The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant British Columbia Securities Commission (the “Commission”), among others, on the basis that the action itself was an abuse of process. The Plaintiff had fully exhausted his right of review of the Commission’s 1995 and 2003 decisions determining that he had failed to comply with his obligations as and officer and director of a publicly traded company and restraining him from acting in such a capacity in British Columbia for 17 years. This present action for damages was a collateral attack on those decisions and, as such was an abuse of the Court’s process. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s pleading that the Commission committed the tort of abuse of public office failed to set out the essential elements of the tort and, in any event, was vexatious, and should be struck out.

28. February 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Investigations – Director of corporation – Penalties – Judicial review – Abuse of public office – Procedural requirements and fairness – Disclosure – Relevance of information disclosed – No reasonable cause of action – Abuse of process Roeder v. Lang Michener Lawrence & Shaw, [2005] ...

The Appellant was unable to show that the Ontario Securities Commission’s conclusions in overturning the decision of the Ontario District Council of the Investment Dealers Association with respect to one count against the Appellant was unreasonable; nor was it shown that the Commission failed to show appropriate deference to the findings of the District Council. The Commission did not commit any error in principle in substituting a new penalty.

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Boulieris v. Investment Dealers Association. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 1984, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 11, 2005, J.D. Carnwath, J.R.R. Jennings and K.E. Swinton ...

Applying a standard of reasonableness, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the B.C. Securities Commission dismissing the Appellant’s application under section 171 of the British Columbia Securities Act due to unjustified delay

24. May 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Conflict of interest – Judicial review – Delay – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Roeder v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2005] B.C.J. No. 693, British Columbia Court of Appeal, April 4, 2005, Huddart, Saunders and Oppal JJ.A. ...

The administrative penalty of $25,000.00 imposed on the Appellant was not in the circumstances unreasonable and the Appellant’s appeal was therefore dismissed

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Hogan v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), [2005] B.C.J. No. 131, British Columbia Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, Finch C.J.B.C., Prowse and Levine JJ.A. The British Columbia Securities Commission ...

A panel of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) found that the Respondent Donnini had engaged in unlawful insider trading contrary to section 76(1) of the Ontario Securities Act. The Commission suspended Donnini’s registration as a securities trader for 15 years and ordered him to pay investigation and hearing costs of $186,000. Donnini appealed all aspects of the Commissioner’s order. A panel of the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal from liability, but allowed the appeal in respect of the sanctions imposed on Donnini and the award of costs. The Divisional Court reduced Donnini’s suspension from 15 to 4 years and directed the Commission to reconsider its costs award by following specific procedural steps. The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission’s findings on liability and sanction but remitted the matter of costs for the Commission’s reconsideration.

22. March 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Costs – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Donnini v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2005] O.J. No. 240, Ontario Court of Appeal, January 28, 2005, M. Rosenberg, M.J. Moldaver and J.C. MacPherson JJ.A. In February ...

Del Bianco’s appeal from an Order of the Alberta Securities Commission was dismissed by the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support both the Commission’s finding that Del Bianco had traded in shares without being registered and the reasonableness of the sanctions imposed.

28. December 2004 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Judicial review – Decisions reviewed – Securities Commission – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Del Bianco v. Alberta Securities Commission, [2004] A.J. No. 1222, Alberta Court of Appeal, October 29, 2004, Fruman and Ritter JJ.A. and Sullivan J. Del Bianco was the director of ...

Costello appealed the decision of the Ontario Securities Commission (the “Commission”) which found that he had acted as an “advisor” without being registered to do so under section 25(1)(c) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 C. s.5 (the “Act”). The court employed a standard of review of reasonableness and found that the Commission’s decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Personal interests – Public interest – Stock brokers and advisors – Disciplinary proceedings – Advisor – definition – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Costs Costello v. Ontario (Securities Commission), [2004] O.J. No. 2972, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July ...

The Ontario Divisional Court upheld the finding of insider trading against the head institutional trader and part owner of Yorkton Securities Inc. (“Donnini”) made by the Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”). The court reduced the trading suspension imposed by the OSC from 15 years to 4 years and directed that the matter of costs, which had been assessed by the OSC at $186,052.30, be referred back to the OSC to conduct an inquiry into the extent of the bill in order to substantiate the amount.

25. November 2003 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Suspensions – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Penalties – Judicial review – Costs Donnini v. Ontario Securities Commission, [2003] O.J. No. 3541, Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court, September 15, 2003, Lane, Somers and Greer JJ. On June 11, 2002, two of the members ...

Gill was successful in having the Court of Appeal set aside the decision of the B.C. Securities Commission that the newly formed CDNX stock exchange had jurisdiction to discipline Gill for alleged breaches of the rules of the Vancouver Stock Exchange, a predecessor to the CDNX

23. September 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Compliance with rules and by-laws – Jurisdiction – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Governance – Restructuring of stock exchanges – Survival of contracts – Judicial review – Standard of review – Correctness Gill v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc., [2003] B.C.J. No. 1767, British Columbia Court ...

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.

27. May 2003 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Securities Commission – Evidence – Jurisdiction British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Gill, [2003] 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 ...