Ontario Securities Commission
Commission des valeurs mobilières de l’Ontario
22nd Floor 20 Queen Street West Toronto ON M5H 3S8
22e étage 20, rue Queen Ouest Toronto ON M5H 3S8
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A HEARING AND REVIEW OF DECISIONS OF THE ONTARIO DISTRICT COUNCIL OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA PURSUANT TO SECTION 21.7 OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO BY-LAW 20 OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
BETWEEN
STAFF OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA
- AND –
STEPHEN TAUB
REASONS AND DECISION
Hearing: April 2, 2007
Panel: Robert L. Shirriff Q.C. - Commissioner, Chair of the Panel Margot C. Howard - Commissioner James E. A. Turner - Vice-Chair
Counsel: Robert Brush Abbas Sabur
- for Stephen Taub, the Applicant
Andrew P. Werbowski Ricardo Codina
- for Staff of the Investment Dealers Association, the Respondent
Yvonne B. Chisholm
- for Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission
REASONS AND DECISION
I. OVERVIEW
1This is an application for a hearing and review of two decisions of the Ontario District Council (the "District Council") of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the "Association" or the "IDA") pursuant to section 21.7 of the Ontario Securities Act R.S.O., 1990, c. S.5 (the "Act").
2On October 21, 2005, IDA Staff commenced disciplinary proceedings against Stephen Taub (the "Applicant"), alleging various breaches of the Association's by-laws and rules (the "IDA Disciplinary Proceeding"). The Applicant sought a declaration from the District Council that the IDA lacked jurisdiction to proceed against him because he was no longer a member of the Association. IDA Staff sought a preliminary declaration that the District Council lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the Applicant because it would require the District Council to refuse to apply the Association's by-laws.
3The District Council denied the Applicant's motion and granted the relief sought by IDA Staff. The District Council held that the IDA is not a statutory body which exercises a statutory power of decision. The District Council further determined that recognition under the Act does not constitute a conferral of jurisdiction, but merely imposes upon the IDA a duty to regulate.
4The Applicant requests this hearing and review before the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") on the basis that:
a) the District Council erred in concluding that the IDA retains jurisdiction over former members; and
b) the District Council erred in concluding that it did not have the