On December 2, 2009, a panel of the Commission heard
submissions in camera on a motion for an order under s.
17(1) of the Securities Act (the
"Act"), permitting a foreign securities
regulator to disclose to a foreign criminal law enforcement agency
certain compelled documents relating to two account holders of a
Bank (the Bank was not named in the decision). The documents were
provided to the foreign securities regulator pursuant to a s. 11
The Bank in question was notified of the motion by Staff of the
Commission and objected to the making of the proposed order without
notice being provided to the two account holders, whose documents
would be provided to the foreign criminal law enforcement agency.
In ordering that notice of Staff's motion and an opportunity to
be heard should be provided to the two corporate account holders;
the Commission noted that s.17(2)(a) of the Act requires
that reasonable notice of an application under s. 17(1) must be
provided to "persons or companies named by the
Commission". The Commission held that although the s.13
summons was directed to the Bank and the documents were produced by
the Bank, the two corporate account holders were "named by the
Commission in the summons" and therefore notice and an
opportunity to be heard had to be provided to them.
Following the issue of the Panel's confidential reasons and
order on March 25, 2010, the Executive Director brought an
application to vary the order pursuant to s. 144 of the
Act. The Executive Director submitted that the Panel
improperly balanced the importance of the Bank's obligation to
its account holders against the importance of Canadian authorities
cooperating with American authorities when determining whether
notice to the account holders was necessary. This submission was
rejected by the Commission which held that it would be contrary to
the intention of the Act and to the public interest to
allow the Executive Director's Application.
Although it has been reported that this decision stands for the
proposition that third parties must always be put on notice
pursuant to s.17(1) of the Act in situations where their
records are being produced to foreign criminal law enforcement
agencies, the decision is not that broad and turns specifically on
the fact that the third parties in this instance were named in the
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).