The appeal by an investment dealer (“Golden Capital”) from a British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”) decision finding the dealer’s self-regulatory organization was entitled to full access to its records for the purpose of an investigation was allowed when the Court found that the Commission lost sight of the true question which was whether or not full access was reasonably required for the investigation of the allegations against the dealer

28. September 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Rules and by-laws – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review – Investigations – Compliance with legislation – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Golden Capital Securities Ltd. v. Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, [2010] ...

Maximum penalty provisions in Section 162, Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c.418, are subject to the statutory interpretation presumption against retrospective operation of statutes. Imposition of the current maximum monetary penalty under this section is “punitive” in nature and cannot be imposed for violations of the Securities Act which occurred prior to the 2006 amendments which changed the maximum penalty. For such violations, the maximum penalty that can be imposed is that in force at the time.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Statutory interpretation – Legislation – Retrospective and retroactive operation Thow v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2009] B.C.J. No. 211, 2009 BCCA 46, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 12, ...

The Appeals by three corporations and four individuals from findings of fraud and misrepresentation, and from sanctions imposed by the Securities Commission were dismissed where the Court held that the Commission was entitled to use interview evidence obtained during the investigative process

25. November 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Public interest – Judicial review – Hearings – Evidence – Interviews – Disclosure – Hearsay Evidence – admissibility Alberta (Securities Commission) v. Brost, [2008] A.J. No. 1071, Alberta Court of Appeal, October ...

An appeal by Roeder from the dismissal of his action as an abuse of process was dismissed. There is no cause of action for breach of the rules of procedural fairness. The proper remedy for “process allegations” is judicial review.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Hearings – Disclosure – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Abuse of process – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2007] B.C.J. No. 501, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 14, ...

An appeal from the decision of the Alberta Securities Commission (“ASC”) which allowed the Investment Dealers Association (“IDA”) to appeal the dismissal of charges against Bahcheli was allowed. The Court held that absent express statutory provision, a decision maker cannot appeal its own decision and that the IDA was not a person or company ‘directly affected’, such that it may appeal its own decision.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Appeals – Parties – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness Bahcheli v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2007] A.J. No. 520, Alberta Court of Appeal, May 18, 2007, C. Conrad, R. Berger, and C. O’Brien, JJ.A. The Appellant, ...

An appeal by Roeder from the dismissal of his action as an abuse of process was dismissed. There is no cause of action for breach of the rules of procedural fairness. The proper remedy for “process allegations” is judicial review.

24. July 2007 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Hearings – Disclosure – Delay – Procedural requirements and fairness – Judicial review – Abuse of process – Appeals – Remedies – Alternative remedies Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2007] B.C.J. No. 501, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 14, ...

An appeal by Global Securities from a decision of the Securities Exchange Commission Panel was dismissed. Although the Hearing Panel itself could not make submission on the merits of its own decision, the Exchange was not precluded from doing so. The Commission’s decision on standing was reasonable, as it was based on the principle that the decision directly affected the Exchange, as it engaged one of the Exchange’s primary functions, the prosecution of infractions.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Review of a decision of its own disciplinary panel – Hearings – Parties – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Global Securities Corp. v. British Columbia (Executive Director, Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 2075, British Columbia Court ...

The appeal by McLeod and Miszczuk from a decision of the Securities Commission upholding the Exchange’s decision disqualifying them from being directors, officers or employees of Exchange companies was dismissed where the Court held that the lack of an oral hearing before the Commission did not render the decision unfair.

26. September 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Director of corporation – Removal – Hearings – Conduct of hearings – Judicial review – Evidence – Procedural requirements and fairness McLeod v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2006] A.J. No. 939, Alberta Court of Appeal, July 31, 2006, Fraser C.J.A. and Hunt and O’Brien JJ.A McLeod was ...

The Court refused the applicant’s leave to appeal the Respondent Commission’s interlocutory ruling and the Commission was entitled to proceed against the Applicant, notwithstanding that the CDNX exchange had imposed penalties on him in respect of the same underlying conduct. The Applicant’s other grounds of appeal were deemed premature, as the Court lacked a factual basis for granting appeal.

27. June 2006 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Hearings – Stay of proceedings – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Delay – Abuse of process – Judicial review – Appeals and leave to appeal – Jurisdiction Smolensky v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2006] B.C.J. No. 727, British Columbia Court of Appeal, March 24 2006, ...

The applicant directors (the “Applicants”) of a venture capital corporation successfully applied for leave to appeal on issue of whether the fact that the Manitoba Securities Commission (the “Commission”) was named as a co-defendant in a class action suit with the Applicant was sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the Commission, and if so, would it be appropriate to grant a stay of the proceedings before the Commission pending a disposition of the class action suit. The Applicants had an arguable case, and the nature of the objection to proceeding before the Commission was of general public interest because of the importance of impartiality and independence in courts and administrative tribunals.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Director of corporation – Judicial review – Appeals – Procedural requirements and fairness – Reasonable apprehension of bias – Stay of proceedings – Standard of review – Correctness Curtis v. Manitoba Securities Commission, [2006] M.J. No. 1, Manitoba Court of Appeal, January 10, ...