Capital
Markets
Tribunal
Tribunal
des marchés
financiers
22nd Floor
20 Queen Street West
Toronto ON M5H 3S8
22e étage
20, rue Queen ouest
Toronto ON M5H 3S8
File No. 2022-8
IN THE MATTER OF
GO-TO DEVELOPMENTS HOLDINGS INC., GO-TO SPADINA ADELAIDE SQUARE INC., FURTADO HOLDINGS INC., and OSCAR FURTADO
REASONS AND DECISION ON MOTION REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY
Adjudicators:
M. Cecilia Williams (chair of the panel)
Sandra Blake
Hearing:
In writing, final written submissions received December 4, 2023
Appearances:
Erin Hoult
For Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission
Dana Carson
For Oscar Furtado
1We issued reasons, dated November 24, 2023,1 for our decisions on Oscar Furtado’s motions: for an adjournment of the merits hearing; for further disclosure from Staff; and that the hearing and documents filed in connection with the hearing be confidential. Our November 24, 2023, Order specifies which portions of the transcript and documents filed shall be kept confidential.
2The Tribunal’s practice is to deliver reasons to parties 24 hours in advance of publication. After receiving the reasons and order, Furtado requested that they be kept confidential temporarily so that he had additional time to consider privacy issues arising from the reasons and order. We sought and received submissions regarding Furtado’s request.
3Furtado submits that the Tribunal ought to review the reasons and the order to ensure that all personal medical information regarding Furtado’s specific symptoms, medical history, diagnosis, examinations, and treatments is treated as confidential in keeping with the Tribunal’s prior jurisprudence in other matters, including the recent decision in Ali (Re).2
4Furtado submits that some of the redactions appear to be inconsistent. He provides examples of the dates of doctor appointments that are redacted in some instances and not in others. Furtado further submits that the reasons mention psychiatric self-assessments which ought to be redacted. Finally, Furtado notes that the name of his primary care physician has been misspelled.
5Staff submits that Furtado’s request that we reconsider our decision, made via letter, is not proper. Staff further submits that if Furtado wishes to challenge the decision, he must do so through an appropriate review route. The Tribunal has made its decision and does not have the authority to reconsider its decision.
6We agree with staff.
7Section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act3 provides that an administrative tribunal may “correct a typographical error, error of calculation or similar error made in its decision or order.”
8We do not have the authority to reconsider our decision and decline to do so. We do have the authority to correct typographic errors. We find that the misspelling of Furtado’s primary care physician is a typographical error and have made that correction to our decision.
Dated at Toronto this 12th day of December, 2023
“M. Cecilia Williams”
“Sandra Blake”
M. Cecilia Williams
Sandra Blake