Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held that a $1,126,260 securities disgorgement order against Perminder Sihota is non-dischargeable under BIA s. 178(1)(e).
The Supreme Court held that BC Securities Commission disgorgement orders survive bankruptcy under s. 178(1)(e), but administrative penalties do not.
The Court of Appeal dismissed related securities appeals arising from a Kunekt market-manipulation scheme, upholding liability, jurisdiction, and refusal to vary findings.
The motion judge erred in law by treating proposed non-conspiratorial spoofing claims and additions of certain banks as new claims time-barred; the original pleadings already alleged spoofing/painting the screen such that the amendments rely on facts already pleaded and therefore are not barred by the Limitations Act; allegations in foreign pleadings or press releases alone did not establish actual knowledge for limitation purposes; JP Morgan may be joined given regulator findings and pleaded factual overlap; defendants may still raise a constructive-knowledge (s.5(1)(b)) limitations defence…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Poonians’ appeal, holding their securities commission debts were not discharged in bankruptcy because they fell within s. 178(1)(e) of the BIA.
흠집 없는 항변을 반복한 Poonian 부부의 파산 사건에서, 법원은 BC Securities Commission의 행정벌과 환수명령이 BIA s. 178(1)(a) 및 (e)에 따라 면책되지 않는다고 판시했다.
Appeal from refusal of bankruptcy discharge dismissed; the court upheld findings of extreme misconduct, rejected the “honest but unfortunate debtor” claim, and found no error in the master’s reasoning.
The court denied the Poonians’ bankruptcy discharge, finding their debts arose from serious market-manipulation sanctions and underreported income that they were responsible for.
On the record the Court found no Charter breach under s.7 or s.11(b): investigative delay, though lengthy, did not amount to abuse of process and excess post-charge delay was justified by complexity and exceptional circumstances; evidence of investigator Ian Black and market expert Langley Evans was admissible and properly weighed; contemporaneous emails of co-participants were admissible under the co-conspirators exception and reliable in context; convictions for conspiracy and fraud on the public market were reasonable and supported beyond a reasonable doubt; allegations of judicial bias we…
Source excerpt
The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in six securities commission applications, mainly on jurisdiction and speculative-inference issues, but limited any sanctions appeal to follow from a successful liability appeal.
Explore more
