Hamouth v. British Columbia Securities Commission, (1991) 1 B.C.A.C. 116 (CA)

• Judge: Locke, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: June 11, 1991
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 116 (CA)

Hamouth v. Securities Comm. (1991), 1 B.C.A.C. 116 (CA);

    1 W.A.C. 116

MLB headnote and full text

Rene Hamouth (plaintiff/appellant) v. British Columbia Securities Commission (defendant/respondent)

(CA013949)

Indexed As: Hamouth v. British Columbia Securities Commission

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Locke, J.A.

June 14, 1991.

Summary:

The British Columbia Securities Commission imposed a trading ban on a stock promoter and suspended his trading privileges. The promoter applied for leave to appeal and sought to stay the suspensions and further Commission proceedings.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the applications.

Securities Regulation - Topic 5302

Offences - Legislation - Interpretation - The British Columbia Court of Appeal held that substantial compliance with the procedural provisions of s. 144 of the Securities Act (B.C.) was sufficient - See paragraph 16.

Cases Noticed:

Knowles v. Peter (1954), 12 W.W.R.(N.S.) 560, dist. [paras. 14, 16].

Mohamed v. Lecce (1977), 3 B.C.L.R. 338, dist. [paras. 14, 16].

Barry and Brosseau v. Alberta Securities Commission (1986), 67 A.R. 222; 25 D.L.R.(4th) 730 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wigglesworth, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 541; 81 N.R. 161; 61 Sask.R. 105; 24 O.A.C. 321; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 235, refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Securities Act, R.S.B.C. 1985, c. 83, sect. 144.

Counsel:

C.M. Trower, for the appellant;

   S.E. Ross, for the respondent.

This application was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on June 11, 1991, in chambers, before Locke, J.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on June 14, 1991.