Rene Sorell

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against TD, RBC, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank in a case alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in the futures exchange market.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met and granted the motion, approving the settlement agreements and the plan of dissemination.

The Ontario Securities Commission approved a settlement agreement with Coinsquare Ltd. and its executives regarding market manipulation and whistleblower reprisal.

Coinsquare admitted to inflating trading volumes on its crypto asset platform through wash trades and taking reprisals against an internal whistleblower.

The settlement included significant administrative penalties, bans on the executives acting as directors or officers, and requirements for corporate governance improvements.

Staff of the Commission and Caldwell Investment Management Ltd. (CIM) jointly submitted a settlement agreement for approval.

CIM admitted to failing to meet its best execution obligations over a four-year period by directing trades to a related firm, resulting in higher commission rates and bond spreads for its clients.

CIM also admitted to making misleading statements, having inadequate policies, and providing insufficient information to its Independent Review Committees.

The Commission approved the settlement, which included an administrative penalty of $1.8 million, costs of $250,000, and terms and conditions on CIM's registration requiring an independent consultant to review its policies.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission commenced an enforcement proceeding against Caldwell Investment Management Ltd. (CIM) alleging failure to provide best execution of trades.

CIM brought a motion seeking disclosure of communications between Staff and potential experts, as well as information regarding the best execution practices of other OSC registrants.

The Commission denied the motion, finding that communications with potential experts were protected by litigation privilege and that the practices of other registrants were irrelevant and confidential.

The Commission ordered disclosure of only one factual notation from the expert materials.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission and Execution Access, LLC entered into a settlement agreement regarding the respondent's operation of an electronic trading platform for US treasury bills in Ontario without registration or recognition.

The respondent cooperated with Staff to regularize its operations and there were no investor complaints.

The Commission approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable and in the public interest.

The respondent agreed to pay $970,000 for allocation by the Commission, $25,000 in costs, and was reprimanded.

Following a successful motion by the defendants to prevent the plaintiffs from using extra-jurisdictional procedures to acquire documents from non-parties, the defendants sought partial indemnity costs of $75,365.38.

The plaintiffs argued for reduced costs of $15,000, citing the novelty and public interest of the issue under section 31 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument, finding the issue was not legally novel in a way that justified denying costs and noting the plaintiffs' conduct was improper.

The court awarded the defendants their costs as claimed.

IIROC Staff applied for a hearing and review of an IIROC Hearing Panel decision that dismissed allegations against TD Securities Inc. (TDSI) for failing to comply with its trading supervision obligations.

The IIROC Hearing Panel had found that several TDSI traders entered artificial closing bids but concluded that TDSI's supervisory system was adequate.

On review, the Ontario Securities Commission found that the IIROC Hearing Panel did not overlook or misapprehend material evidence, nor did it err in law or proceed on an incorrect principle.

The Commission deferred to the IIROC Hearing Panel's factual determinations and its assessment of the adequacy of TDSI's multi-tiered supervisory system.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, minority shareholders of MI Developments Inc. (MID), brought applications under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act alleging that MID failed to comply with Multilateral Instrument 61-101 (MI 61-101) by not obtaining minority shareholder approval for a series of related party transactions with Magna Entertainment Corp. (MEC).

The transactions included loans, loan extensions, and debtor-in-possession financing.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the applications, finding that section 104 does not apply to related party transactions.

While the Commission permitted the applications under section 127, it concluded that MID was entitled to rely on the downstream transaction exception and the market capitalization exemption under MI 61-101.

The Commission also found no prima facie case of insider trading in connection with a related trust transaction.