Mega-C Power Corporation et al., 2009 ONSEC 34

Ontario Securities Commission

Commission des valeurs mobilières de l’Ontario

P.O. Box 55, 19th Floor 20 Queen Street West Toronto ON M5H 3S8

CP 55, 19e étage 20, rue Queen Ouest Toronto ON M5H 3S8

Citation: Mega-C Power Corporation et al., 2009 ONSEC 34

Date: 2009-09-09

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

• AND -

IN THE MATTER OF MEGA-C POWER CORPORATION, RENE PARDO, GARY USLING, LEWIS TAYLOR SR., LEWIS TAYLOR JR., JARED TAYLOR, COLIN TAYLOR and 1248136 ONTARIO LIMITED

ENDORSEMENT

[Editors Note: Made public on September 8, 2010.]

Motion Hearing: September 9, 2009

Appearances:

• Matthew Britton for Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission
• Rene Pardo
• Gary Usling
• Lewis Taylor Sr.
• Jared Taylor
• Colin Taylor

Decision on Mr. Pardo's Motion:

1In this hearing, Mr. Pardo seeks an adjournment to May 2010. He says an adjournment will serve to help shareholders of Mega-C in bankruptcy proceedings in Nevada.

2This matter began with an investigation in 2003. The Statement of Allegations was issued on November 16, 2005, as was the Notice of Hearing. Since then, there have been a multiplicity of motions, hearings and voluminous correspondence and disclosures. This appearance is approximately the 23rd in the proceeding.

3I find it would be scandalous to grant an adjournment sought on the eve of the hearing, particularly where the hearing on the merits is set for September 30, 2009 to proceed for several weeks.

4These unrepresented Respondents are not to have their hearing on the merits postponed yet again, particularly at the hands of someone who appears to be adverse to the interests of the other Respondents.

Decision on Mr. Usling's Motion:

5Mr. Usling's motion is denied, without prejudice to his right to renew it at the hearing on the merits, in support of his contention the proceeding should be stayed because of Staff’s conduct.

6Mr. Usling moves to have this matter stayed against him because of Staff’s alleged failure to maintain confidentiality of his compelled testimony, and because of alleged refusal of Staff to provide disclosure of pertinent information. He says the failure to disclose has continued following the Panel decision to adjourn the original disclosure motion to the hearing on the merits.

7The issue of failure to disclose is a classic "I did so – you did not". This latest allegation can no more be satisfactorily dealt with in a motion forum than it could at the Panel hearing of August 6 and 7, 2008. These allegations and counter-allegations can only be resolved in a full hearing on the merits.

Decision on the Taylors' Motions:

8The Taylors' motion for further particulars is denied, without prejudice to their right to renew it at the hearing on the merits. This, as with Mr. Usling, is to give them an opportunity to submit the proceeding should be stayed because of Staff’s conduct.

9The Taylors' motion for a stay is denied without prejudice to their right to renew it at the hearing on the merits. This, as with Mr. Usling, is to give them an opportunity to submit the matter should be stayed because of Staff’s conduct.

The Hearing on the Merits:

10There shall be no further motions prior to the hearing on the merits. If anyone feels compelled to move on something, they shall do so 7 days before the hearing, to be heard at the hearing on the merits.