Peter Copeland

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences following a foot chase and altercation with police.

At trial, the jury acquitted him of assaulting police but convicted him of possessing a handgun found at the scene.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by allowing oath-helping evidence regarding a police officer, permitting cross-examination on his 'Young Thugs' tattoo without a limiting instruction, redacting his medical records to remove his account of how he was injured by police, and improperly handling hearsay evidence of a third party's admission of gun ownership.

The Court of Appeal found that the cumulative effect of the trial judge's errors regarding credibility evidence prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse to renew and revoke the registration of the respondent.

The Vice-Chair issued a procedural order setting the hearing dates for January 25 and 26, 2010, and establishing deadlines for both parties to complete disclosure pursuant to Rule 10 of the AGCO Revised Rules of Practice.

The respondents brought a motion for particulars regarding allegations of illegal trading and distributions under the Securities Act.

They argued that the Statement of Allegations and the voluminous disclosure provided by Staff were insufficient to allow them to know the case to meet.

The Commission held that while Staff is not required to meet the strict standard of a criminal proceeding, the duty of procedural fairness requires sufficient particularization of the material facts.

The Commission directed Staff to provide additional specific particulars regarding the alleged illegal distributions, solicitation meetings, and representations, but dismissed the motion to enforce an alleged undertaking by Staff.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the respondents' Constitutional Motions until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents' motions challenged the constitutionality of section 11 of the Securities Act and the use of compelled evidence, seeking a stay of proceedings.

The Commission granted Staff's motion, holding that Charter challenges and requests for a stay of proceedings should generally not be decided in a factual vacuum.

The Commission found that a complete factual record, which could only be developed at the hearing on the merits, was necessary to properly assess whether the respondents' Charter rights were violated and what remedies might be appropriate.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to defer the hearing of Constitutional Motions brought by the respondents until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents sought to challenge the constitutionality of the investigation provisions of the Securities Act and the manner in which Staff obtained and used an investigation order.

The Commission granted Staff's motion, finding that Charter challenges should generally be decided on a complete factual record rather than in a factual vacuum.

The Commission concluded that the constitutional issues could not be fairly or completely resolved without regard to the contested facts and anticipated evidence that would be presented at the hearing on the merits.

The respondents requested that the Commission's Confidential Reasons and Decision dated May 18, 2007 be redacted to remove their names and identifying information prior to public release, relying on the confidentiality provisions in section 16 of the Securities Act.

Staff argued that subsection 17(6) permitted disclosure in connection with a proceeding and opposed a broad sealing order, but did not object to anonymizing the parties.

The Commission held that while it had the authority to release the reasons unredacted, it would exercise its discretion to release a redacted version until the commencement of the hearing on the merits.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the respondents' Constitutional Motions until the hearing on the merits.

The respondents had filed motions challenging the constitutionality of section 11 of the Securities Act and the manner in which an investigation order was obtained and used, alleging violations of their Charter rights.

The Commission held that the Constitutional Motions should be dealt with in the course of the hearing on the merits because a determination in advance would deprive the Commission of the complete factual basis necessary for a proper consideration of the alleged Charter violations.

Staff's motion was granted and the Constitutional Motions were deferred to the hearing panel.

Following his criminal conviction for insider trading, the Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to determine whether to impose public interest sanctions against the respondent under s. 127 of the Securities Act.

The respondent, while an officer and director of a reporting issuer, had sold shares with knowledge of undisclosed material negative assay results, avoiding significant losses.

The Commission found his conduct egregious and a breach of fiduciary duty.

To protect the capital markets, the Commission ordered a 15-year cease trade order and a 15-year ban on acting as a director or officer of any reporting issuer, with limited carve-outs for personal trading.