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 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 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, ...

An appeal of a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission was dismissed as the Court held that the decision of the Commission was reasonable

26. July 2005 0
Administrative law – Stock brokers – Disciplinary proceedings – Penalties – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Investment Dealers Association – Rules and by-laws – Judicial review – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Derivative Services Inc. v. Investment Dealers Assn. of Canada, [2005] O.J. No. 2118, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, May 25, 2005, R.T.P. Gravely, ...

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 ...