Court File and Parties
Court File No.: CR-14-09000304-00AP Date: 2018-10-05 Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between: Ontario Securities Commission, Appellant – and – Daniel Tiffin and Tiffin Financial Corporation, Respondents
Counsel: Jonathon T. Feasby and Vivean Lee, for the Appellant Glen Jennings and Alex Zavaglia, for the Respondents
Heard: April 6, 2018
Judge: Charney J.
Addendum to Reasons for Sentence
[1] On September 26, 2018 I delivered my Reasons for Sentence in this matter (Ontario Securities Commission v. Tiffin, 2018 ONSC 5419). At the conclusion of my reasons (paras. 46 and 47) I imposed the following sentence under s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act:
Based on these considerations, I am of the view that a custodial sentence is required in this case, but I am satisfied that 6 months is sufficient in these circumstances to meet the sentencing objectives. In addition, you will be on probation for 24 months, the conditions of which will be as follows:
- First, that you not commit the same or any related or similar offences, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment.
- Second, that you will appear before the Court as, and when, required.
- Third, that you notify the Court of any change in your address.
- Fourth, that you report to a probation officer if and when directed to do so by the probation officer.
- And, lastly, that you not trade in any “securities” as that term is defined in the Securities Act.
Finally, pursuant to s. 122.1(1) of the Securities Act, you are ordered to make restitution for the full amount of the Tiffin Financial Services Notes sold by Daniel Tiffin and TFC, less any payments already made.
[2] On September 28, 2018, I received a letter from Mr. Feasby, counsel for the Ontario Securities Commission, asking whether the judgment omitted a sentence against the corporate respondent, Tiffin Financial Corporation (TFC). Mr. Feasby first brought this matter to the attention of counsel for TFC and Mr. Tiffin, who advised that he was reviewing his position on the matter.
[3] I asked my assistant to immediately advise the parties that it was my intention that the sentence (apart from the custodial term) apply to both defendants, and offered to clarify any ambiguity in this regard with an addendum. The reference to “you” in paragraphs 46 and 47 of my reasons was intended to apply to both Mr. Tiffin and TFC.
[4] In my view, I retain jurisdiction to correct any error or ambiguity arising from an accidental slip or omission in my reasons. To the extent that my wording was ambiguous, this arose from such an accidental slip.
[5] On October 1, 2018, I received further correspondence from Mr. Feasby requesting that I provide an addendum to clarify the sentence, and, in particular, the intention that both the probation order and the restitution order apply to both Mr. Tiffin and TFC.
[6] I have not received any correspondence from counsel for the defendant in this regard, although he has been copied on all correspondence from Mr. Feasby.
[7] Having reviewed my reasons, I understand how this uncertainty arose, and, in order to clarify any ambiguity or uncertainty that might have arisen from the wording in the original reasons, I wish to provide the following amendment to paragraphs 46 and 47, which conforms to my intention when I issued the reasons:
[46] Based on these considerations, I am of the view that a custodial sentence is required in this case, but I am satisfied that 6 months is sufficient in these circumstances to meet the sentencing objectives. In addition, Mr. Tiffin and TFC will be on probation for 24 months, the conditions of which will be as follows:
- First, that you not commit the same or any related or similar offences, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment.
- Second, that you will appear before the Court as, and when, required.
- Third, that you notify the Court of any change in your address.
- Fourth, that you report to a probation officer if and when directed to do so by the probation officer.
- And, lastly, that you not trade in any “securities” as that term is defined in the Securities Act.
[47] Finally, pursuant to s. 122.1(1) of the Securities Act, Mr. Tiffin and TFC are ordered to make restitution for the full amount of the Tiffin Financial Services Notes sold by Daniel Tiffin and TFC, less any payments already made.
Justice R.E. Charney
Released: October 5, 2018