Linda Lee Fuerst

TSX Inc. sought intervenor status in a hearing and review requested by the respondent regarding a decision of Market Regulation Services Inc. (RS).

The respondent had challenged the validity of the Universal Market Integrity Rules (UMIR) and the TSX's delegation of market regulation to RS.

The Commission granted TSX limited intervenor status, finding that the TSX had a direct interest in the proceeding because its market regulation and enforcement regime was being challenged, and that its participation would be useful without unfairly prejudicing the existing parties.

The respondents brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging that Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission failed to conduct a fair investigation, misrepresented facts to obtain a section 11 order, and failed to protect confidential information.

The Commission dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the serious allegations against Staff could not be properly assessed on the limited affidavit evidence available on a preliminary motion.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the respondents renewing their request at the hearing on the merits.

The Commission ordered Staff to produce a written itemized inventory of relevant documents it did not intend to disclose, along with the basis for withholding them.

Windsor Raceway Inc. applied to the Ontario Racing Commission for 125 live race dates and 364 simulcast dates for the 2006 season.

The Ontario Harness Horse Association made submissions advocating for more summer racing dates.

The Commission conditionally approved the application, ordering the applicant to submit a revised schedule adding a minimum of six live race dates to address concerns about the reduction in racing opportunities.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to extend a temporary cease trade order against Momentas Corporation and its principals.

Momentas had been raising capital by selling convertible debentures to accredited investors to fund its automated equity trading system and foreign currency trading.

The Commission found that Momentas was acting as a market intermediary because it employed a significant sales force to sell its own securities and used the proceeds to trade professionally for the indirect benefit of its investors.

As a market intermediary, Momentas could not rely on the accredited investor exemption and was required to be registered.

The Commission extended the temporary cease trade order pending the hearing on the merits, with limited carve-outs allowing Momentas to continue developing its trading system and to close out foreign currency positions.

The appellants appealed from a judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there were triable issues regarding margin requirements, the respondent's conduct, and the 'Know Your Client Rule'.

The court also set aside the default judgment against one of the appellants, finding an arguable defence on the merits regarding undue influence and the respondent's obligation to ensure she understood the indemnity.

The appellants, a lawyer and his law firm, appealed a Divisional Court decision dismissing their application for judicial review.

They challenged the jurisdiction of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) to reprimand the lawyer for allegedly making misleading statements while representing a client.

The appellants argued that such conduct must be dealt with exclusively through quasi-criminal proceedings or by the Law Society.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Securities Act provides the OSC with a flexible range of remedial options, including administrative reprimands under s. 127.

The Court also affirmed that the OSC has jurisdiction to reprimand lawyers acting in their professional capacity, provided that solicitor-client privilege is respected.

The applicants, a lawyer and his law firm, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from continuing proceedings against the lawyer under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission alleged the lawyer made misleading statements in a letter during a prospectus review.

The applicants and the Law Society of Upper Canada argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to discipline lawyers acting in a professional capacity, asserting such power belonged exclusively to the Law Society and that the Commission's exercise of it violated the independence of the bar.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that s. 127(1) applies to lawyers and that the Commission's public interest jurisdiction to control its processes does not usurp the Law Society's role or infringe the rule of law.