Derek James Ferris

The applicant's employer was investigated by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant was summoned to give evidence but refused to answer questions about their employment, citing a confidentiality clause in their employment agreement.

The applicant applied for directions and a declaration that the information was privileged.

The Commission cross-applied for declarations that the applicant must answer the questions.

The court dismissed the application and allowed the cross-application, finding that the information did not meet the Wigmore criteria for case-by-case privilege and that the applicant was required to attend the examination and answer all relevant questions, subject only to valid claims of privilege.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's findings that they engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with three distributions of securities and the resulting sanctions.

The Divisional Court applied the appellate standard of review from Vavilov, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact, no errors of mixed fact and law, and no denial of procedural fairness.

The Commission's reasons were adequate and the sanctions, including permanent bans, administrative penalties, and disgorgement orders, were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding them guilty of securities fraud, the Commission and the intervenors sought costs.

The Commission sought $40,000, which the court awarded in full on a partial indemnity basis.

The intervenors, who were the appellants' former counsel and intervened to defend against allegations of ineffective assistance, sought over $53,000 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court held that the intervenors were entitled to costs as parties to the appeal, but reduced the scale to partial indemnity and fixed their costs at $20,000.

The appellants appealed the Ontario Securities Commission's decisions finding them liable for securities fraud and imposing severe sanctions, including lifetime trading bans, disgorgement, and administrative penalties.

The appellants argued that the presiding commissioner was biased, that their counsel at the hearing was incompetent and in a conflict of interest, and that the findings of fraud and the penalties were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, rejecting the fresh evidence regarding counsel's competence as it would not have affected the outcome, and concluding that the Commission's findings on fraud and sanctions were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appellants challenged the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to constitute a different panel for the sanctions hearing than the panel that presided over the merits hearing.

The merits panel found that the appellants had sold securities without being registered as dealers and traded securities without a prospectus.

After the original commissioners' terms expired, a new panel was appointed to conduct the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued this violated the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and principles of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court split on the issue but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation reasonable.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that both interpretations were reasonable and that the Commission's approach did not violate procedural fairness or natural justice.

The Divisional Court issued supplementary reasons to clarify its earlier decision partially allowing the appellant's appeal from an Ontario Securities Commission decision.

The original appellate decision set aside specific ten-year bans and an administrative penalty, remitting them for a fresh determination.

Upon request for clarification, the Court agreed with the parties that the remedy should apply to all ten-year bans imposed on the appellant.

The earlier decision was amended to set aside all such bans and remit them to the Commission.

The appellants appealed three decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding a sanctions hearing.

After a merits hearing found the appellants contravened the Securities Act, the terms of the presiding panel members expired.

The OSC appointed a new panel for the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued the original panel's terms were deemed extended under s. 4.3 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OSC's interpretation of its own procedures and the SPPA—that the merits and sanctions hearings were separate—was reasonable.

The court also upheld the admission of merits hearing transcripts and the ultimate sanctions imposed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding him liable for unregistered and illegal trading of securities and imposing sanctions.

The Divisional Court upheld the Commission's findings on liability, concluding it was reasonable to find the appellant engaged in acts furthering trade and received commissions.

However, the court found the Commission erred in its sanctions analysis by misapprehending the timing of a previous ban imposed on the appellant in Alberta.

The appeal was allowed in part, with the trading bans and administrative penalty set aside and remitted to the Commission for a fresh determination.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed under the Securities Act for unregistered trading, trading without a prospectus, and breaching prohibition orders.

The sentencing judge had imposed an 18‑month sentence to run concurrently with a 27‑month sentence the respondent was already serving for separate securities offences involving a different company.

The Crown argued that the concurrent sentence undermined deterrence and failed to reflect that the offences arose from separate schemes occurring at different times with different victims.

The Superior Court held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider the distinct nature of the schemes and the respondent’s repeated breaches of prohibition orders.

The court concluded that the totality principle did not render a 45‑month total sentence disproportionate and ordered the 18‑month term to be served consecutively.

The appellants/applicants sought to appeal and judicially review an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding the composition of a panel for a sanctions hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under s. 9(1) of the Securities Act, which only permits appeals from final decisions.

The application for judicial review was quashed as premature, as the procedural fairness and jurisdictional issues could be raised after the final decision.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five offences under the Securities Act, including trading in unregistered securities, distributing securities without a prospectus, and violating multiple Cease Trade Orders issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendant, acting as a commissioned salesman for an unregistered securities scheme, solicited over $220,000 from investors using an alias and received approximately $44,000 in commissions.

The court sentenced the defendant to 18 months imprisonment, with sentences on the CTO violation counts served consecutively to the trading and distribution counts, but concurrent with an existing 27-month sentence for related offences in the Shallow Oil matter.