnerable new parents.

The court imposed a $36,000 fine (plus 25% surcharge totalling $45,000), two years probation, and 300 hours community service, rejecting both the Crown's request for 90 days jail and the defence's request for a $20,000 fine.

The sentence balanced general deterrence principles with the accused's mitigating factors including remorse, guilty plea, no prior record, and rehabilitative efforts.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and fraudulent conduct.

Gillani and the Corporate Respondents, who orchestrated a sophisticated scheme that defrauded investors, were ordered to pay a $1 million administrative penalty, disgorge $719,000, pay $200,000 in costs, and were permanently banned from the capital markets.

Driscoll, who acted in furtherance of trades by recruiting investors but was not involved in the fraud, was ordered to disgorge $66,000 in commissions, pay a $30,000 administrative penalty and $15,000 in costs, and received a conditional two-year market ban.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in a fraudulent boiler room scheme that raised approximately $18 million from investors, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered permanent market participation bans against the individual respondents.

It also ordered disgorgement of approximately $16.7 million, representing the amounts obtained by the respondents as a result of their non-compliance with Ontario securities law.

Administrative penalties totaling over $5.6 million were imposed to provide specific and general deterrence.

Finally, the Commission ordered the respondents to pay $344,500 towards the costs of the investigation and hearing.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought allegations against the respondents for breaches of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities by selling previously unissued shares to foreign investors through a non-existent investment bank.

The corporate respondents, directed by a de facto officer, perpetrated a fraud by making false statements and depleting investor funds for personal expenses.

The individual respondent, as a director and officer, was deemed to have authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in the corporations' non-compliance with Ontario securities law.

The Commission concluded that the respondents breached the Act and acted contrary to the public interest.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and securities fraud through a complex telemarketing scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing on sanctions and costs.

The respondents did not participate.

The Commission found that the respondents' conduct was egregious and warranted severe sanctions to protect the public interest and provide specific and general deterrence.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, administrative penalties totaling $900,000, disgorgement of $359,200, and costs of $50,000 against the respondents.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought sanctions and costs against the respondents following an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the respondents admitted to unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and making misleading statements.

The respondents, acting as a transfer agent, mailed over 10,000 letters to investors falsely claiming an unpaid dividend to induce warrant exercises.

The Commission ordered permanent trading and market prohibitions against the directing mind and his companies, along with a $100,000 administrative penalty.

A lesser five-year prohibition and $2,500 penalty were ordered against his wife, who acted as a nominee director.

The respondents were also ordered to pay $60,000 in costs.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and fraud, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, significant administrative penalties, and disgorgement against the directing minds of the fraudulent scheme.

The salesperson respondents received market bans ranging from 5 to 10 years, along with administrative penalties and disgorgement orders equal to the commissions they earned.

Costs were also apportioned among the respondents.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a provincial offences information alleging contraventions of s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act, arguing that the Ontario Court of Justice exceeded jurisdiction when it refused to quash a second information sworn without obtaining new prosecutorial consent.

The court held that the impugned ruling concerned the validity of the information and therefore fell within matters for which certiorari relief is barred where an appeal route exists under s. 141(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

In any event, the court found the justice properly determined that the second information merely split an existing count to reflect statutory amendments and introduced no new offences.

The original consent to prosecute therefore remained valid.

The certiorari application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences under section 122 of the Securities Act for trading in securities without registration and in violation of two cease trading orders from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendant operated Strategic Gifting Group, which solicited donations for charities, remitted 10% to the charities, and distributed shares in Dixon Perot & Champion Inc. to donors, representing inflated valuations.

The defendant had previously been sentenced to 21 months and 3 years for related securities violations.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months consecutive to existing sentences, along with probation and restitution obligations, applying the totality principle to avoid a crushing cumulative sentence while maintaining deterrence and denunciation.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and securities fraud through three interconnected schemes involving BFM Industries Inc., Liquid Gold International Corp., and Nanotech Industries Inc. The Commission found that Sandy Winick orchestrated the schemes, using a fictitious investment bank to sell shares in inactive companies to foreign investors, and misappropriated the funds for personal use.

Winick and Gregory J. Curry were found to have contravened the Securities Act, including provisions against unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and fraud, and were deemed liable as directors/officers.

Following a merits decision finding the respondents engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and fraud by raising $1,696,750 from over 110 investors for a sham mining operation, the Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans against all respondents, administrative penalties of $300,000 against each of the three individual respondents, disgorgement of the total funds raised on a joint and several basis, and costs of $210,241.39.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing on the merits regarding allegations that Global Energy Group, Ltd. and several individuals operated a fraudulent investment scheme.

The respondents sold unregistered securities in the form of limited partnership units in purported Kentucky oil drilling programs to investors, raising over US$16 million.

The Commission found that the respondents traded in securities without registration and distributed securities without a prospectus, with no exemptions available.

Furthermore, the Commission found that the directing minds of Global Energy, Vadim Tsatskin and Christina Harper, perpetrated a fraud on investors by making false representations about the company's history, the use of investor funds, and the expected returns.

The Commission concluded that the respondents' conduct breached the Securities Act and was contrary to the public interest.

The respondent, a directing mind of a mutual fund manager, pled guilty to criminal fraud and admitted to contravening Ontario securities law by misappropriating investor funds and authorizing payments to himself.

Following an agreed statement of facts, a sanctions hearing was held.

The Commission ordered permanent trading and registration bans, a reprimand, and disgorgement of $320,000, rejecting the respondent's argument that he lacked the ability to pay.

Following a hearing on the merits, the respondent was found to have made misleading statements to the Commission and breached a previous cease trade order by trading securities.

In this sanctions and costs decision, the Commission considered the respondent's extensive history of non-compliance, including criminal convictions for similar conduct.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans, an administrative penalty of $250,000, disgorgement of $45,280, and costs of $52,470.25, emphasizing the need for specific and general deterrence.

The respondent, George Schwartz, brought a motion to exclude and seal his compelled evidence, arguing that it was obtained after the predominant purpose of the Commission's investigation became penal, relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jarvis.

The Commission dismissed the motion, finding that the proceeding was administrative under section 127 of the Securities Act, not quasi-criminal under section 122.

The Commission held that compelled evidence is admissible against a respondent in an administrative proceeding, and that the protections against self-incrimination apply to subsequent criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings, not administrative ones.

The request to seal the evidence and hold an in camera hearing was also denied.