Ryan Lapensée

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adjourn the merits hearing because its lead counsel left the Commission and newly retained external counsel was unavailable for the first five scheduled dates.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that Staff failed to establish exceptional circumstances under Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

Staff did not provide evidence of any steps taken to avoid an adjournment, such as considering internal counsel or searching for other available external counsel.

Following a merits decision finding that the respondents engaged in fraudulent conduct by diverting $234,864.04 from a solar energy fund contrary to its offering memorandum, the Capital Markets Tribunal held a hearing to determine sanctions and costs.

The Tribunal ordered disgorgement of the diverted funds, imposed administrative penalties totaling $476,000, and ordered the respondents to pay $112,500 in costs.

The Tribunal also imposed permanent market bans on the respondents, subject to limited carve-outs for personal trading and acting as directors of specific private family companies.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission applied for an inter-jurisdictional enforcement order against the respondent under s. 127(10) of the Securities Act.

The respondent had previously pled guilty and been convicted of criminal fraud over $5000 for operating a Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors of approximately $1.1 million.

The Commission found that the criminal conviction arose from a course of conduct related to securities.

Given the egregious nature of the fraud and the need to protect investors, the Commission concluded it was in the public interest to permanently prohibit the respondent from participating in Ontario's capital markets.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission brought a motion to adduce an expert report at an upcoming merits hearing regarding alleged misleading statements and fraud by the respondents in relation to a solar energy investment fund.

The respondents objected to the report's admissibility.

The Commission first determined that it was appropriate to decide the admissibility issue at a preliminary stage before the merits hearing, applying the Mega-C test.

On the merits of the admissibility, the Commission held that the expert's opinions on solar industry norms were rendered irrelevant by the respondents' undertaking not to lead evidence or make submissions on those points.

The expert's opinion on the reasonable expectations of investors was deemed unnecessary as it fell within the Commission's own expertise.

Consequently, the expert report was ruled inadmissible.