Matthew H. Britton

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement between Staff and Martin Bernholtz, a former director of Titan Medical Inc. Bernholtz admitted to selling shares of Titan while in possession of material non-public information regarding imminent public offerings, contrary to the public interest and the company's insider trading policy.

The settlement included a voluntary payment of $225,000, costs of $75,000, and various director and trading bans.

The respondent breached a prior Commission order permanently prohibiting him from trading in securities by selling securities to repay a personal debt.

Staff and the respondent reached a settlement agreement imposing a $120,000 administrative penalty, $5,000 in costs, and a second reprimand.

The Commission approved the settlement, affirming that the traditional reasonableness standard applies to securities regulatory settlements rather than the more stringent standard for criminal joint submissions established in Anthony-Cook.

The respondent, an officer and director of Big Rock Labs Inc., engaged in manipulative trading of the company's shares using multiple accounts, creating a misleading appearance of market activity.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement wherein the respondent admitted to breaching s. 126.1(1)(a) of the Securities Act.

The Commission approved the settlement as being in the public interest, imposing a $100,000 administrative penalty, $25,000 in costs, and various five-year market prohibitions.

The respondent, a legal assistant, admitted to providing non-public, confidential information regarding merger and acquisition transactions to another respondent over a four-year period, in breach of the Securities Act.

Staff and the respondent entered into a settlement agreement, which included significant credit for the respondent's cooperation with Staff's investigation against the non-settling respondents.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, finding the reduced sanctions, which included a reprimand and market bans but no financial penalties, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal filed by the appellants.

The appellants had previously been found to have perpetrated a fraud on investors and were ordered to pay investigation and hearing costs, which remained unpaid.

The court found good reason to believe the appeal was frivolous and vexatious, as the appellants had declined to participate in the merits hearing.

Furthermore, the court found the appellants no longer had assets in Ontario.

The motion was granted, and the appellants were ordered to post $20,000 as security for costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' motion to adduce fresh evidence and their appeal, the respondent sought partial indemnity costs.

Although the respondent's partial indemnity costs amounted to $12,875, it sought a reduced award of $4,000 to avoid inhibiting self-represented parties from pursuing appeal rights.

The court found the issues were not complex and the requested amount was modest, fixing costs at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellants appealed an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) order finding they violated securities law by operating an RRSP/loan scheme without registration or a prospectus.

The appellants argued the OSC erred in refusing an adjournment, sought to introduce fresh evidence, and challenged the OSC's findings.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the refusal of the adjournment was justified, the fresh evidence did not meet the test for admission, and the OSC's findings of unregistered trading and public interest violations were reasonable.