Canada: Prosecuting The Misuse Of Material Non-public Information In Canada Insider Trading And (Far) Beyond

Securities legislation across Canada prohibits conduct that is considered a misuse of material non-public information, by making insider trading and tipping unlawful. However, Securities Commissions are occasionally confronted with facts that trouble them, but that do not meet all of the required elements of insider trading or tipping prohibitions. There is a trend in case law that shows that the Ontario Securities Commission, in particular, will resort to its public interest jurisdiction in order to sanction conduct that, in the Commission's view, impugns the integrity of the capital markets, even though it may not violate insider trading or tipping provisions. In so doing, the OSC and other Commissions have effectively expanded the scope of conduct involving the use of material non-public information that may be prosecuted, even though it is neither technically insider trading nor tipping.

It has been argued that this walks a fine line between regulators using their public interest, jurisdiction for the protection of the capital markets in the face of a lacuna in legislation, and using their powers to make up for a "near miss" of an essential element of an alleged insider trading or tipping breach.' Below, we highlight several instances in which securities regulators have pursued and obtained settlements or convictions for cases that could be seen as "near misses." We argue that regulators' increased reliance upon their public interest jurisdiction could lead them to take unnecessary (if not improper) liberties with their broad powers to make orders in the public interest, and that any perceived gaps in insider trading or tipping offences should instead be addressed by legislative change, or some other clear and advance notice to industry registrants and market participants.

Insider Trading and Tipping Across Canada

Section 76 of the Ontario Securities Act2 contains prohibitions against both insider trading and tipping. At first blush, the elements of each breach are relatively straightforward. To be found liable for insider trading, a person must: (i) be in a special relationship with an issuer; (ii) have knowledge of a material fact or material change about the issuer; (iii) buy or sell securities while in possession of that knowledge; and (iv) the material fact or material change must not be generally disclosed.3

Tipping builds on the elements of insider trading. To be liable, a person must: (i) be in a special relationship with an issuer; (ii) inform another person of a material fact or material change about that issuer; and (iii) the material fact or material change must not be generally disclosed.4

While the insider trading provisions in securities legislation across the country are generally similar, there are two nuanced variations. First, there are differences in how the prohibited conduct is framed. For example, subsection 76(1) of the Ontario Act prohibits a person from "purchas[ing] or sell[ing]" securities.

By contrast, subsection 147(2) of the New Brunswick Securities Act,5 prohibits a person from subscribing to, purchasing or trading securities, acquiring disposing or exercising a put or call option, acquiring or disposing of rights under a related financial instrument or changing the person's beneficial interest. The Ontario Act defines the term "security" sufficiently broadly as to include options and derivatives,6 but it is unclear whether the different definitions might drive different results as between these two jurisdictions. In addition and perhaps more importantly, certain jurisdictions prohibit insider trading in the securities of an "issuer" and other jurisdictions prohibit insider trading in the securities of a "reporting issuer."7 As will be further discussed below, this difference is material and could potentially drive a different result depending on which jurisdiction the insider trading occurs in.

There are similar legislative inconsistencies with respect to the prohibition on tipping. A number of jurisdictions have a prohibition almost identical to that found in the Ontario Act.8 However, the remaining jurisdictions have prohibitions that are broader in scope; in addition to informing another individual of a material fact or change that has not been generally disclosed, these jurisdictions also prohibit recommending or encouraging another individual to purchase securities of the issuer in question. This distinction is important, particularly where allegations of tipping may involve registrants whose job it is to recommend the purchase or sale of securities?

While some of these differences will be addressed for those jurisdictions participating in the proposed Cooperative Capital Markets Regulatory System, it remains to be seen when the new Capital Markets Act will be finalized, or how the new regulator will interpret its provisions.

Regulators Have Pursued "Near Misses"

While the Ontario Act may be narrower in some respects in terms of prohibited conduct, the Ontario Securities Commission has relied on other statutory provisions to prosecute conduct beyond that which is clearly and expressly proscribed. The recent cases of Re Donald,o Re Hariharan,Il Re Finkelsteini2 and Re Mooreo illustrate how the Ontario Securities Commission may rely on its public interest jurisdiction" in addressing conduct that is not captured by the words of its insider trading or tipping prohibitions.

Insider Trading

Re Donald involved allegations of insider trading by Donald — then a vice president at Research In Motion ("RIM"). Donald sat with Wormald, a vice president involved in corporate development, at a dinner following a RIM golf event. During the course of dinner, Donald and Wormald had a brief conversation about Certicom Corp., a company who sold cryptography software to various companies, including RIM. During the course of the discussion, Wormald disclosed to Donald that RIM had previously engaged in discussion with Certicom about RIM acquiring the company, and continued to be interested in a potential transaction. He also told Donald that Certicom's shares were undervalued as compared to their then-current trading price.J8 The following morning, Donald placed an order with his broker to purchase approximately $300,000 of Certicom stock. RIM subsequently did acquire Certicom, resulting in Donald receiving proceeds of $600,000 for the shares he had acquired.16

The OSC concluded without much difficulty that Donald was in possession of material non-public information about Certicom at the time he purchased its shares. The challenge for OSC Staff was to show that Donald was in a "special relationship" with Certicom at the time of his trade. While Donald was an officer of RIM, RIM's discussions with Certicom about a potential transaction had slowed by the time of the golf event. The Panel was unable to conclude that, at the precise time Wormald disclosed the material non-public information to Donald, RIM was proposing to make a take-over bid or otherwise become party to a reorganization, amalgamation, merger, arrangement or similar business combination with Certicom.12 As a result, the Panel was in the difficult position of having determined that material non-public information had been conveyed and traded on by Donald, but that RIM (and by extension, Donald) and Certicom were not in a special relationship at the time the trading occurred.

The Panel addressed this by considering whether, despite not breaching the insider trading prohibition, Donald had engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest. As an officer of RIM, Donald was a "market participant."10 In a decision that highlights a theme in Commission jurisprudence, the Panel held: "Market participants... are expected to adhere to a high standard of behavior. In our view, by purchasing securities with knowledge of material facts which had not been generally disclosed, Donald clearly failed to meet that standard and did so in a manner that impugns the integrity of Ontario's capital markets."10 The Panel found that despite there being no breach of section 76, Donald's conduct directly engaged the fundamental principles of securities regulation and the purposes of the Ontario Act. These findings supported a conclusion that Donald's conduct was abusive of the capital markets and was contrary to the public interest. The Panel sanctioned Donald by prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of a reporting issuer for a period of five years, reprimanding him and requiring him to pay $150,000 in costs.

In March 2015, Satish Talawdekar and Anand Hariharan entered into a settlement with the OSC regarding allegations of insider trading. Talawdekar was a manager in the technology department of MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates ("MDA") and, as part of his role, he learned that MDA was to acquire Loral Space & Communications Inc. ("Loral"). Prior to the announcement of the transaction, Talawdekar purchased shares of MDA and tipped his friend, Hariharan. Hariharan then purchased call options on Loral.

At the time of Hariharan's purchase, Loral was not a reporting issuer in Ontario. As a result, and despite the fact that Hariharan received a profit of over USD$68,000 for a single day's trading in Loral, he could not be found liable under subsection 76(1) of the Ontario Act as it existed in March 2015.20 However, Staff of the OSC agreed with Hariharan that his conduct had impugned the integrity and fairness of the capital markets and was therefore contrary to the public interest. In the settlement approved by the Commission, Staff and Hariharan agreed that he would make a voluntary payment of $35,000, pay costs of $5,000 and be subject to strict limitations on the types of securities he could purchase for the next ten years.2I

The settlement agreement in Re Moore provides an interesting and potentially questionable example of the OSC's use of its public interest jurisdiction in the context of a settlement. Moore, an experienced investment banker, settled with the OSC for two discrete trades. His trade in shares of HOMEQ Corp. was as a result of material non-public information he obtained through a misdirected e-mail. However, while the HOMEQ trade clearly met the elements of insider trading, his purchase of shares in Tomkins plc did not. In his role as investment banker, Moore was the relationship manager for CPPIB. While Staff and Moore agreed that his primary contact at CPPIB did not disclose any material nonpublic information to him, Moore deduced from general comments that his contact made that CPPIB was interested in a transaction. He observed his contact at a charity event with the CEO of Tomkins and concluded that CPPIB must be engaged in discussions with Tomkins over a potential transaction. Shortly thereafter, he purchased shares of Tomkins.

Moore settled with Staff on the basis that — in addition to his insider trading with respect to HOMEQ — his purchase of Tomkins was conduct contrary to the public interest. Although no material non-public information was communicated to Moore with respect to Tomkins (a non-reporting issuer at a time when the relevant prohibition was with respect to reporting issuers only), Moore and the Panel agreed that his conduct in making use of information he gained in the context of his role as a registrant, fell below the standard expected of him.22 Among other penalties, Moore agreed to administrative penalties in the amount of $129,268.94, costs of the OSC's investigation in the amount of $75,000 and a "voluntary payment" of $300,000 specifically for the Tomkins purchase?


Re Finkelstein, a decision released in March 2015, involved allegations of both insider trading and tipping. However, the manner in which the OSC approached the tipping allegations with respect to two of the respondents is most demonstrative of its use of its public interest jurisdiction to address gaps or inconsistencies in legislation. Finkelstein, a corporate lawyer, was found liable for tipping Azeff, an old school friend, with material nonpublic information he obtained about upcoming transactions in the context of his employment with a downtown Toronto law firm.24 At the time, Azeff and his friend Bobrow were employed as investment advisers with a registered investment dealer. Azeff and Bobrow were found to have engaged in tipping because the Panel held that they "informed" certain others of the information Azeff received (and tipped to Bobrow) from Finkelstein. The Panel also sanctioned Azeff and Bobrow for "recommending" securities to their clients even though they did not specifically inform those clients of material non-public information. For this conduct, the Commission relied upon its public interest jurisdiction?

In exercising its public interest jurisdiction to sanction recommendations by individuals who were in possession of material non-public information, the OSC remained consistent with its earlier jurisprudence in tipping cases: namely, that the mere recommendation to purchase or sell a security while in possession of material non-public information does not meet the requirements of section 76(2). This is so because a trade recommendation is not, in and of itself, material non-public information 26 In sanctioning this type of conduct by registrants and other market participants, the OSC uses its public interest jurisdiction to address a gap in legislation that does not exist in other jurisdictions.

Is There a Better Way of Addressing "Near Misses"?

Standards expected of market participants are constantly increasing — this is evident from both the decisions of provincial or territorial securities commissions, and from the rules of Canada's national self-regulatory organizations. Market participants are expected to engage in "honest and responsible conduct"27 and registrants are required to "observe high standards of ethics and conduct."28 It is certainly the case that these developments are laudable, and help promote confidence in Canada's capital markets.

However, regulators should also apply regulatory standards in a fair and efficient manner. Fairness dictates that all market participants should know (or at least have access to) the regulatory standards to which they are held, in advance. Advance and clear notice of all prohibitions of the use of material non-public information by market participants and registrants will also help achieve the principles of timely, open and efficient securities regulation.29 A clear understanding by industry registrants and market participants of what is expected of them will promote regulatory efficiencies associated with audits and investigations being completed with clear and well-defined expectations.

Backfilling statutory insider trading and tipping prohibitions by applying a general public interest jurisdiction can be both unfair and inefficient — it has been described as "gotcha enforcement" and prosecution in the face of a "near miss" of an essential element of a breach, as defined by the legislatures. Industry registrants and market participants should not be expected to meet standards of which they are unaware. To make legislative , changes after, or as a result of, a tribunal , decision is to put the cart before the horse — SW4, securities commissions are charged primarily with applying, not creating, statutory law." to Advance notice should come in the form of =g legislation, but could also be effected through regulatory staff notices, national instruments or companion policies. Providing clear notice of regulatory expectations would not only be fair, by advising industry registrants and market participants of the specific standard expected of them in advance, but also lead to more effective compliance policies and consistent prosecutorial results.


1 Re Finkelstein, OSC online: para. 66.

2 R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 as amended (the "Ontario Act").

3 Ibid. at s. 76(1).

4 Ibid. at s. 76(2).

5 Securities Act, S.N.B. 2004, c. S-5.5.

6 Ontario Act, supra note 2 at s. 76(6).

7 Ontario provides an example of a jurisdiction that prohibits insider trading of "issuers" as opposed to simply "reporting issuers." By contrast, Quebec prohibits an insider of a "reporting issuer" from trading on privileged information with respect to that issuer. See Quebec Securities Act, C.Q.L.R. c. V-1.1, s. 187.

8 See, for example, the Nova Scotia Securities Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 418, s. 82.

9 See, for example, the British Columbia Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418, s. 57.

10 OSC online: ("Donald").

11 OSC online: ("Hariharan").

12 Supra note 1.

13 OSC online: ("Moore").

14 Ontario Act, supra note 2 at s. 127.

15 Donald, supra note 10 at paragraph 252.

16 Ibid. at paragraphs 7 and 8.

17 Ibid. at paragraphs 229, 234 and 235. See, also, s. 76(5) of the Ontario Act, which sets out the definition of "person or company in a special relationship with a reporting issuer."

18 This term is defined in s. 1(1) of the Ontario Act and includes "a director, officer or promoter of [a reporting issuer]."

19 Donald, supra note 10 at paragraph 319.

20 Ontario amended the Ontario Act in June 2015 to expand the definition of insider trading under s. 76.

21 Hariharan, supra note 11 at paragraphs 13 and 15. * The authors thank Joel Wiesenfeld for his review and wise comments on the draft.

22 Moore, supra note 13 at paragraphs 30-31.

23 Ibid. at paragraphs 35-36.

24 Finkelstein, supra note 1 at paragraph 343.

25 Ibid. at paragraph 343. The OSC took a similar position in Re Agueci (OSC online:; Agueci). In that case, the executive assistant in the mining group at GMP Securities learned of material non-public information as part of her job. OSC Staff pursued allegations of insider trading and tipping with respect to numerous trades she and her friends and family placed, but the Hearing Panel was only able to conclude in certain cases that Agueci had actually informed her contacts of the particular material facts at issue. Where it could not conclude Agueci had met the required elements of tipping, it relied upon its public interest jurisdiction to sanction Agueci (see paragraphs 165-167 and 175). Of note, though, are the facts that Agueci had some undisclosed trading accounts she opened in her mother's name, and that she impersonated her mother when placing certain trades. These facts contributed to the Panel's determination to apply its public interest jurisdiction.

26 see, for example, In Re ATI Technologies, 29 O.S.C.B. 8558 at paragraphs 63 and 64; R. v. Landen, 2008 ONCJ 561 at paragraph 97; Re Agueci, OSC online: at paragraphs 116-118.

27 Ontario Act, supra note 2 at s. 2.1.

28 IIROC Rule Book Rule 29.1 and MFDA Rule 2.1.1(b).

29 Ontario Act, supra note 2 at s. 2.1(3)

30 As was done in response to Re Hariharan. In June 2015, the Ontario government amended the Ontario Act to expand the prohibited insider trading and tipping to include issuers who were not "reporting issuers."

Previously published by Corporate Litigation

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

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

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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