Jonathon Thomas Feasby

Following a merits hearing where the respondents were found to have engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities through a promissory note scheme, the Ontario Securities Commission held a sanctions and costs hearing.

The Commission ordered cease trade orders, director and officer bans, and reprimands against the respondents.

Furthermore, the Commission ordered disgorgement of $900,000 from the CEO and $3,000,000 jointly and severally from the Taylor respondents.

The Commission declined to award costs to Staff due to various issues with Staff's conduct during the investigation and proceedings.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing regarding allegations of a 'pump and dump' scheme involving shares of Sulja Nevada.

The respondents Vucicevich, Banumas, and Shah did not contest the allegations.

The Commission found that Vucicevich issued materially misleading press releases to artificially inflate the stock price and subsequently sold shares through nominee accounts held by Banumas and Shah.

The Commission concluded that Vucicevich traded without registration, distributed securities without a prospectus, and perpetrated a fraud contrary to the Securities Act.

Banumas and Shah were found to have contributed to a misleading appearance of trading activity.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing regarding a 'pump and dump' scheme involving the promotion and sale of shares of Sulja Nevada.

Based on uncontested evidence, the Commission found that Steven Sulja, as CEO, breached subsection 126.2(1) of the Securities Act by failing to correct false statements in press releases regarding merger opportunities, revenue potential, and audit arrangements.

The Commission also found that Sam Sulja breached subsection 126.1(a) of the Act by trading heavily as a nominee to conceal another party's involvement, thereby creating a misleading appearance of trading activity.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider whether IMAGIN Diagnostic Centres Inc. and Patrick J. Rooney breached the registration requirements of the Securities Act.

The Commission found that IMAGIN acted as a market intermediary by employing a sales team to actively solicit and sell its securities to investors, raising approximately $14 million.

As a market intermediary, IMAGIN was not entitled to rely on the accredited investor or closely-held issuer exemptions from registration.

The Commission also found that Mr. Rooney, although not formally appointed, was a de facto officer and director who controlled IMAGIN and authorized, permitted, or acquiesced in its unregistered trading.

Both respondents were found to have breached subsection 25(1)(a) of the Act.

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission that upheld a disciplinary ruling by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

IIROC had found the appellant engaged in conduct detrimental to the public interest by maintaining undisclosed financial interests in the accounts of two relatives, resulting in a permanent ban, a $350,000 fine, and $80,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's decision reasonable, the reasons provided by IIROC adequate, and that the Commission properly afforded deference to the self-regulatory organization.

The respondent pleaded guilty to criminal fraud over $5,000 for operating a massive Ponzi scheme involving over $45 million in investor funds.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought permanent market bans under the inter-jurisdictional enforcement provision in subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The Commission held that subsection 127(10) can operate retrospectively because its purpose is to protect the public rather than to punish.

Finding that the respondent's criminal conviction arose from a course of conduct related to securities, the Commission concluded it was in the public interest to permanently ban the respondent from trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director or officer.

The applicant, an investment advisor, sought a stay of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing his application for a hearing and review of an IIROC disciplinary decision.

The IIROC hearing panel had permanently banned the applicant and imposed a fine and costs for having undisclosed financial interests in client accounts.

The Commission considered the RJR MacDonald test for granting a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the Divisional Court was in a better position to determine the merits of the appeal and whether a stay should be granted, the Commission granted a short 60-day extension of the interim stay to allow the applicant to commence an appeal and bring a stay motion before the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Ontario District Council of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), which found he engaged in conduct unbecoming by having an undisclosed financial interest in client accounts.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied a restrained approach to reviewing the self-regulatory organization's decision, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the District Council proceeded on an incorrect principle, erred in law, or overlooked material evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a settlement hearing regarding Shawn Lesperance, the Treasurer and a director of Goldbridge Financial Inc. The respondent acknowledged receiving monies in violation of the Securities Act and an outstanding Commission order.

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

The respondent was prohibited from trading in securities and acting as a director or officer of any issuer for three years, and ordered to pay $1,000 in investigation costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider whether to approve settlement agreements between Staff and five respondents.

The respondents admitted to acting as market intermediaries and trading in securities of Imagin Diagnostic Centres Inc. without being registered, contrary to section 25(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission approved the settlement agreements, imposing various prohibitions on the respondents acting as directors, officers, or registrants, and ordering one respondent to pay a $15,000 administrative penalty.

The accused was charged with possession of child pornography based on files extracted from his computer hard drives using specialized software.

The trial judge ordered the Crown to disclose copies of the hard drives, the software programs, and pay for training, and subsequently stayed the charges when the Crown refused.

On appeal, the Crown conceded its initial refusal to provide access to the hard drives was erroneous, while the accused conceded that supervised access to the software at police premises was sufficient.

The Court of Appeal held that while the trial judge's disclosure order went too far, the stay of proceedings should be upheld because the Crown's pursuit of an appeal while maintaining a constitutionally inadequate disclosure position for two years constituted an abuse of process.