MRS Sciences Inc. v. Ontario Securities Commission
CITATION: MRS Sciences Inc. v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONSC 7198
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 4/12 and 80/12
DATE: 20121217
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, SWINTON AND DUCHARME JJ.
BETWEEN:
MRS SCIENCES INC. (FORMERLY MORNINGSIDE CAPITAL CORP.), AMERICO DEROSA, RONALD SHERMAN, EDWARD EMMONS, IVAN CAVRIC and PRIMEQUEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
Appellants
– and –
AMERICO DEROSA, RONALD SHERMAN, EDWARD EMMONS and IVAN CAVRIC
Applicants
- and –
THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
Respondents
Peter-Paul E. Du Vernet, for the Appellants/ Applicants
Scott C. Hutchison and Derek J. Ferris, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: December 17, 2012
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J. (ORALLY)
[1] The Divisional Court has no jurisdiction to hear this appeal, as s. 9(1) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 permits an appeal to this Court only from a “final decision” of the Ontario Securities Commission. The Commission’s decision on the motion for directions was an interlocutory ruling in the sanctions hearing.
[2] The application for judicial review is premature. This Court has repeatedly refused to hear an application for judicial review of an interlocutory decision of an administrative tribunal. It has exercised its discretion to do so in exceptional circumstances but none exist here.
[3] The procedural fairness issue is best determined after the sanctions hearing is completed. As in Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 541, the characterization of the decision respecting the panel’s composition as “jurisdictional” does not automatically entitle a party to seek judicial review (see para. 67).
[4] This application has caused significant delay and interrupted the Commission’s sanctions hearing, which are the very concerns the doctrine of prematurity was designed to address. The jurisdictional issue can be raised after a final decision in an appeal before this Court, if necessary. We note that counsel for the Commission has taken the position that the applicant can appeal all issues (merits, the interlocutory ruling and sanctions and costs) once the Commission has rendered its final decision in this case.
[5] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the application for judicial review is quashed as premature.
KITELEY J.
COSTS
[6] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium, “The appeal is dismissed. The application for judicial review is quashed as premature. Appellants/applicants shall pay costs fixed at $7,500.”
SWINTON J.
KITELEY J.
DUCHARME J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 17, 2012
Date of Release: December 19, 2012
CITATION: MRS Sciences Inc. v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONSC 7198
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 4/12 and 80/12
DATE: 20121217
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
KITELEY, SWINTON AND DUCHARME JJ.
BETWEEN:
MRS SCIENCES INC. (FORMERLY MORNINGSIDE CAPITAL CORP.), AMERICO DEROSA, RONALD SHERMAN, EDWARD EMMONS, IVAN CAVRIC and PRIMEQUEST CAPITAL CORPORATION
Appellants
– and –
AMERICO DEROSA, RONALD SHERMAN, EDWARD EMMONS and IVAN CAVRIC
Applicants
- and –
THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
Respondents
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 17, 2012
Date of Release: December 19, 2012