2 total
Inter-jurisdictional enforcement order granted imposing market prohibitions based on an Alberta Securities Commission settlement agreement.
Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission sought an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondents under subsection 127(10) of the Securities Act.
The respondents had previously entered into a settlement agreement with the Alberta Securities Commission, admitting to breaches of the Alberta Securities Act involving misleading offering memoranda and undisclosed related party loans.
The Commission found that the threshold under subsection 127(10) was met and that it was in the public interest to issue an order under subsection 127(1).
The Commission imposed market prohibitions on the respondents substantially similar to those agreed to in the Alberta settlement, with minor modifications to align with Ontario securities law.
Provincial oil and gas abandonment obligations survive bankruptcy and bind the trustee-managed estate.
The appellants, a provincial energy regulator and an orphan well association, appealed from a decision holding that provincial oil and gas licensing obligations could not be enforced against a trustee in bankruptcy because they conflicted with the federal Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The majority of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the regulator's use of its statutory powers to enforce end-of-life abandonment and reclamation obligations did not create an operational conflict or frustration of purpose with the BIA.
The majority found that s. 14.06(4) of the BIA shields trustees only from personal liability, not the liability of the bankrupt estate, and that a bona fide public regulator enforcing public duties is not a creditor asserting a claim provable in bankruptcy.
Moldaver and Côté JJ. dissented, finding a genuine operational conflict and frustration of purpose under both branches of the paramountcy test, and that the Abitibi three-part test for provable claims was satisfied.
