COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Taylor v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2015 ONCA 143

DATE: 20150304

DOCKET: M43982

Juriansz, Epstein and Pepall JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Lewis Taylor, Sr., Lewis Taylor, Jr., Colin Taylor, 1248136 Ontario Limited, and Jared Taylor

Applicants (Appellants on Appeal)

and

Ontario Securities Commission

Respondent (Respondent on Appeal)

Melvyn L. Solmon, for the moving parties, the lenders

Lewis Taylor, Sr., Lewis Taylor, Jr., Colin Taylor, 1248136 Ontario Limited, and Jared Taylor, acting in person

Matthew Britton and Jonathon Feasby, for the respondent, the Ontario Securities Commission

Heard in writing

ENDORSEMENT

[1] This is a rare motion to reopen a motion for leave to appeal that was dismissed on April 16, 2014. The matter has been delayed because, regrettably, the motion material was misfiled by the court office.

[2] In the initial motion for leave to appeal, the appellants sought to appeal the Divisional Court’s dismissal of their appeal from findings made against them by the Ontario Securities Commission (the “OSC”). The OSC found that the appellants traded in securities without the proper registration. Specifically, the appellants had sought to characterize the sale of securities as loans. The OSC ordered disgorgement of the proceeds by the appellants.

[3] The moving parties on the motion to reopen are approximately 175 of the 223 individuals (the “lenders”) who are promisees under promissory notes provided by the appellants. The lenders were not provided with notice of the appellants’ motion for leave to appeal, and they bring the motion to reopen on the basis that they have the right to be heard on the appropriateness of the disgorgement remedy granted by the OSC. Though, customarily, the court does not provide reasons on motions for leave to appeal from the Divisional Court, we provide these brief reasons because the lenders did not participate in the motion for leave.

[4] The lenders are not “affected” by the order dismissing the appellants’ motion for leave as required by rule 27.14. That order did not create a right or obligation on their part. The lenders suffered losses at the hands of the appellants, but the OSC proceedings were not civil proceedings designed to compensate them directly. The issues the lenders seek to raise would not be relevant on the appellants’ motion for leave.

[5] We note that the proceedings had been ongoing for many years and that many of the moving parties were well aware of the proceedings, even if they were not formally served with notice. They did not seek to participate before the Divisional Court, and we doubt they would have had standing before the OSC.

[6] The motion to reopen the motion for leave is dismissed with costs in favour of the OSC fixed in the amount of $1500 all-inclusive.

“R.G. Juriansz J.A.”

“Gloria Epstein J.A.”

“S.E. Pepall J.A.”