Catherine V. Weiler

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's (OSC) decisions on the merits and sanctions regarding their conduct in the investment industry.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the OSC's decisions is reasonableness, except for procedural fairness.

The court found that the OSC reasonably excluded fresh evidence, reasonably upheld the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada's (IIROC) findings on the merits, and conducted a procedurally fair fresh sanctions hearing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a no-contest settlement agreement between Staff and the TD Entities regarding alleged inadequacies in internal compliance systems that resulted in investors being charged inappropriate mutual fund fees.

The TD Entities self-reported the issues, undertook to pay over $13 million in compensation to harmed investors, and agreed to make voluntary payments of $650,000.

The Panel found the settlement to be in the public interest, emphasizing the importance of self-reporting, remediation, and improved compliance systems.

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distributions, and fraud in connection with a forex trading Ponzi scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent market and director/officer bans, significant administrative penalties, and disgorgement against the principal architects of the fraud.

For respondents who acted as referrers and were not found to have engaged in fraud, the Commission ordered five-year market and director/officer bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement of commissions received.

Costs were apportioned among the respondents based on their level of participation and cooperation.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought sanctions and costs against Medra following a merits decision finding that Medra engaged in unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and fraud.

The Commission ordered permanent market bans and a $400,000 administrative penalty against Medra.

Staff's request for a disgorgement order of over $7.4 million was dismissed because the amount had already been accounted for in a disgorgement order against Medra's directing mind in a prior settlement.

Medra was also ordered to pay costs of $69,528.75.

A court-appointed receiver moved to quash a summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission requiring him to produce documents, including interview notes, for a hearing regarding the respondent's alleged participation in a Ponzi scheme.

The Commission granted the motion to quash, finding that a receiver cannot be compelled to produce documents for a proceeding outside the receivership.

Furthermore, the respondent failed to establish that the requested interview notes were likely relevant to his ability to make full answer and defence.

The respondent sought costs following a one-day appeal.

The court noted the costs claimed were well beyond the usual range and that the respondent's motion to quash the appeal had been dismissed.

Taking into account the complexity, importance of the issues, amount at issue, and the result achieved, the court fixed costs awarded to the respondent at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action against Dell for allegedly defective notebook computers.

Dell sought to stay the action based on a mandatory arbitration clause in its standard-form sales agreement.

The motion judge refused the stay and certified the class action.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision, finding that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, which invalidates mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer agreements, applied to the claim because the computers failed after the Act came into force.

The Court also refused to grant a partial stay for non-consumer claims, as doing so would lead to inefficiency and a multiplicity of proceedings.

The 111 Pension Rights Association brought a motion to add section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act as an alternative ground for the proposed partial wind up of the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan.

The Superintendent's Notice of Proposal had only relied on section 69(1)(e).

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Superintendent to order a wind up on a basis that the Superintendent had not selected or fully investigated.

The Tribunal found that it could not review the Superintendent's purely investigative functions where no quasi-judicial decision had been made.