The ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Securities Commission may seek contempt of court orders for witnesses who refuse to cooperate with an investigation, the ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Court of Appeal .
A lengthy legal battle commenced when the commission launched an investigation in October 2018 and summoned witnesses Ranvir Brar and Harjit Gahunia for questioning.
In January 2021, Brar and Gahunia failed to appear before investigators after multiple postponements and the commission launched a petition to ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Supreme Court to declare them in contempt of court.
Brar and Gahunia fought that petition on constitutional grounds but were denied by a ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Supreme Court judge in June 2023. So, the pair took their claim to the appeals court.
In writing for a unanimous three-judge appeal panel, Justice Janice Winteringham ruled the commission’s actions were constitutional.
Part of the challenge also included Brar and Gahunia seeking full disclosure of the investigation (a precedent known in the legal community as “Stinchcombe”); however, this was roundly dismissed by both courts that ruled only disclosure relevant to the summons and contempt proceedings was required.
“The commission’s power to enforce compliance with its investigations is essential to the effectiveness of its investigatory powers,” stated Winteringham.
The commission issued a news release following the decision, stating it is now able to issue an administrative penalty of up to $1 million, as well as other sanctions, for failing to comply with a summons because of ÎÚÑ»´«Ã½ Securities Act amendments that came into force in 2023.
Being found in contempt of court can lead to a jail sentence.
This latest decision is among several developments — by way of affirming court decisions or legislation — that have led to greater administrative powers for the commission, including: targeting pension funds to collect on monetary orders; blocking driver’s licence renewals for unpaid debts; placing freeze orders on properties and issuing small fines without a hearing.
