Andrew Faith

The applicant and respondent, who are brothers and equal shareholders in several corporations, commenced competing proceedings alleging oppression, misappropriation of funds, and breaches of fiduciary duty.

The respondent brought a motion to convert the applicant's application into an action and consolidate it with his own action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the extensive factual disputes, serious allegations of dishonesty, and need for credibility assessments required a full trial with oral evidence.

The proceedings were consolidated to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent judicial findings.

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario brought disciplinary proceedings against a professional engineer and an engineering firm regarding the failed design of a critical structural component of the Nipigon River Bridge.

The respondents admitted to professional misconduct, acknowledging they failed to verify critical design assumptions and provided inadequate oversight of a junior engineer.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a four-week licence suspension for the engineer, a requirement for the firm to implement a Quality Assurance Plan, and $200,000 in costs.

The Capital Markets Tribunal held a sanctions hearing after finding that the respondent breached a 2004 order permanently banning him from acting as a director or officer of an issuer and from trading in securities for 15 years.

The Tribunal ordered permanent market participation bans, disgorgement of over $3.2 million and US$10.7 million, administrative penalties totaling $1,000,000, and $300,000 in costs.

The Tribunal found the respondent's conduct to be a flagrant and recurrent breach of a Tribunal order, warranting significant specific and general deterrence.

The moving parties, professional engineers and engineering firms involved in the design and construction of the Nipigon River Bridge, brought a motion to stay disciplinary proceedings against them on the basis of delay.

The Discipline Committee found that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) was responsible for approximately 36 months of inordinate delay in its investigation.

However, the Committee dismissed the motion, concluding that the moving parties failed to establish significant prejudice that would compromise hearing fairness or amount to an abuse of process.

The Committee further held that the public interest in holding a hearing on the merits regarding the failure of major public infrastructure outweighed any disrepute caused by the delay.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2004 settlement order which permanently banned him from acting as a director or officer of an issuer and banned him from trading in securities for 15 years.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the director and officer ban by acting as a director and/or officer of 38 Ontario corporations.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent breached the trading ban by participating in the sale of shares in an Ontario corporation and by participating in several offshore stock secured financings where he acted in furtherance of trades.

The allegation of conduct contrary to the public interest was dismissed as no additional conduct beyond the statutory breaches was identified.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the merits hearing because its lead counsel left the Commission and newly retained external counsel was unavailable for the first five scheduled dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Staff failed to establish exceptional circumstances under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Staff did not provide evidence of any steps taken to avoid an adjournment, such as considering internal counsel or searching for other available external counsel.

The Member and Holder faced professional discipline allegations regarding their review and approval of inadequate design drawings and hydraulic calculations for a building's fire protection system.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts in which the Member and Holder admitted to professional misconduct for failing to maintain reasonable engineering standards and failing to comply with the Ontario Building Code.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, remedial coursework, and practice restrictions.

The Committee also ordered that the decision be published with names to serve the goals of openness, transparency, and general deterrence.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

The College of Nurses of Ontario brought discipline proceedings against a Nurse Practitioner for failing to maintain the boundaries of the therapeutic nurse-client relationship.

The member engaged in a personal and romantic relationship with the spouse of a patient, who was also a former patient, and continued to provide care to the patient while involved with her spouse.

The Discipline Committee found the member committed professional misconduct.

The Committee ordered a 10-month suspension, an oral reprimand, and imposed terms, conditions, and limitations on the member's certificate of registration, noting the mitigating factor that the member was a victim of domestic violence and manipulation by the former patient.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.

The member, a professional engineer, faced allegations of professional misconduct related to inappropriate and disparaging comments made during a PEO Council election campaign.

The member admitted to the allegations and agreed to a statement of facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand to be recorded on the register for six months and publication of the findings without the member's name, noting the member's cooperation, lack of prior disciplinary history, and personal health challenges as mitigating factors.

The respondent, an insider of a reporting issuer, admitted to engaging in a course of conduct that created a misleading appearance of trading activity and failing to file insider reports.

Staff of the Commission and the respondent jointly submitted a Settlement Agreement for approval.

The Panel approved the settlement, finding it to be in the public interest, and imposed sanctions including a $10,000 administrative penalty, $5,000 in costs, and various trading and director/officer bans.