Smolensky v. British Columbia Securities Commission

• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Judge: Finch, C.J.B.C., Lambert and Mackenzie, JJ.A.
• Citation: (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA),2004 BCCA 81
• Date: 20 February 2004

Smolensky v. Securities Comm. (2004), 193 B.C.A.C. 240 (CA);

    316 W.A.C. 240

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.011

Arthur Smolensky (appellant) v. British Columbia Securities Commission (respondent) and Attorney General of British Columbia (respondent)

(CA031117; 2004 BCCA 81)

Indexed As: Smolensky v. British Columbia Securities Commission

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Finch, C.J.B.C., Lambert and  Mackenzie, JJ.A.

February 20, 2004.

Summary:

A hearing was scheduled by the Securities Commission into the conduct of Smolensky respecting the trading of shares in 1997. Smolensky petitioned for a declaration that the Commission had no right or jurisdiction to proceed and for a stay of proceedings.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2003] B.C.T.C. 1189, dismissed the petition. Smolensky applied for directions as to whether he required leave to appeal.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, per Smith, J.A., in a decision reported at 189 B.C.A.C. 1; 309 W.A.C. 1, ruled that the order was final and leave to appeal was not required. Smolensky appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Lambert, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8582

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Charter application - Grounds for precluding - A hearing before the Securities Commission was proposed against Smolensky respecting the trading of shares in 1997 - Smolensky petitioned for a declaration that the Commission had no right or jurisdiction to proceed - He alleged that s. 148(1) of the Securities Act infringed various provisions of the Charter of Rights - The British Columbia Court of Appeal declined to answer the constitu­tional question, because it had no factual record which would provide a context to the issues as well as the Commission's position - Therefore, the issue was prema­ture - See paragraphs 6, 8 to 26.

Securities Regulation - Topic 1362

Regulatory commissions - Practice - Limitation of actions - Section 159 of the Securities Act imposed a six year limita­tion period for the commencement of enforcement proceedings before the Securi­ties Commission - It was common ground that in the case at bar time commenced to run on August 14, 1997 - The Commis­sion sent a notice of hearing to the appel­lant dated September 11, 2002 - The notice set a date on which he could be heard with respect to a hearing date - The British Col­umbia­ Court of Appeal held that the notice was the initiating document that com­menced the proceedings, which were thus commenced within the six year limitation period - See paragraphs 27 to 28.

Cases Noticed:

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; 92 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 385, refd to. [para. 11].

British Columbia Securities Commission v. Branch and Levitt, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 3; 180 N.R. 241; 60 B.C.A.C. 1; 99 W.A.C. 1; 4 B.C.L.R.(3d) 1; 123 D.L.R.(4th) 462, consd. [para. 11].

Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Ontario Secur­ities Commission (2003), 310 N.R. 376; 179 O.A.C. 1; 2003 SCC 61, consd. [paras. 14, 66].

Cartaway Resources Corp., Re (1999), 22 BCSC Weekly Summary 27 (Sec. Comm.), refd to. [paras. 17, 40].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97, refd to. [paras. 17, 40].

Mason v. British Columbia Securities Commission (2003), 184 B.C.A.C. 111; 302 W.A.C. 111; 2003 BCCA 359, refd to. [para. 18].

MacKay et al. v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357; 99 N.R. 116; 61 Man.R.(2d) 270; 61 D.L.R.(4th) 385; [1989] 6 W.W.R. 351, refd to. [para. 25].

Workers' Compensation Board (N.S.) v. Martin et al. (2003), 310 N.R. 22; 217 N.S.R.(2d) 301; 683 A.P.R. 301; 2003 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 26].

Delmas v. Vancouver Stock Exchange et al., [1995] 1 W.W.R. 738; 98 B.C.L.R.(2d) 212; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 136 (S.C.), affd. [1996] 4 W.W.R. 293; 66 B.C.A.C. 200; 108 W.A.C. 200; 15 B.C.L.R.(3d) 136; 130 D.L.R.(4th) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Mills (B.J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 668; 248 N.R. 101; 244 A.R. 201; 209 W.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 39].

Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Québec (Procureur géné­ral), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927; 94 N.R. 167; 24 Q.A.C. 2, refd to. [para. 53].

Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada et al. v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139; 120 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 53].

Ramsden v. Peterborough (City), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084; 156 N.R. 2; 66 O.A.C. 10, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335, refd to. [para. 63].

Authors and Works Noticed:

British Columbia Securities Commission, Consent to Disclose Information under section 148 of the Securities Act - Blan­ket Order, Order COR#01/073, generally [para. 17].

Counsel:

H. Shapray, Q.C., and B. Cramer, for the appellant;

J.A. Bernardo and J.M. Johner, for the respondent, B.C. Securities Commission;

G.H. Copley, Q.C., and J. Button, for the respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia.

This appeal was heard at Victoria, British Columbia, on November 12-14, 2003, by Finch, Lambert and Mackenzie, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 20, 2004, when the following opinions were filed:

Mackenzie, J.A. (Finch, J.A., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 36;

Lambert, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 37 to 76.