Paul Stern

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to summarily dismiss the respondent's motion to stay the enforcement proceeding for abuse of process.

The respondent alleged that Staff failed to adequately protect privileged documents obtained during a related criminal investigation.

The Tribunal held that the applicable standard for summary dismissal of a stay motion is the 'tenable case' standard, and that the Supreme Court's decision in Haevischer does not apply outside the criminal context.

The Tribunal found that Staff failed to establish that the respondent's motion had no reasonable prospect of success, as the alleged breach of privilege could potentially undermine the integrity of the justice system even if it did not compromise the fairness of the hearing.

Staff's motion was dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to restrict Staff's use of documents that were also used in a parallel criminal proceeding against the respondent and his company.

The respondent argued that the documents should be subject to the screening process established in D.P. v Wagg.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Wagg process did not apply because Staff obtained the documents through its own investigation, rather than receiving them as Crown disclosure.

The Tribunal noted that applying Wagg would improperly impose unnecessary constraints on Staff.

Alice Zhou brought a motion seeking intervenor status in an enforcement proceeding against Xiao Hua (Edward) Gong for alleged securities fraud and unregistered trading.

Zhou claimed to represent investors in China and raised concerns about Gong's identity and potential forged documents.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Zhou was not directly affected by the proceeding, would not likely make a unique and useful contribution, and had other avenues to communicate her concerns, such as contacting Staff.

The applicant, a former Justice of the Peace, filed two human rights applications alleging discrimination on the basis of race and related grounds.

The first application concerned the failure to progress him to full-time presiding status, and the second concerned the refusal to indemnify his legal costs for defending criminal charges of sexual assault.

The Tribunal dismissed the first application as out of time, noting a delay of over three years without a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal dismissed the second application as an abuse of process, finding the applicant's claim that the sexual assault charges arose within the course of his employment to be preposterous and without any chance of success.

The Member faced allegations of professional misconduct for acting inappropriately towards female students, including asking them to try on sports clothing and a bathing suit in his office bathroom, inadvertently taking a digital photograph of a student, disregarding a principal's directive not to be alone with female students, and viewing nude photographs on a school computer.

The Member pleaded no contest to the allegations.

The Discipline Committee accepted the joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand, a three-month suspension of his teaching certificate, completion of a boundary course before returning to teaching, and publication of the decision.