Gavin MacKenzie

The Law Society sought costs of $16,000 following the dismissal of the lawyer's appeal against findings of professional misconduct and the dismissal of the Law Society's cross-appeal on penalty.

The lawyer argued the costs were unreasonable and sought a reduction to $10,000, contending the cross-appeal was unwarranted.

The Tribunal found the Law Society's costs claim reasonable, noting it had already discounted its actual costs to reflect the unsuccessful cross-appeal.

The Tribunal ordered the lawyer to pay $16,000 in costs within 90 days.

The Lawyer appealed a finding of professional misconduct and a nine-month suspension for acting without instructions to prevent her client's family from removing him from life support, filing a misleading affidavit, and acting in a conflict of interest.

The Law Society cross-appealed, seeking revocation of the Lawyer's licence.

The Appeal Division dismissed both appeals, finding that the hearing panel did not err in its application of the Groia test or the CUPE abuse of process doctrine, and that the nine-month suspension was an appropriate penalty given the seriousness of the misconduct.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents engaged in the business of trading and advising in securities without registration by operating a contract for difference (CFD) trading program.

The respondents argued that CFDs were not securities and that they merely acted as employees executing trades.

The Commission found that the CFDs were investment contracts and therefore securities.

The Commission further held that the respondents engaged in acts in furtherance of trades, exercised discretionary authority over investor accounts, and provided advice on CFD trading for a business purpose, thereby breaching the registration requirements under the Securities Act.

Allegations regarding a breach of a prior undertaking were dismissed due to the undertaking's lack of clarity.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of IIROC merits and sanctions decisions which found he inappropriately altered signed client documents and suspended his registration for 12 months.

The applicant argued the IIROC Panel erred by admitting unalleged misconduct, reversing the onus of proof, making improper inferences from circumstantial evidence, and imposing excessive sanctions.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC Panel's decisions were reasonable, applied the correct onus of proof, and appropriately relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

The applicant sought a review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that ordered his merits hearing to proceed electronically by videoconference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant argued that IIROC lacked jurisdiction to change the hearing mode over his objection and that the IIROC Rules entitled him to an in-person oral hearing.

The Ontario Securities Commission upheld the IIROC decision, finding that the IIROC Rules permit a hearing panel to choose the hearing mode and that a videoconference hearing satisfies a respondent's entitlement to attend and be heard 'in person'.

The applicant, a registered representative, sought a stay of two IIROC decisions that suspended his registration for 12 months for inappropriately altering client documents.

The Commission applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay pending the disposition of his application for hearing and review.

The Commission found that the review application raised serious issues, the applicant would suffer irreparable financial and reputational harm without a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the low risk of client harm and the imposition of close supervision conditions.