Gill v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc. et al., (2003) 185 B.C.A.C. 197 (CA)

• Judge: Donald, Newbury and Smith, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: July 28, 2003
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 197 (CA);2003 BCCA 431

Gill v. Cdn. Venture Exchange Inc. (2003), 185 B.C.A.C. 197 (CA);

    303 W.A.C. 197

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AU.006

In The Matter Of The Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 418

And In The Matter Of Harjit Gill; and Proposed Discipline Proceedings by the CDNX Inc.

Harjit Gill (appellant/applicant) v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc. and British Columbia Securities Commission (respondents/respondents)

(CA029723; 2003 BCCA 431)

Indexed As: Gill v. Canadian Venture Exchange Inc. et al.

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Donald, Newbury and Smith, JJ.A.

July 28, 2003.

Summary:

In 1999 the Canadian Venture Exchange (CDNX) replaced the Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) and the Alberta Stock Exchange (ASE). At that time an investiga­tion by the VSE was pending against Gill, a "registered representative" under the Secu­rities Act (B.C.) into alleged misconduct on his part contrary to the VSE Rules. Gill applied for a declaration that CDNX had no statutory or contractual authority to investi­gate or discipline him.

The British Columbia Securities Commis­sion determined the issue pursuant to s. 27 of the Securities Act and ruled that CDNX retained contractual jurisdiction over Gill. Gill appealed, with leave.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted a declaration that CDNX had no jurisdiction arising in contract to proceed with a hearing into allegations against Gill.

Securities Regulation - Topic 1241

Regulatory commissions - Powers or juris­diction - General - In 1999 the Cana­dian Venture Exchange (CDNX) replaced the Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) and the Alberta Stock Exchange (ASE) - At that time an investigation was pending by the VSE into alleged misconduct by Gill con­trary to the VSE Rules - The British Columbia­ Court of Appeal held that CDNX did not have jurisdiction, in con­tract, to proceed with a hearing into the allegations, because Gill did not agree to CDNX's authority over him in place of the VSE or consent to the "assignment" of such juris­diction to CDNX - See para­graphs 38 to 59.

Securities Regulation - Topic 1386

Regulatory commissions - Statutory appeal to courts - Scope of appeal - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that the standard of review of decisions of the British Columbia Securities Commission was one of correctness - See paragraphs 25 to 29.

Cases Noticed:

Letellier v. The Montreal Exchange, [1999] J.Q. No. 5214 (C.A.), consd. [para. 20].

Chalmers v. Toronto Stock Exchange (1989), 70 O.R.(2d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Senez v. Montreal Real Estate Board, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 555; 35 N.R. 545, consd. [para. 21].

Sign-O-Lite Signs Ltd. v. Carruthers et al., [2000] B.C.T.C. 1016 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co., [1975] 1 S.C.R. 411; 1 N.R. 299, refd to. [para. 24].

Syndicat national des employés de la com­mission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 1048; 95 N.R. 161; 24 Q.A.C. 244, refd to. [para. 25].

Union des employés de service, local 298 v. Bibeault - see Syndicat national des employés de la commission scolaire régionale de l'Outaouais (CSN) v. Union des employés de service, local 298 (FTQ).

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Com­mission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 25].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Dr. Q., Re (2003), 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 599 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick (2003), 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 223 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

Posluns v. Toronto Stock Exchange (1964), 46 D.L.R.(2d) 210 (Ont. H.C.), affd. [1968] S.C.R. 330, refd to. [para. 38].

Kaplan v. Canadian Institute of Actuaries (1994), 161 A.R. 321 (Q.B.), affd. (1997), 206 A.R. 268; 156 W.A.C. 268; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 481 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Philipzyk v. Edmonton Real Estate Board Co-operative Listing Bureau Ltd. (1975), 55 D.L.R.(3d) 424 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 1 All E.R. 1175 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Wyman v. Vancouver Real Estate Board (1960), 23 D.L.R.(2d) 21 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

Cambrian Realty Corp. and Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers, Re (1973), 37 D.L.R.(3d) 516 (Div. Ct.), consd. [para. 45].

Ahvazi v. Concordia University (1992), 49 Q.A.C. 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Moore v. Montreal Graduate Nurses Asso­ciation, [1994] Q.J. No. 673 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Ross v. British Columbia Psychological Association (1987), 19 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Seaboard Life Insurance Co. and Attorney General of British Columbia, Re (1986), 30 D.L.R.(4th) 264 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

Vine v. National Dock Labour Board, [1956] 3 All E.R. 938 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56].

Barnard v. National Dock Labour Board, [1953] 1 All E.R. 1113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. College of Physician and Surgeons of British Columbia, ex parte Ahmad (1970), 18 D.L.R.(3d) 197 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. New Gar­age and Motor Co., [1915] A.C. 79 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 56].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Brown, Donald J.M., and Evans, John J., Judicial Review of Administrative Actions in Canada (1998), §12:4341, generally [para. 56].

Waddams, Stephen M., The Law of Con­tracts (4th Ed. 1999), pp. 451 to 464 [para. 56].

Wardle, Peter C., Disciplinary Powers of Domestic Tribunals, Re Chalmers v. Board of Governors of the Toronto Stock Exchange (1960), 6 Admin. Law Journal 10, generally [para. 48].

Counsel:

G.E. Sourisseau, for the appellant;

D.R. Eyford and S.F. Hoyer, for the respondent, Canadian Venture Exchange Inc.;

A.E. Keats, for the respondent, B.C. Secu­rities Commission.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 29 to 30, 2003, before Donald, Newbury and Smith, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by New­bury, J.A., on July 28, 2003.