Curtis et al. v. Manitoba Securities Commission, (2006) 201 Man.R.(2d) 203 (CA)

• Judge: Monnin, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: December 19, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (2006), 201 Man.R.(2d) 203 (CA);2006 MBCA 1

Curtis v. Securities Comm. (2006), 201 Man.R.(2d) 203 (CA);

    366 W.A.C. 203

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.031

Charles Curtis, Peter Olfert, Waldron (Wally) Fox-Decent, Lea Baturin, Albert Beal, Ron Waugh, Diane Beresford, Sylvia Farley, Robert Hilliard and Robert Ziegler (applicants) v. The Manitoba Securities Commission (respondent)

(AI 05-30-06277; 2006 MBCA 1)

Indexed As: Curtis et al. v. Manitoba Securities Commission

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Monnin, J.A.

January 10, 2006.

Summary:

The applicants applied for leave to appeal a decision of the Manitoba Securities Commission refusing to adjourn a hearing.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Monnin, J.A., granted leave to appeal.

Securities Regulation - Topic 1382

Regulatory commissions (incl. self-regulatory organizations) - Statutory appeal to courts or judicial review - Leave to appeal - An investment fund ceased trading its shares because of issues respecting the valuation of the fund's portfolio - The Manitoba Securities Commission commenced an investigation and issued a notice of hearing, alleging that the fund's directors failed to act in the public interest - Prior to the hearing, a fund shareholder commenced a class action suit, not yet certified, against the directors and the Commission - The directors allegedly made material false representations and the Commission allegedly breached its duty of care - The directors requested that the Commission adjourn its hearing pending disposition of the class action suit, submitting that there existed a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Commission's ability to impartially prosecute the allegations was compromised by being named a defendant in that suit - The Commission declined an adjournment - The directors sought leave to appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Monnin, J.A., granted leave to appeal - The appeal raised an issue of law, the directors had a reasonable, arguable case of substance, and the matter was of general public interest.

Cases Noticed:

Fillion v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [2004] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 40; 10 C.C.L.I.(4th) 182; 2004 MBCA 61, refd to. [para. 11].

Lejins v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., [2003] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 62; 50 C.C.L.I.(3d) 1; 2003 MBCA 95, refd to. [para. 12].

Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884; 306 N.R. 34; 2003 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 22].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 301; 93 N.R. 1; 96 A.R. 241, refd to. [para. 22].

Benedict v. Ontario (2000), 136 O.A.C. 259; 51 O.R.(3d) 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Robinson, Re (1993), 2 C.C.L.S. 130 (Ont. Sec. Comm.), dist. [para. 25].

Counsel:

M.G. Tadman, for the applicant, R. Hilliard;

D.M. Stasiuk, for the applicants, C. Curtis, P. Olfert, W. Fox-Descent, L. Baturin, A. Beal, D. Beresford, S. Farley and R. Ziegler;

D.A. Primeau, for the applicant, R. Waugh;

C.P. Besko, for the respondent;

D.N. Abra, Q.C., and A.C. Frank, on a watching brief for the Crocus Investment Fund.

This application was heard in Chambers on December 19, 2005, before Monnin, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who delivered the following judgment on January 10, 2006.