Kai Olson

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) regarding allegations of supervisory inadequacies in RBC's foreign exchange (FX) trading business from 2011 to 2013.

Staff alleged that RBC failed to promote a culture of compliance, allowing FX traders to inappropriately share confidential customer information with competitors in electronic chat rooms.

RBC acknowledged the conduct was contrary to the public interest, engaged in significant remediation efforts, and agreed to make a voluntary payment of $13,552,000 and pay $800,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and The Toronto-Dominion Bank regarding allegations of supervisory inadequacies in TD's foreign exchange trading business from 2011 to 2013.

Staff alleged that TD failed to promote a culture of compliance, allowing traders to inappropriately share confidential customer information with competitors.

TD acknowledged the conduct and agreed to a voluntary payment of $9,300,900 and $800,000 in costs.

The Commission found the settlement to be in the public interest, noting TD's significant remediation efforts and exemplary cooperation.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondent engaged in unregistered advising, made misrepresentations, and perpetrated a fraud, resulting in massive harm to investors.

The OSC found that it was in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order to protect Ontario capital markets.

The OSC permanently prohibited the respondent from trading in securities, acquiring securities, and acting as a director, officer, registrant, or promoter.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under subsections 127(1) and 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud over $5,000 under the Criminal Code for misappropriating investor funds intended for a biofuel venture.

The Commission found that the criminal convictions arose from a course of conduct related to securities.

Concluding that a permanent ban was necessary to protect investors, the Commission ordered permanent market bans against the respondent, subject to a limited carve-out allowing him to trade in certain registered and tax-free savings accounts.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act, based on a prior decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC).

The BCSC had found that the respondent perpetrated a fraud on an investor and imposed permanent market prohibitions.

The Ontario Securities Commission found it in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order, permanently prohibiting the respondent from trading in securities or derivatives, acquiring securities, and acting as a director, officer, registrant, or promoter in Ontario.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent pursuant to subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the British Columbia Securities Commission, admitting to misrepresentations and breaching a cease trade order.

The Ontario Securities Commission found that the threshold for a reciprocal order was met and that it was in the public interest to issue an order.

The Commission imposed trading and market-access bans on the respondent, substantially mirroring the sanctions agreed to in British Columbia.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the British Columbia Securities Commission, admitting to misrepresentations to investors and breaching a cease trade order.

The Commission found that the threshold for a reciprocal order was met and that it was in the public interest to protect Ontario capital markets.

The Commission granted the order, imposing trading and market-access bans substantially mirroring those in the British Columbia settlement agreement.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act against the respondent, who had entered into a settlement agreement with the British Columbia Securities Commission admitting to perpetrating a fraud on investors.

The respondent had raised $200,000 through a promissory note for a business with no revenue, and misappropriated the funds for personal use.

The Commission found it was in the public interest to issue a reciprocal order, permanently prohibiting the respondent from trading in securities or derivatives, and from acting as a director or officer of any issuer or registrant, subject to limited carve-outs for personal accounts.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act against the respondents, based on a decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission.

The BCSC had found that the respondents engaged in an illegal distribution of securities and perpetrated multiple acts of fraud.

The Ontario Securities Commission found that it was in the public interest to issue an order substantially reciprocating the non-monetary sanctions imposed by the BCSC, including permanent prohibitions on trading, acquiring securities, and acting as a director or officer of any issuer or registrant.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with eToro (Europe) Limited, a Cyprus-based brokerage firm. eToro admitted to breaching Ontario securities law by operating an online trading platform that allowed Ontario residents to trade contracts for differences (CFDs) without being registered or filing a prospectus.

Despite previous assurances to Staff that it did not accept trades from Ontario residents, eToro opened nearly 2,500 accounts for Ontario investors.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest, and ordered an administrative penalty of $550,000, disgorgement of $1,791,163, and costs of $25,000, noting eToro's cooperation and implementation of enhanced compliance procedures.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an order authorizing the disclosure of 33 records to the Ministry of Finance and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario to respond to a freedom of information appeal.

The records were subject to the confidentiality provisions of section 16 of the Securities Act.

The Commission granted the order for 29 of the records, finding it in the public interest to facilitate the appeal process.

For the remaining four records, which were copies of a transcript of an examination of a third party, the Commission authorized disclosure of only the redacted front page to protect the third party's privacy interests, as they had not been given notice of the application.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission decision finding they committed securities fraud and traded without registration.

They argued the panel breached procedural fairness by denying an adjournment, violated their Charter rights by admitting compelled testimony, and provided insufficient reasons.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjournment refusal was reasonable, the proceedings were administrative rather than criminal so Charter protections did not apply to the compelled statements, and the panel's reasons were sufficient and correctly applied the Securities Act to a sole proprietorship.