Kirsten Thoreson

The applicant brought a motion for a partial stay of a Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) disciplinary panel's sanctions decision pending a review application.

The applicant sought to stay his suspension as a registered representative and executive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Capital Markets Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was refused.

The applicant's evidence of potential financial loss and loss of clients was deemed speculative and unconvincing.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, Internet Sciences Inc., failed to attend a case management hearing and refused to participate in the proceeding unless its demands, including the removal of the adjudicator for alleged bias, were met.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissing its motion to remove the Ontario Securities Commission as a party and its motion for the adjudicator's recusal, finding no factual basis for the bias allegations.

Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety on the basis that it had been abandoned due to the applicant's refusal to participate and cooperate with the Tribunal's process.

The applicant, a self-represented reporting issuer, brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator for a reasonable apprehension of bias, and a motion to vary the adjudicator's prior reasons for decision under s. 144.1 of the Securities Act.

The bias allegations stemmed from the adjudicator's conduct during a case management hearing, including cautioning the applicant about citing non-existent rules and the potential for artificial intelligence hallucinations.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also dismissed the motion to vary, concluding that the requested variations were merely attempts to tinker with the language of the reasons and were not in the public interest.

An alternative request for a permanent confidentiality order over the reasons was also dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented corporate entity, sought a review of a decision denying its application for listing on the Canadian Securities Exchange.

At a case management hearing, the applicant requested a highly compressed timeline for hearing its interlocutory motions and the merits application.

The Tribunal rejected the compressed timeline, noting the need for amended materials, proper disclosure, and adequate preparation time.

The Tribunal set a schedule for the exchange of materials and scheduled oral hearings by videoconference for the motions and the application.

The Tribunal also relieved the self-represented applicant from strict compliance with Rule 21, allowing it to file a list of documents instead of a formal motion record.

The applicants applied to vary an enforcement order made against them by the Capital Markets Tribunal, seeking to remove financial sanctions including a $13.5 million disgorgement order, a $600,000 administrative penalty, and a $166,000 cost award.

They argued that the sanctions prevented them from securing financing to renovate and reopen the Buffalo Grand Hotel, which was the only way investors could recover their funds.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicants' financing plan was speculative, incomplete, and subject to numerous uncertainties.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or that removing the sanctions would not be prejudicial to the public interest, noting that doing so would undermine specific and general deterrence.

Aimia Inc. brought an application under s. 104 of the Securities Act alleging that Mithaq Capital SPC's acquisition of shares a year prior constituted a deemed take-over bid because Mithaq acted jointly with others to exceed the 20% threshold.

Mithaq brought a motion to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that while Aimia had standing to bring the application, the application was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal dismissed the application because Aimia's long delay in seeking relief, combined with significant intervening events, made the application a misuse of the Tribunal's procedure.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment arising from an action alleging fraudulent conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract in connection with the deposit of employer cheques into a personal bank account.

Applying the three-part test for setting aside a properly obtained default judgment, the court held that although the motion was brought without delay, the moving party did not adequately explain the default and failed to establish any arguable defence on the merits.

The court emphasized repeated admissions of wrongdoing and found the greater prejudice would fall on the responding party if the judgment were set aside.

The motion was dismissed and substantial indemnity costs were awarded.