Robert del Frate

The appellant appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) that dismissed a review of two decisions by the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

IIROC had found the appellant liable for improperly altering client documents after they were signed, imposing a 12-month suspension, close supervision, and fines.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OSC applied the correct standard of review and made no palpable and overriding errors in upholding IIROC's findings of fact and sanctions.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of IIROC merits and sanctions decisions which found he inappropriately altered signed client documents and suspended his registration for 12 months.

The applicant argued the IIROC Panel erred by admitting unalleged misconduct, reversing the onus of proof, making improper inferences from circumstantial evidence, and imposing excessive sanctions.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding the IIROC Panel's decisions were reasonable, applied the correct onus of proof, and appropriately relied on both direct and circumstantial evidence.

The applicant, a registered representative, sought a stay of two IIROC decisions that suspended his registration for 12 months for inappropriately altering client documents.

The Commission applied the three-part RJR-MacDonald test and granted the stay pending the disposition of his application for hearing and review.

The Commission found that the review application raised serious issues, the applicant would suffer irreparable financial and reputational harm without a stay, and the balance of convenience favoured a stay given the low risk of client harm and the imposition of close supervision conditions.

The applicant sought a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel's decisions on merits and sanctions.

The IIROC panel had found that the applicant engaged in personal financial dealings with a client and made false and misleading representations to his firm, resulting in a two-year suspension, fines, and disgorgement.

The Commission dismissed the application, finding that while the IIROC panel erred in its analysis of the transition rules regarding a repealed rule, the rule remained applicable to the applicant's conduct.

The Commission found no other errors of law or incorrect principles in the IIROC panel's findings of fact, its conclusion that the applicant's statements were false and misleading, or its sanctions order.

The applicant, a former IIROC registrant, sought a hearing and review of an IIROC hearing panel decision that found he failed to use due diligence to ensure investment recommendations were in accordance with clients' risk tolerances.

The applicant argued the IIROC panel erred by making findings in the absence of certain missing documents and by relying on the unqualified expert opinion of an IIROC investigator regarding the risk of various securities.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had made no effort to obtain the missing documents and had not objected to their absence at the IIROC hearing.

Furthermore, the Commission held that the investigator's evidence regarding the risk of the securities was factual, based on the applicant's own admissions, the firm's ratings, and issuer prospectuses, and did not constitute expert opinion evidence.

The appellant, a registered representative, appealed an Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) decision that overturned an IIROC Hearing Panel's penalty decision and imposed a two-year suspension of her registration.

The appellant had recommended and facilitated off-book investments in second mortgages without her employer's knowledge or approval, and without ensuring prospectus requirements were met.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the OSC's decision to intervene and impose a suspension was reasonable, justified, and within the range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant, a registered investment representative, sought a hearing and review of an IIROC decision finding him liable for recommending transactions that caused unnecessary fees to clients and undue commissions to himself, and for borrowing funds from clients.

The applicant argued that IIROC's denial of his adjournment request was procedurally unfair.

The Ontario Securities Commission dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the applicant failed to provide required medical evidence to support his adjournment request.

The Commission upheld IIROC's findings on liability, concluding that the applicant's transactions were outside the bounds of good business practice and that borrowing from clients constituted conduct unbecoming.

The Commission also found the penalties imposed by IIROC, including disgorgement and fines, to be proportionate.