Melanie Adams

The RCMP (Crown) applied under s. 17(1) of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

The evidence was sought to assist the Crown in a criminal fraud proceeding against the respondent.

The Commission found that the respondents whose evidence was sought had provided written consent as required by s. 17(3).

Applying the factors from Re Black, the Commission determined it was in the public interest to authorize disclosure, as the consenting respondents waived confidentiality, and the disclosure would not prejudice the respondent's right to make full answer and defence.

The application was granted subject to strict confidentiality and use conditions.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the Crown) applied under section 17(1) of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

The evidence was sought to assist in the criminal prosecution of the respondent for fraud.

The Commission granted the application, finding that the relevant witnesses had provided written consent to the disclosure and that authorizing disclosure to the Crown, subject to strict confidentiality and use conditions, was in the public interest and would not prejudice the respondent's right to make full answer and defence.

The applicant, Y, applied under section 17 of the Securities Act for disclosure of compelled and voluntary evidence obtained by the Ontario Securities Commission during an investigation.

Y sought the evidence to make full answer and defence to criminal fraud charges.

The Commission balanced Y's right to make full answer and defence against the privacy interests of the witnesses who provided the evidence.

The Commission granted disclosure for witnesses who consented or did not object, and for those who opposed but were on the Crown's witness list, subject to strict confidentiality terms.

Disclosure was denied for opposing witnesses not on the Crown's witness list.

The respondents were charged with sexual assault.

The trial judge stayed the charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to a 25-month delay from arrest to the scheduled trial date, attributing the delay beyond the Morin guidelines to the Crown's late disclosure.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by failing to deduct 7.5 months for inherent time requirements and by isolating the delay in the Superior Court.

After deducting the intake period, the 17.5-month delay fell within the Morin guidelines.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The respondents brought a motion for an order requiring Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission to make meaningful disclosure of documents relevant to the specific allegations against them.

Staff had provided a database containing over 4.3 million pages of documents obtained during a four-year investigation, without separating relevant from irrelevant material.

The Commission held that Staff had not satisfied its legal obligation to make meaningful disclosure simply by delivering the massive database.

Staff was ordered to apply reasonable judgment to identify and disclose the documents relevant to the specific allegations against each respondent, rather than foisting the obligation to sift through the material onto the respondents.

Following a finding that the respondents engaged in an illegal scheme to induce vulnerable individuals to transfer locked-in RSPs into private companies, the Commission held a hearing on sanctions and costs.

The Commission ordered permanent cease trade orders, director and officer bans, and reprimands against the architects of the scheme.

The registrant involved had his registration terminated and was subject to a five-year cease trade order.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs totaling $108,000, apportioned based on their degree of responsibility.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider whether to approve a settlement agreement between Staff and the respondent, a former director and officer of Philip Services Corp. The respondent admitted to failing to ensure that the company filed financial statements containing full, true, and plain disclosure regarding a restructuring charge, holding certificates, unrecorded liabilities, and a financing arrangement.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement as being in the public interest, imposing sanctions that included a 20-year director and officer ban, a 10-year trading ban, a reprimand, and $125,000 in costs.

The applicant, a former officer of Nortel, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from proceeding with a hearing against him.

He argued that the Commission's prior settlement with Nortel, which included admissions of misconduct by its managers, created a reasonable apprehension of bias against him.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings before the Commission had an opportunity to consider the matter and hear evidence regarding the applicant's actual role.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a settlement hearing regarding Zephyr Alternative Power Inc.'s issuance of convertible debentures.

Zephyr relied on the accredited investor exemption but failed to ensure that all investors met the criteria, as some subscription agreements lacked completed certification schedules.

Additionally, Zephyr failed to ensure that the subscription agreements accurately reflected the 20 percent sales commission paid to limited market dealers, with some agreements incorrectly stating a 10 percent commission.

The Commission approved the settlement agreement, which included a reprimand, the implementation of a compliance program, and an undertaking by Zephyr to offer rescission to affected investors.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with a registrant who sold convertible debentures off-book without the knowledge or approval of his sponsoring dealer.

The registrant sold $171,000 worth of debentures and received $28,200 in commissions.

The Commission ordered terms and conditions on his registration, a reprimand, $5,000 in costs, and a settlement payment of $28,200 to be designated for the benefit of investors.