OCMT 2026

The applicant, newly self-represented, sought an adjournment of a long-scheduled merits hearing two weeks before it was to commence.

He argued he needed time to prepare, respond to a parallel injunction hearing, and gather new evidence.

The Capital Markets Tribunal applied the test under subrule 34(1) of its Rules of Procedure, which requires exceptional circumstances to grant an adjournment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's change in representation, the parallel proceeding, and his desire to adduce new evidence did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The adjournment motion was dismissed.

The applicant, a reporting issuer subject to a confidential investigation order under s. 11 of the Securities Act, applied under s. 17 for authorization to disclose the investigation to its regulator and auditors.

The applicant sought a broad order covering the existing investigation order, any future related orders, and any additional information required by the regulator or auditor.

The Tribunal granted the application in part, authorizing disclosure of the existing order and any future orders that merely change the investigators, but declined to grant a blanket authorization for unspecified future orders or information due to a lack of precision.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse herself from the merits panel due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had a social relationship with a key witness for the Commission, having previously worked with the witness's spouse and attended their wedding.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing that the capital markets community is small and such connections are common.

The adjudicator granted the motion and recused herself, finding that a reasonable person would conclude the social relationship could influence her assessment of the witness's credibility.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2023 Tribunal order by failing to resign as a director and officer of two corporations for approximately two years.

The Tribunal found that the respondent contravened Ontario securities law by breaching the order.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to resign from any current director or officer positions, imposed an additional two-year director and officer ban, and ordered the respondent to pay a $6,000 administrative penalty and $4,200 in costs.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2023 Tribunal order permanently prohibiting him from acting as a director or officer of any issuer.

The respondent failed to resign from seven issuers for approximately two years, and remained an officer of one issuer at the time of the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent contravened Ontario securities law.

The respondent was ordered to resign from any remaining positions, pay an administrative penalty of $22,000, and pay costs of $7,757.50.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2022 Tribunal order banning him from acting as a director or officer of any issuer by failing to resign from two companies, Campbellco and CCC.

The Tribunal dismissed the allegations regarding Campbellco, accepting the respondent's unchallenged evidence that he never consented to be a director or officer of that company.

However, the Tribunal found that the respondent breached the ban regarding CCC, as he mistakenly believed he had resigned in 2016 but remained a director until December 2024.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to resign from any issuer, imposed a further one-year director and officer ban, an administrative penalty of $3,000, and costs of $3,248.13.

The applicant brought a motion for a partial stay of a Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) disciplinary panel's sanctions decision pending a review application.

The applicant sought to stay his suspension as a registered representative and executive.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Capital Markets Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was refused.

The applicant's evidence of potential financial loss and loss of clients was deemed speculative and unconvincing.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to strike portions of the respondent's written submissions on the basis that they contained references to communications protected by settlement privilege.

The respondent argued that the request was overly broad and that mentioning the mere fact that a settlement offer was made did not violate the privilege.

The Capital Markets Tribunal granted the motion in part, holding that while the content and substance of settlement discussions are strictly protected and must be struck, the mere mention of the existence of settlement discussions or the fact that an offer was made does not disclose the substance of the communications and is not protected by settlement privilege.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondents, as officers and/or directors of a publicly listed reporting issuer, authorized the company's failure to disclose their receipt of shares and report an acquisition as a related party transaction.

The parties reached settlement agreements wherein the respondents admitted to authorizing the non-compliance and agreed to significant financial penalties, disgorgement, and market bans.

The Capital Markets Tribunal approved the settlements, finding them reasonable, in the public interest, and sufficient for specific and general deterrence.

The applicant and the respondent sought approval of a settlement agreement regarding allegations that the respondent maintained inadequate controls over marketplace participants' confidential order and trade information, contrary to National Instrument 21-101.

The respondent self-identified the issue but initially failed to promptly advise the regulator of the true nature of the problem.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the agreed sanctions—including a $600,000 administrative penalty, $75,000 in costs, a reprimand, and an independent external review—to be within a reasonable range and in the public interest.

The applicant, Internet Sciences Inc., failed to attend a case management hearing and refused to participate in the proceeding unless its demands, including the removal of the adjudicator for alleged bias, were met.

The adjudicator proceeded in the applicant's absence, dismissing its motion to remove the Ontario Securities Commission as a party and its motion for the adjudicator's recusal, finding no factual basis for the bias allegations.

Ultimately, the adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety on the basis that it had been abandoned due to the applicant's refusal to participate and cooperate with the Tribunal's process.

The Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent agreed to a settlement regarding allegations that the respondent breached a director and officer ban imposed in a previous Tribunal order.

The respondent admitted to remaining a director and officer of two issuers for approximately three years in contravention of the ban.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed sanctions, which included an extended ban and a $6,000 administrative penalty, to be reasonable and in the public interest.

The Ontario Securities Commission and the respondent agreed to a settlement regarding allegations that the respondent breached a previous director and officer ban.

The respondent had remained a director and officer of one non-reporting issuer and became a director and officer of another, contravening a 2023 Tribunal order.

The respondent subsequently resigned and dissolved the entities.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, finding the proposed sanctions, including an extended ban until 2029 and a $7,000 administrative penalty, to be within a reasonable range and in the public interest.

The applicant, a private party, sought standing to bring an application under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act to cease trade the shares of the respondent corporation.

The applicant alleged the respondent's non-offering prospectus contained a misrepresentation regarding the completion of an amalgamation with its Peruvian subsidiary, which the applicant argued could prejudice its contingent creditor claim in Peru.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion for standing, finding that the applicant failed to raise its concerns with Commission staff first, the allegations did not raise a novel securities law issue, the Tribunal was not the appropriate forum to adjudicate Peruvian corporate law, and the applicant was not directly affected by the alleged conduct.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought a pre-hearing motion to exclude the proposed expert opinion evidence of three witnesses tendered by the respondents, Emerge Canada Inc. and Lisa Langley.

The Tribunal granted the motion in part, ruling that proposed evidence regarding valuation methodologies, NAV calculation, and the scope of audits was inadmissible because those issues were not raised in the Application for Enforcement Proceeding.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion regarding proposed evidence on governance, oversight, and internal controls, finding it premature to exclude such evidence before the merits hearing, and deferred the determination of its admissibility and the experts' qualifications.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2022 Tribunal order banning him from acting as a director or officer of an issuer for ten years.

The respondent failed to participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the order by remaining a director of two companies for up to three years after the ban was imposed.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to resign from any current positions, extended the director and officer ban by four years and six months, and ordered an administrative penalty of $7,500 and costs of $4,328.75.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents perpetrated a securities fraud and that Furtado misled the Commission, the Tribunal held a sanctions hearing.

The Tribunal found the misconduct to be very serious, though not the most egregious, as it involved a legitimate business and no registrable activity.

The Tribunal ordered 10-year market participation bans for all respondents, with a carve-out for Furtado's registered plans.

The respondents were ordered to jointly and severally disgorge $22,200,000, representing the amounts obtained from investors less redemptions and the investment of one fully informed investor.

Furtado was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $1,000,000, and the corporate respondents $200,000 each.

Costs of $638,613.85 were awarded to the Commission.

The Capital Markets Tribunal heard three procedural motions ahead of a scheduled merits hearing.

The respondents Emerge Canada Inc. and Lisa Langley sought an adjournment to retain counsel, which the Tribunal dismissed for failing to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal granted the Ontario Securities Commission's motion requiring Emerge and Langley to provide further and better witness summaries.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the Commission's motion to pre-emptively exclude the anticipated factual testimony of a witness, finding it premature, but ordered the respondents to provide a more detailed summary of his expected evidence.

In an enforcement proceeding alleging false sales communications regarding ESG factors, the respondent Som Seif brought a motion for further disclosure and particulars.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion for disclosure, finding the requested correspondence with other fund managers and internal Commission documents irrelevant to the allegations.

The Tribunal also declined to order the Commission to produce a privilege log.

The motion for particulars was dismissed after the Commission undertook to clarify which specific statements Seif allegedly reviewed, edited, or provided quotes for, with the Tribunal finding the remaining allegations sufficiently particularized.

The applicant, a self-represented reporting issuer, brought a motion seeking the recusal of the adjudicator for a reasonable apprehension of bias, and a motion to vary the adjudicator's prior reasons for decision under s. 144.1 of the Securities Act.

The bias allegations stemmed from the adjudicator's conduct during a case management hearing, including cautioning the applicant about citing non-existent rules and the potential for artificial intelligence hallucinations.

The adjudicator dismissed the bias motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator also dismissed the motion to vary, concluding that the requested variations were merely attempts to tinker with the language of the reasons and were not in the public interest.

An alternative request for a permanent confidentiality order over the reasons was also dismissed.