Securities
Decisions
29 SEPTEMBER 2022
A request to substitute one witness for another on a witness list was granted in accordance with Rule 8.7(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found the Respondents would not sustain any prejudice provided the testimony of the new witness was limited to the same facts and matters set out in the Notice of Witness for the original witness.
27 MAY 2022
A request to change the hearing format in an enforcement proceeding from an oral hearing with the testimony of witnesses to an oral hearing with evidence provided by way of Affidavit was denied. The Tribunal found that proceeding with Affidavit evidence would not afford it the opportunity to ask clarification questions of the witnesses nor to assess their credibility.
10 FEBRUARY 2022
A request to change the hearing format in an enforcement proceeding from an oral hearing with the testimony of witnesses to an oral hearing with evidence provided by way of Affidavit was denied. The Tribunal found that proceeding with Affidavit evidence would not afford it the opportunity to ask clarification questions of the witnesses nor to assess their credibility.
14 JUNE 2021
A request to change the hearing format in an enforcement proceeding from an oral hearing with the testimony of witnesses to an oral hearing with evidence provided by way of Affidavit was denied. The Tribunal concluded that proceeding by way of Affidavit evidence would curtail the meaningful participation of the self-represented respondent and would not ensure a fair and meaningful process as drafting affidavits is a complex exercise.
11 MAY 2021
The Tribunal granted a request for an extension of time to file an Affidavit to a self-represented party, noting that preparing affidavits may be a difficult exercise for a self-represented party. The extension of the filing deadline did not impact the date for the hearing of the motion.
7 JUNE 2019
The Applicant sought a review of two decisions of an IIROC hearing panel. This decision deals with whether the Applicant had received adequate disclosure, the sufficiency of IIROC Staff’s investigation, whether there was a breach of procedural fairness. As a note to the reader, the Tribunal’s decision was appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal at Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada v. Crandall, 2020 NBCA 76.
11 JANUARY 2019
There had been many motions and delays in an enforcement proceeding and the hearing on the merits had not yet been held. The Tribunal found, pursuant to section 190 of the Securities Act, that it no longer had jurisdiction to hold the hearing. As a note to the reader, the decision of the Tribunal was reviewed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Financial and Consumer Services Commission v. Emond et al., 2020 NBCA 42.
26 APRIL 2018
The Tribunal extended the deadline for the respondent to review materials uncovered by a non-party to the proceeding, and to disclose any relevant materials to the applicant.
23 APRIL 2018
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing on the merits as the parties were still uncovering relevant documents.
2 FEBRUARY 2018
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondent had made representations relating to the future value or price of a security or derivative, and distributed shares without having filed a prospectus.
19 JANUARY 2018
The Applicant sought a review of a decision of an IIROC hearing panel. Following a pre-hearing conference, the Tribunal severed the applicant’s grounds of review and ordered that the issue dealing with disclosure proceed to a hearing on the merits before the other grounds. As a note to the reader, the decision of the Tribunal was reviewed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada v. Crandall, 2020 NBCA 76.
26 SEPTEMBER 2017
This proceeding was adjourned indefinitely (sine die) because the Chair of the Tribunal was unable to establish a full three-member panel for a French-language hearing due to delays in the appointment of a new member having the required language skills to be assigned to the matter. As a note to the reader, the decision of the Tribunal was reviewed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in Financial and Consumer Services Commission v. Emond et al., 2020 NBCA 42.
21 SEPTEMBER 2017
The Tribunal ordered IIROC to produce the disclosure from its enforcement proceeding, and all future documents (excluding correspondence) in the proceeding, in paper format to the Applicant as he did not have a computer to view the electronic disclosure.
1 FEBRUARY 2017
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in a review of a decision of a hearing panel of the MFDA. The parties agreed to rescind the decision of the MFDA hearing panel and to substitute lesser sanctions.
29 NOVEMBER 2016
The Tribunal granted an order reciprocating an order of a hearing panel of the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority of Saskatchewan against the Respondent.
10 AUGUST 2016
The Tribunal granted a stay of the enforcement proceedings on the basis that the delay in the proceedings had caused substantial prejudice to the Respondents and that to continue with the proceedings would constitute an abuse of process. As a note to the reader, this decision was reviewed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal at Financial and Consumer Services Commission v. Emond et al., 2017 NBCA 28.
28 JUNE 2016
The Tribunal denied a motion seeking to introduce into evidence at a hearing on the merits the affidavits of witnesses. The Tribunal stated that the introduction of affidavit evidence at a hearing on the merits is only allowed in exceptional circumstances which did not exist in this matter. The Tribunal further found that allowing affidavits to be introduced into evidence could affect the ability of the self-represented respondents to fully respond to the evidence.
16 JUNE 2016
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondents had traded in securities without the required registration or an exemption; and made a statement about a security, derivative, or trade that they knew or ought reasonably to have known was a misrepresentation.
3 JUNE 2016
The Tribunal granted the Applicant an extension of time to file a Request for Hearing seeking a review of a decision of a hearing panel of the MFDA. The Applicant was self-represented and had repeatedly asked the MFDA how to “appeal” the decision but was provided no information. The MFDA did not inform the applicant of his right to seek a review of their decision and the timeframe for doing so.
26 APRIL 2016
The Tribunal ordered the change in location of the hearing from Saint John to Edmundston. Both respondents and the majority of their witnesses lived in the Edmundston region. Moving the hearing would considerably decrease costs for them.
26 APRIL 2016
The Tribunal denied the Applicant’s request for an adjournment of the hearing on the merits, finding there were no exceptional circumstances justifying an adjournment.
1 DECEMBER 2015
The Tribunal granted the Respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing on the merits to allow him to continue his efforts to retain a lawyer.
23 OCTOBER 2015
The Tribunal granted the Respondent’s request to adjourn the hearing on the merits to allow him to retain a lawyer.
23 OCTOBER 2015
The Tribunal granted an order reciprocating an order of a hearing panel of the Ontario Securities Commission against the Respondents.
25 SEPTEMBER 2015
The Tribunal permanently banned the Respondents from trading in securities or derivatives after finding they had solicited trading in options without being registered. The Tribunal also discussed what constitutes adequate personal service of documents.
31 AUGUST 2015
The Tribunal vacated temporary orders against two respondents due to the discontinuance of the enforcement proceedings against these two respondents by the Financial and Consumer Services Commission.
27 AUGUST 2015
The Tribunal held a status hearing to determine if an order adjourning this matter for a period of one year should be maintained or vacated. It ruled that the civil actions filed in the Court of Queen’s Bench did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias and that there were no extraordinary circumstances justifying a further adjournment.
6 JULY 2015
The Tribunal adjourned the hearing of an application for a reciprocal order to allow the applicant to file additional Affidavit evidence.
19 JUNE 2015
The Tribunal held a status hearing and ordered, with reasons to follow, that an order adjourning the proceeding pending the outcome of civil actions should be vacated.
30 JANUARY 2015
The Tribunal found the Respondents (1) traded in derivatives while not registered and not exempted from registration; and (2) made misrepresentations about a derivative.
30 JANUARY 2015
The Tribunal found the Respondents (1) traded in derivatives while not registered and not exempted from registration; and (2) made misrepresentations about a derivative.
14 OCTOBER 2014
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondents had traded in securities without having the required registration.
22 JULY 2014
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondent had failed in its obligation to make continuous disclosure.
27 MAY 2014
The Tribunal issued an order reciprocating an order of the Ontario Securities Commission.
15 MAY 2014
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondents had: (1) traded in securities without the required registration or an exemption from registration; and (2) made misrepresentations.
21 JANUARY 2014
The Tribunal granted the Respondents’ request for an adjournment to allow their solicitor sufficient time to review the materials. The Tribunal also extended the temporary order prohibiting the respondents from trading in securities.
7 JANUARY 2014
The Tribunal granted an ex parte temporary order prohibiting the Respondents from trading in securities pending the outcome of the enforcement proceeding.
25 OCTOBER 2013
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondents had traded in securities without the required registration or an exemption from registration.
27 AUGUST 2013
The enforcement proceeding against the Respondents was adjourned for a period of one year as a result of civil actions between the Financial and Consumer Services Commission and the Respondents.
7 AUGUST 2013
The Tribunal issued a Variation Order varying a decision issued in 2007.
2 AUGUST 2013
The Tribunal issued an order reciprocating an order of the Ontario Securities Commission
5 JULY 2013
In this enforcement proceeding, the Tribunal found the Respondent had perpetrated a fraud against 11 investors by obtaining money from them and depositing the monies in his personal account.
© 2020 | Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal