Canada: Circumstantial Evidence And Insider Trading

Last Updated: August 30 2018
Article by Shara N. Roy and Constanza Pauchulo

Introduction

It is trite law that evidence will not be inadmissible simply because it is circumstantial, rather than direct. However, the appropriate use and weight to be given to such evidence varies with the context of each case and the area of law in which it arises. In the case of the regulatory and quasi-criminal offences of insider trading and tipping, particular care must be taken to avoid a mechanistic application of certain factors, recently developed by the provincial securities regulators (including the Ontario Securities Commission (the "OSC" or the "Commission")) to create a compelling inference of the offences.

Insider trading and tipping are offences under provincial securities legislation and may be prosecuted criminally as a provincial offence. Direct proof of insider trading or tipping often does not exist and instead triers of fact are asked to consider circumstantial evidence. Reliance upon relevant circumstantial evidence may be appropriate where its value is carefully considered and proper weight assigned to it by the trier of fact. In assessing weight, the trier of fact must consider the strength of the inferences that can be drawn from the evidence itself. Such inferences are central to the application of circumstantial evidence to the legal and factual questions put to the trier fact. The methodologies relied upon by the trier of fact, whether administrative or judicial, to draw such inferences must be scrutinized to ensure that they do not themselves alter the requisite standards that must be met by various parties or convert an otherwise holistic assessment of the evidence into a mechanistic calculation.

The provincial securities commissions in Ontario and Alberta, particularly, have developed a set of circumstantial factors to which they will look to create a "compelling inference" of the elements of insider trading and tipping. The Alberta Court of Appeal has recently weighed in to challenge what some have criticized as this formulaic approach to a serious offence. In Holtby, Re,1 the Court of Appeal overturned the Alberta Securities Commission's finding that the respondent had engaged in insider trading using the five-factor approach. The court held that the evidence must be weighed in context and that drawing reasonable inferences has its limits, no matter the offence or difficulty in proving its elements. A similar approach was also recently adopted by the OSC in Re Azeff, where the commission relied upon "firmly established" circumstantial evidence to support several findings of tipping and insider trading.2

Holtby and Azeff demonstrate that reliance upon circumstantial evidence may be appropriate, but only to the extent that the evidence as a whole satisfies the requisite standard of proof and establishes the statutory requirements of the offence. A predetermined set of factors may lead the trier of fact away from an analysis of the evidence as a whole and into a checklist which might in one case not otherwise satisfy the burden of proof or make it unduly onerous in another. It is in this context that we consider the application of circumstantial evidence by provincial securities commissions before and after the decision in Re Suman,3 as well as the assessment of such evidence in criminal law, and fraudulent conveyances and civil conspiracy cases. While the Suman factors may serve as a useful guide in insider trading and tipping cases, a strict application risks altering the legal test set in the provincial securities legislation and bringing the OSC's decisions out of step with the treatment of circumstantial evidence by courts and other provincial securities commissions.

1. The Elements of the Offence and the Use of Circumstantial Evidence

In order to establish the offence of insider trading under s. 76(1) of the OSA, OSC Staff must prove the following elements:

  1. at the material time, the respondent(s) was in a "special relationship" with a reporting issuer;
  2. the respondent(s) purchased or sold securities of that reporting issuer;
  3. the trade(s) was made with knowledge of a material fact or material change; and
  4. the material information had not been generally disclosed to the public.4

Similarly, for the offence of tipping, the following elements must be established by OSC Staff:

  1. at the material time, the respondent(s) was in a "special relationship" with a reporting issuer;
  2. the respondent(s) informed another person or company of a material fact or material change with respect to that reporting issuer;
  3. this disclosure was not made in the necessary course of business; and
  4. the material information had not been generally disclosed to the public.5

In administrative proceedings, the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, that is, the trier of fact must decide whether there was "clear, convincing and cogent" evidence that the alleged events were more likely than not to have occurred.6

In many cases involving securities law, circumstantial evidence is the only sort of evidence available, particularly where knowledge or intent forms part of the offence or cause of action. This evidence is not to be excluded or disregarded by reason of being circumstantial. It must be treated as any other kind of evidence. The weight accorded to it depends upon the strength of the inference that can be drawn from it.7 If it is relevant, it will be received and considered. Moreover, in some cases, relevant circumstantial evidence will be decisive.8

With respect to drawing proper inferences, only those which can be reasonably and logically drawn from a fact or group of facts established by the evidence may be relied upon. A trier of fact must be careful to distinguish between an inference and speculation. There can be no inference without objective facts from which to infer the fact or event that the party seeks to establish. The trier of fact is not permitted to assume facts that have not been proven. Moreover, the facts must be sufficiently linked to the inferences sought to be drawn.9 Neither mere possibility nor suspicion is sufficient to satisfy the required standard of proof; nor can an inference be made where it is objectively unreasonable or illogical.10

The party relying upon the circumstantial evidence is not required to prove that the inferences they seek to draw are the only inferences that can be drawn from the evidence.11 As discussed in further detail below, this approach is different from the use of circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, where the existence of an alternative explanation sufficient to create a reasonable doubt renders the circumstantial evidence incapable of supporting a conviction.12 However, in the civil context, where the circumstantial evidence is consistent with either an improper intent or an innocent intent, it would be insufficient to conclude that two alternative inferences are equally plausible and then to infer the improper intent. The evidence would have to clearly and cogently support the inference of improper intent.13

Therefore, in assessing circumstantial evidence put forward by OSC Staff, as well as the inferences sought to be drawn, the Commission must focus on the standard of proof borne by OSC Staff. It is not for the respondent to provide clear, cogent and convincing evidence of an innocent explanation for circumstantial facts tendered by OSC Staff in support of the offences of insider trading and tipping. Rather, that standard must be met by OSC Staff alone.

2. The Suman Factors

Suman arose out of allegations that Shane Suman, who worked in the IT Department of MDS Sciex, communicated an undisclosed material fact to his wife, Monie Rahman. The material fact was that MDSInc. was proposing to acquire Molecular Devices Corporation ("Molecular"), a public company listed on NASDAQ in the United States. Staff alleged that during the relevant time, Mr. Suman and Ms. Rahman purchased securities of Molecular with knowledge of the proposed acquisition. These trades were conducted several days before the proposed acquisition was publically announced.14 The key issues in dispute were whether Mr. Suman learned of the proposed acquisition through his IT role at MDS Sciex, whether he informed Ms. Rahman of it, and whether Mr. Suman and Ms. Rahman purchased the Molecular securities with knowledge of the proposed acquisition. Notably, Molecular was not a "reporting issuer" as defined by the Act. Staff therefore alleged that the trading was contrary to the public interest.15

In its analysis, the OSC outlined the appropriate standard of proof in administrative proceedings, as well as the proper use of circumstantial evidence.16 Relying upon a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeal, it then went on to consider the following six factors, which it found created a "compelling inference" of knowledge of material non-public information:

  1. the tippee's access to the information;
  2. the relationship between the tipper and the tippee;
  3. the timing of the contact between the tipper and the tippee;
  4. the timing of the trades;
  5. the pattern of the trades, including their uncharacteristic size; and
  6. any attempts to conceal the trades or the relationship between the tipper and the tippee.17

Based on these factors, the OSC found that Mr. Suman had the ability and opportunity to acquire knowledge of the proposed acquisition though his IT role atMDSSciex. In particular, it found that in his IT role, Mr. Suman had the ability and opportunity to view emails relating to the proposed acquisition.18 There was, however, no direct evidence that Mr. Suman actually viewed the impugned emails.19

In particular, the circumstantial evidence put forward by OSC Staff included:

  1. Mr. Suman's ability and opportunity to view emails relating to the proposed acquisition;20
  2. the timing and length of a phone call between Mr. Suman and Ms. Rahman, as well as the respondents' evidence that they decided to purchase Molecular securities during this phone call;21
  3. internet searches conducted by Mr. Suman at material times of terms, such as "monument inc.",22 and websites relating to the insider trading charges laid against Martha Stewart;23
  4. the timing of the respondents' purchase of Molecular securities, the new analytic approach the respondents' claimed to apply to the trade, and the "unprecedented" size of the respondents' profit;24
  5. a large number of calendar fragments on Mr. Suman's computer relating to the proposed acquisition;25
  6. Mr. Suman's denial during his first interview with OSC Staff that he had purchased Molecular securities;26 and
  7. Mr. Suman's installation and use of a computer program which permanently wipes data and information from a computer after being warned by OSC Staff to not delete data on his office computer.27

On this basis, the OSC found that Mr. Suman contravened s. 76(2) of the Act by informing Ms. Rahman of the proposed acquisition, and that the respondents' purchase of the Molecular securities was contrary to the public interest.28 In particular, it found that Mr. Suman had the ability and opportunity to acquire knowledge of the proposed acquisition though his IT role at MDS Sciex. It further found that the respondents' well-timed, highly uncharacteristic, risky and highly profitable purchases of the Molecular securities constituted a fundamental shift in the nature of the respondents' trading that was not satisfactorily explained.29 In reaching this conclusion, the OSC emphasized the respondents' pattern of trading, the timing of their trades, the timing of Mr. Suman's communication with Ms. Rahman, and Mr. Suman's attempt to conceal the impugned trades.30

The OSC's decision in Suman was upheld by the Divisional Court in a brief oral judgment delivered by Justice Harvison Young. On appeal, Mr. Suman and Ms. Rahman argued that it was unreasonable for the Commission to conclude that Mr. Suman knew of the proposed acquisition in the absence of a finding of fact that he had actually viewed the emails disclosing the fact of the proposed acquisition, as opposed to merely having had the opportunity to view these emails.31 Relying upon the OSC's findings relating to the timing of the appellants' trades, their pattern of trading, the timing of their communications, and Mr. Suman's attempt to conceal the trades, the court held that the inference that Mr. Suman knew of the proposed acquisition was reasonable.

While the court did not expand further on its reason for rejecting the appellants' position, this decision appears to stand in contrast to that of the Alberta Court of Appeal32 in which the court overturned several findings of insider trading and tipping against multiple individuals, in part, on the basis that a generalized finding of opportunity was not in itself sufficient to support a legal inference that an offence had been committed under the Alberta Securities Act.

It is this principle that the OSC has more recently applied in Azeff, which involved allegations of tipping against a corporate lawyer, Mitchell Finkelstein. On the issue of Mr. Finkelstein's knowledge of certain impugned transactions, the Commission declined to accept OSC Staff's position that knowledge of Mr. Finkelstein's law firm should be imputed to Mr. Finkelstein, despite Mr. Finklestein's opportunity to view such information. The Commission held that this finding would require it to rely upon improper speculation.33

To read this article in full, please click here.

Originally published in Advocates' Quarterly by Canada Law Book a Division of Thomson Reuters Canada Limited.

Footnotes

1. Holtby, Re, 2013 ABASC 45 (Alta. Securities Comm.).

2. Azeff, Re, released March 24, 2015 (Ont. Sec. Comm), at paras. 48 and 343, online: http://www.osc.gov.on.ca. Note that the Chair of the Panel, Alan Lenczner, is counsel at Lenczner Slaght LLP. The authors of this paper were not involved in any way in the proceeding or decision making in Azeff.

3. 2012 LNONOSC 176, 35 O.S.C.B. 2809, 2012 CarswellOnt 2256 at para. 31 (Ont. Sec. Comm.), affirmed 2013 ONSC 3192, 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 592, 2013 CarswellOnt 8465 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

4. R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, s. 76(1).

5. Ibid., s. 76(2). Note that, insider trading and tipping are also offences under s. 382.1 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

6. Suman, supra note 3, at para. 31 (Ont. Sec. Comm.); Azeff, supra note 2, at para. 42.

7. Sidney N. Lederman, Alan W. Bryant and Michelle K. Fuerst, The Law of Evidence in Canada, 4th ed. (Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc., 2014), s. 2.86.

8. Kusumoto, Re, 2007 ABASC 40, 35 B.L.R. (4th) 297, 2007 CarswellAlta 1306 (Alta. Securities Comm.) at para. 74; Azeff, supra note 2, at paras. 48-49.

9. Suman, supra note 3 at paras. 293-300; Azeff, ibid. at para. 48.

10. Rankin, Re (2011), 39 Admin. L.R. (5th) 77, 2011 CarswellOnt 12322, 34 O.S.C.B. 11797 (Ont. Sec. Comm.), affirmed 2013 ONSC 112, 46 Admin. L.R. (5th) 159, (sub nom. Rankin v. Ontario Securities Commission) 113 O.R. (3d) 481 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

11. Suman, supra note 3 at para. 308.

12. R. v. Andrews (June 14, 1991), Paris Prov. J., [1991] O.J. No. 2708 (Ont. C.J.) at paras. 15-17.

13. Podorieszach, Re, 2004 LNABASC 151 (Alta. Sec. Comm.) at para. 78.

14. Suman, supra, note 3 at para. 2.

15. Ibid. at paras. 3-4.

16. Ibid. at paras. 288-300.

17. Ibid. at para. 302.

18. Ibid. at para. 134. Note, however, that there was no direct evidence that Mr. Suman actually viewed the impugned emails (para. 132).

19. Ibid. at para. 132.

20. Ibid. at para. 134.

21. Ibid. at para. 168.

22. Ibid. at paras. 158-59.

23. Ibid. at paras. 210-216.

24. Ibid. at paras. 204-205.

25. Ibid. at para. 235.

26. Ibid. at para. 251.

27. Ibid. at para. 278.

28. Ibid. at para. 352.

29. Ibid. at paras. 341-42.

30. Ibid. at paras. 342-45.

31. Supra note 3 (Div. Ct.) at para. 2.

32. Walton v. Alberta (Securities Commission), 2014 ABCA 273, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 448, [2014] 11 W.W.R. 314 (Alta. C.A.).

33. Azzeff, supra note 2, at para. 83.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
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).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions