Aaron Dantowitz

The applicant and the respondent sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations that the respondent maintained inadequate controls over marketplace participants' confidential order and trade information, contrary to National Instrument 21-101.

The respondent self-identified the issue but initially failed to promptly advise the regulator of the true nature of the problem.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the agreed sanctions—including a $600,000 administrative penalty, $75,000 in costs, a reprimand, and an independent external review—to be within a reasonable range and in the public interest.

Katanga Mining Limited applied under section 17 of the Securities Act for permission to disclose confidential documents obtained during an Ontario Securities Commission investigation to its parent company, Glencore plc, for use in civil proceedings in the United Kingdom.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that Katanga did not establish that the disclosure was in the public interest.

The Tribunal held that disclosure of information protected by section 16 for use in private civil proceedings is generally not in the public interest, and a foreign court order requiring production cannot alone satisfy the statutory public interest analysis.

Binance Holdings Limited appealed orders from the Divisional Court and Ontario Securities Commission regarding an investigation into Binance's operations in Ontario.

The Commission had issued a summons demanding production of documents and communications relating to alleged violations of the Securities Act.

Binance challenged the summons as unconstitutionally overbroad under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the Divisional Court erred in declining to judicially review the Charter arguments and that the summons was an unreasonable seizure because it lacked a reasonable foundation to believe the demanded documents were relevant to the investigation.

The appellants appealed two decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they committed securities fraud, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution, and imposing sanctions including a joint and several disgorgement order of approximately $8.7 million.

The appellants argued they were denied procedural fairness when the Commission refused to adjourn the merits hearing and restricted cross-examination, and that the joint and several disgorgement order was demonstrably unfit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness in the adjournment refusal or hearing conduct, and holding that the Commission's broad public interest discretion under the Securities Act permitted joint and several disgorgement orders.

Katanga Mining Limited applied under s. 17(1) of the Securities Act to disclose confidential documents from an Ontario Securities Commission investigation to the internal and external counsel of its parent company, Glencore.

Glencore is a defendant in a UK civil claim and the UK Court ordered disclosure of these documents.

The Capital Markets Tribunal granted the application, finding it in the public interest to permit narrow disclosure to Glencore's counsel for the purpose of assessing relevance to the UK claim, provided the counsel sign undertakings to be bound by the confidentiality provisions of s. 16 of the Act.

The Ontario Securities Commission sought sanctions against Manticore Labs OÜ and Manticore Labs Inc. (operating as CoinField) following a merits decision finding they breached the Securities Act through unregistered trading, illegal distribution of securities, and making false and misleading statements to investors.

The respondents operated a crypto asset trading platform that went offline, leaving investors unable to withdraw their funds.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found the misconduct to be serious and ordered permanent market participation bans, an administrative penalty of $2.4 million, disgorgement of $537,034.46, and costs of $89,538.30.

The moving party, Binance Holdings Limited, sought an order under ss. 6(2) and (3) of the Courts of Justice Act to join two appeals: one to the Divisional Court from an OSC decision and another to the Court of Appeal from a Divisional Court decision.

Binance argued the appeals were "in the same proceeding" and combining them would serve the administration of justice.

The Ontario Securities Commission opposed, arguing the appeals were distinct and combining them would cause delay and bypass appellate hierarchy.

The court granted the motion, finding the appeals were in the same proceeding due to identical parties, facts, legal issues, and legal origin (investigation order and summons).

The court also found that combining the appeals would allow for a full and final resolution of the jurisdictional issue, mitigate the risk of inconsistent findings, and secure a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination of the issues.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought allegations against Manticore Labs OÜ and Manticore Labs Inc., operators of the CoinField crypto asset trading platform, for violations of the Securities Act.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the crypto contracts offered by CoinField were 'investment contracts' and therefore securities.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents engaged in the business of trading securities without registration, distributed securities without a prospectus, and made false or misleading statements to investors regarding the safety of their funds and withdrawal delays.

The Tribunal also found that the respondents' failure to maintain proper custody of investors' assets and honour withdrawal requests justified a public interest order under s. 127(1) of the Act.

A subsequent hearing was ordered to determine sanctions and costs.

The appellant, Binance, sought to extend the time to perfect its appeal in the Divisional Court pending the Court of Appeal's decision on whether to join this appeal with a related leave to appeal application.

The court declined to defer the appeal, holding that the appeal should proceed in the Divisional Court on a regular schedule unless and until the Court of Appeal orders otherwise under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Penny J. dated January 8, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outline was filed, the court ordered no costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a preliminary motion to dismiss an application by four companies.

The companies had applied for disclosure-related orders under s. 17(1) of the Securities Act in anticipation of a contempt proceeding that Staff intended to bring for the companies' failure to comply with a summons.

The Tribunal granted Staff's motion and dismissed the companies' application.

The Tribunal held that a contempt proceeding under s. 13(1) is a proceeding under the Act, meaning s. 17(6) authorizes the Commission to disclose protected information without needing a s. 17(1) order.

The Tribunal also found that the companies' request for an order authorizing their own disclosure was premature, as the contempt proceeding had not yet been commenced.

The applicant, a crypto asset trading platform, sought judicial review of an investigation order and summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The applicant argued the investigation was precluded by a prior undertaking and constituted an abuse of process, and that the summons violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the undertaking contained an express reservation of rights that permitted the investigation.

The court declined to decide the Charter issue, holding it should first be raised before the Commission.

Binance Holdings Limited applied to the Capital Markets Tribunal under s. 144(1) of the Securities Act to revoke an investigation order issued by the Ontario Securities Commission under s. 11.

The Tribunal directed a preliminary hearing on whether it had jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.

Applying principles of statutory interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the 2022 amendments to the Securities Act separated the Commission's executive and adjudicative functions, and that the word 'Commission' in s. 144(1) does not include the Tribunal.

Consequently, only the Commission, exercising its executive function, can revoke its own s. 11 order.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The moving party, a crypto asset trading platform, sought a stay of an Investigation Order and Summons issued by the Ontario Securities Commission pending judicial review.

The moving party argued the summons was overbroad, an abuse of process, and violated section 8 of the Charter.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, applying the RJR-MacDonald test.

The court found no serious issue to be tried, noting the reduced expectation of privacy in regulated business records, and concluded the moving party failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Polo Digital Assets, Ltd. operated a crypto asset trading platform accessible to Ontario residents without complying with registration and prospectus requirements.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the Crypto Contracts and Crypto Futures Contracts offered on the platform were 'investment contracts' and therefore securities.

The Tribunal concluded that Polo Digital engaged in unregistered trading and illegal distribution of securities, contrary to ss. 25(1) and 53(1) of the Securities Act.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, an administrative penalty of $1.5 million, disgorgement of USD 1,825,417.89, and costs of $138,371.50.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and Aux Cayes Fintech Co. Ltd. sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations of unregistered trading and illegal distributions.

Aux Cayes operated an online crypto asset trading platform accessible to Ontario investors without being registered or filing a prospectus.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest.

Aux Cayes admitted to the contraventions and agreed to pay a $600,000 administrative penalty, disgorge $514,950 USD in revenue, and pay $25,000 in costs.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent operated an unregistered crypto asset trading platform, breaching registration and prospectus requirements.

The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein the respondent admitted the breaches, agreed to disgorge $2,468,910 USD in revenue, pay $10,000 CAD in costs, and wind down its Ontario business.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlement, finding it in the public interest given the respondent's cooperation, full disgorgement, and the avoidance of a contested hearing.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that Mek Global Limited and PhoenixFin Pte.

Ltd., operating as KuCoin, sold crypto contracts and crypto futures contracts through their global online crypto asset trading platform without complying with registration and prospectus requirements.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the crypto asset products offered on the platform were investment contracts and therefore securities under the Securities Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the respondents engaged in the business of trading in securities without registration and distributed securities without a prospectus, contrary to sections 25(1) and 53(1) of the Act.

The respondents failed to participate in the proceeding.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, a $2 million administrative penalty, and $96,550.35 in costs on a joint and several basis.

The applicant, a registered investment advisor, sought a stay of a Commission decision dismissing his application for a review of two IIROC decisions, pending his appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Commission declined to grant a stay pending the disposition of the appeal, noting that the Divisional Court is better placed to assess the merits of the appeal and control the appeal process.

However, the Commission granted a temporary 60-day stay, subject to strict supervision conditions, to allow the applicant to bring a stay motion before the Divisional Court.

In a professional discipline hearing, the member admitted extensive misconduct involving forged client signatures, fabricated clinical records, backdated documentation, inaccurate service information, and emailing confidential client records to a personal email account.

The panel accepted the admissions and found professional misconduct proven under the governing statute and regulation, while holding that the conduct was dishonourable and unprofessional but not disgraceful given the acknowledged health context.

The panel accepted a joint submission on penalty aimed at public protection and remediation.

The order included a reprimand, a suspended eight-month suspension effective only upon any future reissuance of registration, conditions requiring ethics and clinical documentation courses, publication, and $5,000 in costs.