Karen Manarin

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding that he failed to meet the standards of business conduct expected of a CEO and imposing sanctions under s. 127 of the Securities Act.

The Commission found the appellant had primary responsibility for a stock subscription program that lacked commercial justification and failed to take steps to contain the situation when problems emerged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on the merits, finding the Commission's conclusions were reasonable and supported by evidence.

On consent, the appeal regarding sanctions was allowed and remitted to the Commission for a new hearing.

The appellant company appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission which found that the company had waived solicitor-client privilege over certain legal opinions by providing them to its auditor.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that statutory disclosure of privileged documents to an auditor constitutes a limited waiver for audit purposes only, not an absolute waiver.

Furthermore, the auditor's subsequent unauthorized disclosure of the documents to Commission staff did not waive the privilege, as the auditor lacked the authority to do so.

Deloitte & Touche LLP appealed an order of the Ontario Securities Commission authorizing the disclosure of written answers provided by Deloitte during an investigation to the respondents in a related enforcement proceeding.

Deloitte argued the information was not relevant, that disclosure was not in the public interest, and that the information was privileged.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission reasonably concluded the information was relevant to the respondents' ability to make full answer and defence, that the public interest favoured disclosure, and that the information was not privileged because it did not originate in confidence.

The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) investigated Philip Services Corporation for inadequate financial disclosures.

During the investigation, the OSC compelled documents and testimony from Deloitte & Touche LLP, Philip's auditors.

The OSC subsequently commenced proceedings against Philip and its officers and ordered the disclosure of the compelled material from Deloitte to Philip, finding it in the public interest to do so.

Deloitte appealed the disclosure order.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the OSC's decision to order disclosure was reasonable.

The OSC properly applied the Stinchcombe relevance standard and balanced Deloitte's privacy interests against the respondents' right to make full answer and defence.

The appellants appealed their convictions for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to put the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent to the jury and misdirected the jury on the issue of consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeals, holding that even if the defence should have been put to the jury, the jury's conviction negatived that defence based on how the issue of knowledge of absence of consent was framed.

The Court agreed with the Ontario Court of Appeal that there was no misdirection on the issue of consent.

The appellants, who used explosives as stonemasons and rifles as seasonal hunting guides, appealed their sentences which included a mandatory prohibition against possessing firearms or ammunition under s. 100 of the Criminal Code.

They argued the prohibition constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 100 does not offend s. 12 of the Charter and declining to grant a constitutional exemption.