Linda Lee Fuerst

The respondents, Dennis Meharchand and Valt.X Holdings Inc., brought a motion seeking the recusal of two members of the Commission's Staff involved in an enforcement proceeding against them, alleging tampering with evidence and bias.

The respondents also requested an adjournment of the motion hearing, which the panel denied due to a lack of exceptional circumstances and the respondents' history of delaying the proceeding.

On the merits of the recusal motion, the panel found no evidence of improper conduct or bias by Staff.

The alleged evidence tampering was an inadvertent scanning error that was promptly corrected, and the use of the word 'complaint' in an investigator's evidence summary did not demonstrate bias.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, Techocan International Co. Ltd. and Haiyan (Helen) Gao Jordan, applied under section 144 of the Securities Act to vary a settlement agreement they had entered into with Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission.

They argued that a subsequent settlement between Staff and co-respondents in the same proceeding resulted in a gross and unjustified disparity in sanctions, as the co-respondents faced no monetary penalties and minimal costs.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that the two settlements were based on different facts, admitted contraventions, and individual circumstances.

The Commission held that absent exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as a subsequent finding that the admitted conduct was lawful, it would be prejudicial to the public interest to allow a party to resile from a settlement agreement based on a co-respondent's later, more favourable settlement.

The applicants, dissident shareholders engaged in a proxy contest, sought a hearing and review of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) decision that conditionally approved the issuance of shares by Eco Oro Minerals Corp. to certain shareholders without requiring a shareholder vote.

The TSX permitted an accelerated closing of the share issuance just days before the record date for a requisitioned shareholder meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission conducted a de novo review, finding that the TSX overlooked material evidence regarding the proxy contest and erred in its interpretation of 'materially affect control.' The Commission set aside the TSX decision, concluding that the share issuance materially affected control and required shareholder approval.

To remedy the improper issuance, the Commission ordered Eco Oro to hold a shareholder vote to either ratify or reverse the share issuance, cease-traded the new shares pending the vote, and prohibited the new shares from being voted at the upcoming meeting.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with Sentry Investments Inc. and Sean Driscoll regarding failures to comply with National Instrument 81-105 – Mutual Fund Sales Practices.

The respondents admitted to sales practices involving prohibited payments and gifts to registered dealers, as well as systemic supervisory failures.

The settlement included a significant administrative fine for Sentry, a $100,000 reparation payment by Driscoll, and a ban on Driscoll acting as a director or officer of a registrant until completing regulatory compliance courses.

The Commission found the agreed sanctions were within a reasonable range of appropriateness and in the public interest.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents failed to establish and maintain appropriate controls and procedures regarding supervision, resulting in certain clients paying excess fees.

The respondents self-reported the inadequacies, cooperated with Staff, and entered into a no-contest settlement agreement.

Under the agreement, the respondents committed to paying nearly $50 million in compensation to affected clients, making a voluntary payment of $2.1 million to the Commission, and reimbursing $90,000 in costs.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding it to be in the public interest given the respondents' prompt self-reporting, cooperation, and lack of dishonest conduct.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and Ernst & Young LLP sought approval of a no-contest settlement agreement relating to Ernst & Young's audits of Sino-Forest Corporation and Zungui Haixi Corporation.

The Commission approved the settlement, noting it was the first no-contest settlement in Ontario.

Ernst & Young agreed to make a voluntary payment of $8 million, of which $2.1 million was allocated to costs, and to cooperate with Staff's ongoing investigations.

The Commission found the settlement fair and reasonable, emphasizing the auditor's gatekeeper role and the significant remedial actions taken.

The Applicant sought a hearing and review of a 2007 settlement agreement with Market Regulation Services Inc. (now IIROC) in which he admitted to trading violations and paid a $25,000 fine.

In 2013, an IIROC hearing panel dismissed identical allegations against the Applicant's supervisor, finding the trading did not contravene the rules.

The Commission found it had jurisdiction to review the matter and granted an exemption from the 30-day time limit.

Applying the Canada Malting test, the Commission concluded the subsequent decision constituted new and compelling evidence.

Finding it manifestly unfair to allow the settlement to stand, the Commission set aside the settlement approval, ordered the Applicant's disciplinary record expunged, and directed IIROC to repay the $25,000 fine.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a decision granting the plaintiffs leave to pursue claims under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act and certifying the action as a class proceeding.

The plaintiffs alleged the corporate defendant misrepresented its equity market risk by failing to disclose its decision to abandon hedging and reinsurance of guaranteed products.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's conclusions that the plaintiffs had a reasonable possibility of success at trial and that the common law misrepresentation claims were suitable for certification alongside the statutory claims.

Following certification of a securities class action, the court determined the appropriate costs award arising from the leave and certification motions.

The moving parties sought more than $1.18 million in fees and disbursements on a partial indemnity basis.

The court emphasized the need for transparency, proportionality, and historical benchmarking when assessing certification-motion costs under Rule 57.01(1).

After adjusting excessive hourly rates and disbursements, and considering historical averages for comparable certification motions, the court fixed costs at $467,234 payable forthwith, with an additional $100,000 in disbursements payable in the cause.

In a securities class action concerning alleged misrepresentations in the prospectus and offering materials for a company’s 2010 initial public offering, the representative plaintiff moved for court approval of a settlement under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The settlement provided for a global payment of USD $15,250,000 to resolve claims by Canadian and U.S. investors, with a coordinated cross‑border approval process and a shared claims administration.

The court applied the established criteria for approval of class action settlements, including the likelihood of success, litigation risks, counsel’s recommendations, the reasonableness of the terms, and the absence of objections.

Finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, the court approved both the settlement and the plan of allocation, as well as class counsel’s requested contingency fees and litigation expenses.

The plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a proposed class action settlement and class counsel fees.

The class action involved franchisees alleging the franchisor breached its duties of good faith and fair dealing regarding changes to the franchise system.

The court approved the $8,500,000 settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $2,125,000 plus HST and disbursements, noting the significant risk assumed by class counsel.

In a securities class proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 and the Securities Act, the plaintiffs sought certification for settlement purposes against certain underwriters, approval of three settlements totalling approximately $10.85 million, approval of counsel fees, and approval of a proposed plan of allocation.

The court held that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved them, along with counsel fees and the appointment of an administrator.

However, the court rejected the parties’ proposed distribution plan because it excluded class members who purchased shares on the day of the corrective disclosure from any compensation.

Exercising its authority to determine the plan of allocation, the court varied the distribution plan to include those purchasers and approved the modified plan as fair and reasonable.

The plaintiffs sought leave under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act and certification under the Class Proceedings Act to bring an action against Manulife Financial Corporation and its former executives.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented the adequacy of Manulife's risk management practices and failed to disclose its massive unhedged exposure to equity market risk prior to the 2008 financial crisis.

The court granted leave, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial, and certified the action as a class proceeding, certifying seven common issues.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a proposed class action for damages pursuant to s. 130 of the Securities Act.

The defendants consented to certification, except for the plaintiff's proposed class definition which included purchasers in the secondary market.

The court held that s. 130(1) of the Act does not provide a statutory cause of action to purchasers in the secondary market, and revised the class definition accordingly before granting certification.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action for secondary market misrepresentation sought leave to appeal a decision quashing their summonses to two Manulife employees and refusing to compel the defendants to file affidavits on the upcoming leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, which followed established jurisprudence that defendants are not required to deliver affidavits or be subjected to cross-examination if they do not intend to lead evidence on the leave motion.

The appellant, a former employee of a Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) member, appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) which upheld a ruling by Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS).

The OSC found that the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) were enforceable against the appellant for conduct that occurred during his employment, despite his subsequent resignation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it reasonable for the OSC to conclude that the TSE validly adopted the UMIR and that RS had jurisdiction to discipline former employees for misconduct committed while they were employed by a TSE member.

The corporation sought an order approving a proposed arrangement to collapse its dual-class share structure by purchasing for cancellation all outstanding Class B shares for consideration comprising 9 million newly issued Class A shares and US$300 million in cash.

The application judge approved the arrangement.

The opposing shareholders appealed, arguing the application judge erred in finding the arrangement fair and reasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge correctly applied the BCE test.

The corporation was not required to demonstrate with certainty that the benefits of the arrangement would offset the costs, but only a reasonable prospect of clearly identified benefits.

The affirmative vote of the Class A shareholders was important evidence supporting the fairness of the arrangement.

David Berry, a former employee of Scotia Capital Inc., applied for a hearing and review of a decision by a hearing panel of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS) that dismissed his motion to stay an RS proceeding against him.

Berry argued that the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) were not validly adopted by the TSX and that RS lacked jurisdiction over him as a former employee.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding that UMIR are rules of RS, approved by the Commission, and enforceable against TSX Participants and their employees.

The Commission also held that the TSX Act provides the basis for RS's jurisdiction to proceed against Berry as a former employee.