Decisions
Thalbinder Singh Poonian, Shailu Sharon Poonian, Robert Joseph Leyk, Manjit Singh Sihota and Perminder Sihota [Reasons for Ruling]
|
BCSECCOM #:
2013 BCSECCOM 448
|
Document Type:
Reasons for Ruling
|
|
Published Date:
2013-10-18
|
Effective Date:
2013-10-17
|
|
Details:
|
|
2013 BCSECCOM 448
Click on the Adobe icon to launch the Acrobat Reader
| Panel | Suzanne K. Wiltshire | Commissioner |
| George C. Glover | Commissioner | |
| Audrey T. Ho | Commissioner |
| Hearing Date | October 16, 2013 |
| Date of Decision | October 16, 2013 |
| Date of Reasons | October 17, 2013 |
| Appearing | |
| C. Paige Leggat Anjalika Rogers | For the Executive Director |
| Jeremy West | For Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Sharon Poonian |
| Sean K. Boyle Andrew Crabtree | For Manjit Singh Sihota and Perminder Sihota |
Reasons for Ruling
¶ 1 These are our reasons dismissing the applications by Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Sharon Poonian (the Poonians) and Mangit Singh Sihota and Perminder Sihota (the Sihotas) to adjourn the hearing of the allegations against them set out in the notice of hearing referred to in paragraph 2 below.
¶ 2 On August 2, 2012, the executive director issued a notice of hearing and temporary order under section 161(2) of the Securities Act, RSBC 1996, c. 418 (2012 BCSECCOM 306) against the Poonians, the Sihotas and Robert Joseph Leyk (the respondents). The hearing of the allegations is scheduled to start October 28, 2013.
¶ 3 In the notice of hearing, the executive director alleges that the respondents contravened the Securities Act by manipulating the shares of a company that was listed on the TSX Venture Exchange.
¶ 4 In the temporary order, the executive director prohibited the respondents from: trading in and purchasing securities, with exceptions; conducting investor relations activities; and acting as directors or officers of any issuer, with exceptions.
¶ 5 On February 1, 2013, a Commission panel heard the executive director’s application to extend the temporary order and reserved its decision. On February 8, the Commission panel gave its decision and extended the temporary order, as previously varied, until a hearing is held and a decision is rendered.
¶ 6 Sometime before March 25, Perminder Sihota filed in the Court of Appeal, notice of an application for leave to appeal the panel’s decision to extend the temporary order.
¶ 7 On July 12, the Commission panel issued its reasons for extending the temporary order (2013 BCSECCOM 131).
¶ 8 On August 13, the Sihotas and on September 18, the Poonians, gave notice to the executive director of an application for a permanent stay of the proceedings. The applications were based on ex parte communications between the Commission’s director of enforcement and the Commission’s general counsel about the issuance and timing of reasons for extending the temporary order. The applicants argued that the ex parte communications give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias with respect to the hearing of the allegations.
¶ 9 We heard the stay applications on September 30 and dismissed them on October 11 (2013 BCSECCOM 436).
¶ 10 On October 3, the Poonians gave notice of an application to adjourn the hearing. On October 10, the Sihotas provided similar notice.
¶ 11 We heard the adjournment applications on October 16. At that time, the applicants had not filed a notice of leave to appeal our decision dismissing the stay applications.
¶ 12 The basis for both adjournment applications was that the applicants intend to seek leave to appeal the panel’s decision on the stay applications and the respondents will suffer prejudice if the adjournment is not granted. In particular, the applicants argued that they will incur unrecoverable costs to prepare for and attend the hearing.
¶ 13 They argued that if the hearing is adjourned, the public interest will be protected by the temporary order in place against all the respondents, and that there is no prejudice to the executive director.
¶ 14 In addition, counsel suggested in oral argument that since some document disclosure is ongoing, it may be helpful to all parties to have a short adjournment.
¶ 15 The executive director opposed the applications. Counsel argued that it is in the public interest that the hearing of the allegations move forward as scheduled.
¶ 16 With respect to disclosure, counsel for the executive director noted that the bulk of disclosure was made a year ago. In accordance with the executive director’s ongoing disclosure obligation, in early October counsel disclosed one additional document and informed the respondents that 40 other documents obtained by the executive director in the course of the investigation were not disclosed as they were not relevant.
¶ 17 We dismissed the applications on October 16, with reasons to follow. These are our reasons.