Our Work

Simon Bieber, Cameron Rempel and Emma Parry act for the respondent Dealing Representative in this enforcement proceeding before the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO). They brought a novel motion on behalf of the respondent for an order permanently staying CIRO's investigation for violations of the respondent's rights to procedural fairness as an abuse of process.

The motion raised a yet-determined jurisdictional issue; namely, whether a CIRO hearing panel (the regulator's administrative decision maker) has jurisdiction to stay an ongoing investigation prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing. Enforcement counsel argued that the Hearing Panel did not have the jurisdiction to stay the pre-hearing investigation. The CIRO Hearing Panel disagreed, accepting our submission that it had jurisdiction to stay the investigation, holding:

There is no principled reason why a hearing panel would lack jurisdiction to address an alleged abuse of process on the day prior to issuance of a Notice of Hearing, but would have jurisdiction the day after. Accordingly, we have concluded that, in circumstances where it is alleged that the delay prior to the issuance of a Notice of Hearing is inordinate, results in significant prejudice and constitutes an abuse of process that brings the administration of justice into disrepute, a hearing panel must have the same jurisdiction to address those issues before the issuance of a Notice of Hearing as it has after the issuance of a Notice of Hearing.

Although the Hearing Panel declined to grant the stay requested in this case, the Reasons for Decision provide helpful guidance for future cases, establishing that CIRO hearing panels have jurisdiction to stay ongoing investigations when there have been breaches of the duty of fairness, including inordinate delay, irrespective of whether a Notice of Hearing has been issued.