ecoTECH Energy Group Inc., currently known as Dong Fang Hui Le Inc.,

 Colin V. Hall, Rolf Eugster, and Anne Sanders

Findings

I. Introduction

1. This is the liability portion of a hearing under sections 161(1) and 162 of the Securities Act, 1996, c. 418.
   
   
2. In a notice of hearing issued May 3, 2018 (2018 BCSECCOM 144), the executive director alleged that:
   
   a) ecoTECH Energy Group Inc. distributed securities while its securities were subject to a cease trade order and omitted to inform investors that the securities it distributed were subject to the order;
   
   b) by engaging in the conduct described in subparagraph (a) above, ecoTECH:
   
   i) breached the terms of the cease trade order; and
   
   ii) made misrepresentations contrary to section 50(1)(d) of the Act; and
   
   c) pursuant to section 168.2 of the Act, as directors or officers of ecoTECH, Colin V. Hall, Rolf Eugster and Anne Sanders, also:
   
   i) breached the terms of the cease trade; and
   
   ii) made misrepresentations contrary to section 50(1)(d) of the Act.
   
   
3. During the hearing, the executive director called one witness (a Commission investigator), tendered documentary evidence and provided written and oral submissions.
   
   
4. During the hearing, the executive director also refined his allegations of contraventions of section 50(1)(d) against ecoTECH (and thereby the individual respondents pursuant to section 168.2 of the Act) by limiting that allegation to certain issuances of shares for cash (as described in further detail below).
   
   
5. No one appeared at the hearing on behalf of ecoTECH.  At the set date hearing for this matter, an individual claiming to be a current director of ecoTECH attended on behalf of the corporation.  That individual did not appear at the hearing.  The individual respondents submitted that they still considered themselves to be directors and officers of ecoTECH and could represent ecoTECH at the hearing.  However, the evidence during the hearing indicated that the individual respondents no longer appeared as directors or officers of ecoTECH in the Nevada corporate registry.  The executive director also filed an affidavit setting out his service of the notice of hearing upon ecoTECH.  We find that ecoTECH received the notice of the hearing pursuant to section 180 of the Act.
   
   
6. With respect to the remaining respondents, Eugster and Sanders attended the hearing.  Hall did not attend the hearing but provided a written authorization acknowledging that Eugster represented him at the hearing.  The individual respondents tendered documentary evidence and provided written and oral submissions.  We note that some of that evidence and those submissions would be equally applicable to ecoTECH during the period relevant to the allegations in the notice of hearing.  Given the uncertainty regarding who represents ecoTECH and, as the individual respondents are alleged to have been responsible for ecoTECH’s misconduct during the relevant period, we have treated that evidence and those submissions to be applicable to ecoTECH, even though the individual respondents did not expressly state that they were tendering that evidence or those submissions on ecoTECH’s behalf.
   
   
7. These are our findings with respect to the liability of the respondents with respect to the allegations in the notice of hearing.

View the complete document here