Natalija Popovic

The applicant sought a review of a sanction imposed by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

After succeeding on the review, the applicant requested that the Ontario Securities Commission determine the appropriate sanction rather than remitting the matter.

The Commission declined, finding that an IIROC panel would have greater familiarity with its own guidelines, could hear the matter sooner, and that deference is owed to a sanctioning administrative body composed of the applicant's peers.

The matter was remitted to IIROC for a sanction hearing before a differently constituted panel.

The applicants sought a hearing and review of an IIROC sanctions decision, arguing that the reasons provided by the IIROC panel were inadequate.

The applicants had admitted to failing to properly perform gatekeeper responsibilities and failing to adequately supervise conduct.

The IIROC panel imposed sanctions that were significantly more severe than those sought by IIROC staff, including a life suspension and a $250,000 fine for the principal applicant.

The Commission found that the IIROC panel's reasons failed to address mitigating factors, appeared to sanction the applicants for unadmitted conduct such as fraud and illegal distributions, and misstated the agreed facts.

The Commission concluded that the reasons were so inadequate as to constitute an error in law, set aside the decision, and invited submissions on whether it should substitute its own decision or remit the matter for a re-hearing.

The appellant, an investment advisor, appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission that upheld a disciplinary ruling by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

IIROC had found the appellant engaged in conduct detrimental to the public interest by maintaining undisclosed financial interests in the accounts of two relatives, resulting in a permanent ban, a $350,000 fine, and $80,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's decision reasonable, the reasons provided by IIROC adequate, and that the Commission properly afforded deference to the self-regulatory organization.

The applicant, an investment advisor, sought a stay of an Ontario Securities Commission decision dismissing his application for a hearing and review of an IIROC disciplinary decision.

The IIROC hearing panel had permanently banned the applicant and imposed a fine and costs for having undisclosed financial interests in client accounts.

The Commission considered the RJR MacDonald test for granting a stay pending appeal.

Finding that the Divisional Court was in a better position to determine the merits of the appeal and whether a stay should be granted, the Commission granted a short 60-day extension of the interim stay to allow the applicant to commence an appeal and bring a stay motion before the Divisional Court.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of a decision by the Ontario District Council of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), which found he engaged in conduct unbecoming by having an undisclosed financial interest in client accounts.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied a restrained approach to reviewing the self-regulatory organization's decision, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the District Council proceeded on an incorrect principle, erred in law, or overlooked material evidence.

The application was dismissed.