Eli Lederman

The respondents entered into a settlement agreement with Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding allegations of unregistered trading, illegal distribution, and making misleading statements in connection with the promotion and sale of cryptocurrency tokens (Axia Coin).

The respondents admitted to breaching multiple provisions of the Securities Act and agreed to pay administrative penalties, disgorgement, and costs, as well as to permanent market bans.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest and within a range of reasonable outcomes.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.