Cynthia Amsterdam

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider a settlement agreement between Staff and Peter George Lee, former CFO of HIP Interactive Corporation.

Lee admitted to violating s. 122(1)(b) of the Securities Act by certifying false interim financial statements that concealed a $1.3 million inventory overstatement.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it in the public interest.

Lee was reprimanded, prohibited from acting as a director or officer of any reporting issuer or registrant for 15 years, and ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $13,000 and costs of $2,000.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing its motion to set aside a default judgment.

The motion judge found that the statement of claim was properly served, the appellant made a tactical decision not to defend, and the appellant failed to raise an arguable defence on the merits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, noting the appellant failed to explain its failure to defend under Rule 16.07(a) and did not respond to the respondent's allegations regarding the mortgages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

A former student of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario sought judicial review of an Appeal Committee decision that overturned a publication ban on his name following a finding of professional misconduct.

The student had misappropriated $20,000 from a client.

The Discipline Committee had ordered a publication ban to aid his rehabilitation, but the Appeal Committee found this was an error in principle, as the conduct involved moral turpitude requiring general deterrence.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, upholding the Appeal Committee's decision to publish the student's name.

The appellants abandoned an application for judicial review and the respondents were awarded costs fixed at $187,682.51 on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellants appealed the costs order, arguing the costs should have been referred for assessment and that the amount was excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that the motions judge did not err in fixing the costs rather than referring them for assessment.

However, the Court found the costs awarded were excessive and not fair and reasonable, noting the amount was virtually the same as a substantial indemnity award and the proceedings relied on the same record as an earlier application.

The appeal was allowed and the costs award was reduced to $63,000.

The applicants brought an application under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act regarding an alleged issuer bid by Technovision Systems Inc. The respondents and Commission staff brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the application.

The Commission found that the applicant Urquhart had previously litigated the same issues in British Columbia and Ontario courts, where her claims were dismissed or stayed.

The Commission held that section 104 is intended for ongoing bids, not completed ones, and section 127 cannot be used to remedy private harm.

The application was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process against Urquhart, and permanently stayed against the other applicants, as the matter was a private dispute properly suited for civil courts.

The applicants abandoned their application for judicial review of the licensing process under the Public Accountancy Act shortly before the respondents' motion to quash was to be heard.

The respondents sought costs of the application and motion to quash.

The court determined that under the amended Rules of Civil Procedure, there is a presumption that costs should be fixed by the court rather than referred to assessment, unless the case is 'exceptional'.

Finding the case not exceptional, the court fixed costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting the respondents' request for substantial indemnity costs as there was no evidence of bad faith or abuse of process.

The respondents were awarded the full amount claimed on a partial indemnity basis.

The applicant Institute sought to lift a stay of a disciplinary order against the respondent chartered accountant, which had been granted pending judicial review.

The stay was originally granted on the condition that the judicial review be expedited.

Due to egregious and inexcusable delays by the respondent's counsel, the hearing dates were lost.

The court found that the balance of convenience had shifted in favour of the applicant due to the risk to the public interest, given the respondent's convictions for offences involving dishonesty.

The motion to lift the stay was granted.