A mutual fund salesperson and his company (“Gill”) appealed the decision of the British Columbia Securities Commission’s finding that Gill had contravened certain provisions of the Securities Act. The main issue before the British Columbia Court of Appeal was whether it was reasonable for the Commission to have found that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements issued by Gill were securities within the meaning of the term “evidence of indebtedness” contained in section 1 of the Securities Act. The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Commission’s findings were reasonable, and in accord with the purpose of the Securities Act.
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Evidence – Jurisdiction
British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill,  B.C.J. No. 587, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 19, 2003, Rowles, Ryan and Thackray JJ.A.
Gill argued that the Commission, in holding that the receipts, financial summaries and loan agreements were securities, had enlarged its jurisdiction to regulate beyond that intended by the Securities Act. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that the Commission had reviewed the evidence with a view to determining the true nature of the advance of funds being scrutinized.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the standard of reasonableness was met by the decision of the Securities Commission. In addition, the British Columbia Court of Appeal explained that the lack of a full transcript of the Commission’s proceedings had effectively already defeated the appeal. The appeal was dismissed.
To stay current with the new case law and emerging legal issues in this area, subscribe here.