OCMT 2026

The Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with the respondent, who had breached a previous Tribunal order banning him from acting as a director or officer of any issuer for three years.

The respondent admitted to becoming a director of two non-reporting issuers during the ban period.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, which included a renewed three-year ban and a $4,500 administrative penalty, finding the sanctions proportionate and in the public interest given the respondent's self-correction, accountability, and cooperation.

The applicant sought a cease trade order against the respondent, alleging its prospectus contained a material misrepresentation regarding an amalgamation in Peru.

The respondent requested that the proceeding be bifurcated to determine the applicant's standing before hearing the merits.

The Tribunal granted the request to bifurcate, finding no urgency, meaningfully different issues between the standing and merits stages, and potential efficiencies in separating the hearings.

A schedule for the bifurcated proceeding was ordered.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought an enforcement proceeding against the respondent for failing to comply with a 2020 Capital Markets Tribunal order.

The 2020 order required the respondent to resign as a director and officer of any issuer and prohibited him from holding such positions for at least seven years.

The Tribunal found that the respondent breached the order by remaining a director and officer of four corporations for over five years.

The Tribunal ordered an administrative penalty of $37,500, extended the director and officer ban for an additional six years and six months, and ordered costs of $10,683.75.

The Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent breached a 2005 Commission order that prohibited him from trading securities for 15 years, with an exception for RRSP accounts.

The Tribunal found that the respondent engaged in a course of conduct by executing 954 trades in non-RRSP accounts while the ban was in effect.

The Tribunal held that the respondent contravened Ontario securities law and ordered permanent market participation bans, a $100,000 administrative penalty, and costs of $38,282.87.

The respondents brought a motion mid-way through a merits hearing to permanently stay the enforcement proceeding against them, alleging the Ontario Securities Commission committed an abuse of process by repeatedly withholding relevant documents and misunderstanding its disclosure obligations.

The Capital Markets Tribunal determined it was appropriate to hear the motion before concluding the merits hearing.

On the merits of the motion, the Tribunal found that while the Commission made several errors regarding its disclosure obligations—including failing to disclose English translations of Chinese documents and certain correspondence—its conduct did not amount to an abuse of process warranting a stay.

The Tribunal dismissed the stay motion but ordered the Commission to conduct a further review of its disclosure and produce any additional relevant non-privileged documents, including new or different information obtained during witness preparation.

The Ontario Securities Commission brought an enforcement proceeding against the respondent, alleging he perpetrated a fraud and made misleading statements contrary to the Securities Act by drafting press releases for a public company that contained false information.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that while the press releases were misleading, they were issued by the corporation, not the respondent.

The Tribunal held that drafting corporate communications does not constitute making a statement to the investing public under s. 126.2(1), nor does it constitute perpetrating a fraud on the public under s. 126.1(1)(b), absent evidence that the respondent caused or duped the corporation into issuing them.

The respondent brought a motion seeking a blanket confidentiality order over the entire enforcement proceeding, or alternatively, a permanent stay of the proceeding.

The respondent argued that he needed to rely on materials subject to a prior confidentiality order to make full answer and defence.

The Capital Markets Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to meet the high standard for a blanket confidentiality order by not identifying specific risks or explaining why narrow redactions would not suffice.

The request for a stay was also dismissed as the respondent did not establish prejudice to his right to a fair hearing.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the respondent bringing a targeted confidentiality motion in the future.

The Ontario Securities Commission sought approval of a settlement agreement with the respondent, who admitted to committing fraud and violating registration and prospectus requirements by selling and brokering promissory notes for real estate projects.

The respondent continued to accept investor funds despite knowing the severe liquidity issues of the companies involved, resulting in approximately $90 million in investor losses and her subsequent bankruptcy.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, which included permanent market participation bans but no disgorgement order, noting that a disgorgement order could compete with investor recovery in ongoing civil proceedings.