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
Citation: Majestic Supply Co. Inc et al., 2016 ONSEC 8
Date: 2016-02-12
IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED
- AND -
IN THE MATTER OF
MAJESTIC SUPPLY CO. INC.,
SUNCASTLE DEVELOPMENTS CORPORATION,
HERBERT ADAMS, STEVE BISHOP,
MARY KRICFALUSI, KEVIN LOMAN AND
CBK ENTERPRISES INC.
REASONS AND DECISION ON SANCTIONS AND COSTS
(Section 127 of the Act)
Hearing:
October 30, 2015
Decision:
February 12, 2016
Panel:
Edward P. Kerwin
- Chair of the Panel
- Commissioner
Appearances:
Derek Ferris
- For Staff of the Commission
Kevin Richard Martin Mendelzon
- For Kevin Loman
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.......... INTRODUCTION
II........ HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING
III....... THE DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION
IV....... POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. Staff
B. Respondent
V......... THE LAW ON SANCTIONS
VI....... ANALYSIS
A. Specific Sanctions Factors
B. Appropriate Sanctions
VII...... CONCLUSION
REASONS AND DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION
1This was a hearing before the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) pursuant to section 127 of the Securities Act (the “Act”)1 for a fresh determination of certain sanctions ordered against Kevin Loman (“Loman”), which were remitted back to the Commission by the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Divisional Court”).
2For the reasons articulated below, I find that Loman shall be subject to certain prohibitions for eight years from the date of this decision and its corresponding order.
II. HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDING
3On February 21, 2013, the Commission issued its Reasons and Decision with respect to the merits (the “Merits Decision”), which found that Loman and others engaged in conduct in breach of the Act.2
4On November 29, 2013, the Commission issued its Reasons and Decision with respect to sanctions and costs (the “Sanctions Decision”) and ordered sanctions and costs against Loman and others.3
5Loman appealed the Merits Decision and the Sanctions Decision to the Divisional Court.
6On June 25, 2015, the Divisional Court