Ontario Securities Commission Bulletin

Issue 32/44 - October 30, 2009

Ont. Sec. Bull. Issue 32/44

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 - Notices / News Releases

Notices

• Current Proceedings Before The Ontario Securities Commission

• OSC Staff Notice 91-702 -- Offerings of Contracts for Difference and Foreign Exchange Contracts to Investors in Ontario

• Notice of Commission Approval -- Material Amendments to CDS Procedures -- DTC Direct Link Services and New York Link Services

Notices of Hearing

• Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum -- ss. 127 and 127.1

News Releases

• OSC Staff Provide Guidance for Contracts for Difference and Forex Contracts

Notices from the Office of the Secretary

• Irwin Boock et al.

• Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership et al.

• Barry Landen

• Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum

• Independent Financial Brokers of Canada v. Ontario Securities Commission and Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada

Chapter 2 - Decisions, Orders and Rulings

Decisions

• U3O8 Corp.

• Optimal Geomatics Inc. -- s. 1(10)

• Addax Petroleum Corporation -- s. 1(10)

• Orvana Minerals Asturias Corp.

• Wellington West Financial Services Inc. and Brownstone Investment Planning Inc.

Orders

• Irwin Boock et al.

• Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership et al. - ss. 127(7), 127(8)

• Barry Landen -- s. 127

• Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum -- ss. 127, 127.1

Chapter 3 - Reasons: Decisions, Orders and Rulings

OSC Decisions, Orders and Rulings

• Irwin Boock et al.

• Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum

• Independent Financial Brokers of Canada v. Ontario Securities Commission and Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada

Chapter 4 - Cease Trading Orders

• Temporary, Permanent & Rescinding Issuer Cease Trading Orders

• Temporary, Permanent & Rescinding Management Cease Trading Orders

• Outstanding Management & Insider Cease Trading Orders

Chapter 6 - Request for Comments

• Proposed Amendments to NI 24-101 Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement and Companion Policy 24-101CP Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement

Chapter 8 - Notice of Exempt Financings

• Reports of Trades Submitted on Forms 45-106F1 and 45-501F1

Chapter 11 - IPOs, New Issues and Secondary Financings

Chapter 12 - Registrations

• Registrants

Chapter 13 - SRO Notices and Disciplinary Proceedings

• MFDA Hearing Panel Makes Findings Against Martin Horvath

• MFDA Concludes Proceeding Against Barry L. Adams

• MFDA Staff Applies for Review of Hearing Panel Decision in the Matter of Tony Tung-Yuan Lin

• MFDA Hearing Panel Accepts Settlement Agreement with Cory Griffiths

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chapter 1 -- Notices / News Releases

Current Proceedings Before The Ontario Securities Commission

OCTOBER 30, 2009

CURRENT PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Unless otherwise indicated in the date column, all hearings will take place at the following location:

The Harry S. Bray Hearing Room

Ontario Securities Commission

Cadillac Fairview Tower

Suite 1700, Box 55

20 Queen Street West

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 3S8

Late Mail depository on the 19^th Floor until 6:00 p.m.

THE COMMISSIONERS

SCHEDULED OSC HEARINGS

ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Global Privacy Management Trust and Robert Cranston

S. B. McLaughlin

Livent Inc., Garth H. Drabinsky, Myron I. Gottlieb, Gordon Eckstein, Robert Topol

Portus Alternative Asset Management Inc., Portus Asset Management Inc., Boaz Manor, Michael Mendelson, Michael Labanowich and John Ogg

Maitland Capital Ltd., Allen Grossman, Hanouch Ulfan, Leonard Waddingham, Ron Garner, Gord Valde, Marianne Hyacinthe, Diana Cassidy, Ron Catone, Steven Lanys, Roger McKenzie, Tom Mezinski, William Rouse and Jason Snow

Global Petroleum Strategies, LLC, Petroleum Unlimited, LLC, Aurora Escrow Services, LLC, John Andrew, Vincent Cataldi, Charlotte Chambers, Carl Dylan, James Eulo, Richard Garcia, Troy Gray, Jim Kaufman, Timothy Kaufman, Chris Harris, Morgan Kimmel, Roger A. Kimmel, Jr., Erik Luna, Mitch Malizio, Adam Mills, Jenna Pelusio, Rosemary Salveggi, Stephen J. Shore and Chris Spinler

LandBankers International MX, S.A. De C.V.; Sierra Madre Holdings MX, S.A. De C.V.; L&B LandBanking Trust S.A. De C.V.; Brian J. Wolf Zacarias; Roger Fernando Ayuso Loyo, Alan Hemingway, Kelly Friesen, Sonja A. McAdam, Ed Moore, Kim Moore, Jason Rogers and Dave Urrutia

Hollinger Inc., Conrad M. Black, F. David Radler, John A. Boultbee and Peter Y. Atkinson

OSC Staff Notice 91-702 -- Offerings of Contracts for Difference and Foreign Exchange Contracts to Investors in Ontario

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

STAFF NOTICE 91-702

OFFERINGS OF CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE AND

FOREIGN EXCHANGE CONTRACTS TO INVESTORS IN ONTARIO

I. Purpose

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission have issued this notice

• to respond to enquiries from issuers, dealers and other market participants requesting a staff position on the applicability of Ontario securities law to offerings of Contracts for Difference (CFDs), foreign exchange contracts (forex or FX contracts), and similar "over-the-counter" derivative products (OTC derivatives) to investors in Ontario;

• to highlight certain investor protection concerns we have with some of these products, particularly where the products are being offered to retail investors by unregistered, offshore entities through the internet; and

• to outline the securities law and other regulatory requirements applicable when offering these products and to indicate circumstances in which staff may be prepared to recommend limited exemptive relief on terms and conditions.

This notice will primarily focus on CFDs. However, the guidance in this notice should also be considered generally in the context of offerings of forex contracts and similar OTC derivatives to investors in Ontario, whether through the internet or otherwise. This notice is not intended to address direct or intermediated trading between institutions. We note that Canadian financial institutions are exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act (Ontario) (the Act).{1}

II. Interim Nature of Guidance

This notice reflects the views of OSC staff and is intended to provide interim guidance pending the development by the Canadian Securities Administrators (the CSA) of a harmonized CSA approach to the regulation of OTC derivatives and/or the introduction of new or revised derivatives legislation in Ontario. In this regard, CSA staff are closely reviewing a number of developments in this area, including the recent adoption of a new Derivatives Act in Québec (the QDA), the recommendations relating to OTC derivatives made in the CFA Advisory Committee's final report,{2} and other developments in jurisdictions outside of Canada.

We anticipate that this notice will be amended or withdrawn if the CSA adopts a harmonized approach to the regulation of OTC derivatives and/or new or revised derivatives legislation is introduced in Ontario and/or federal derivatives legislation is introduced as part of the mandate of a Canadian Securities Commission.

We remind issuers, dealers and other market participants that there may be important differences in the regulatory treatment of CFDs across the CSA and that market participants should review the specific requirements of securities legislation (and, where applicable, commodity futures legislation and derivatives legislation) in these jurisdictions prior to offering CFDs to investors in these jurisdictions.

III. Background

Staff have recently received a number of enquiries from issuers, dealers and other market participants relating to the potential application of Ontario securities law to offerings of CFDs, forex contracts, and similar OTC derivative products to investors in Ontario.

These enquiries have generally focused on the question whether the issuance of a CFD to an investor in Ontario involves a "trade" and a "distribution" in a "security" to that investor for the purposes of Ontario securities law.

As a result of these enquiries, OSC staff, in consultation with staff in the other Canadian jurisdictions and staff of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), have conducted a review of the issuance and the distribution of CFDs to investors. We have set out below our initial conclusions from this review and our views on the application of Ontario securities law to offerings of CFDs to investors, and particularly retail investors.

We would also like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the investor protection concerns we have with offerings of CFDs to investors in circumstances where such offerings are made without the protections of dealer involvement. We understand that, in some cases, CFDs are being offered to investors directly through the internet rather than through an appropriately registered dealer. In these circumstances, we believe the investor protection concerns with such offerings may be significant.

IV. Discussion

1. What are CFDs?

A CFD is a derivative product that allows an investor to obtain economic exposure (for speculative, investment or hedging purposes) to an underlying asset (the underlying asset), such as a share, index, market sector, currency or commodity, without acquiring ownership of the underlying asset. CFDs are generally cash-settled although in some cases investors may also have the option of requesting physical delivery of the underlying asset.

A CFD typically involves a contract between two parties, a seller and a buyer, that creates payment rights and obligations based on the price movements of the underlying asset. CFDs allow investors to take long or short positions in relation to the underlying asset but, unlike futures contracts, have no fixed expiry date or contract size. For example, a holder of a long contract will benefit from an upward movement in the price of the underlying asset and would receive as payment the difference in price of the underlying asset from the initial contract price to the price at the time the contract is closed (hence a "contract for difference").

CFDs are generally based on a "market maker model" and not the "intermediated trade model". That is to say that the original seller of the CFD is also the only possible buyer for an investor.

CFDs are currently being offered to investors in a number of foreign jurisdictions. CFDs are also being offered to investors, including retail investors, in Canada through internet platforms being operated by CFD providers.

For more information about CFDs, please refer to the IIROC position paper "Regulatory Analysis of Contracts for Differences (CFDs)" (the IIROC Position Paper).{3}

2. Investor protection concerns

CFDs are a relatively new product in Canada which raise a variety of investor protection concerns, including concerns relating to:

• complexity of the product and the offering model;

• use of margin or leverage;

• in the case of certain offerings, highly promotional and potentially misleading selling materials;

• lack of product suitability determination;

• in some cases, lack of available information relating to the underlying asset;

• potential volatility of the underlying asset (for example, currency fluctuations);

• embedded fees and lack of price transparency; and

• counterparty risk (including risks associated with the counterparty being situated out of jurisdiction).

In some cases, CFDs are being offered to investors directly through the internet by unregistered dealers rather than through a registered dealer. To the extent CFDs are being offered without the protections of dealer involvement, we believe these investor protection concerns may be significant.

Members of the CSA have previously highlighted some of the risks associated with forex contracts in a number of publications.{4}

V. Application of Ontario securities law

In view of the investor protection concerns and enquiries related to the application of securities laws to CFDs, we have considered the question of whether the issuance of a CFD to an investor in Ontario involves a "trade" and a "distribution" in a "security" to that investor for the purposes of Ontario securities law.

Staff's view is that CFDs, when offered to investors in Ontario, engage the purposes of the Act and constitute "investment contracts" and "securities" for the purposes of Ontario securities law. In our view, CFDs are also "derivatives"{5} for the purposes of Ontario securities law.

In arriving at this conclusion, we have considered the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Pacific Coast Coin Exchange v. Ontario (Securities Commission){6} and the various judicial and administrative decisions that have been issued subsequent to that case.{7}

We believe there are a number of important parallels between the facts of the Pacific Coast case and the current trend towards offerings of CFDs to investors through the internet. These parallels include the fact that the products involve contracts that are marketed as a form of investment, the contracts involve similar forms of underlying interest, the contracts make extensive use of margin in order to magnify profits and losses, and there is significant reliance by the investor on the CFD provider to act as a counterparty, design and operate the internet platforms, and hedge risk appropriately in order to ensure the CFD provider is able to satisfy its payment and performance obligations.

We note further that the Pacific Coast line of cases emphasizes the need to consider the economic realities of the transaction and to focus on the substance rather than the form of a transaction.

It is important to note that the case law generally endorses a purposive interpretation of "security" that would include considering the objective of investor protection. In view of the investor protection concerns we have identified with offerings of CFDs, and the regulatory protections provided by the Act, we believe a purposive interpretation of "security" leads to the conclusion that such offerings involve a trade and a distribution of a security.

CFDs may also be securities under one or more alternative branches of the definition of "security" or may be a "security" that is not covered by the non-exclusive list of enumerated categories of securities.

VI. Implications of conclusion for market participants

Since we consider CFDs to be securities under the Act, we are of the view that CFD providers that wish to offer CFDs to investors in Ontario, absent statutory exemptions or exemptive relief, are required to comply with the registration and prospectus requirements of Ontario securities law. Additional details regarding certain of the registration and prospectus requirements are set out below.

It should also be noted that investors may also have civil remedies against CFD providers that fail to comply with Ontario securities law, including a right to withdraw from the transaction and/or damages for losses, on the grounds that such transactions were conducted in breach of securities law.

1. Registration Requirement

General. Any person or company that acts as a dealer or adviser with respect to securities must register under the Act as either a dealer or adviser, respectively. As such, engaging in or holding oneself out as engaging in the business of trading or advising with respect to CFDs triggers the dealer and adviser registration requirements in the Act.

With respect to institutional and very high net worth investors, it should be noted that National Instrument 31-103 Registration Requirements and Exemptions (NI 31-103) provides international dealers and advisers with an exemption from the registration requirements in the Act.{8} These exemptions are only available in limited circumstances, including, trading with or advising "permitted clients"{9}.

Dealer Registration. Where the trade of a CFD is with a retail investor, the appropriate dealer category of registration is "investment dealer". The investment dealer category of registration requires, among other things, IIROC membership.

Where a person or company is in the business of trading in securities to "accredited investors"{10}, the dealer category of registration most often used is exempt market dealer (EMD). However, NI 31-103 prohibits any registrant that is not an IIROC member from lending money, extending credit or providing margin to a client. We believe that the investor protection concerns are greatest where the CFD provider is not a member of IIROC and is not complying with IIROC rules, including rules relating to proficiency, capital adequacy and margin requirements. Accordingly, given the use of margin, the appropriate category of registration for a dealer who trades CFDs is the investment dealer category, which requires IIROC membership, regardless of whether such trades are made to retail investors or accredited investors.

Margin. IIROC has prescribed minimum margin rates for CFDs that are significantly higher (i.e., more restrictive) than the rates offered by many unregistered CFD providers. As a result of the lower margin rates offered by unregistered CFD providers, investors who purchase CFDs through these entities are able to take significantly larger positions and become significantly more exposed to gains and losses based on movement in the price of the underlying asset.

We have been advised that IIROC staff are currently reviewing the margin rates it has prescribed for certain over-the-counter derivative products, including CFDs and spot forex contracts, and may propose rules prescribing higher minimum margin rates for such products in the future. Any such rule proposals would be subject to the ordinary public notice and comment process and regulatory approval process for rules by a self-regulatory organization.

KYC and Suitability. Know your client (KYC) due diligence and suitability determinations are essential elements of the investor protection regime imposed through the registration requirement.{11} KYC and initial suitability determination -- whether access to the CFD trading platform is appropriate for a given client -- must be performed by CFD providers. However, we appreciate the difficulty in reviewing individual trades for suitability, given that these are internet platforms analogous to day trading platforms or discount brokerage accounts. IIROC rules{12} exempt member firms that provide execution-only services such as discount brokerage from the obligation to determine whether each trade is suitable for the client. However, IIROC has also communicated the following expectations for any member proposing to sell CFDs or forex contracts:{13}

• applicable risk disclosure documents and client suitability waivers provided must be in a form acceptable to IIROC;

• the firm's policies and procedures, amongst other things, should assess the depth of investment knowledge and trading experience of the client before an account is approved to be opened;

• the relationship and responsibilities, including conflicts of interest between the issuer and broker/dealer should be fully disclosed to the client and acknowledged in writing; and

• cumulative loss limits for each client's account should be established.

For more information about IIROC's requirements and views relating to CFDs and similar products, including requirements and views relating to proficiency of salespeople, please refer to the IIROC Position Paper and contact information for IIROC staff in the Paper.

2. Prospectus Requirement -- Applications by investment dealers for exemptive relief

In view of our conclusion that the issuance of a CFD to an investor in Ontario involves a distribution of a security to that investor for the purposes of Ontario securities law, we take the view that the issuer of such product must, absent exemptive relief, comply with the prospectus requirements of Ontario securities law.

We acknowledge that the prospectus requirement may not be well-suited to offerings of certain types of OTC derivative products, including CFDs and forex contracts, to investors and that modified requirements, focused on ensuring appropriate transparency as to the nature of the product and investor risk, imposed as terms and conditions of an exemptive relief order exempting an issuer from the prospectus requirement, may be better suited for these products. However, OSC staff will consider exemption applications on a case-by-case basis.

OSC staff may be prepared to recommend relief from the prospectus requirement in section 53 of the Act that would otherwise apply to a "distribution" of a CFD to an investor in Ontario provided that:

• the distribution is made through a registrant that is in compliance with its terms of registration under the Act and with the rules and expectations of IIROC applicable to such transaction (including minimum margin rates acceptable to IIROC)

• prior to entering into the CFD transaction, the investor is provided with a risk disclosure statement that clearly explains, in plain language, the product and the risks associated with an investment in the product

• in circumstances where the CFD counterparty is a separate entity from the registrant, and is not itself a registrant and member of IIROC, the counterparty is subject to meaningful capital adequacy requirements in its home jurisdiction that are reasonably comparable to the requirements applicable to investment dealers in Canada and the investor is provided with meaningful financial disclosure about the counterparty that is acceptable to staff and that allows the investor to make a meaningful assessment as to the ability of the CFD counterparty to satisfy its performance and payment obligations

• the requested relief includes a sunset provision that provides that the relief will expire on or shortly after the earlier of the introduction of legislation or a rule governing the issuance of CFDs to investors and four years from the date of the order

We expect this exemptive relief to apply only to offerings of CFDs to investors in Ontario. Market participants seeking to offer such products to investors in other jurisdictions in Canada should consult with the appropriate regulatory authorities in these other jurisdictions.

3. Insider reporting of CFD transactions.

Staff wish to take this opportunity to remind market participants that the insider reporting obligations contained in Part XXI of the Securities Act (Ontario) and related rules, including Multilateral Instrument 55-103 Insider Reporting of Certain Derivative Transactions (Equity Monetization) (MI 55-103),{14} will generally require an insider of a reporting issuer to file insider reports about transactions in CFDs that involve, directly or indirectly, securities of the insider's reporting issuer in a similar manner to transactions in other securities of the insider's reporting issuer.

4. Insider trading involving CFDs

Similarly, we wish to take this opportunity to remind insiders and other persons in a special relationship with a reporting issuer (collectively, special relationship persons) that the prohibitions on trading and tipping contained in Ontario securities law will generally apply to transactions in CFDs that involve, directly or indirectly, securities of the special relationship person's reporting issuer in a similar manner to transactions in other securities of the insider's reporting issuer.

For more information relating to the CSA's views on the insider trading and tipping prohibitions, please refer to National Policy 51-201 Disclosure Standards.

VII. Questions

If you have any questions in relation to this Notice, please contact any of the following:

October 27, 2009

{1} Please refer to section 35.1 of the Act.

{2} The CFA Advisory Committee's final report may be found on the website of the Ministry of Government Services of Ontario. See: http://www.gov.on.ca/MGS/en/AbtMin/121808.html.

{3} The IIROC Position Paper is available on the IIROC website. http://docs.iiroc.ca/DisplayDocument.aspx?DocumentID=CF983987B0A449C881DFCF5EDC640E99&Language=en

{4} See, for example,

• Ontario Securities Commission News Release dated August 15, 2004 -- "If you're playing the FOREX market, make sure you can handle the risk"

• British Columbia Securities Commission Investor Alert dated April 19, 2007 "InvestorWatch: FOREX"

• British Columbia Securities Commission News Release dated November 6, 2003- "Securities watchdog says be wary of foreign currency trading"

See also the investor awareness publication issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission "Contracts for difference: complex and high risk?" available at

http://www.fido.asic.gov.au/fido/fido.nsf/byid/2B97220FCC6D5BB6CA2571EF007C9751?opendocument

{5} See section 1.1 of the Act and the definition of "derivative" in subsection 1.1(3) of OSC Rule 14-501 Definitions.

{6} [1978] 2 S.C.R. 112.

{7} For an overview of cases that have considered the "investment contract" branch of the definition of "security", please see the decision and reasons In the Matter of Universal Settlements International Inc. dated September 29, 2006 (former Vice-Chair Paul Moore and Commissioners Harold Hands and Wendell Wigle) and the decisions cited therein.

{8} Please refer to sections 8.18 and 8.26 of NI 31-103.

{9} "Permitted client" is defined in section 1.1 and 8.26 of NI 31-103.

{10} As defined in section 1.1 of National instrument 45-106 -- Prospectus and Registration Exemptions.

{11} Please refer to sections 13.2 and 13. 3 of NI 31-103 and CSA Staff Notice 33-315 -- Suitability Obligation and Know Your Product.

{12} Please refer to Rule 3200 of IIROC's Dealer Member Rules.

{13} Please refer to page 22 of the IIROC Position Paper.

{14} In December 2008, the CSA published proposed NI 55-104 Insider Reporting Requirements and Exemptions (NI 55-104) for comment. Proposed NI 55-104 will, if adopted, repeal and replace MI 55-103.

Notice of Commission Approval -- Material Amendments to CDS Procedures -- DTC Direct Link Services and New York Link Services

CDS CLEARING AND

DEPOSITORY SERVICES INC.

MATERIAL AMENDMENTS TO

CDS PROCEDURES

DTC DIRECT LINK AND

NEW YORK LINK SERVICES

NOTICE OF COMMISSION APPROVAL

In accordance with the Rule Protocol between the Ontario Securities Commission (Commission) and CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (CDS), the Commission approved on October 23, 2009, amendments filed by CDS to its procedures to the New York Link (NYL) and DTC Direct Link (DDL) services to meet expanded collateral requirements as a result of changes introduced by the National Securities Clearing Corporation. A copy and description of these amendments were published for comment on August 14, 2009 at (2009) 32 OSCB 6432 and additional changes necessitated a second publication for comment on September 18, 2009 at (2009) 32 OSCB 7395. No comments were received.

Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum -- ss. 127 and 127.1

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND

GIL I. CORNBLUM

NOTICE OF HEARING

(Section 127 and 127.1)

TAKE NOTICE that the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") held a hearing pursuant to sections 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the "Act"), at the offices of the Commission located at 20 Queen Street West, Toronto, 17th Floor, on October 26, 2009 at 9:00 am;

AND TAKE NOTICE that the purpose of the hearing was for the Commission to consider whether it was in the public interest to approve the settlement agreements entered into between Staff of the Commission and each of the Respondents;

AND TAKE NOTICE that the purpose of the hearing was for the Commission to consider whether it was in the public interest to make an order:

a) pursuant to clause 2 of section 127(1), that trading in any securities by the Respondents cease permanently or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

b) pursuant to clause 2.1 of section 127(1), that the acquisition of any securities by the Respondents is prohibited permanently or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

c) pursuant to clause 3 of section 127(1), that any exemptions contained in Ontario securities law do not apply to the Respondents permanently or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

d) pursuant to clause 8 of section 127(1), that the Respondents be prohibited permanently from becoming or acting as a director or officer of an issuer or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

e) pursuant to clause 8.2 of section 127(1), that the Respondents be prohibited permanently from becoming or acting as a director or officer of a registrant or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

f) pursuant to clause 8.4 of section 127(1), that the Respondents be prohibited permanently from becoming or acting as a director or officer of an investment fund manager or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

g) pursuant to clause 8.5 of section 127(1), that the Respondents be prohibited permanently from becoming a registrant, investment fund manager or promoter or for such period as is specified by the Commission;

h) pursuant to clause 10 of section 127(1), that the Respondents disgorge to the Commission any amounts obtained as a result of non-compliance with Ontario securities law; and

i) pursuant to section 127.1 that the Respondents pay the costs of the investigation.

BY REASON OF the allegations set out in the Statement of Allegations of Staff of the Commission dated October 23, 2009 and such additional allegations as counsel may advise and the Commission may permit;

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any party to the proceeding may be represented by counsel, if that party attends or submits evidence at the hearing;

AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that upon the failure of any party to attend at the time and place aforesaid, the hearing may proceed in the absence of that party, and such party is not entitled to any further notice of the proceeding.

DATED at Toronto this 23rd day of October, 2009.

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND

GIL I. CORNBLUM

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS

OF STAFF OF THE

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") make the following allegations:

I. OVERVIEW

1. Gil I. Cornblum ("Cornblum") and Stanko Joseph Grmovsek ("Grmovsek") collectively (the "Respondents") engaged in an illegal insider trading scheme over the course of a 14 year period from 1994-2008 (the "Relevant Period"). Although the scheme operated throughout the Relevant Period, the trading generally occurred in two time periods: September 1996 to August 2000 and May 2004 to April 2008.

2. Shortly after completing law school in 1994, the Respondents commenced operating the scheme in which Cornblum would seek out and obtain material, non-public information concerning pending corporate transactions that he would communicate to Grmovsek, for sole the purpose of facilitating the execution of trades in securities of those corporate transactions by Grmovsek for a profit.

3. The Respondents' scheme contemplated an equal distribution of the illicit trading profits between Grmovsek and Cornblum at some future date.

4. At all times during the Relevant Period, Cornblum sought out and became possessed of material, non-public information in his capacity as a lawyer.

5. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek directed the illegal trading in brokerage accounts located in: (i) the Bahamas under corporate names; (ii) Ontario under variations of his own name and a Grmovsek Family Trust account; and (iii) Ontario which were in the names of family and friends but over which he obtained trading authorization.

6. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Respondents engaged in a course of conduct to disguise their illegal activity and avoid detection from regulatory authorities and law enforcement. This conduct included, but was not limited to:

(i) using numerous brokerage accounts opened in corporate names in the Bahamas;

(ii) using only verbal trading instructions for brokerage accounts located in the Bahamas;

(iii) maintaining the illicit trading profits in a number of brokerage accounts opened in corporate names in the Bahamas and the Grand Cayman Islands;

(iv) developing and participating in covert methods of repatriating illicit profits into Canada;

(v) engaging in trading patterns with respect to the securities so as to minimize the possibility of detection; and

(vi) extensive use of pay telephones and calling cards to facilitate communication of material, non-public information and discuss potential trading strategies integral to the scheme.

7. In total, Cornblum tipped Grmovsek of material, non-public information and Grmovsek traded while in possession of that material, non-public information in advance of news releases related to forty-six (46) corporate transactions involving securities publicly listed in Canada and the United States. In some cases the securities were cross-listed in both countries.

8. Collectively, the illegal insider trading yielded profits of approximately $9,000,000 USD. The majority of the profits were generated by trades exchanges located in the United States.

II. THE RESPONDENTS

9. Cornblum is a resident of Toronto, Ontario and during the Relevant Period was an articling student or practicing lawyer and was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the New York State Bar. During the Relevant Period, Cornblum worked at a number of law firms, including by not limited to: Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, New York; Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York; and Dorsey, Whitney, LLP, Toronto (the "Law Firms").

10. Commencing in 2001, Cornblum was an associate lawyer and subsequently a partner in the Mergers & Acquisitions/Corporate Practice Groups at Dorsey & Whitney, LLP. In April 2008, as a result of regulatory investigations into alleged illegal insider trading, Cornblum was terminated from Dorsey & Whitney, LLP.

11. Grmovsek was a resident of Woodbridge, Ontario during the Relevant Period. Grmovsek articled in Ontario was called to the bar in 1995 and practiced as a securities lawyer and was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada until May 1, 1997 when he ceased practicing law and engaged in the illegal insider trading scheme full-time.

12. The Respondents met and became friends in law school and remained close personal friends thereafter. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Respondents were in regular and frequent contact.

13. The Respondents have never been registered in any capacity with the Commission.

III. TIPPING

14. During the Relevant Period, Cornblum actively sought out and acquired material, non-public information about potential corporate transactions through his role as an articling student or as a lawyer at the Law Firms.

15. The information was primarily obtained in one of five ways:

(i) as counsel to issuers on pending corporate transactions;

(ii) through conversations with colleagues/other counsel on potential corporate transactions;

(iii) communications with external counsel conducting conflict checks regarding potential corporate transactions;

(iv) using temporary passwords for night-time secretarial staff to conduct searches on computer databases at the Law Firms for material, non-public information related to pending transactions for which he did not personally serve as counsel; and

(v) early morning searches through the hallways, photocopy rooms, fax machines and files of colleagues at the Law Firms for documents revealing material, non-public information related to pending transactions for which he did not personally serve as counsel.

16. Cornblum acquired material, non-public information involving all of the following corporate transactions and pursuant to subsections 76(5)(b) and (e) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the "Act") Cornblum became a person in a special relationship with the reporting issuers (the "Reporting Issuers") involved in the following corporate transactions (the "Corporate Transactions"){1}:

(a) acquisition of Office Depot by Staples, announced September 4, 1996 (NYSE);

(b) acquisition of Great Western Financial Corp. by H.F. Ahmanson & Company, announced February 17, 1998 (NYSE);

(c) acquisition of North American Mortgage Company by Dime Bancorp Inc., announced June 23, 1997 (NYSE);

(d) acquisition of Equitable of Iowa Companies by ING Groep N.V., announced July 8, 1997 (NYSE);

(e) acquisition of Nellcor Puritan Bennett Inc. by Mallinckrodt Inc., announced July 23, 1997 (NASDAQ);

(f) acquisition of Corestates Financial Corp. by First Union Corporation, announced November 18, 1997 (NYSE);

(g) acquisition of Piper Jaffray Companies Inc. by U.S. Bancorp, announced December 15, 1997 (NYSE);

(h) acquisition of Money Store Inc. by First Union Corporation, announced March 4, 1998 (NYSE);

(i) acquisition of Alumax Inc. by Alcoa Inc., announced March 9, 1998 (TSX/NYSE);

(j) acquisition of H.F. Ahmanson & Company by Washington Mutual Inc., announced March 17, 1998 (NYSE);

(k) acquisition of Beneficial Company by Household International Inc. announced April 7, 1998 (NYSE);

(l) acquisition of Ameritech Corporation by SBC Communications Inc., announced May 11, 1998 (NYSE);

(m) acquisition of Humana Inc. by United HealthGroup Inc., announced May 28, 1998 (NYSE);

(n) acquisition of Ciena Corporation by Tellabs Inc., announced June 3, 1998 (NASDAQ);

(o) acquisition of Wells Fargo & Company by Norwest Corporation, announced June 8, 1998 (NYSE);

(p) acquisition of Newcourt Credit by CIT announced on March 8, 1999 (TSX/NYSE);

(q) acquisition of Smallworldwide by GE Power Systems, announced August 17, 2000 (NASDAQ);

(r) acquisition of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. by Goldcorp Inc., announced May 28, 2004 (TSX/AMEX);

(s) buy-back of Yamana Gold Inc. warrants by Yamana Gold Inc., announced June 17, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(t) merger of Star Point Energy Trust and Acclaim Energy Trust, announced September 19, 2005 (TSX/AMEX);

(u) acquisition of Virginia Gold Mines by Goldcorp Inc., announced December 5, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(v) acquisition of RNC Gold by Yamana Gold Inc., announced December 4, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(w) acquisition of Desert Sun Mining Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced February 22, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(x) acquisition of Weda Bay by Eramet SA, announced March 15, 2006 (TSX);

(y) acquisition of Mexgold Resources Inc. by Gammon Lake, announced May 29, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(z) acquisition of Viceroy Exploration Ltd. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced August 16, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(aa) merger of Goldcorp Inc. and Glamis Gold Ltd., announced August 31, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(bb) merger of IAMGOLD Corporation and Cambior Inc., announced September 14, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(cc) merger of Denison Mines Corp. and International Uranium Corporation, announced September 18, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(dd) Goldcorp Inc. sale of shares in Wheaton River Minerals Ltd., announced December 7, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(ee) merger of Direct General Corporation and Fremont Partners and Texas Pacific Group, announced December 5, 2006 (NASDAQ);

(ff) Eldorado Gold Corporation potential merger with Centerra Gold Corporation, announced February 16, 2007 (TSX/AMEX);

(gg) acquisition of Gateway Casinos Income Fund by New World Gaming Partners Ltd., announced April 4, 2007 (TSX);

(hh) acquisition proposal of Liquor Barn Income Fund by Liquor Stores Income Fund, announced April 10, 2007 (TSX-V);

(ii) resource restatement by Blue Pearl Mining Ltd., announced April 16, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(jj) acquisition of Palmarejo Silver by Coeur d'Alene Mines, announced May 3, 2007 (TSX-V);

(kk) acquisition of Energy Metals Corporation by Uranium One Inc., announced June 4, 2007 (TSX/NSYE);

(ll) acquisition of Peru Copper, Inc. by Aluminum Corporation of China Ltd., announced June 14, 2007 (TSX/AMEX);

(mm) acquisition of Meridian Gold Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc. and Northern Orion Resources Inc., announced June 27, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(nn) acquisition of Meridian Gold Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced August 14, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(oo) acquisition of Miramar Mining Corporation by Newmont Mining Corporation, announced October 9, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(pp) acquisition of Arizona Star by Barrick Gold Corporation, announced October 29, 2007 (TSX-V/NYSE);

(qq) settlement discussions between NovaGold Resources and Barrick Gold Corporation, announced November 8, 2007 (TSX/NYSE/AMEX);

(rr) acquisition of A.S.V., Inc. by Terex Corporation, announced January 13, 2008 (NASDAQ);

(ss) acquisition of Possis Medical, Inc. by MEDRAD, Inc., announced February 11, 2008 (NASDAQ); and

(tt) acquisition of WP Stewart by Arrow Capital Management, announced May 21, 2008 (NYSE).

17. Cornblum owed a fiduciary duty and a strict duty of confidentiality and loyalty to the clients of the Law Firms. Pursuant to subsection 76(2) of the Act, Cornblum was also prohibited from tipping others with material information related to any of the Reporting Issuers prior to that information had been generally disclosed.

18. For each of the Corporate Transactions, Cornblum informed Grmovsek of material information related to the Reporting Issuers prior to that information having been generally disclosed. For each of the Corporate Transactions, the material, non-public information was the pending merger or acquisition transaction.

19. Cornblum understood and intended that Grmovsek would execute trades based on this material, non-public information and expected to, and did, share in the profits of the resulting trades.

20. In certain instances, Cornblum would provide instructions to Grmovsek regarding the nature and quantum of proposed trading in certain securities, in an effort to avoid detection by regulatory authorities.

IV. INSIDER TRADING

21. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek obtained material information related to the pending Corporate Transactions from Cornblum prior to the information having been generally disclosed. Grmovsek knew that Cornblum obtained the information in his capacity as a lawyer and that Cornblum stood in a special relationship to each of the Reporting Issuers.

22. By virtue of subsection 76(5)(e) of the Act, Grmovsek became a person in a special relationship with each of the Reporting Issuers and was accordingly prohibited from trading securities of the Reporting Issuers while in possession of material non-public information involving those Reporting Issuers.

23. From 1994 to 2008, with knowledge of material, non-public information supplied by Cornblum, Grmovsek traded securities in advance of forty-six (46) corporate transactions, detailed as the Corporate Transactions in paragraph 16 above, contrary to subsection 76(1) of the Act.

24. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek traded the securities using brokerage accounts in Ontario established in variations of his own name and a Grmovsek Family Trust account as well as brokerage accounts located in the Bahamas in corporate names. Grmovsek also traded through the following brokerage accounts in Ontario belonging to family and friends over which he obtained trading authorization (the "Family and Friends Accounts"). The account-holders of the Family and Friends Accounts were not aware of the illegal insider trading scheme, nor were they aware that Grmovsek was trading securities on their behalf while in possession of material, non-public information. Some of the account-holders of the Friends and Family Accounts paid Grmovsek a percentage of the profits generated by the illegal trading.

Account Holder	Relationship to Grmovsek
Stan J. Grmovsek, S. Joseph Grmovsek, Stan	Himself
Grmovsek, Joseph S. Grmovsek, Grmovsek Family
Trust
Joseph and Paula Grmovsek	Parents
Marian Grmovsek-Gatzos and Alexander Gatzos	Sister and Brother-in-Law
Chantal Bernard	Former Spouse
George and Vangie Gatzos	Parents of Alexander Gatzos
Christopher Gatzopoulos	Brother of Alexander Gatzos
Julio DiGirolamo	Personal Friend
Alba DiGirolamo	Spouse of Julio DiGirolamo
Peter Kelly	Friend and Former Neighbour

25. Following the public announcement, the securities of the Reporting Issuers and the securities of the Issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions often increased dramatically in value. Shortly thereafter, Grmovsek sold most of the securities to realize a profit and obtained an unrealized profit for the remaining securities which he held, for a total gross profit over the Relevant Period of approximately $9,000,000 USD.

26. The illicit profits were largely held in off-shore accounts. In late 1999, Cornblum and Grmovsek each repatriated $600,000 CDN of illicit trading profits from a brokerage account in the Bahamas that was used to purchase their respective matrimonial homes in the Greater Toronto Area. In early 2000, Cornblum received $2,700,000 CDN in illicit trading profits from a brokerage account in the Bahamas that was subsequently transferred to a brokerage account under a corporate name in the Grand Cayman Islands.

V. CONDUCT CONTRARY TO ONTARIO SECURITIES LAW AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

27. By informing Grmovsek of material, non-public information related to the Reporting Issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions, prior to that information being generally disclosed, Cornblum engaged in unlawful tipping, contrary subsection 76(2) of the Act, and engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest.

28. By informing Grmovsek of material, non-public information related to the issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions prior to that information being generally disclosed, Cornblum engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest.

29. By trading securities of the Reporting Issuers with knowledge of material information obtained from Cornblum that had not generally been disclosed, Grmovsek engaged in illegal insider trading, contrary to subsection 76(1) of the Act, and engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest.

30. By trading securities of the Issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions with knowledge of material information obtained from Cornblum that had not generally been disclosed, Grmovsek engaged conduct contrary to the public interest.

31. Such additional allegations as Staff may advise and the Commission may permit.

Dated at Toronto this 23rd day of October, 2009.

{1} The exchange(s) on which the "target" issuer was publicly listed at the time of the transaction, is enclosed in brackets following each transaction.

OSC Staff Provide Guidance for Contracts for Difference and Forex Contracts

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 27, 2009

OSC STAFF PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR

CONTRACTS FOR DIFFERENCE AND

FOREX CONTRACTS

TORONTO -- Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) today issued Staff Notice 91-702 Offerings of Contracts for Difference and Foreign Exchange Contracts to Investors in Ontario, which outlines Staff's view on the applicability of securities law and other regulatory requirements to offerings of Contracts for Difference (CFDs), foreign exchange (forex) contracts and other similar products in Ontario.

A CFD is a product that allows an investor to obtain economic exposure to an asset, such as a share, index, currency or commodity, without acquiring ownership of the asset. Similarly, a forex contract is a product that allows investors to obtain economic exposure to different currencies without acquiring ownership of the currencies.

CFDs and forex contracts are increasingly being offered to investors directly through the internet. As a result of their increasing availability, OSC Staff conducted a review of these products in consultation with Staff from other members of the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) and Staff of the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC).

"We are issuing this guidance to respond to enquiries from issuers and dealers about the applicability of Ontario securities law to these products," said Margo Paul, Director of Corporate Finance at the OSC. "We also want to highlight some of the investor protection concerns we have with these products, particularly where they are being offered to investors by offshore entities through the internet and without the protections of a registered dealer."

OSC Staff have concluded that these products, when offered to investors in Ontario, constitute "securities" for the purposes of Ontario securities law. The Notice makes clear that the guidance in the Notice is focused on offerings of these products to investors and is not intended to address direct or intermediated trading in these products between institutions.

As a result of this conclusion, Staff are of the view that, unless exemptive relief is granted, these products are subject to securities law and other regulatory requirements, including registration and prospectus requirements.

Issuers, dealers and other market participants are reminded there may be important differences in the regulatory treatment of CFDs, forex contracts and similar products across the CSA. Sellers should therefore review the specific requirements of securities legislation (and, where applicable, commodity futures legislation and derivatives legislation) before offering CFDs to investors.

Staff Notice 91-702 Offerings of Contracts for Difference and Foreign Exchange Contracts to Investors in Ontario is available in the Securities Law & Instruments section of the OSC website, www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Irwin Boock et al.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 22, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

IRWIN BOOCK, STANTON DEFREITAS,

JASON WONG, SAUDIA ALLIE,

ALENA DUBINSKY, ALEX KHODJIAINTS,

SELECT AMERICAN TRANSFER CO.,

LEASESMART, INC., ADVANCED GROWING SYSTEMS, INC.,

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LTD.,

NUTRIONE CORPORATION,

POCKETOP CORPORATION,

ASIA TELECOM LTD., PHARM CONTROL LTD.,

CAMBRIDGE RESOURCES CORPORATION,

COMPUSHARE TRANSFER CORPORATION,

FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC., TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION,

WGI HOLDINGS, INC. and ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP

TORONTO -- Following a hearing held on October 21, 2009, the Commission issued an Order approving the Settlement Agreement reached between Staff of the Commission and NutriOne Corporation.

A copy of the Order dated October 21, 2009 and Settlement Agreement dated October 21, 2009 are available at www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership et al.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 23, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

WEIZHEN TANG AND ASSOCIATES INC.,

WEIZHEN TANG CORP. AND WEIZHEN TANG

TORONTO -- The Commission issued an Order which provides that (1) that the Temporary Order is extended until November 16, 2009; and (2) the Hearing in this matter is adjourned to November 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the hearing can be held.

A copy of the Order dated October 22, 2009 is available at www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Barry Landen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 26, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

BARRY LANDEN

TORONTO -- The Commission issued an order today which provides that the hearing currently scheduled for October 29, 2009 is adjourned to November 10, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. or such other date as is agreed by the parties and determined by the Office of the Secretary for the purpose of having a pre-hearing conference.

A copy of the Order dated October 26, 2009 is available at www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 27, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND

GIL I. CORNBLUM

TORONTO -- The Commission issued an Order approving the Settlement Agreement reached between Staff of the Commission and Stanko Joseph Grmovsek.

A copy of the Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2009, Staff's Statement of Allegations dated October 23, 2009, Order dated October 26, 2009 and Settlement Agreement dated October 25, 2009 are available at www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Independent Financial Brokers of Canada v. Ontario Securities Commission and Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 28, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

THE MUTUAL FUND DEALERS ASSOCIATION

OF CANADA BY-LAW NO. 1

AND

INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL BROKERS OF CANADA

AND

STAFF OF THE

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION AND

STAFF OF THE

MUTUAL FUND DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

TORONTO -- The Commission issued the Reasons and Decision in the above named matter.

A copy of the Reasons and Decision dated October 27, 2009 is available at www.osc.gov.on.ca.

Chapter 2 -- Decisions, Orders and Rulings

U3O8 Corp.

Headnote

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- decision exempting the Filer from the requirement in s. 3.1 of NI 52-107 that financial statements be prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP for so long as the Filer prepares its financial statements in accordance with IFRS-IASB -- for financial periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010 -- Filer must provide specified disclosure regarding change to IFRS-IASB -- if the Filer files interim financial statements prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP in the year that the Filer adopts IFRS-IASB, those interim financial statements must be restated using IFRS-IASB -- Filer wishes to change to IFRS-IASB to reduce costs and enhance efficiencies with respect to the financial preparation process.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

National Instrument 52-107 Acceptable Accounting Principles, Auditing Standards and Reporting Currency, s. 3.1.

October 21, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF ONTARIO

(the Jurisdiction)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

THE PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIVE RELIEF

APPLICATIONS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

U3O8 CORP.

(the Filer)

DECISION

Background

The principal regulator in the Jurisdiction has received an application from the Filer for a decision under the securities legislation of the Jurisdiction of the principal regulator (the Legislation) exempting the Filer from the requirement in section 3.1 of National Instrument 52-107 Acceptable Accounting Principles, Auditing Standards and Reporting Currency (NI 52-107) that financial statements be prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP for financial periods beginning on and after January 1, 2010 (the Exemption Sought), for so long as the Filer prepares the financial statements in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) (IFRS-IASB).

Under the Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions (for a passport application):

1. the Ontario Securities Commission is the principal regulator for this application, and

2. the Filer has provided notice that section 4.7(1) of Multilateral Instrument 11-102 Passport System (MI 11-102) is intended to be relied upon in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador (the Passport Jurisdictions).

Interpretation

Terms defined in National Instrument 14-101 Definitions and MI 11-102 have the same meaning if used in this decision, unless otherwise defined.

Representations

This decision is based on the following facts represented by the Filer:

1. the Filer is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Ontario on December 6, 2005; the registered and head office of the Filer is located at 8 King Street East, Suite 710, Toronto, Ontario M5C 1B5;

2. the Filer is a reporting issuer in the Jurisdiction and the Passport Jurisdictions. The Filer is not (to its knowledge) in default of its reporting issuer obligations under the Legislation or the securities legislation of the Passport Jurisdictions;

3. the Filer's securities are listed on the TSX Venture Exchange;

4. the Filer is a junior natural resource corporation currently focused on uranium exploration in the Roraima Basin in Guyana, South America;

5. the Canadian Accounting Standards Board has confirmed that publicly accountable enterprises will be required to prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS-IASB for financial statements relating to fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2011;

6. NI 52-107 sets out acceptable accounting principles for financial reporting under the Legislation by domestic issuers, foreign issuers, registrants and other market participants. Under NI 52-107, a domestic issuer must use Canadian GAAP. Under NI 52-107, only foreign issuers may use IFRS-IASB;

7. in CSA Staff Notice 52-321 Early Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards, Use of US GAAP and Reference to IFRS-IASB, staff of the Canadian Securities Administrators recognized that some issuers may wish to prepare their financial statements in accordance with IFRS-IASB for periods beginning prior to January 1, 2011 and indicated that staff were prepared to recommend exemptive relief on a case by case basis to permit a domestic issuer to do so, despite section 3.1 of NI 52-107;

8. subject to obtaining the Exemption Sought, the Filer intends to adopt IFRS-IASB for its financial statements for periods beginning on and after January 1, 2010;

9. the Filer's financial year is the last day of December in each calendar year;

10. the Filer believes that the early adoption of IFRS-IASB will allow it greater access to consultants to assist with the conversion to IFRS-IASB, which the Filer believes will reduce costs and enhance efficiencies with respect to the Filer's financial statement preparation process;

11. the Board of Directors of the Filer (the Board) approved early adoption of IFRS-IASB on August 27, 2009 with effect from January 1, 2010, subject to the Filer obtaining the Exemption Sought;

12. the Filer has carefully assessed the readiness of its staff, Board, audit committee, auditors, investors and other market participants for the adoption by the Filer of IFRS-IASB for financial periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010 and has concluded that all parties will be adequately prepared for the Filer's adoption of IFRS-IASB for periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010;

13. the Filer has considered the implications of early adopting IFRS-IASB on its obligations under securities legislation including, but not limited to, those relating to CEO and CFO certifications, business acquisition reports, offering documents, and previously released material forward looking information; and

14. the Filer will disseminate a news release not more than seven days after the date of this decision document disclosing relevant information about its conversion to IFRS-IASB as contemplated by CSA Staff Notice 52-320 Disclosure of Expected Changes in Accounting Policies Relating to Changeover to International Financial Reporting Standards, including:

(a) the key elements and timing of its conversion plan to adopt IFRS-IASB;

(b) the exemptions available under IFRS 1 First-time Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards that the Filer expects to apply in preparing financial statements in accordance with IFRS-IASB;

(c) the major identified differences between the Filer's current accounting policies and those the Filer is required or expects to apply in preparing financial statements in accordance with IFRS-IASB; and

(d) the impact of adopting IFRS-IASB on the key line items in the Filer's interim financial statements for the period ended June 30, 2009;

15. the Filer will update the information set out in the news release in its subsequent management's discussion and analysis, including, to the extent the Filer has quantified such information, quantitative information regarding the impact of adopting IFRS-IASB on the key line items in the Filer's financial statements.

Decision

The principal regulator is satisfied that the decision meets the test set out in the Legislation for the principal regulator to make the decision.

The decision of the principal regulator under the Legislation is that the Exemption Sought is granted, subject to the following conditions:

(a) provided that and only for so long as the Filer prepares its financial statements for financial periods beginning on or after January 1, 2010 in accordance with IFRS-IASB;

(b) provided that the Filer provides all of the communication as described and in the manner set out in paragraphs 14 and 15;

(c) provided that if the Filer files interim financial statements prepared in accordance with Canadian GAAP in the year that the Filer adopts IFRS-IASB, upon the adoption of IFRS-IASB the Filer will restate any previous interim statements for the financial year in which it adopted IFRS-IASB that were originally prepared using Canadian GAAP together with the related restated interim management's discussion and analysis as well as the certificates required by National Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Issuers' Annual and Interim Filings; and

(d) provided that if the Filer files its first IFRS-IASB financial statements in an interim period, those interim financial statements will present all financial statements with equal prominence, including the opening statement of financial position at the date of transition to IFRS-IASB.

Optimal Geomatics Inc. -- s. 1(10)

Headnote

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- Issuer deemed to no longer be a reporting issuer under securities legislation.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as am., s. 1(10).

October 26, 2009

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

The Applicant has applied to the local securities regulatory authority or regulator (the Decision Maker) in each of the Jurisdictions for a decision under the securities legislation (the Legislation) of the Jurisdictions that the Applicant is not a reporting issuer.

As the Applicant has represented to the Decision Makers that:

(a) the outstanding securities of the Applicant, including debt securities, are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by fewer than 15 security holders in each of the jurisdictions in Canada and fewer than 51 security holders in total in Canada;

(b) no securities of the Applicant are traded on a marketplace as defined in National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation;

(c) the Applicant is applying for a decision that it is not a reporting issuer in all of the jurisdictions in Canada in which it is currently a reporting issuer; and

(d) the Applicant is not in default of any of its obligations under the Legislation as a reporting issuer,

each of the Decision Makers is satisfied that the test contained in the Legislation that provides the Decision Maker with the jurisdiction to make the decision has been met and orders that the Applicant is not a reporting issuer.

Addax Petroleum Corporation -- s. 1(10)

Headnote

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- application for an order that the issuer is not a reporting issuer.

Ontario Statutes

Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as am., s. 1(10).

October 26, 2009

Attention: Veronica W. Tang

Dear Madam:

The Applicant has applied to the local securities regulatory authority or regulator (the Decision Maker) in each of the Jurisdictions for a decision under the securities legislation (the Legislation) of the Jurisdictions to be deemed to have ceased to be a reporting issuer in the Jurisdictions.

As the Applicant has represented to the Decision Makers that:

(a) the outstanding securities of the Applicant, including debt securities, are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by fewer than 15 security holders in each of the jurisdictions in Canada and fewer than 51 security holders in total in Canada;

(b) no securities of the Applicant are traded on a marketplace as defined in National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation;

(c) the Applicant is applying for a decision that it is not a reporting issuer in all of the jurisdictions in Canada in which it is currently a reporting issuer; and

(d) the Applicant is not in default of any of its obligations under the Legislation as a reporting issuer,

each of the Decision Makers is satisfied that the test contained in the Legislation that provides the Decision Maker with the jurisdiction to make the decision has been met and orders that the Applicant is deemed to have ceased to be a reporting issuer and that the Applicant's status as a reporting issuer is revoked.

Orvana Minerals Asturias Corp.

Headnote

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- Application for an order that the issuer is not a reporting issuer -- issuer has no publicly held securities -- issuer did not provide the British Columbia Securities Commission with a notice of surrender of its reporting issuer status due to the applicable waiting period -- issuer is in default of certain continuous disclosure obligations.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as am., s. 1(10)(b)

October 26, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF

ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA AND ONTARIO

(the Jurisdictions)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

THE PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIVE RELIEF

APPLICATIONS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

ORVANA MINERALS ASTURIAS CORP.

(the Filer)

DECISION

Background

The securities regulatory authority or regulator in each of the Jurisdictions (the Decision Maker) has received an application from the Filer for a decision under the securities legislation of the Jurisdictions (the Legislation) that the Filer is not a reporting issuer (the Exemptive Relief Sought).

Under the Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions (for a coordinated review application):

(a) the Ontario Securities Commission is the principal regulator for this application, and

(b) the decision is the decision of the principal regulator and evidences the decision of each other Decision Maker.

Interpretation

Terms defined in National Instrument 14-101 Definitions have the same meaning if used in this decision, unless otherwise defined.

Representations

This decision is based on the following facts represented by the Filer:

1. The Filer is a corporation governed by the Canada Business Corporations Act (the CBCA) with its registered address located at 320 Bay Street, Suite 1530, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 4A6.

2. The Filer is a reporting issuer in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

3. The Filer's authorized share capital consists of an unlimited number of common shares (Common Shares) and an unlimited number of redeemable preferred shares (Preferred Shares) that are redeemable by the Filer at a price of $0.75 per Preferred Share.

4. Orvana Minerals Corp. (Orvana) is the registered and beneficial owner of all of the issued and outstanding Common Shares. The Filer has not issued any Preferred Shares.

5. The Filer also has outstanding a share purchase warrant exercisable to acquire up to 1,500,000 Preferred Shares at a price of $0.90 per share expiring on March 11, 2010 (the Warrant) and a senior secured convertible debenture in the principal amount of $7,500,000.00 (the Convertible Debenture) that is convertible into Preferred Shares. A single party located outside of Canada is the registered and beneficial holder of the Warrant and the Convertible Debenture.

6. Pursuant to a take-over bid (the Offer) commenced by Orvana Minerals Acquisition Corp. (the Acquiror), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Orvana, on May 25, 2009 and which expired on August 28, 2009, for all of the outstanding common shares (Kinbauri Shares) of Kinbauri Gold Corp. (Kinbauri), the Acquiror acquired, in the aggregate, 61,688,845 Kinbauri Shares at a price of $0.75 per share, representing approximately 95% of the issued and outstanding Kinbauri Shares.

7. On September 24, 2009, the Acquiror commenced a compulsory acquisition of the outstanding Kinbauri Shares not owned by it at a price of $0.75 per share pursuant to section 206 of the CBCA (the Compulsory Acquisition).

8. On September 25, 2009, the Acquiror completed the Compulsory Acquisition and became the owner of all of the issued and outstanding Kinbauri Shares.

9. On October 1, 2009, the Acquiror and Kinbauri amalgamated under the CBCA (the Amalgamation), with the Filer being the corporation resulting from the Amalgamation. Pursuant to the Amalgamation, the outstanding Kinbauri Shares were cancelled without payment of any consideration and the outstanding common shares of the Acquiror were converted into Common Shares.

10. Kinbauri was a reporting issuer in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario and, consequently, the Filer, as the successor to Kinbauri, became a reporting issuer in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario following the Amalgamation.

11. Other than as described above, the Filer has no other securities issued and outstanding.

12. The outstanding securities of the Filer, including debt securities, are beneficially owned, directly or indirectly, by fewer than 15 security holders in each of the jurisdictions in Canada and fewer than 51 security holders in total in Canada.

13. Prior to consummation of the transactions described above, the Kinbauri Shares were listed for trading on the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol "KNB".

14. On September 3, 2009, an application was made to de-list the Kinbauri Shares from the TSX Venture Exchange. Such shares were de-listed following the close of trading on September 25, 2009.

15. No securities of the Filer are traded on a marketplace as defined in National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation.

16. The Filer has no current intention to seek public financing by way of an offering of securities.

17. The Filer is applying for relief to cease to be a reporting issuer in all jurisdictions of Canada in which it is currently a reporting issuer.

18. The Filer is not in default of any of its obligations under the Legislation as a reporting issuer, except for the obligation to file its annual financial statements for the year ended May 31, 2009 and its Management Discussion and Analysis in respect of such financial statements, as required under National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations, and the related certification of such financial statements as required under Multilateral Instrument 52-109 Certification of Disclosure in Filers' Annual and Interim Filings, all of which became due on September 28, 2009.

19. The Filer did not surrender its status as a reporting issuer in British Columbia pursuant to BC Instrument 11-502 Voluntary Surrender of Reporting Issuer Status (the BC Instrument) in order to avoid the 10-day waiting period under the BC Instrument.

20. The Filer is not eligible to use the simplified procedure under CSA Staff Notice 12-307 Applications for a Decision that an Issuer is not a Reporting Issuer in order to apply for the Exemptive Relief Sought.

21. The Filer, upon the grant of the Exemptive Relief Sought, will no longer be a reporting issuer or the equivalent in any jurisdiction in Canada.

Decision

Each of the Decision Makers is satisfied that the decision meets the test set out in the Legislation for the Decision Maker to make the decision.

The decision of the Decision Makers under the Legislation is that the Exemptive Relief Sought is granted.

Wellington West Financial Services Inc. and Brownstone Investment Planning Inc.

Headnote

Multilateral Instrument 11-102 Passport System -- National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions -- National Instrument 33-109 Registration Information (NI 33-109) -- relief from certain filing requirements of NI 33-109 in connection with a bulk transfer of business locations and registered and non-registered individuals in accordance with section 3.4 of Companion Policy 33-109CP to NI 33-109.

Applicable Legislative Provisions

Multilateral Instrument 11-102 Passport System.

National Instrument 33-109 Registration Information and Companion Policy 33-109CP.

National Policy 11-203 Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions.

October 27, 2009

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES LEGISLATION OF

MANITOBA AND ONTARIO

(the "Jurisdictions")

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

THE PROCESS FOR EXEMPTIVE RELIEF

APPLICATIONS IN MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

WELLINGTON WEST FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.

("WWFS")

AND

BROWNSTONE INVESTMENT PLANNING INC.

("BROWNSTONE")

(the "Filers")

DECISION

Background

The securities regulatory authority or regulator in each of the Jurisdictions (the "Decision Maker") has received an application from the Filers for a decision under the securities legislation of the Jurisdictions (the "Legislation") for relief pursuant to National Instrument 33-109 Registration Information ("NI 33-109") to allow the bulk transfer of all of the registered individuals and all of the locations of Brownstone to WWFS (as described below) (the "Bulk Transfer"), on or about October 31, 2009 in accordance with section 3.4 of the companion policy to NI 33-109 (the "Exemption Sought")

Under the Process for Exemptive Relief Applications in Multiple Jurisdictions (for a dual application):

1. The Manitoba Securities Commission is the principal regulator for this application,

2. the Filers have provided notice that section 4.7(1) of Multilateral Instrument 11-102 Passport System ("MI 11-102") is intended to be relied upon in Manitoba, British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan, and

3. the decision is the decision of the principal regulator and evidences the decision of the securities regulatory authority or regulator in Ontario.

Interpretation

Terms defined in National Instrument 14-101 Definitions have the same meaning if used in this decision, unless otherwise defined.

Representations

This decision is based on the following facts represented by the Filers:

WWFS

1. WWFS is a corporation amalgamated under The Corporations Act (Manitoba) pursuant to articles of amalgamation dated April 16, 2004.

2. WWFS is registered in the category of mutual fund dealer or equivalent in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario and in the category of exempt market dealer in Ontario.

3. WWFS is not in default of the securities legislation in any of the Jurisdictions.

Brownstone

4. Brownstone is a corporation continued under the Canada Business Corporations Act.

5. Brownstone is registered in the category of mutual fund dealer in the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and in the category of exempt market dealer in Ontario.

6. Brownstone is not in default of the securities legislation in any of the Jurisdictions.

Transaction

7. Effective October 31, 2009, Wellington West Holdings Inc., the parent company of WWFS, will acquire all of the issued and outstanding shares of Brownstone (the "Transaction") and all of the current registrable activities of Brownstone will be transferred to WWFS and WWFS will assume all of the existing registrations and approvals for all of the registered individuals and all of the locations of Brownstone. There will be no disruption in the ability of the current individual registrants of Brownstone to trade or advise on behalf of their respective clients prior to the Transaction and WWFS does not anticipate that there will be any disruption in its ability to trade or advise immediately after the Transaction.

8. Following the Transaction, WWFS will continue to be registered in the same categories of registration as the Filers were prior to the Transaction and will be subject to, and will comply with, applicable securities laws of the Jurisdictions.

9. Brownstone proposes to transfer a total of 28 salespersons registered in one or more of Manitoba, Ontario or Alberta, and 5 locations, to WWFS.

10. On completion of the Transaction, WWFS will carry on the combined business of the Filers.

11. The Exemption Sought will not be contrary to the public interest and will have no negative consequences on the ability of the Filers to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements or their ability to satisfy any obligations to clients of the Filers.

12. It would be extremely difficult to individually transfer each of the locations and individuals of Brownstone to WWFS as per the requirements set out in NI 33-109 if the Exemption Sought is not granted.

13. The head office of WWFS following the Transaction will continue to be 200 Waterfront Drive, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3B 3P1.

Decision

Each of the Decision Makers is satisfied that the decision meets the test set out in the Legislation for the Decision Maker to make the decision.

The decision of the Decision Makers under the Legislation is that the Exemptions Sought are granted PROVIDED THAT the Filers make acceptable arrangements with CDS Inc. for the payment of the costs associated with the Bulk Transfer, and make such payment in advance of the Bulk Transfer.

Irwin Boock et al.

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

IRWIN BOOCK, STANTON DEFREITAS,

JASON WONG, SAUDIA ALLIE,

ALENA DUBINSKY, ALEX KHODJIAINTS

SELECT AMERICAN TRANSFER CO.,

LEASESMART, INC., ADVANCED GROWING SYSTEMS, INC.,

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LTD.,

NUTRIONE CORPORATION,

POCKETOP CORPORATION,

ASIA TELECOM LTD., PHARM CONTROL LTD.,

CAMBRIDGE RESOURCES CORPORATION,

COMPUSHARE TRANSFER CORPORATION,

FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC., TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION,

WGI HOLDINGS, INC. and

ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP

ORDER

WHEREAS on October 16, 2008 the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") issued a Notice of Hearing and Statement of Allegations pursuant to sections 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 (the "Act") in respect to the above respondents, including NutriOne Corporation ("NutriOne");

AND WHEREAS on May 18, 2007 the Commission made a temporary order prior to the commencement of the within proceeding pursuant to subsections 127(1) and 127(5) of the Act (the "Temporary Order") that: (i) all trading in and all acquisitions of the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, shall cease from the date of the Temporary Order; and (ii) any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne;

AND WHEREAS on or about November 24, 2008 NutriOne consented to an extension of the Temporary Order until the completion of the within proceeding;

AND WHEREAS NutriOne has entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Staff of the Commission on October 14, 2009;

AND WHEREAS Staff of the Commission recommended approval of the Settlement Agreement in relation to the matter set out in the Statement of Allegations;

AND UPON reviewing the Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Hearing of Staff of the Commission, and upon hearing submissions of Counsel for Staff of the Commission and NutriOne;

AND WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this Order;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to ss. 127(1) of the Act:

1. the Settlement Agreement is hereby approved;

2. all trading in and all acquisitions of the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, shall cease permanently; and

3. any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne permanently.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 21st day of October, 2009.

"David L. Knight"

"Margot C. Howard"

Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership et al. - ss. 127(7), 127(8)

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

OVERSEA CHINESE FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,

WEIZHEN TANG AND ASSOCIATES INC.,

WEIZHEN TANG CORP. AND WEIZHEN TANG

ORDER

Subsections 127(7) and (8)

WHEREAS on the 17th day of March, 2009, pursuant to subsections 127(1) and (5) of the Securities Act R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the "Act"), the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") made the following temporary orders (the "Temporary Order") against Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership ("Oversea"), Weizhen Tang and Associates Inc. ("Associates"), Weizhen Tang Corp. ("Corp.") and Weizhen Tang, (collectively the "Respondents"):

1. that all trading in securities of Oversea, Associates and Corp. shall cease;

2. that all trading by the Respondents shall cease; and

3. that the exemptions contained in Ontario securities law do not apply to the Respondents.

AND WHEREAS on March 17, 2009, pursuant to subsection 127(6) of the Act the Commission ordered that the Temporary Order shall expire on the 15th day after its making unless extended by order of the Commission;

AND WHEREAS on March 18, 2009 the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing to consider, among other things, the extension of the Temporary Order, to be held on April 1, 2009 at 2:00 p.m.;

AND WHEREAS the Notice of Hearing sets out that the Hearing is to consider, inter alia, whether, in the opinion of the Commission, it is in the public interest, pursuant to subsections 127(7) and (8) of the Act to extend the Temporary Order until such further time as considered necessary by the Commission;

AND WHEREAS prior to the April 1, 2009 Hearing date, Staff of the Commission ("Staff") served the Respondents with copies of the Temporary Order, Notice of Hearing, and Staff's supporting materials;

AND WHEREAS on April 1, 2009, counsel for the Respondents advised the Commission that the Respondents did not oppose the extension of the Temporary Order;

AND WHEREAS on April 1, 2009, the Commission considered the evidence and submissions before it and the Commission was of the opinion that it was in the public interest to extend the Temporary Order until September 10, 2009;

AND WHEREAS on April 1, 2009, the Commission ordered that the Temporary Order be extended, pursuant to section 127(8) of the Act, to September 10, 2009 and the Hearing be adjourned to September 9, 2009;

AND WHEREAS on September 8, 2009 the Commission ordered on consent that the Temporary Order be extended until September 26, 2009 and the Hearing be adjourned until September 25, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. as counsel for the Respondents requested that the Hearing be adjourned as he required more time to file materials for the Hearing;

AND WHEREAS on September 24, 2009 the Commission ordered on consent that the Temporary Order be extended until October 23, 2009 and the Hearing be adjourned to October 22, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.;

AND WHEREAS the Commission considered the submissions of counsel for Staff and counsel for the Respondents consented to an order extending the Temporary Order until November 16, 2009 and adjourning the Hearing until November 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m.;

AND WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this Order;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to section 127(8) of the Act, satisfactory information has not been provided to the Commission by any of the Respondents at this time;

AND WHEREAS the Commission has considered the consent of the parties;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Temporary Order is extended until November 16, 2009; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Hearing in this matter is adjourned to November 13, 2009 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the hearing can be held.

DATED at Toronto this 22nd day of October, 2009.

"David L. Knight"

Barry Landen -- s. 127

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

BARRY LANDEN

ORDER

(Section 127 of the Securities Act)

WHEREAS on October 7, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to sections 127 and 127.1 of the Act accompanied by a Statement of Allegations dated October 6, 2009, issued by Staff of the Commission ("Staff") with respect to Barry Landen ("Landen");

AND WHEREAS on October 7, 2009, counsel for Landen was served with the Notice of Hearing and Statement of Allegations;

AND WHEREAS the Notice of Hearing set the hearing in this matter for October 29, 2009 at 10 a.m.;

AND WHEREAS on October 26, 2009, counsel for Staff and counsel for Landen have requested that the hearing scheduled for October 29, 2009 be adjourned to November 10, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. for the purpose of having a pre-hearing conference;

IT IS ORDERED THAT the hearing currently scheduled for October 29, 2009 is adjourned to November 10, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. or such other date as is agreed by the parties and determined by the Office of the Secretary for the purpose of having a pre-hearing conference.

DATED at Toronto this 26th day of October, 2009

"David L. Knight"

Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum -- ss. 127, 127.1

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND

GIL I. CORNBLUM

ORDER

(sections 127 and 127.1)

WHEREAS on October 23, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to section 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. S.5 as amended (the "Act"), accompanied by the Statement of Allegations of Staff of the Commission, in relation to the Respondents, Stanko Joseph Grmovsek ("Grmovsek") and Gil I. Cornblum ("Cornblum");

AND WHEREAS the Grmovsek entered into a Settlement Agreement with Staff of the Commission ("Staff") dated October 25, 2009 (the "Settlement Agreement") in which he agreed to a settlement of the proceedings commenced by the Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2009, subject to the approval of the Commission;

AND UPON reviewing the Settlement Agreement and Staff's Statement of Allegations, and upon reading the written submissions from Staff and upon hearing submissions from Staff and counsel for Grmovsek;

AND WHEREAS Grmovsek acknowledges that the facts set out in Part III of the Settlement Agreement constituted a breach of section 76(1) of the Act and conduct contrary to the public interest under the Act;

AND WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this order;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(a) the Settlement Agreement between Grmovsek and Staff is approved;

(b) pursuant to clause 2 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall cease trading in any securities permanently;

(c) pursuant to clause 2.1 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall cease acquisitions of any securities permanently;

(d) pursuant to clause 3 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, any exemptions in Ontario securities law do not apply to Grmovsek permanently;

(e) pursuant to clause 8 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an issuer permanently;

(f) pursuant to clause 8.2 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of a registrant permanently;

(g) pursuant to clause 8.4 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an investment fund manager permanently;

(h) pursuant to clause 8.5 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an registrant, investment fund manager or promoter permanently;

(i) pursuant to clause 10 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $750,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of third parties;

(j) pursuant to clause 10 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $283,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of the Attorney General for Ontario; and

(k) pursuant to subsection 127.1(1) of the Act, Grmovsek, agrees to pay costs of the investigation in the amount of $250,000 to the Commission.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2009.

"Patrick J. LeSage"

Chapter 3 -- Reasons: Decisions, Orders and Rulings

Irwin Boock et al.

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

IRWIN BOOCK, STANTON DEFREITAS, JASON WONG,

SAUDIA ALLIE, ALENA DUBINSKY, ALEX KHODJIAINTS

SELECT AMERICAN TRANSFER CO.,

LEASESMART, INC., ADVANCED GROWING SYSTEMS, INC.,

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LTD., NUTRIONE CORPORATION,

POCKETOP CORPORATION, ASIA TELECOM LTD.,

PHARM CONTROL LTD., CAMBRIDGE RESOURCES CORPORATION,

COMPUSHARE TRANSFER CORPORATION,

FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC., TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION,

WGI HOLDINGS, INC. and ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

PART I. Introduction

1. By Notice of Hearing dated October 19, 2009, the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") announced that it proposed to hold a hearing to consider whether pursuant to subsection 127(1) of the Securities Act (the "Act") it is in the public interest for the Commission to make an order that:

(a) all trading in, and all acquisitions of, the securities of the Respondent, NutriOne Corporation ("Nutrione"), whether direct or indirect, shall cease; and

(b) any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne.

PART II. Joint Settlement Recommendation

2. By Notice of Hearing dated October 19, 2009, the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") announced Staff of the Commission ("Staff") recommend settlement of the proceeding commenced by Notice of Hearing dated October 16, 2008 against NutriOne according to the terms and conditions set out in Part VI of this Settlement Agreement. NutriOne agrees to the making of an order in the form attached as Schedule "A" based on the facts set out below.

PART III. Statement of Facts

3. For the purpose of only this proceeding and any other regulatory proceeding commenced by a securities regulatory authority, NutriOne agrees with the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement.

4. Nothing in this Settlement is intended to be an admission of civil or criminal liability by NutriOne or any of its directors, officers, or shareholders, to any person, agent or company; such liability is expressly denied.

Background

5. The conduct in issue relates to certain of the other Respondents' incorporation and use of NutriOne and its predecessor companies, as a vehicle to be used for personal gain in a breach of securities statutory and regulatory requirements (the "Misconduct" ).

6. NutriOne's current principals (the "Principals") sought to patent certain food technology and market the said food technology in the United States ("U.S."). For this purpose the Principals sought to purchase a clean shell company publicly listed on the NASDAQ exchange.

7. Without knowledge of the Misconduct, the Principals purchased NutriOne from a third party on the understanding and with the good faith expectation that NutriOne was a company validly incorporated under U.S. laws and publicly listed on the Pink Sheets LLC, an electronic quotation and trading system for over-the-counter securities market in the US (the "Pink Sheets"), which would be used as an operating vehicle with the capability of raising funds through a public offering of securities in compliance with all statutory and regulatory requirements. NutriOne was not in fact registered in any capacity with this Commission nor is it a reporting issuer in Ontario.

8. However, unbeknownst to the Principals, NutriOne was not a US public company, but in fact had been used in connection with the unauthorized and unregistered issuance of shares in the Pink Sheets. In particular, Staff allege that:

(a) On July 7, 2005, documents evidencing the incorporation of Biscayne Apparel, Inc. ("Biscayne") were filed with the State of Florida by persons related to Select American Transfer Co. ("Select American");

(b) Biscayne had the same name as a defunct Florida public corporation ("Old Biscayne") which had made its last SEC filing on May 14, 1999;

(c) Biscayne assumed the corporate identity of Old Biscayne;

(d) On July 8, 2005, Biscayne amended its articles of incorporation resolving to change its name to El Apparel, Inc. ("El Apparel") and resolving that the issued and outstanding shares of Biscayne be consolidated on a one (1) new for one (1000) thousand old basis;

(e) On July 11, 2005; amending documents were filed with the State of Florida to change the name of Biscayne to El Apparel;

(f) On June 14, 2006, amending documents were filed with the State of Florida to change the name of El Apparel to NutriOne; and

(g) certain Respondents then issued unauthorized and unregistered share certificates in the name of NutriOne.

PART IV. Conduct Contrary to the Public Interest

9. The Principals' agents and consultants failed to conduct the necessary due diligence to alert the Principals' of the Misconduct prior to the Principals' purchase of NutriOne. By the foregoing reason and by engaging in the conduct described above, NutriOne has acted contrary to the public interest.

PART V. Respondent's Position

10. NutriOne requests that the settlement hearing panel consider the following mitigating circumstances.

11. When the Principals subsequently learned of the Misconduct and discovered that NutriOne was not in fact a public company, the Principals ceased any active operations in NutriOne, including without limitation, any effort to offer securities for sale or for access to the public markets.

12. As a result, NutriOne ceased operation as a public company.

13. NutriOne also cooperated with the Ontario Securities Commission during its investigation and consented to a cease trade order and its renewal from time to time, as follows:

(a) on or about May 18, 2007 the Commission made a temporary order pursuant to clauses 2 and 3 of subsections 127(1) of the Act that:

(i) all trading in and all acquisitions of the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, shall cease from the date of the Temporary Order; and

(ii) any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne (the "Temporary Order").

(b) subsequent to May 18, 2007, NutriOne consented to extensions of the Temporary Order; and

(c) on or about November 24, 2008 NutriOne consented to an extension of the Temporary Order until the conclusion of the within proceeding.

14. The Principals:

(a) are not named Respondents in this proceeding;

(b) have fully cooperated with Staff during the proceedings in this matter; and

(c) have not been previously been sanctioned by Staff.

PART VI. Terms of Settlement

15. NutriOne agrees to the terms of settlement listed below:

(a) all trading in, and all acquisitions of, the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, will cease permanently; and

(b) any exemptions contained in the Act will not apply to NutriOne permanently.

PART VII. Staff Commitment

16. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, Staff will not commence any proceeding under Ontario securities law in relation to the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement, subject to the provisions of paragraph 17 below.

17. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement and the Respondent fails to comply with any of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Staff may bring proceedings under Ontario securities law against NutriOne. These proceedings may be based on, but are not limited to, the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement as well as the breach of the Settlement Agreement.

PART VIII. Procedure for Approval of Settlement

18. Approval of this Settlement shall be sought at a public hearing of the Commission on a date as agreed to by Staff and NutriOne, according to the procedures set out in this Settlement Agreement and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

19. Staff and NutriOne agree that this Settlement Agreement will form all of the agreed facts that will be submitted at the settlement hearing on NutriOne's conduct, unless the parties agree that additional facts will be submitted at the settlement hearing.

20. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, NutriOne agrees to waive all rights to a full hearing, judicial review or appeal of this matter under the Act.

21. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, neither party will make any public statement that is inconsistent with this Settlement Agreement or with any additional agreed facts submitted at the settlement hearing.

22. Whether or not the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, NutriOne will not use, in any proceeding, this Settlement Agreement or the negotiation or process of approval of this agreement as the basis for any attack on the Commission's jurisdiction, alleged bias, alleged unfairness, or any other remedies or challenges that may otherwise be available.

PART IX. Disclosure of Settlement Agreement

23. If the Commission does not approve this Settlement Agreement or does not make the order attached as Schedule "A" to this Settlement Agreement:

(a) this Settlement Agreement and all discussions and negotiations between Staff and the Respondent before the settlement hearing takes place will be without prejudice to Staff and the Respondent; and

(b) Staff and the Respondent will each be entitled to all available proceedings, remedies and challenges, including proceeding to a hearing of the allegations contained in the Statement of Allegations. Any proceedings, remedies and challenges will not be affected by this Settlement Agreement, or by any discussions or negotiations relating to this agreement.

24. Both parties will keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential until the Commission approves the Settlement Agreement. At that time, the parties will no longer have to maintain confidentiality. If the Commission does not approve the Settlement Agreement, both parties must continue to keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential, unless they agree in writing not to do so or if required by law.

PART X. Execution of Settlement Agreement

25. The parties may sign separate copies of this agreement. Together, these signed copies will form a binding agreement.

26. A fax copy of any signature will be treated as an original signature. "

Date: October 21, 2009

Date: October 14, 2009

"Schedule A"

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

and

IN THE MATTER OF

IRWIN BOOCK, STANTON DEFREITAS, JASON WONG,

SAUDIA ALLIE, ALENA DUBINSKY, ALEX KHODJIAINTS

SELECT AMERICAN TRANSFER CO.,

LEASESMART, INC., ADVANCED GROWING SYSTEMS, INC.,

INTERNATIONAL ENERGY LTD., NUTRIONE CORPORATION,

POCKETOP CORPORATION, ASIA TELECOM LTD.,

PHARM CONTROL LTD., CAMBRIDGE RESOURCES CORPORATION,

COMPUSHARE TRANSFER CORPORATION,

FEDERATED PURCHASER, INC., TCC INDUSTRIES, INC.,

FIRST NATIONAL ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION,

WGI HOLDINGS, INC. and ENERBRITE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP

ORDER

WHEREAS on October 16, 2008 the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") issued a Notice of Hearing and Statement of Allegations pursuant to sections 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 (the "Act") in respect to the above respondents, including NutriOne Corporation ("NutriOne");

AND WHEREAS on May 18, 2007 the Commission made a temporary order prior to the commencement of the within proceeding pursuant to subsections 127(1) and 127(5) of the Act (the "Temporary Order") that: (i) all trading in and all acquisitions of the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, shall cease from the date of the Temporary Order; and (ii) any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne;

AND WHEREAS on or about November 24, 2008 NutriOne consented to an extension of the Temporary Order until the completion of the within proceeding;

AND WHEREAS NutriOne has entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Staff of the Commission on October 14, 2009;

AND WHEREAS Staff of the Commission recommended approval of the Settlement Agreement in relation to the matter set out in the Statement of Allegations;

AND UPON reviewing the Settlement Agreement and the Notice of Hearing of Staff of the Commission, and upon hearing submissions of Counsel for Staff of the Commission and NutriOne;

AND WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this Order;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to ss. 127(1) of the Act:

1. the Settlement Agreement is hereby approved;

2. all trading in and all acquisitions of the securities of NutriOne, whether direct or indirect, shall cease permanently; and

3. any exemptions contained in the Act do not apply to NutriOne permanently.

Dated: At Toronto this _____ day of _____, 2009.

Stanko Joseph Grmovsek and Gil I. Cornblum

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND GIL I. CORNBLUM

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

STAFF OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION AND

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK

PART I -- INTRODUCTION

1. The Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") will issue a Notice of Hearing to announce that it held a hearing to consider whether, pursuant to sections 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 as amended (the "Act"), it is in the public interest for the Commission to approve this Settlement Agreement and to make certain Orders in respect of the Respondent, Stanko Joseph Grmovsek ("Grmovsek").

PART II -- JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION

2. Staff of the Commission ("Staff") agree to recommend settlement of the proceeding commenced by Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2009 (the "Proceeding") against Grmovsek according to the terms and conditions set out in Part V of this Settlement Agreement. Grmovsek agrees to the making of an Order in the form attached as Schedule "A", based on the facts set out below.

3. For the purposes of this proceeding only, Grmovsek agrees with the facts as set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement.

PART III -- AGREED FACTS

A. OVERVIEW

4. Gil I. Cornblum ("Cornblum") and Grmovsek collectively (the "Respondents") engaged in an illegal insider trading scheme over the course of a 14 year period from 1994-2008 (the "Relevant Period"). Although the scheme operated throughout the Relevant Period, the trading generally occurred in two time periods: September 1996 to August 2000 and May 2004 to April 2008.

5. Shortly after completing law school in 1994, the Respondents commenced the scheme in which Cornblum would seek out and obtain material, non-public information concerning pending corporate transactions that he would communicate to Grmovsek, for the sole purpose of facilitating the execution of trades in securities of the corporations involved in the corporate transactions by Grmovsek for a profit.

6. The Respondents' scheme contemplated an equal distribution of the illicit trading profits between Grmovsek and Cornblum at some future date.

7. At all times during the Relevant Period, Cornblum sought out and obtained material, non-public information in his capacity as a lawyer.

8. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek directed the illegal trading in brokerage accounts located in: (i) the Bahamas under various corporate names; (ii) Ontario under variations of his own name and a Grmovsek Family Trust account; and (iii) Ontario which were in the names of family and friends but over which he obtained trading authorization.

9. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Respondents engaged in a course of conduct to disguise their illegal activity and avoid detection from regulatory authorities and law enforcement. This conduct included, but was not limited to:

(i) using numerous brokerage accounts opened in corporate names in the Bahamas;

(ii) using only verbal trading instructions for brokerage accounts located in Bahamas;

(iii) maintaining the illicit trading profits in a number of brokerage accounts opened in corporate names in the Bahamas and the Grand Cayman Islands;

(iv) developing and participating in covert methods of repatriating illicit profits into Canada;

(v) engaging in trading patterns with respect to the securities so as to minimize the possibility of detection; and

(vi) extensive use of pay telephones and calling cards to communicate material non-public information and discuss potential trading strategies integral to the scheme.

10. In total, Cornblum tipped Grmovsek of material non-public information and Grmovsek traded while in possession of that material non-public information in advance of news releases related to forty-six (46) corporate transactions involving securities publicly listed in Canada and the United States. In some cases the securities were cross-listed in both countries.

11. In total, the illegal insider trading yielded profits of approximately $9,000,000 USD. The majority of the profits were generated by trades on exchanges located in the United States.

B. THE RESPONDENTS

12. Cornblum is a resident of Toronto, Ontario and during the Relevant Period was an articling student or practicing lawyer and was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and the New York State Bar. During the Relevant Period, Cornblum worked at a number of law firms, including by not limited to: Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, New York; Schulte Roth & Zabel, LLP, New York; and Dorsey, Whitney, LLP, Toronto (the "Law Firms").

13. Commencing in 2001, Cornblum was an associate lawyer and subsequently a partner in the Mergers & Acquisitions/Corporate Practice Groups at Dorsey & Whitney, LLP. In April 2008, as a result of regulatory investigations into alleged illegal insider trading, Cornblum was terminated from Dorsey & Whitney, LLP.

14. Grmovsek was a resident of Woodbridge, Ontario during the Relevant Period. Grmovsek articled in Ontario, was called to the bar in 1995 and practiced as a securities lawyer and was a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada until May 1, 1997 when he ceased practicing law and engaged in the illegal insider trading scheme full-time.

15. The Respondents met and became friends in law school and remained close personal friends thereafter. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Respondents were in regular and frequent contact.

16. The Respondents have never been registered in any capacity with the Commission.

17. Since May 2008, when Staff's investigation became public, the Respondents have provided extensive cooperation in assisting all regulatory authorities and law enforcement agencies involved in identifying the depth and breadth of the conduct at issue. Many of the corporate transactions that occurred in the 1994 - 2000 period were identified by the Respondents from memory. Staff's investigation and analysis regarding those transactions was aided by the Respondents' testimony since there are incomplete records regarding some of these transactions, particularly due to the off-shore components of the scheme.

C. TIPPING

18. During the Relevant Period, Cornblum actively sought out and acquired material non-public information about potential corporate transactions through his role as a lawyer at the Law Firms.

19. The information was primarily obtained in one of five ways:

(i) as counsel to issuers on pending corporate transactions;

(ii) through conversations with colleagues/other counsel on potential corporate transactions;

(iii) through communications with external counsel conducting conflict checks regarding potential corporate transactions;

(iv) by using temporary passwords for night-time secretarial staff to conduct searches on computer databases at the Law Firms for material non-public information related to pending transactions for which he did not personally serve as counsel; and

(v) by early morning searches through the hallways, photocopy rooms, fax machines and files of colleagues at the Law Firms for documents revealing material non-public information related to pending transactions for which he did not personally serve as counsel.

20. During the Relevant Period, Cornblum acquired material non-public information involving all of the following corporate transactions (the "Corporate Transactions"){1}:

(a) acquisition of Office Depot by Staples, announced September 4, 1996 (NYSE);

(b) acquisition of Great Western Financial Corp. by H.F. Ahmanson & Company, announced February 17, 1998 (NYSE);

(c) acquisition of North American Mortgage Company by Dime Bancorp Inc., announced June 23, 1997 (NYSE);

(d) acquisition of Equitable of Iowa Companies by ING Groep N.V., announced July 8, 1997 (NYSE);

(e) acquisition of Nellcor Puritan Bennett Inc. by Mallinckrodt Inc., announced July 23, 1997 (NASDAQ);

(f) acquisition of Corestates Financial Corp. by First Union Corporation, announced November 18, 1997 (NYSE);

(g) acquisition of Piper Jaffray Companies Inc. by U.S. Bancorp, announced December 15, 1997 (NYSE);

(h) acquisition of Money Store Inc. by First Union Corporation, announced March 4, 1998 (NYSE);

(i) acquisition of Alumax Inc. by Alcoa Inc., announced March 9, 1998 (TSX/NYSE);

(j) acquisition of H.F. Ahmanson & Company by Washington Mutual Inc., announced March 17, 1998 (NYSE);

(k) acquisition of Beneficial Company by Household International Inc. announced April 7, 1998 (NYSE);

(l) acquisition of Ameritech Corporation by SBC Communications Inc., announced May 11, 1998 (NYSE);

(m) acquisition of Humana Inc. by United HealthGroup Inc., announced May 28, 1998 (NYSE);

(n) acquisition of Ciena Corporation by Tellabs Inc., announced June 3, 1998 (NASDAQ);

(o) acquisition of Wells Fargo & Company by Norwest Corporation, announced June 8, 1998 (NYSE);

(p) acquisition of Newcourt Credit by CIT announced on March 8, 1999 (TSX/NYSE);

(q) acquisition of Smallworldwide by GE Power Systems, announced August 17, 2000 (NASDAQ);

(r) acquisition of Wheaton River Minerals Ltd. by Goldcorp Inc., announced May 28, 2004 (TSX/AMEX);

(s) buy-back of Yamana Gold Inc. warrants by Yamana Gold Inc., announced June 17, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(t) merger of Star Point Energy Trust and Acclaim Energy Trust, announced September 19, 2005 (TSX/AMEX);

(u) acquisition of Virginia Gold Mines by Goldcorp Inc., announced December 5, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(v) acquisition of RNC Gold by Yamana Gold Inc., announced December 4, 2005 (TSX/NYSE);

(w) acquisition of Desert Sun Mining Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced February 22, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(x) acquisition of Weda Bay by Eramet SA, announced March 15, 2006 (TSX);

(y) acquisition of Mexgold Resources Inc. by Gammon Lake, announced May 29, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(z) acquisition of Viceroy Exploration Ltd. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced August 16, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(aa) merger of Goldcorp Inc. and Glamis Gold Ltd., announced August 31, 2006 (TSX/NYSE);

(bb) merger of IAMGOLD Corporation and Cambior Inc., announced September 14, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(cc) merger of Denison Mines Corp. and International Uranium Corporation, announced September 18, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(dd) Goldcorp Inc. sale of shares in Wheaton River Minerals Ltd., announced December 7, 2006 (TSX/AMEX);

(ee) merger of Direct General Corporation and Fremont Partners and Texas Pacific Group, announced December 5, 2006 (NASDAQ);

(ff) Eldorado Gold Corporation potential merger with Centerra Gold Corporation, announced February 16, 2007 (TSX/AMEX);

(gg) acquisition of Gateway Casinos Income Fund by New World Gaming Partners Ltd., announced April 4, 2007 (TSX);

(hh) acquisition proposal of Liquor Barn Income Fund by Liquor Stores Income Fund, announced April 10, 2007 (TSX-V);

(ii) resource restatement by Blue Pearl Mining Ltd., announced April 16, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(jj) acquisition of Palmarejo Silver by Coeur d'Alene Mines, announced May 3, 2007 (TSX-V);

(kk) acquisition of Energy Metals Corporation by Uranium One Inc., announced June 4, 2007 (TSX/NSYE);

(ll) acquisition of Peru Copper, Inc. by Aluminum Corporation of China Ltd., announced June 14, 2007 (TSX/AMEX);

(mm) acquisition of Meridian Gold Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc. and Northern Orion Resources Inc., announced June 27, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(nn) acquisition of Meridian Gold Inc. by Yamana Gold Inc., announced August 14, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(oo) acquisition of Miramar Mining Corporation by Newmont Mining Corporation, announced October 9, 2007 (TSX/NYSE);

(pp) acquisition of Arizona Star by Barrick Gold Corporation, announced October 29, 2007 (TSX-V/NYSE);

(qq) settlement discussions between NovaGold Resources and Barrick Gold Corporation, announced November 8, 2007 (TSX/NYSE/AMEX);

(rr) acquisition of A.S.V., Inc. by Terex Corporation, announced January 13, 2008 (NASDAQ);

(ss) acquisition of Possis Medical, Inc. by MEDRAD, Inc., announced February 11, 2008 (NASDAQ); and

(tt) acquisition of WP Stewart by Arrow Capital Management, announced May 21, 2008 (NYSE).

21. Pursuant to subsections 76(5)(b) and (e) of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the "Act") Cornblum became a person in a special relationship with the reporting issuers (the "Reporting Issuers") involved in the Corporate Transactions.

22. Grmovsek knew that Cornblum owed a fiduciary duty and a strict duty of confidentiality and loyalty to the clients of the Law Firms. Pursuant to subsection 76(2) of the Act, Cornblum was also prohibited from tipping others with material information related to any of the Reporting Issuers before that information had been generally disclosed.

23. For each of the Corporate Transactions, Cornblum informed Grmovsek of material information related to the Reporting Issuers or Issuers prior to that information having been generally disclosed.

24. The Respondents understood and intended that Grmovsek would execute trades based on this material non-public information provided by Cornblum and they expected to, and did, share in the profits of the resulting trades.

25. With respect to some of the Corporate Transactions, Cornblum would provide instructions to Grmovsek regarding the nature and quantum of proposed trading in certain securities, in an effort to avoid detection by regulatory authorities.

D. INSIDER TRADING

26. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek obtained material information related to the pending Corporate Transactions from Cornblum prior to the information having been generally disclosed. Grmovsek knew that Cornblum obtained the information in his capacity as a lawyer and fiduciary and that Cornblum stood in a special relationship to each of the Reporting Issuers.

27. By virtue of subsection 76(5)(e) of the Act, Grmovsek became a person in a special relationship with each of the Reporting Issuers and was accordingly prohibited from trading securities of the Reporting Issuers while in possession of material non-public information involving those Reporting Issuers.

28. From 1994 to 2008, with knowledge of material non-public information supplied by Cornblum, Grmovsek traded in the securities of the Reporting Issuers or the Issuers in advance of forty-six (46) corporate transactions, detailed as the Corporate Transactions in paragraph 20 above, contrary to subsection 76(1) of the Act.

29. Throughout the Relevant Period, Grmovsek traded the securities using numerous brokerage accounts in Ontario established in variations of his own name and a Grmovsek Family Trust account, as well as numerous brokerage accounts located in the Bahamas in corporate names. Grmovsek also traded through the following brokerage accounts in Ontario that belonged to his family and friends but over which he obtained trading authorization (the "Family and Friends Accounts"). The account-holders of the Family and Friends Accounts were not aware of the illegal insider trading scheme, nor were they aware that Grmovsek was trading securities on their behalf while in possession of material non-public information. Some of the account-holders of the Friends and Family Accounts paid Grmovsek a percentage of the profits generated by the illegal trading.

Account Holder	Relationship to Grmovsek
Stan J. Grmovsek, S. Joseph Grmovsek, Stan	Himself
Grmovsek, Joseph S. Grmovsek, Grmovsek Family
Trust
Joseph and Paula Grmovsek	Parents
Marian Grmovsek-Gatzos and Alexander Gatzos	Sister and Brother-in-Law
Chantal Bernard	Former Spouse
George and Vangie Gatzos	Parents of Alexander Gatzos
Christopher Gatzopoulos	Brother of Alexander Gatzos
Julio DiGirolamo	Personal Friend
Alba DiGirolamo	Spouse of Julio DiGirolamo
Peter Kelly	Friend and Former Neighbour

30. Following a public announcement of the material information, the securities of the Reporting Issuers and the securities of the issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions often increased dramatically in value. Shortly thereafter, Grmovsek sold most of the securities to realize a profit and obtained an unrealized profit for the remaining securities which he held, for a total gross profit over the Relevant Period of approximately $9,000,000 USD .

31. The majority of the illicit profits were held in off-shore accounts. In late 1999, Grmovsek repatriated approximately $600,000 CDN of illicit trading profits from a brokerage account in the Bahamas that was used to purchase his matrimonial home in the Greater Toronto Area.

32. In early 2000, Cornblum received $2,700,000 CDN in illicit trading profits from a brokerage account in the Bahamas that was subsequently transferred to a brokerage account under a corporate name in the Grand Cayman Islands (the "Grand Cayman Trading Account").

33. Although the scheme contemplated an equal distribution of the illicit trading profits, after receiving and transferring the $2,700,000 CDN referred to in paragraph 32, Cornblum thereafter received approximately $50,000 CDN from Grmovsek in cash prior to April 28, 2008.

34. The establishment of the Bahamian brokerage accounts and the subsequent execution of trades in those accounts was facilitated first by a lawyer with whom Grmovsek was acquainted, and subsequently by a broker at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Toronto. Grmovsek provided all instructions for all the trading in those accounts. Cornblum did not open the accounts and was unaware of the institutions at which they were located, however he was aware that Grmovsek had used a Toronto lawyer to open a Bahamian account for the trading.

35. On April 28, 2008, the Commission issued three directions pursuant to subsection 126(1) of the Act requiring E*Trade Canada Securities Corporation, Bank of Montreal Capital Markets and CIBC World Markets Inc. to retain all or certain funds, securities or property contained in a number of brokerage accounts controlled by Grmovsek, Marian Grmovsek-Gatzos or Alex Gatzos (the "Three Directions"). The Three Directions were subsequently amended several times in April and July 2008. On August 22, 2008, the Commission issued a further direction pursuant to subsection 126(1) of the Act requiring CIBC Investor Services Inc. to retain all funds, securities or property contained in a brokerage account controlled by Grmovsek (the "Further Direction"). The Three Directions and the Further Direction (collectively "the Freeze Directions") have been continued, on consent, by the Superior Court of Justice and remain in force to date.

36. At the time of the issuance of the Freeze Directions, all the securities, funds or property in those accounts and affected by the Directions were proceeds of the illegal insider trading scheme perpetrated by the Respondents. Presently, the value of the funds held in the accounts affected by the Freeze Directions is approximately $1,283,000 CDN.

PART IV -- CONDUCT CONTRARY TO ONTARIO SECURITIES

LAW AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST

37. By trading securities of the Reporting Issuers with knowledge of material information obtained from Cornblum that had not generally been disclosed, Grmovsek engaged in illegal insider trading, contrary to subsection 76(1) of the Act, and engaged in conduct contrary to the public interest.

38. By trading securities of the Issuers involved in the Corporate Transactions with knowledge of material information obtained from Cornblum that had not generally been disclosed, Grmovsek engaged conduct contrary to the public interest.

PART V -- TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

39. The Respondent, Grmovsek agrees to the terms of settlement listed below.

40. The Commission will make an Order pursuant to section 127(1) and section 127.1 of the Act that:

(a) the Settlement Agreement is approved;

(b) Grmovsek shall cease trading in all securities permanently;

(c) Grmovsek shall cease acquisitions of all securities permanently;

(d) any exemptions in Ontario securities law do not apply to Grmovsek permanently;

(e) Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an issuer permanently;

(f) Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of a registrant permanently;

(g) Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an investment fund manager permanently;

(h) Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an registrant, investment fund manager or promoter permanently;

(i) Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $750,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of third parties;

(j) Grmovsek agrees to pay costs of the investigation in the amount of $250,000 to the Commission; and

(k) Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $283,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of the Attorney General for Ontario.

41. Grmovsek has provided to Staff, executed directions to the institutions listed in the Freeze Directions, authorizing and instructing those institutions to transfer forthwith all funds, securities and property in those accounts in the name of or under the control of Grmovsek to the Commission in satisfaction of the disgorgement and costs awards set out in this Settlement Agreement.

PART VI -- STAFF COMMITMENT

42. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement and Grmovsek fails to comply with any of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Staff may bring proceedings under Ontario securities law against Grmovsek. These proceedings may be based on, but are not limited to, the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement as well as any breach of the Settlement Agreement.

43. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement and Grmovsek is sentenced in the Ontario Court of Justice to the offences of fraud, insider trading and laundering proceeds of crime contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46 relating to the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement, and no appeal is commenced from the conviction or sentence imposed, Staff will not continue any proceedings under Ontario securities law against Grmovsek.

PART VII -- PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT

44. The parties will seek approval of this Settlement Agreement at an in camera hearing, without an appearance by Grmovsek, with submissions to the Commission on October 26, 2009, or on another date agreed to by Staff and Grmovsek, according to procedures set out in this Settlement Agreement and the Commission's Rules of Practice.

45. Staff and Grmovsek agree that this Settlement Agreement will form all of the agreed facts that will be submitted at the Settlement Hearing on Grmovsek's conduct, unless the parties agree that additional facts should be submitted at the Settlement Hearing.

46. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, Grmovsek agrees to waive all rights to a full hearing, judicial review or appeal of this matter under the Act.

47. If the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, neither party will make any public statement that is inconsistent with this Settlement Agreement or with any additional agreed facts submitted at the Settlement Hearing.

48. Whether or not the Commission approves this Settlement Agreement, Grmovsek will not use, in any proceeding, this Settlement Agreement or the negotiation or process of approval of this agreement as the basis for any attack of the Commission's jurisdiction, alleged bias, alleged unfairness, or any other remedies or challenges that may otherwise be available.

PART VIII -- DISCLOSURE OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

49. If the Commission does not approve this Settlement Agreement or does not make the Order attached as Schedule "A" to this Settlement Agreement:

(i) this Settlement Agreement and all discussions and negotiations between Staff and Grmovsek before the Settlement Hearing takes place will be without prejudice to Staff and Grmovsek;

(ii) Staff and Grmovsek will be entitled to all available proceedings, remedies and challenges, including proceeding to a hearing of the allegations contained within the Statement of Allegations. Any proceedings, remedies and challenges will not be affected by this Settlement Agreement, or by any discussions or negotiations relating to this agreement.

50. Both parties will keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential until the Commission approves the Settlement Agreement and Grmovsek enters a guilty plea in the Ontario Court of Justice to the offences of fraud, insider trading and laundering proceeds of crime contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-46 relating to the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement and is arraigned on a criminal offence(s) in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York relating to the facts set out in Part III of this Settlement Agreement. At that time, the parties will no longer have to maintain confidentiality. If the Commission does not approve the Settlement Agreement both parties must continue to keep the terms of the Settlement Agreement confidential, unless they agree in writing not to do so or, if required by law.

PART IX -- EXECUTION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

51. The parties may sign separate copies of this agreement. Together, these signed copies will form a binding agreement.

52. A faxed copy of any signature will be treated as an original signature.

Dated this 25th day of October, 2009

Dated this 23rd day of October, 2009

{1} The exchange(s) on which the "target" issuer was publicly listed at the time of the transaction, is enclosed in brackets following each transaction.

Schedule "A"

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

STANKO JOSEPH GRMOVSEK AND

GIL I. CORNBLUM

ORDER

(sections 127 and 127.1)

WHEREAS on October 23, 2009, the Commission issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to section 127 and 127.1 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. S.5 as amended (the "Act"), accompanied by the Statement of Allegations of Staff of the Commission, in relation to the Respondents, Stanko Joseph Grmovsek ("Grmovsek") and Gil I. Cornblum ("Cornblum");

AND WHEREAS the Grmovsek entered into a Settlement Agreement with Staff of the Commission ("Staff") dated October 23, 2009 (the "Settlement Agreement") in which he agreed to a settlement of the proceedings commenced by the Notice of Hearing dated October 23, 2009, subject to the approval of the Commission;

AND UPON reviewing the Settlement Agreement and Staff's Statement of Allegations, and upon reading the submissions from counsel for Staff and counsel for Grmovsek;

AND WHEREAS Grmovsek acknowledges that the facts set out in Part III of the Settlement Agreement constituted a breach of section 76(1) of the Act and conduct contrary to the public interest under the Act;

AND WHEREAS the Commission is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to make this order;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

(a) the Settlement Agreement between Grmovsek and Staff is approved;

(b) pursuant to clause 2 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall cease trading in any securities permanently;

(c) pursuant to clause 2.1 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall cease acquisitions of any securities permanently;

(d) pursuant to clause 3 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, any exemptions in Ontario securities law do not apply to Grmovsek permanently;

(e) pursuant to clause 8 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an issuer permanently;

(f) pursuant to clause 8.2 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of a registrant permanently;

(g) pursuant to clause 8.4 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an officer or director of an investment fund manager permanently;

(h) pursuant to clause 8.5 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek is prohibited from becoming an registrant, investment fund manager or promoter permanently;

(i) pursuant to clause 10 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $750,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of third parties;

(j) pursuant to clause 10 of subsection 127(1) of the Act, Grmovsek shall disgorge to the Commission $283,000 obtained as a result of his non-compliance with Ontario securities law for allocation to or for the benefit of the Attorney General for Ontario; and

(k) pursuant to subsection 127.1(1) of the Act, Grmovsek, agrees to pay costs of the investigation in the amount of $250,000 to the Commission.

Dated this _____ day of October, 2009.

_________________________

Independent Financial Brokers of Canada v. Ontario Securities Commission and Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada

IN THE MATTER OF

THE SECURITIES ACT,

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

THE MUTUAL FUND DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA BY-LAW NO. 1

AND

INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL BROKERS OF CANADA

AND

STAFF OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION AND

STAFF OF THE MUTUAL FUND DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

REASONS AND DECISION

REASONS AND DECISION

I. BACKGROUND

[1] This was a hearing before the Ontario Securities Commission (the "Commission") on June 5, 2009, to consider an application (the "Application") made by the Independent Financial Brokers of Canada (the "IFBC") pursuant to sections 21.1(4), 21.7, and 144 of the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 (the "Act"), for a review of the decision of the Commission approving the proposal of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (the "MFDA") to amend section 24.3 of MFDA By-Law No. 1 (the "By-Law"), Amendments to Section 24.3 of MFDA By-law No. 1, Regarding Suspensions in Certain Circumstances, which was published on August 1, 2008 in the Commission Bulletin: (2008), 31 O.S.C.B. 7589.

[2] This matter arose out of a Notice of Hearing issued by the Commission on March 18, 2009, in relation to the Application by the IFBC.

[3] In the Application, the IFBC seeks an order quashing the decision of the Commission to approve proposed amendments to section 24.3 of the By-Law, as well as an order declaring the amendment to be contrary to Ontario securities law. The amendments at issue deal, in part, with the circumstances in which the MDFA can suspend its members/approved persons without notice in applications made under exceptional circumstances, and where a hearing panel determines that proceeding without notice is in the public interest.

[4] The IFBC was founded in 1985, and is a voluntary, not-for-profit association representing approximately 4,000 licensed financial advisors across Canada. It is an incorporated entity under Part II of the Canada Corporations Act, 1970, c. C-32. Between 60 and 70% of the IFBC's members are registered to sell mutual funds, and are subject to the By-Law as "Approved Persons".

[5] As a preliminary matter, the MFDA and Staff of the Commission ("Staff") take the position that there is no jurisdictional basis for the Commission to hear the Application, or to grant the relief sought by the IFBC. They also argue that the IFBC does not have standing under the Act to bring this Application.

[6] The IFBC takes the position that a hearing panel of the Commission has jurisdiction under the Act to hear this Application pursuant to sections 21.7, 21.1(4) and 144 of the Act. Further, the IFBC argues that, on behalf of its membership, it has standing to bring the Application as a person or company directly affected by the By-Law.

[7] Accordingly, at the commencement of the hearing, we requested that the parties make submissions as to whether the Application should be dismissed on the basis that a hearing panel of the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter raised in the Application, and/or that the IFBC does not have standing to bring the Application.

[8] We are considering this preliminary matter below, in order to determine whether we should proceed with a full hearing and determination of the Application. We did not hear counsel's submissions with respect to the merits of the Application at the hearing.

II. APPLICATION

[9] In the Application, the IFBC argues that the By-Law unduly compromises the right of a respondent to natural justice and procedural fairness, and is therefore contrary to the Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 ("SPPA"). The IFBC argues that section 24.3.1 of the By-Law by-passes fundamental principles of natural justice by permitting hearings without notice for the stated purpose of protecting the public interest, and further that unlike the regime under the Act, there is "no appropriate balancing of the interests of a respondent to natural justice and procedural fairness with the need to obtain interim and temporary relief on an urgent basis to protect the public in the appropriate case".

[10] The IFBC submits that it is in the public interest for the Commission to hear and determine this Application. The IFBC argues that the public interest in "effective and responsive regulation invokes the duty of the Commission to address a problem with an important rule of an SRO on a policy level" in the context of the Application, rather than "rely on the exigencies of a respondent subject to a hearing without notice under the By-Law Amendment potentially advancing the issue to the Commission level in the context of a contested enforcement hearing process".

[11] As noted above, we have determined that it would be most judicious and efficient to determine both the jurisdictional issue and the issue of the IFBC's standing under the Act as a preliminary matter, before proceeding with the balance of the hearing on the merits of the Application.

III. SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES ON JURISDICTION AND STANDING

A. Submissions by the IFBC

[12] The IFBC takes the position that as a hearing panel of the Commission, we have jurisdiction to hear this Application under sections 21.7, subsection 21.1(4), and section 144 of the Act. Further the IFBC submits that it is authorized to bring the Application under the Act.

[13] The IFBC argues that the Commission has an overriding supervisory power with respect to SROs, and further that pursuant to subsection 21.1(4) the Commission may "make any decision with respect to any by-law" of an SRO. The IFBC also submits that subsection 21.1(4) should be interpreted broadly, that the subsection contains no restriction which prevents the Commission from relying on the subsection in the context of a hearing, and that the subsection does not restrict who may apply for a hearing.

[14] The IFBC does not suggest that it has an express right to a hearing under subsection 21.1(4) of the Act, but rather argues in its written submissions that a "broad interpretation of subsection 21.1(4) suggests that it is entirely within the discretion of the Commission to hear and decide this Application" and that "the determination of whether or not it is in the public interest that the Commission hears the Application rests on the merits of the Application itself and on the substance of the By-Law Amendment". The IFBC asserts that it is in the public interest that we hear this Application.

[15] In addition to subsection 21.1(4) of the Act, the IFBC contends in its written submissions that it enjoys a "statutory right of application" under section 144 of the Act. The IFBC submits that the wording of section 144 implies a less stringent standard as to standing than section 21.7, because the section allows an applicant to seek relief from the Commission where they are "affected" rather than "directly affected". In its written reply to the submissions by Staff and the MFDA, the IFBC asserts that the use of the term "affected" indicates that the "applicant need not be immediately or automatically affected".

[16] Also in its written reply, the IFBC states that section 144 provides a "method by which the Commission can adequately address the legitimate concerns of a party affected by a rule or by-law whose concerns were not addressed prior to approval". The IFBC submits that the wording of section 144 is broad enough to allow us to vary or revoke an administrative policy decision made by the Commission as a whole; though in the past section 144 has been used to vary or revoke decisions made by hearing panels. The IFBC further submits that section 144 "requires only that the order made under the section not be prejudicial to the public interest and does not place any further limits on the circumstances under which an order can be made". In addition, the IFBC asserts that section 144 can work in tandem with subsection 21.1(4), so that section 144 creates a procedure by which an Applicant can request that the Commission exercise its powers under subsection 21.1(4).

[17] In his oral submissions, counsel for the IFBC summarized the IFBC's position in regards to our jurisdiction and its standing to bring this Application:

However, we would concede that the avenue pursuant to which a party, such as this, bring this issue forward is not clearly set out in the Act ... the type of issue that's being raised today is essentially a policy issue in legality ... [that] is not a process that's contemplated under the enforcement provisions under [section] 127 of the Act, and it's not a process that's specifically contemplated through the rule making and review provisions of the Act. However, in my submission, the overriding supervisory jurisdiction of this Commission over the self-regulated organizations does give you the jurisdiction to hear this application, and in my submission what this, the question of standing really boils down to is whether the Commission in its discretion concludes that this isn't an application that it should hear and I say that because there is, in my submission, clearly jurisdiction to hear it if you choose to do so.

[18] Counsel states that in deciding whether or not to exercise our discretion to hear this Application, we should consider whether or not "the issue that's being raised is a sufficiently important issue to warrant a hearing" and that we may conduct a "preliminary assessment as to whether there appears to be merit" to the Application.

B. Submissions by the MFDA and Staff

[19] The MFDA and Staff submit that, as hearing panel of the Commission, we do not have jurisdiction to review a decision by the Commission to approve a by-law of a self-regulatory organization ("SRO").

[20] Counsel for the MFDA argues that the IFBC is seeking to challenge "a purely administrative act" and that "there is a bias in administrative law in general against the challenge of purely administrative acts" absent clear jurisdiction under the authorizing legislation. Counsel for the MFDA states that because we are a statutory body, we do not have a general equitable or inherent jurisdiction similar to that of courts, and that our public interest jurisdiction is "simply a guide to the exercise of jurisdiction that is otherwise conferred ... by the legislature under the Act".

[21] Counsel for the MFDA characterizes the Application as akin to a reference question as found under section 53 in the Supreme Court Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-26 and reminds us that the Act does not contemplate such a procedure. The MFDA also submits that subsection 21.1(4) does not provide us with "clear jurisdiction" to hear the Application, and that the powers contemplated under the subsection can only be exercised by us if there was a clear grant under the Act authorizing a hearing panel to do so.

[22] The MFDA contends that section 144 does not provide us with an avenue by which we may exercise the powers contemplated by subsection 21.1(4) of the Act. In its written submissions, the MFDA states that section 144 "operates in very limited circumstances", that the section has been "employed for discrete transactions, for example to revoke or vary cease trade orders or to allow rent to be paid after a freezing order". The MFDA argues that the IFBC is not "affected" by the Commission's decision to approve the By-Law in any event. The MFDA further argues that while the IFBC may be interested in the By-Law amendment, it is not an affected party because the By-Law has no direct impact on it.

[23] Staff takes a position similar to that taken by the MFDA with regards to subsection 21.1(4) of the Act. Staff submits that unlike section 21.7 of the Act, the subsection does not contemplate a process by which a hearing panel might exercise the powers under the subsection, and that it would be inappropriate for us to read in such a function.

[24] Staff also submits that the IFBC does not have standing to bring the Application under section 144 of the Act. In its written submission, Staff states that the use of section 144 for applications such as the one before us, will "lead to uncertainty in the by-law and rulemaking between [self-regulatory organizations] and securities regulators across the country".

[25] Similar to the MFDA, Staff also takes the position that the IFBC is not "affected" as contemplated by section 144 of the Act. In its written submissions, Staff contends that in order to be affected there must be a "certain degree of nexus between the By-Law approved by this Commission beyond an indirect, contingent and speculative interest", and that the term should provide a gatekeeper function so as to ensure that "anyone who articulates an interest in any Commission decision" does not automatically gain full standing to seek a variance or revocation of a past decision by the Commission.

IV. ANALYSIS

[26] We consider our jurisdiction to hear this Application, as well as whether or not the IFBC has standing to bring this Application, under section 21.7, subsection 21.1(4), and section 144 of the Act, below.

A. Section 21.7 of the Act

[27] In its written submissions, the IFBC asserts that we have the discretion to quash the decision of the Commission approving the amendment of MFDA By-law No. 1, pursuant to section 21.7 of the Act.

[28] In order to determine whether the Commission has jurisdiction to proceed with this hearing pursuant to section 21.7 of the Act, the Commission must determine: 1) whether the decision of the Commission approving the By-Law is a decision "made under" a by-law of an SRO and, if so, 2) whether the Applicant is "directly affected" by the decision.

[29] Section 21. 7 reads as follows:

Review of decisions

21.7 (1) The Executive Director or a person or company directly affected by, or by the administration of, a direction, decision, order or ruling made under a by-law, rule, regulation, policy, procedure, interpretation or practice of a recognized stock exchange, recognized self-regulatory organization, recognized quotation and trade reporting system or recognized clearing agency may apply to the Commission for a hearing and review of the direction, decision, order or ruling. 1997, c. 19, s. 23 (5).

[Emphasis added]

[30] The MFDA and Staff contend that section 21.7 cannot be relied upon by the IFBC. They contend that the IFBC is not a "directly affected" person or company, and that the IFBC is not seeking a hearing to a review a decision made by the MFDA under a by-law as is contemplated by the section.

[31] We agree that section 21.7 is not applicable to this Application. The IFBC is asking us to review a decision by this Commission to approve amendments to the MFDA's By-Law, not to review a decision of the MFDA made under the By-Law. The Commission's approval of the By-Law is not a decision made under a by-law of an SRO. Rather, it is a decision of the Commission. Until each of the seven commissions of the seven recognizing regulators approved the By-Law, it was not operative. The Commission's approval of the By-Law cannot be reasonably interpreted as a reviewable decision made under the very By-Law it was approving.

[32] Furthermore, in its written reply submissions to the MFDA and Staff's written submissions, the IFBC conceded that "the relevant case-law indicates that [the IFBC] is likely not 'directly affected' by the Commission's approval of the By-Law Amendment". During this hearing counsel for the IFBC was even more explicit, stating the following: "we would acknowledge that this section is not the right section to bring this type of issue forward".

[33] In order to rely on section 21.7 of the Act, a person or company must demonstrate that it is "directly affected", that is, it must establish a direct nexus and causal connection between the conduct or act and the harm or wrongdoing.

[34] In Instinet, a group of SROs sought to oppose the Director's decision to grant registration status to Instinet as an international dealer. The Commission refused to grant standing to the group. In considering the SROs' right to participate in the hearing, the Commission considered the nexus required by the term "directly affected" and held:

The words "directly affected" in subsection 8(2) of the Act should be interpreted in light of all of the relevant circumstances. The interpretation to be given to the words in the context of a decision relating to a take-over bid may well be different than in the context of a registration decision. In each case under subsection 8(2), in determining standing, the Commission must look at the nature of the power that was exercised, the decision that was made, the nature of the complaint being made by the person requesting the hearing and review and the nature of that person's interest in the matter.

(Instinet Corp., Re, (1995) 18 O.S.C.B. 5439 at p. 5446)

[35] In denying standing to the SROs the Commission stated:

In the Finlay case there is a discussion at p. 622 of the concepts of directness and causal relationship.

The term "nexus" is used in a more general sense in other cases, such as Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 6'4 (1973), to refer to the causative relationship that most exist between the injury or prejudice complained of and the action attacked. The action attacked must have been a cause of the injury or prejudice complained of, and the plaintiff must have a personal stake in the outcome of the litigation - that is, stand to benefit in his personal interests from the relief sought.

If the Canadian exchanges are affected by the Director's decision to register lnstinet U.S. in our view they are only indirectly affected. In order to be "directly affected" in the registration context, the Director's decision to register Instinet U.S. would have to be the cause of fragmentation. The main concern of the Canadian exchanges appeared to be that if institutional investors see a better price on the instinet screen for securities that are listed on one of those exchanges, they may take steps to trade them through the Instinet system outside of Canada. In the event that any fragmentation occurs, which is at this stage speculative, it would require a number of intervening steps, including actions outside the control of instinet U.S. by investors. While it is possible that some fragmentation may be a consequential result, it is not a direct effect of the registration.

(Instinet Corp., Re, supra at pp. 5446 and 5447)

[36] In Reuters Information Services (Canada) Ltd., the Commission denied standing on the basis that the applicant was not directly affected as there must be an immediate or automatic effect on the applicant which is not speculative and contingent on future actions (Reuters Information Services (Canada) Ltd., Re; (1997) 20 O.S.C.B. 2277 at para. 29).

[37] The IFBC is an industry lobby group that is not directly affected by the By-Law. Its interest is general, not individual or specific (See Canadian Civil Liberties Assn. v. Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (2006) 275 D.L.R. (4th) 744 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 8; leave to appeal denied [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 4). Further, its interest at this stage is speculative and contingent upon a possible future application of the By-Law to one of its individual members/approved persons.

[38] Although not binding on this Commission, we take note of the comments made by the Alberta Court of Appeal in C.U.P.E. Local 30 v. Alberta (Public Health Advisory and Appeal Board), where it stated:

In our view, the Chamber Judge was correct in upholding the decision of PHAAB to give the words "directly affected" the common law interpretation enunciated by Lord Hobhouse in Re Endowed Schools Act, [1898] A.C. 477 (P.C.) at 483 where he stated:

That term points to a personal and individual interest as distinct from the general interest which appertains to the whole community ...

This court has previously held that it is necessary to interpret reasonably the term "affected" to make an Act having a right of appeal workable: Pension Fund Properties Ltd. v. Calgary (City) (1981), 127 D.L.R. (3d) 477. The phrase "directly affected" must mean something more than "affected". However, it cannot be given an expanded meaning simply by virtue of expanding social consciousness: Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop (1993), 100 D.L.R. (4th) 658(S.C.C.).

In our view, the inclusion of the word "directly" signals a legislative intent to further circumscribe a right of appeal. When considered in the context of the regulatory scheme, it is apparent that the right of appeal is confined to persons having a personal rather than a community interest in the matter.

(C.U.P.E. Local 30 v. Alberta (Public Health Advisory and Appeal Board) 34 Admin. L.R. (2d) 172 (Alta. C.A.) at paras. 18 and 19)

[39] Finally, the IFBC seeks a formal hearing and review of the decision of the Commission approving the MFDA By-Law. As a result, the Application cannot be brought under section 21.7 as that section concerns a decision by an SRO and not a decision by the Commission.

[40] Accordingly, we are satisfied that the IFBC is unable to satisfy the above requirements in relation to the Commission's approval of the By-Law which is the foundation for the Application brought pursuant to section 21.7 of the Act.

B. Subsection 21.1(4) of the Act

[41] The IFBC also asserts that we have jurisdiction to hear the Application pursuant to the Commission's supervisory powers with respect to SROs. The Commission's supervisory powers are set out under section 21.1 of the Act:

Self-regulatory organizations

21.1

(1) The Commission may, on the application of a self-regulatory organization, recognize the self-regulatory organization if the Commission is satisfied that to do so would be in the public interest. 1994, c. 11, s. 358.

Same

(2) A recognition under this section shall be made in writing and shall be subject to such terms and conditions as the Commission may impose. 1994, c. 11, s. 358.

Standards and conduct

(3) A recognized self-regulatory organization shall regulate the operations and the standards of practice and business conduct of its members and their representatives in accordance with its by-laws, rules, regulations, policies, procedures, interpretations and practices. 1994, c. 11, s. 358.

Commission's powers

(4) The Commission may, if it is satisfied that to do so would be in the public interest, make any decision with respect to any by-law, rule, regulation, policy, procedure, interpretation or practice of a recognized self-regulatory organization. 1994, c. 11, s. 358.

[42] As stated above, the IFBC submits that subsection 21.1(4) should be interpreted broadly, and that the subsection "places no restriction on the Commission as to when or how it can make a decision with respect to a by-law ... of a recognized self-regulatory organization". The IFBC suggests that given the merits of the Application, it is in the public interest that we hear the Application.

[43] We do not agree with the position advocated by the IFBC. The IFBC is seeking to quash an administrative act of the Commission and not an adjudicative decision, and accordingly, there must be clear jurisdiction under the Act to permit such a challenge. While subsection 21.1(4) grants the Commission the jurisdiction to make a decision with respect to a by-law of an SRO such as the MFDA, we find that the subsection does not contemplate a procedure by which a hearing panel of the Commission can exercise such powers as in section 21.7 and 144 of the Act. Subsection 21.1(4) does not provide an automatic right to a hearing.

[44] Hearing panels of the Commission act on the behalf of the Commission, and hence generally can exercise certain powers which are granted to the Commission under the Act. However, it is within the discretion of hearing panels to decide whether or not it is appropriate to exercise any of those powers, where the Act does not stipulate the context in which the powers are to be exercised.

[45] Although the Commission has held in Re TSX Inc. that it has an overriding supervisory power with respect to SROs, this is not a case where the Commission should exercise its overriding authority under subsection 21.1(4) of the Act (see TSX Inc., Re; (2007) 30 O.S.C.B. 8917). The supervisory powers granted to the Commission under this subsection should not be exercised in an adjudicative context on an issue such as the one in this case, in the absence of appropriate standing to bring the matter forward.

[46] The Commission's responsibility to supervise SROs such as the MFDA is an important element of the regulatory structure created by the Act, and aside from the review of specific decisions made by SROs as provided for by section 21.7, this supervisory role is best carried out by the Commission as a whole.

C. Section 144 of the Act

[47] The IFBC contends that section 144 of the Act provides it with a "statutory right of application". Section 144 of the Act reads as follows:

Revocation or variation of decision

144. (1) The Commission may make an order revoking or varying a decision of the Commission, on the application of the Executive Director or a person or company affected by the decision, if in the Commission's opinion the order would not be prejudicial to the public interest. 1994, c. 11, s. 380.

[48] The IFBC submits that the use of the term "affected" rather than "directly affected" as in section 21.7, implies a less stringent standard such that the applicant need not be immediately affected. The IFBC states that its members are affected for the purposes of section 144 because they are subject to the amended MFDA By-Law. However, the IFBC was unable to refer us to a case in which the MFDA relied upon section 24.3 of the By-Law as amended and in so doing breached an affected party's rights to procedural fairness.

[49] The IFBC also submits that section 144 provides a procedural avenue by which we may exercise the Commission's supervisory jurisdiction set out in subsection 21.1(4).

[50] It is our view that section 144 of the Act operates in limited circumstances and should not be used for the purpose proposed by the IFBC. Section 144 of the Act is mostly relied upon to make changes to existing Commission Orders, most often in the context of temporary orders or exemptions in take-over bid applications, where new facts come to light or a new law is enacted which would change the effect of the initial order.

[51] Further, we note that in Re Universal Settlements International Inc., (2003) 26 O.S.C.B. 2345 at para. 20, when considering a section 144 application the Commission stated the following:

The decision to issue staff Notice 44 was not a decision of the Commission. We do not believe that section 144 gives us the authority to purport to revoke or vary that notice. But if it did, we would not do so because we believe that staff notices, which have no legal standing and are issued by staff, should be decided by staff. Even Commission policy statements, which have no legal binding nature, are only issued after debate and consideration by the Commission as a whole, and should not be changed by a panel on a section 144 application.

[Emphasis added]

[52] Without coming to a conclusion on the general scope of section 144, we find that it is not available to the IFBC in this proceeding. As noted in our discussion of subsection 21.1(4) above, we do not believe that it is in the public interest for a hearing panel to review a policy decision made by the Commission as a whole.

[53] Furthermore, we are not convinced that the IFBC is "affected" for the purposes of section 144, and consequently that it has standing to bring an application under the section. While we agree that the threshold of "affected" is lower than the "directly affected" threshold found in section 21.7, there must still be some nexus between the Commission's decision and the applicant. While there is a possibility that members of the IFBC could become subject to proceedings by the MFDA under section 24.3 of MFDA By-Law No. 1 and thus be affected, the potential alone is not sufficient to bring an application.

V. CONCLUSION

[54] For the above reasons we find that we cannot hear and determine the Application brought by the IFBC. That is not to say however, that a hearing panel of the Commission could not hear an application under section 21.7, in which an applicant in the context of specific facts challenges the legality of the By-Law.

[55] Consequently, it is not necessary to consider the merits of the Application. The Application is hereby dismissed.

Dated at Toronto this 27th day of October, 2009.

"Mary G. Condon"

"David L. Knight"

"Paulette L. Kennedy"

Chapter 4 -- Cease Trading Orders

Temporary, Permanent & Rescinding Issuer Cease Trading Orders

THERE ARE NO ITEMS FOR THIS WEEK.

Temporary, Permanent & Rescinding Management Cease Trading Orders

THERE ARE NO ITEMS FOR THIS WEEK.

Outstanding Management & Insider Cease Trading Orders

Chapter 6 -- Request for Comments

Proposed Amendments to NI 24-101 Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement and Companion Policy 24-101CP Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement

NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 24-101

INSTITUTIONAL TRADE MATCHING AND SETTLEMENT AND

COMPANION POLICY 24-101CP INSTITUTIONAL TRADE MATCHING AND SETTLEMENT

I. Introduction

The Canadian Securities Administrators (the CSA or we) are publishing for comment proposed amendments to National Instrument 24-101 Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement (NI 24-101 or the Instrument) and Companion Policy 24-101CP Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement (Companion Policy or CP).

The key part of the amendments to the Instrument would extend, from July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2015, the date on which the requirement to match DAP/RAP trades{1} no later than midnight on trade date (T) comes into effect. We are also proposing to extend, for a transition period of two years, the current deadline for matching DAP/RAP trades from noon on the business day following T (T+1) to 2 p.m. on T+1. Other proposed amendments to the Instrument would change the documentation and exception reporting requirements and clarify certain definitions and other provisions in the Instrument.

The text of the proposed amendments to the Instrument is contained in Annex A of this notice and will also be available on websites of CSA jurisdictions, including:

www.lautorite.qc.ca

www.albertasecurities.com

www.bcsc.bc.ca

www.gov.ns.ca/nssc

www.nbsc-cvmnb.ca

www.osc.gov.on.ca

www.sfsc.gov.sk.ca

www.msc.gov.mb.ca

The corresponding amendments to the CP are contained in Annex C of this notice and will be available on the same websites.

We are publishing the proposed amendments for comment for 90 days. The comment period will expire on January 28, 2010. See below under "VIII. How To Provide Your Comments".

II. Background

NI 24-101's primary objective is to expedite the pre-settlement confirmation and affirmation process--or matching --of an institutional trade. Registered firms trading for or with an institutional investor must have policies and procedures designed to match a DAP/RAP trade as soon as practical after the trade is executed, but no later than noon on T+1.

The Instrument had originally provided for transitioning the deadline to midnight on T on July 1, 2008.{2} However, in April 2008 the CSA agreed to defer the transition to the midnight on T deadline to July 1, 2010. This decision was made after concerns were expressed by industry stakeholders about the overall readiness of the Canadian capital markets to comply with the midnight on T deadline. It became apparent that industry participants from all sectors (sell side, buy side and custodians) needed more time to allow their middle and back-office processes to evolve to real-time processing before any move to matching by midnight on T could be achieved.

When we announced our decision to postpone the midnight on T deadline in April 2008, we noted that this would allow us to better assess the industry's overall matching performance in a noon on T+1 environment and review the Instrument and CP, including revisiting the timing for implementing the midnight on T deadline.

1. Assessment of industry institutional trade matching performance

CSA staff have been monitoring the industry's institutional trade matching (ITM) performance since the implementation of the Instrument in 2007. We have reviewed the ITM data provided quarterly under the Instrument by registered firms, CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. (CDS) and matching service providers (MSUs). Registered firms must complete and deliver an "exception report" on Form 24-101F1 for any calendar quarter in which less than a certain percentage of their executed DAP/RAP trades were matched by the specified deadline (exception reporting requirement).{3} A clearing agency (through which trades governed by the Instrument are cleared and settled) and an MSU are required to provide quarterly ITM data on Form 24-101F2 and Form 24-101F5 respectively.{4}

We have also continued our discussions with market participants, service providers, industry groups and other stakeholders. This included meetings of the CSA-Industry Working Group on NI 24-101 (Working Group) that was formed in May 2007 to act as an advisory group for the CSA in identifying and resolving issues in relation to NI 24-101.{5} In addition, we have been monitoring global ITM and other clearing and settlement developments.

The findings from our analysis of the data, stakeholder discussions, and other relevant information will be published early next year in a report of CSA staff on industry compliance with NI 24-101 (CSA Staff Report on NI 24-101). We discuss some of our preliminary findings below.

(a) Overall impact of NI 24-101

In April 2008 we stated that the Instrument had successfully encouraged market participants to address ITM middle and back-office problems and generally improve their clearing and settlement processes and systems since 2004.{6} We were advised by industry groups that many processes were being re-engineered and becoming automated, resulting in efficiency gains and straight-through processing (STP).

Our review of the ITM data and stakeholder discussions confirm that NI 24-101 has encouraged market participants to improve ITM middle and back-office functions in the Canadian capital markets. Overall ITM rates at T and T+1 have improved significantly since April 2004, when the Instrument was first published for comment.{7} See Table 1 below.

The combined equity and debt industry ITM rate at midnight on T improved from 2.98% in April 2004 to 48.24% in June 2009, representing an increase of over 45 percentage points. The ITM rate at midnight on T+1 also improved significantly, from 47.14% in April 2004 to 90.85% in June 2009, representing an increase of almost 44 percentage points. Moreover, the industry ITM rate at noon on T+1 increased from 61.89% in June 2007 (when CDS first began measuring ITM rates at noon on T+1) to 85.18% in June 2009, representing an increase of over 23 percentage points during this two year period.

Table 1

Overall Combined Debt and Equity ITM Performance

(based on 3-month rolling monthly average of number of trades entered at CDS and matched during month)

Source: CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc. and CAPCO study.

One of the early rationales for the Instrument was to close the competitive gap with the U.S. industry in terms of STP and T+1 settlement preparedness.{8} The original CAPCO study{9} commissioned by the industry in 2004 had assessed Canada to be approximately 14 months behind the U.S. in STP/T+1 settlement readiness.{10} Some stakeholders have suggested that the Canadian industry's current ITM rates are now closer to those of the U.S.

(b) Ongoing issues with meeting ITM targets

Despite significant progress since 2004, the industry is having difficulties with achieving NI 24-101's current noon on T+1 matching target of 90%. The data shows that the industry's progress towards achieving the current ITM target has slowed down in the last 15 months. See Table 2 below.

Table 2

Overall Equity ITM Match Rates

(based on 3-month rolling monthly average of number of trades entered at CDS and matched during month)

Source: CDS Clearing and Depository Services Inc.

The industry average rates of trades entered (submitted) by investment dealers into CDS in August 2009 are just below 91% at noon on T+1 and below 74% on T. However, the match rates for equity trades at noon on T+1 remain behind the enter rates by approximately 5 percentage points.

Most registered firms that are active in the DAP/RAP institutional markets appear to have challenges in meeting the current target, although our impression from our discussions with industry stakeholders is that they are making concerted efforts to meet the target. Moreover, based on the data and our discussions, the industry will be far from ready to meet the Instrument's midnight on T deadline commencing in July 2010.

While dealers have made important strides in entering their trades at CDS on a timely basis, more trades need to be reported earlier in the day on T, giving counterparties additional time to match trades before noon on T+1 or resolve trade matching exceptions earlier. We believe that, in order to meet the noon on T+1 deadline, dealers should be entering substantially all of their DAP/RAP trades by end of business on T. Similarly, investment managers and custodians must complete their ITM processes by matching their trades sooner.

We are therefore reconsidering the timing for imposing the move to matching on T.{11} Any benefits from moving to matching on T that were originally contemplated, such as reduction in operating costs and risks, may not be gained in a cost-effective manner without an extension of the transitional phase-in period.

We are of the view that a more realistic goal in the current environment may be for a 90% ITM rate to be achieved at some mid-point during the day on T+1. This goal would be consistent with a 2001 joint-recommendation of the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) and the Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) that called for a high percentage of institutional trades to be confirmed by no later than T+1.{12} Of course, our view assumes that there will be no global movement on the horizon to shorten the standard T+3 settlement cycle to T+1.

(c) International ITM developments

Recent global financial events have highlighted the importance of the policy objectives for imposing more timely and efficient ITM and settlement processes. However, while in certain other markets there have been improvements in automated ITM and clearance and settlement processes and ongoing discussions on shortening settlement cycles, we are not aware of any definitive plans to shorten the standard T+3 settlement cycles in other markets.{13}

(d) Infrastructure support for ITM

We believe that a majority of dealers and advisers that actively trade on a DAP/RAP basis in Canada are unable to match 90% of their institutional equity trades by noon on T+1 due in part to industry-wide infrastructure issues. This in turn directly impacts the adequacy of their ITM policies and procedures.

We have found examples where the infrastructure did not support more timely ITM processing or adequately provide the means to facilitate measuring a firm's ITM performance. A case in point is the current industry-wide ITM processing cycle.

Most market participants are prevented from completing their ITM processes after 7:30 p.m. until late in the evening on T. In many cases, we have found that trade instructions, including allocations, are merely held or "parked" within the systems of trade-matching parties, CDS and service providers until the morning of T+1, even though trade matching is still possible after the markets close (generally 4:30 p.m.) until 7:30 p.m. on T. Every business day at 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) (the CDS 7:30 p.m. cut-off time) until almost the end of the day on T, CDS' clearing and settlement system is shut down for batch processing. It is therefore impossible for matching to occur during this period. As a result,

• trade date (T) for the purposes of processing DAP/RAP trades in Canada seems to effectively end at the CDS 7:30 p.m. cut-off time, although transactions can continue to come in to CDS, and

• the processing schedules of trade-matching parties, CDS and service providers may be problematic, especially for investment managers of modest size who rely more on end-of-day batch processing and can only send out settlement instructions after 4:30 p.m. on T, when other trade-matching parties may have already wound down their operations for the day.

If processing could continue beyond the CDS 7:30 p.m. cut-off time until later in the evening, more trade-matching parties and their service providers might be willing to tighten their policies and procedures, including shifting their resources and reconfiguring their systems, to complete the ITM processes in the evening of T rather than in the morning of T+1.

We have also found that many dealers are unable to track or segregate their DAP/RAP trades originating from non-western hemisphere clients or counterparties, from those coming from western hemisphere clients or counterparties. This is because CDS and back-office service providers do not facilitate the tracking of this information. Under the Instrument, if a trade results from an order to buy or sell securities received from an institutional investor whose investment decisions are usually made in and communicated from a geographical region outside of the western hemisphere, the deadline for matching is extended by a day.{14}

This inability to track non-western hemisphere trades may have had an adverse effect on dealers' ITM performance, forcing some to needlessly complete and deliver quarterly exception reports on Form 24-101F1. We are told that CDS and service providers do not provide the necessary specific trade identifiers to enable dealers to track and segregate their non-western hemisphere trades from western hemisphere trades. If such specific trade identifiers were made available, certain dealers might be able to demonstrate that at least 90% of their trades in a quarter were matched by the deadline.

(e) Automation in ITM

We continue to believe that market participants should pursue further technology and processing improvements within the next five years. Consequently, we are of the view that we should maintain the midnight on T deadline as the ultimate goal in the Instrument. Canada's markets should aim for the midnight on T target even if that requires the industry to move to a new "technology paradigm". More specifically,

• The buy-side sector should consider augmenting their use of automation for front office functions to enable more timely post-execution operations.

• Dealers should continue their efforts to shift from end-of-day batch processing to more frequent intra-day or real time processing.

• Custodians should continue to support their clients in greater use of technology and other alternatives to improve the ITM process, including dissuading clients from manually handling their post-execution activities (e.g., using telephones, fax machines or e-mails to communicate trade details and settlement instructions).

• CDS and back-office service providers should consider modifying their systems in order to expand their processing schedules and accept and match trades after 7:30 p.m. on T and facilitate the means to accurately measure a firm's ITM performance.

We also believe that MSUs can play an important role in bringing all trade-matching parties together to expedite ITM processes. In the end, industry-wide automation and inter-operability will strengthen the efficiency and integrity of the securities clearing and settlement process and ultimately improve investor protection and the global competitiveness of the markets in Canada.

(f) Industry coordination and leadership

Industry coordination is critical to ensure steady progress towards timely ITM processes. The CSA had largely depended on the industry to identify what needs to be achieved across the industry and how to implement the various steps.{15} The Canadian Capital Markets Association (CCMA) had filled this role until it was de-commissioned in 2008.{16} It was founded in 2000 by the industry and had coordinated the industry's specific ITM initiatives by ensuring that a cross-section of sell side, buy side and custodial representatives were participating on various CCMA sub-committees and working groups.

2. Timely settlement of trades

Speedy and accurate ITM processes are an essential pre-condition to avoiding settlement failures in a T+3 settlement cycle environment.{17} According to CDS data, the value of accumulated fails as a percentage of the value of trades processed through the continuous net settlement (CNS) facilities of CDS has declined overall from about 3% in April 2007 (when the Instrument came in force) to about 1.5% in September 2009.

We believe that NI 24-101 may have contributed to the decline of the fails-to-deliver rates in Canada.{18} While more timely ITM policies and procedures do not necessarily avert all trade failures, they have a positive effect further down the transaction "value chain" in reducing the incidence of trade fails and associated costs.{19}

In addition to the ITM requirements, NI 24-101 contains a principle-based settlement rule that requires registered dealers to establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures designed to facilitate settlement of trades by no later than the standard settlement date, which is typically T+3 (NI 24-101's settlement rule).{20}

While we are not proposing any amendments at this time to NI 24-101's settlement rule, a working group comprised of staff from a number of CSA jurisdictions and IIROC is currently assessing, among other things, whether Canada's trade settlement discipline regime may need to be strengthened in light of recent international developments.{21} This will include examining NI 24-101's settlement rule and determining whether it should be amended. In addition to comments that we are seeking in response to our questions in Section III of this Notice, we welcome views from stakeholders on whether our settlement discipline regime may need to be strengthened, including whether NI 24-101's settlement rule should be amended.

III. Summary of the Proposed Amendments to the Instrument

This Section of the Notice describes the amendments that we are proposing to make to the Instrument. Part 1 of this Section describes the key amendments, and includes a number of questions to which we seek specific responses or commentary from stakeholders to assist us in finalizing the amendments. The key amendments would require changes to the transition provisions in section 10.2 of the Instrument.

Part 2 of this Section describes other amendments that are intended to:

• lessen the regulatory burden of certain requirements of the Instrument,

• clarify certain provisions as a result of issues that were raised by stakeholders, including during the Working Group's discussions, and

• modify the ITM reporting requirements of clearing agencies and MSUs under the Instrument.

We welcome comments from stakeholders on all aspects of such amendments.

1. Key amendments

(a) Postponing for five years the midnight on T deadline

We propose to defer the requirement to match a DAP/RAP trade no later than the end of T by an additional period of five years. This requirement, which would have come in force on July 1, 2010, is now proposed to come in force on July 1, 2015.

However, we would propose to consider re-introducing the midnight on T matching deadline sooner than July 1, 2015 through subsequent amendments to the Instrument if circumstances were to change.{22} One possible change of circumstances would be a shortening in the global markets of standard T+3 settlement cycles.

Question 1: For what period should the requirement to match no later than the end of T be deferred? Should the requirement be deferred indefinitely until such time as global markets shorten their standard T+3 settlement cycles? Please provide your reasons.

During our ongoing consultations on NI 24-101, a number of stakeholders had expressed doubts about the need to move to matching on T because risk was not significantly reduced in moving from noon on T+1 to midnight on T. Some stakeholders suggested that no other persuasive business reasons exist to match on T while we remain at a standard T+3 settlement cycle. They believe the investment cost and technology changes required are too large to justify any potential benefits at this time.

Question 2: We seek as much information as possible from stakeholders on the costs and benefits of the requirement to match a DAP/RAP trade no later than the end of T, including any available empirical data. What would be the benefits of moving to matching by midnight on T on July 1, 2015?

We refer to our discussion above on the CDS 7:30 p.m. cut-off time and the need for a specific trade identifier for non-western hemisphere trades (under "II. Background -- 1. Assessment of industry institutional trade matching (ITM) performance -- (d) Infrastructure support for ITM"). We believe that addressing these infrastructure issues will be necessary to assist the industry in moving to the midnight on T deadline on July 1, 2015.

Question 3: What are the costs and benefits of extending the current industry ITM processing times to allow market participants to process their trades beyond the CDS 7:30 p.m. cut-off time until late in the evening on T?

Question 4: What are the costs and benefits of having a specific industry-wide trade identifier to enable dealers to track and segregate their non-western hemisphere trades from western hemisphere trades?

(b) Extending the time at which matching must occur on T+1 by two hours

We propose to extend the noon on T+1 deadline to 2 p.m. on T+1 for an interim period of two years. Based on our review of some exception reports submitted under the Instrument, we believe that extending the current deadline by an additional two hours for two years may provide market participants with additional time to address delays and other ITM challenges that they are currently experiencing.

Question 5: Would extending the current requirement to match no later than noon on T+1 to a new deadline of 2 p.m. on T+1 help address current ITM processing delays and problems for the next two years?

2. Other amendments

(a) Amending the quarterly exception reporting requirement

Registered firms are required to complete and deliver an exception report on Form 24-101F1 for any calendar quarter in which less than a certain threshold percentage of their executed DAP/RAP trades were matched by the specified deadline (exception reporting requirement).{23} The current threshold percentage is 90% by noon on T+1. Under the applicable transitional provisions, the threshold percentage will increase gradually to 95% by midnight on T on January 1, 2012.

We believe the exception reporting requirement remains a useful tool for two reasons. First, it serves as a powerful incentive for registered firms to improve their matching rates and avoid the exception reporting requirement. Second, it provides the CSA with important information on how the industry is progressing with ITM policies and procedures. However, we are proposing a number of amendments to the exception reporting requirement at this time. We may consider additional amendments for comment in this area, including amendments to Form 24-101F1, after we publish the CSA Staff Report on NI 24-101. We welcome comments on how we should further amend the exception reporting requirement and Form 24-101F1.

(i) Exception reporting threshold percentages and timelines

As a result of the proposed amendments to defer the matching on T requirement and extend the noon on T+1 deadline to 2:00 p.m. on T+1, we are proposing consequential transitional amendments to the provisions governing the exception reporting requirement so that exception reporting would only be required in the following circumstances:

We propose to extend the transitional period to July 1, 2017 and reduce the ultimate percentage of trades that a registered firm is required to match by the deadline in order to avoid exception reporting from 95% to 90%. The 90% threshold is consistent with the CPSS-IOSCO standard requiring a high percentage of institutional trades to be confirmed no later than T+1, as CPSS-IOSCO had considered "a high percentage" to be 90% or more.{24}

(ii) Method for determining threshold percentages

Currently the threshold percentages are determined by measuring both the total number and total value of DAP/RAP trades executed by or for a registered firm that matched within the deadline during a calendar quarter.{25} A registered firm is required to use both methods for equity and debt securities trades.

We propose to amend the Instrument, including Exhibit A of Form 24-101F1, to simplify the calculation. First, we would eliminate the need to determine the threshold based on the total value of equity trades, thus retaining the total number of trades method only for equity trades. We agree with stakeholders that have suggested that the total value measurement may not be a true STP indicator of the progress being made on ITM rates for equity trades.

Second, we propose to eliminate the need to determine the threshold based on the total number of debt trades, thus retaining the total value method only for debt trades. We would retain the total value method for debt trades because, while for any given period the total number of debt trades is much less than the total number of equity trades, the total value of debt trades is considerably higher than the total value of equity trades. Therefore, we believe that the total value method reflects a more accurate picture of the risk surrounding slow and inefficient ITM processes for DAP/RAP trades of debt securities.

(b) Amending the pre-DAP/RAP trade execution documentation requirements and related key definition

When trading for or with an institutional investor, registered dealers and advisors must enter into trade-matching agreements with other trade-matching parties or, alternatively, obtain signed trade-matching statements from other trade-matching parties.{26} Early in our discussions with the Working Group and feedback from other stakeholders, we were made aware of various problems with these documentation requirements.

We are therefore proposing a number of amendments to address problematic areas of the requirement and related definitional provision.

(i) Amending the definition of trade-matching party

A trade-matching party includes a registered adviser acting for an institutional investor in a trade, or the institutional investor itself where a registered adviser is not acting for the institutional investor in a trade.{27} We are proposing to amend the definition of "trade-matching party".

• The amended definition would include a registered adviser only where it is acting for the institutional investor in processing the trade. This clarification would ensure that advisers with no responsibility for trade execution and post-trade execution functions of an institutional investor are not considered a trade-matching party. The current definition is confusing for certain groups of institutional investors, such as mutual fund families, where the advice functions and trade processing functions are performed by different registered advisers.

• Under the Instrument individuals and smaller entities can be considered "institutional investors" if they have a DAP/RAP trading account relationship with their dealer. The amended definition would exclude individuals, as well as any person or company that has net investment assets under administration or management of less than $10 million.{28} Registered firms would no longer be required to seek trade-matching agreements or statements from such institutional investors.

(ii) Amending the trade-matching documentation requirements

Certain dealers and advisers have reported difficulties in entering into trade-matching agreements with, or obtaining trade-matching statements from, clients or counter-parties. The intent of the documentation requirements is to support the Instrument's primary ITM policies and procedures requirement. We are of the view that a dealer's or adviser's policies and procedures should be designed to encourage their clients or counterparties to enter into trade-matching agreements or receive trade-matching statements. If a trade-matching party refuses to enter into an agreement or provide a statement, the dealer or adviser should document its efforts to enter into the agreement or receive the statement in accordance with its policies and procedures.

We are proposing to amend sections 3.2 and 3.4 of the Instrument to reflect this regulatory approach to the documentation requirements.

(c) Amendments to the provisions governing non-western hemisphere institutional investors

We are proposing transitional amendments to the provisions governing trade orders coming from institutional investors based outside of the western hemisphere, as a consequence of the changes to the T and T+1 deadlines.

Some stakeholders had pointed out that foreign investors do not necessarily make and communicate their settlement instructions from the same office that makes and communicates their investment decisions. We are thus proposing to clarify that an institutional investor whose settlement instructions are usually made in and communicated from a geographical region outside of the western hemisphere be included in these provisions.

(d) Amendments to clarify certain other definitions and concepts and to modify Forms 24-101F2 and F5

We are proposing to make non-substantive drafting amendments to the definitions of "institutional investor", "T+1", "T+2" and "T+3" and certain other provisions to clarify the definitions and provisions and to reflect comments made by some stakeholders. We are also proposing to amend Form 24-101F2 and Form 24-101F5 to reflect the changes made to Form 24-101F1 and increase the number of the timeline intervals for reporting entered and matched trades.

IV. Proposed Amendments to the Companion Policy and Other Consequential Amendments

A number of consequential amendments have been made to the CP to reflect the proposed amendments to the Instrument. In addition, some of the topics in CSA Staff Notice 24-305--Frequently Asked Questions About National Instrument 24-101 -- Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement and Related Companion Policy have been addressed by the proposed amendments to the Instrument or have been incorporated into the CP.

We are proposing an effective date for the amendments to the Instrument and Companion Policy of July 1, 2010, subject to Ministerial approval requirements in the various CSA jurisdictions. It is further proposed that, from the same date, Ontario Securities Commission Rule 24-502 -- Exemption from Transitional Rule: Extension of Transitional Phase-In Period in National Instrument 24-101 -- Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement and related blanket orders granted in other CSA jurisdictions will be revoked or repealed (see CSA Notice 24-307). See further Annex E.

V. Authority for the Proposed Amendments to the Instrument and CP

In those jurisdictions in which the amendments to the Instrument and CP are to be adopted, the securities legislation provides the securities regulatory authority with rule-making authority in respect of the subject matter of the amendments.

VI. Alternatives Considered

No alternatives to the proposed amendments were considered.

VII. Unpublished Materials

As noted above under "II. Background -- 1.Assessment of industry institutional trade matching (ITM) performance", we are proposing the amendments to the Instrument and CP largely based on the findings of our analysis of the ITM data and our stakeholder discussions. These findings will be published early next year in a report of CSA staff on industry compliance with NI 24-101. We have not relied on any other significant unpublished study, report or other written materials in proposing the amendments.

VIII. How To Provide Your Comments

You must submit your comments in writing by January 28, 2010. If you are not sending your comments by email, you should also send an electronic file containing the submissions (in Windows format, Microsoft Word).

Please address your comments to all of the CSA member commissions, as follows:

Please send your comments only to the addresses below. Your comments will be forwarded to the remaining CSA jurisdictions.

Please note that all comments received during the comment period will be made publicly available. We cannot keep submissions confidential because securities legislation in certain provinces requires publication of a summary of the written comments received during the comment period. We will post all comments received during the comment period to the OSC website at www.osc.gov.on.ca to improve the transparency of the policy-making process.

IX. Questions

Please refer your questions to any of the following:

Annex A contains the proposed amending instrument for the amendments to NI 24-101. Annex B contains a blackline showing the proposed amendments relative to the current version of NI 24-101. Annex C contains the proposed amending instrument for the proposed changes to CP, with Annex D providing the corresponding blackline. Annex E contains local material, where applicable.

October 30, 2009

{1} A DAP/RAP trade is a trade executed for a client account that permits settlement on a delivery against payment or receipt against payment basis through the facilities of a clearing agency, and for which settlement is made on behalf of the client by a custodian other than the dealer that executed the trade. See definition of "DAP/RAP trade" in section 1.1 of the Instrument.

{2} The Instrument and CP came into force on April 1, 2007, and became fully effective on October 1, 2007. See CSA Notice of NI 24-101 and CP dated January 12, 2007 (2007) 30 OSCB 335.

{3} See Part 4 and subsection 10.2(3) of NI 24-101, read together with Ontario Securities Commission Rule 24-502 - Exemption from Transitional Rule: Extension of Transitional Phase-in Period in National Instrument 24-101 - Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement and related blanket orders granted in other CSA jurisdictions (see CSA Notice 24-307).

{4} See Part 5 and subsection 6.4(1) of NI 24-101.

{5} The Working Group includes representatives of sell side, buy side and custodian firms, industry associations, the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC), CDS and CSA staff. See CSA Staff Notice 24-304-CSA-Industry Working Group on National Instrument 24-101, dated July 6, 2007.

{6} See CSA Notice 24-307.

{7} NI 24-101 was first published for comment on April 16, 2004, together with CSA Discussion Paper 24-401 on Straight-through Processing and Request for Comments (CSA Discussion Paper 24-401). See (2004) 27 OSCB 3971. As the Instrument only came in force in April 2007, it is more accurate to say that it was the prospect of the Instrument coming into force that likely encouraged market participants to address ITM middle and back-office problems since April 2004.

{8} See CSA Discussion paper 24-401, at p. 3980 and 3984.

{9} Assessment of Canada's STP/T+1 Readiness and a Comparison of Canada's vs. United States' T+1 Readiness --STP/T+1 Readiness Assessment Report for Canada, CAPCO final report, July 12, 2004.

{10} See CSA Notice 24-301 - Responses to Comments Received on Discussion Paper 24-401 on Straight-through Processing, Proposed National Instrument 24-101 Post-trade Matching and Settlement, and Proposed Companion Policy 24-101CP to National Instrument 24-101 Post-trade Matching and Settlement, (2005) 28 OSCB 1509, at p. 1510.

{11} The decision to make NI 24-101 a rule was significantly influenced by international factors in the early 2000s, including a recommendation of the Group of Thirty in 2003 that market participants should collectively develop and use compatible and industry-accepted technical and market-practice standards for the automated confirmation and agreement of institutional trade details on T. See Global Clearing and Settlement: A Plan of Action, report of the G-30 dated January 23, 2003; Recommendation 5: Automate and Standardize Institutional Trade Matching.

{12} See Recommendations for securities settlement systems - Report of the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, dated November 2001 (the CPSS-IOSCO report); Recommendation 2 - Trade confirmation: "Confirmation of trades between direct market participants should occur as soon as possible after trade execution, but no later than trade date (T+0). Where confirmation of trades by indirect market participants (such as institutional investors) is required, it should occur as soon as possible after trade execution, preferably on T+0, but no later than T+1." CPSS and IOSCO subsequently suggested that "a high percentage" of trades means 90% or more. See Assessment methodology for "Recommendations for securities settlement systems" - Report of the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and Technical Committee of the International Organization of Securities Commissions, dated November 2002, at p. 7.

{13} While we are not aware of concrete plans to shorten settlement cycles, there have been recent calls to shorten the settlement cycle. See, for example, Euromoney Magazine, "US equity market - Short selling: The naked truth", Helen Avery, December 1, 2008, at www.euromoney.com.: "However, settlement is faster in Europe than in the US. It is surprising that the US still operates a T+3 system. Robert Greifeld, chief executive of Nasdaq, questioned the system in March this year at a conference when, in reference to fails to deliver, he said it was hard to believe that in 2008 the market still required three days to settle, and that a T+1 system should be part of a discussion about fails." Also, a recent IOSCO report highlights the 2001 CPSS-IOSCO recommendation that trades should be settled no later than T+3 as part of the standard settlement cycle and the benefits and costs of a standard settlement cycle shorter than T+3 should be evaluated. See IOSCO's Regulation of Short Selling, Final Report, June 2009, available at http://www.iosco.org/ (IOSCO Short Selling Report). We understand also that there are discussions among authorities in Europe to adopt a uniform T+2 settlement cycle for all European markets.

{14} See subsections 3.1(2) and 3.2(2).

{15} See CSA Discussion Paper 24-401, at p. 3980.

{16} See http://www.ccma-acmc.ca/ for more information on the CCMA. According to the CCMA, the "difficult decision to decommission the active management of the CCMA was taken by the [CCMA board of directors in April 2008] after careful consideration of the successful implementation and evolution of [NI 24-101] and the future needs of our industry". See CCMA News, Volume 30, August 2008, available at http://www.ccma-acmc.ca/en/files/CCMA%20News%20Volume%2030_online%20version.pdf.

{17} See the CPSS-IOSCO report, at par. 3.10. See also CSA Discussion Paper 24-401, at p. 3995.

{18} IIROC has suggested that NI 24-101 may have had the effect of reducing the number of trade failures and the length of time that any failure remains outstanding and thus contributed to the declines in the value of accumulated fails as a percentage of trade value generally. See IIROC Notice 09-0037, February 4, 2009, Recent Trends in Trading Activity, Short Sales and Failed Trades and the IIROC report dated February 2009 Recent Trends in Trading Activity, Short Sales and Failed Trades - For the Period May 1, 2007 to September 30, 2008, at p. 51.

{19} This is consistent with findings in other global markets. See, for example, Building efficiencies in post-trade processing: the benefits of same-day affirmation, June 2008, an economic study on the benefits associated with improvements in the trade verification process within the European Union markets (independent study undertaken by Oxera Consulting ltd. at the request of Omgeo).

{20} See Part 7 of NI 24-101.

{21} Among other developments, the IOSCO Short Selling Report includes a recommendation that regulation should "as a minimum requirement impose a strict settlement (such as compulsory buy-in) of failed trades".

{22} Any subsequent proposed amendments to the rule would be subject to public comment as required by provincial and territorial securities legislation.

{23} See Part 4 and subsection 10.2(3), as modified in June 2008 by local orders of the CSA jurisdictions exempting registered firms from the transitional provisions in NI 24-101 and extending the transitional period. In Ontario, this was accomplished by way of Ontario Securities Commission Rule 24-502.

{24} See footnote 12, discussing the CPSS-IOSCO report.

{25} See paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 4.1 and Exhibit A of Form 24-101 F1.

{26} Sections 3.2 and 3.4.

{27} Paragraph (b) of the definition in section 1.1.

{28} We chose the amount $10 million to be generally analogous with the definition "institutional customer" in IIROC member Rule 2700 Minimum Standards for Institutional Account Opening, Operation and Supervision.

ANNEX A

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 24-101

1. National Instrument 24-101 Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement is amended by this Instrument.

2. Section 1.1 is amended by:

a. striking out "authorized" in the definition of "clearing agency" and substituting "recognized";

b. repealing the definition of "institutional investor" and substituting the following:

"institutional investor" means a client of a dealer that has been granted DAP/RAP trading privileges by the dealer;

c. repealing paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition "trade-matching party" and substituting the following:

(a) a registered adviser acting for the institutional investor in processing the trade,

(b) if a registered adviser is not acting for the institutional investor in processing the trade, the institutional investor unless the institutional investor is

(i) an individual, or

(ii) a person or company that has net investment assets under administration or management of less than $10,000,000,

d. striking out the words "the day on which a trade is executed", wherever they occur in the definitions of "T+1", "T+2" and "T+3", and substituting "T".

3. Paragraph 2.1(f) is amended by adding "in a security of a mutual fund" after "trade".

4. Subsection 3.1(2) is amended by adding "or settlement instructions" after "investment decisions".

5. Section 3.2 is repealed and substituted by the following:

3.2 Pre-DAP/RAP trade execution documentation requirement for dealers --

Without limiting the generality of section 3.1, a registered dealer shall not open an account to execute a DAP/RAP trade for an institutional investor or accept an order to execute a DAP/RAP trade for the account of an institutional investor unless its policies and procedures are designed to encourage each trade-matching party to either

(a) enter into a trade-matching agreement with the dealer, or

(b) provide a trade-matching statement to the dealer.

6. Subsection 3.3(2) is amended by adding "or settlement instructions" after "investment decisions".

7. Section 3.4 is repealed and substituted by the following:

3.4 Pre- DAP/RAP trade execution documentation requirement for advisers --

Without limiting the generality of section 3.3, a registered adviser shall not open an account to execute a DAP/RAP trade for an institutional investor or give an order to a dealer to execute a DAP/RAP trade for the account of an institutional investor unless its policies and procedures are designed to encourage each trade-matching party to either

(a) enter into a trade-matching agreement with the adviser, or

(b) provide a trade-matching statement to the adviser.

8. Part 4 is repealed and substituted by the following:

PART 4 REPORTING BY REGISTERED FIRMS

4.1 Exception reporting requirement

A registered firm shall deliver Form 24-101F1 to the securities regulatory authority no later than 45 days after the end of a calendar quarter if

(a) less than 90 per cent of the DAP/RAP trades in equity securities executed by or for the registered firm during the quarter matched within the time required in Part 3, or

(b) the DAP/RAP trades in debt securities executed by or for the registered firm during the quarter that matched within the time required in Part 3 represent less than 90 per cent of the aggregate value of the debt securities purchased and sold in those trades.

9. Part 10 is amended by adding the following:

10.3 Post-June 2010 Transition

(1) A reference to "the end of T" in subsections 3.1(1) and 3.3(1) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "2:00 p.m. on T+1", for trades executed before July 1, 2012; and

(b) "12 p.m. (noon) on T+1", for trades executed after June 30, 2012 and before July 1, 2015.

(2) A reference to the "end of T+1" in subsections 3.1(2) and 3.3(2) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "2:00 p.m. on T+2", for trades executed before July 1, 2012; and

(b) "12:00 p.m. (noon) on T+2", for trades executed after June 30, 2012 and before July 1, 2015.

(3) A reference to "90 per cent" in paragraphs 4.1(a) and (b) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "70 per cent", for trades executed after June 30, 2015 and before July 1, 2016; and

(b) "80 per cent", for trades executed after June 30, 2016 and before July 1, 2017.

10. Form 24-101F1 is amended by:

(a) repealing item 3 under "REGISTERED FIRM IDENTIFICATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION:" and substituting the following:

3a. Address of registered firm's principal place of business:

3b. Please indicate below the jurisdiction of your principal regulator within the meaning of National Instrument 31-103 Registration Requirements and Exemptions:

[ ] Alberta

[ ] British Columbia

[ ] Manitoba

[ ] New Brunswick

[ ] Newfoundland & Labrador

[ ] Northwest Territories

[ ] Nova Scotia

[ ] Nunavut

[ ] Ontario

[ ] Prince Edward Island

[ ] Quebec

[ ] Saskatchewan

[ ] Yukon

3c. Please indicate below all jurisdictions in which you are registered to carry on business:

[ ] Alberta

[ ] British Columbia

[ ] Manitoba

[ ] New Brunswick

[ ] Newfoundland & Labrador

[ ] Northwest Territories

[ ] Nova Scotia

[ ] Nunavut

[ ] Ontario

[ ] Prince Edward Island

[ ] Quebec

[ ] Saskatchewan

[ ] Yukon

(b) striking out the portion of the Form after the heading "INSTRUCTIONS:" and before the heading "EXHIBITS" and substituting the following:

Deliver this form for both equity and debt DAP/RAP trades together with Exhibits A, B and C pursuant to section 4.1 of the Instrument, covering the calendar quarter indicated above, within 45 days of the end of the calendar quarter if,

(a) less than 90 per cent* of the equity DAP/RAP trades executed by or for you during the quarter matched within the time** required in Part 3 of the Instrument, or

(b) the debt DAP/RAP trades executed by or for you during the quarter that matched within the time** required in Part 3 of the Instrument represent less than 90 per cent* of the aggregate value of the debt securities purchased and sold in those trades."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transition

* For DAP/RAP trades executed during a transitional period after June 30, 2015 and before July 1, 2017, this percentage will vary depending on when the trade was executed. See Part 7 of the Companion Policy to the Instrument.

** The time set out in Part 3 of the Instrument is 11:59 p.m. on "T" or "T+1", as the case may be. For DAP/RAP trades executed during a transitional period before July 1, 2012, the time is 2:00 p.m. on "T+1" or "T+2", as the case may be. For DAP/RAP trades executed after June 30, 2012 and before July 1, 2015, the time is 12:00 p.m. (noon) on "T+1" or "T+2", as the case may be. See Part 7 of the Companion Policy to the Instrument.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(c) striking out the portion of the Form under the heading "EXHIBITS:" after the words "each calendar quarter." and before the words "Describe the circumstances" and substituting the following:

(1) Equity DAP/RAP trades

Entered into CDS by deadline		Matched by deadline
(to be completed by dealers only)
# of Trades	%	# of Trades	%
__________	__________	__________	__________

(2) Debt DAP/RAP trades

Entered into CDS by deadline		Matched by deadline
(to be completed by dealers only)
$ Value of Trades	%	$ Value of Trades	%
__________	__________	__________	__________

Exhibit B -- Reasons for not meeting exception reporting thresholds

11. Form 24-102F2 is amended by striking out the portion of the Form after the heading "Table 1 -- Equity trades:" and before the heading "CERTIFICATE OF CLEARING AGENCY" and substituting the following:

Timeline	Entered into clearing agency by		Matched in clearing agency by
	dealers		custodians
	# of Trades	% Industry	# of Trades	% Industry
T -- 7:30 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- noon	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- 2:00 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+2 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+3 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
> T+3	__________	__________	__________	__________
Total	__________	__________	__________	__________

Table 2 -- Debt Trades:

Timeline	Entered into clearing agency by		Matched in clearing agency by
	dealers		custodians
	$ Value of	% Industry	$ Value of	% Industry
	Trades		Trades
T -- 7:30 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- noon	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- 2:00 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+2 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+3 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
> T+3	__________	__________	__________	__________
Total	__________	__________	__________	__________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Legend

"# of Trades" is the total number of transactions in the month;

"$ Value of Trades" is the total value of the transactions (purchases and sales) in the month.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit B -- Individual matched trade statistics

Using the same format as Exhibit A above, provide the relevant information for each participant of the clearing agency in respect of client trades during the quarter that have been entered by the participant and matched within the timelines indicated in Exhibit A.

12. Form 24-101F5 is amended by striking out the portion of the Form after the heading "Table 1 -- Equity trades:" and before the heading "CERTIFICATE OF MATCHING SERVICE UTILITY" and substituting the following:

Timeline	Entered into matching service utility by		Matched in matching service utility
	dealer-users/subscribers		by other users/subscribers
	# of Trades	% Industry	# of Trades	% Industry
T -- 7:30 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- noon	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- 2:00 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+2 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+3 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
> T+3	__________	__________	__________	__________
Total	__________	__________	__________	__________

Table 2 -- Debt trades:

Timeline	Entered into matching service utility		Matched in matching service utility by
	by dealer-users/subscribers		other users/subscribers
	$ Value of	% Industry	$ Value of	% Industry
	Trades		Trades
T -- 7:30 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- noon	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- 2:00 p.m.	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+1 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+2 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
T+3 -- midnight	__________	__________	__________	__________
> T+3	__________	__________	__________	__________
Total	__________	__________	__________	__________

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Legend

"# of Trades" is the total number of transactions in the month;

"$ Value of Trades" is the total value of the transactions (purchases and sales) in the month.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Exhibit D -- Individual matched trade statistics

Using the same format as Exhibit C above, provide the relevant information for each user or subscriber in respect of trades during the quarter that have been entered by the user or subscriber and matched within the timelines indicated in Exhibit C.

13. This Instrument comes into force on July 1, 2010.

Annex B

Blackline Version of the Proposed Amendments

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is an unofficial consolidation of National Instrument 24-101 Institutional Trade Matching and Settlement, with the proposed amendments in Annex A of this Notice shown by blackline. No part of this document represents an official statement of law. Text boxes in this Annex are provided for convenience and form neither part of the Proposed Rule nor the National Instrument.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

CANADIAN SECURITIES ADMINISTRATORS

NATIONAL INSTRUMENT 24-101

INSTITUTIONAL TRADE MATCHING AND SETTLEMENT

PART 1 DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

1.1 Definitions --

In this Instrument,

"clearing agency" means,

(a) in Ontario, a clearing agency recognized by the securities regulatory authority under section 21.2 of the Securities Act (Ontario),

(b) in Quebec, a clearing house for securities authorizedrecognized by the securities regulatory authority, and

(c) in every other jurisdiction, an entity that is carrying on business as a clearing agency in the jurisdiction;

"custodian" means a person or company that holds securities for the benefit of another under a custodial agreement or other custodial arrangement;

"DAP/RAP trade" means a trade

(a) executed for a client trading account that permits settlement on a delivery against payment or receipt against payment basis through the facilities of a clearing agency, and

(b) for which settlement is made on behalf of the client by a custodian other than the dealer that executed the trade;

"institutional investor" means an investora client of a dealer that has been granted DAP/RAP trading privileges by athe dealer;

"marketplace" has the same meaning as in National Instrument 21-101 Marketplace Operation;

"matching service utility" means a person or company that provides centralized facilities for matching, but does not include a clearing agency;

"registered firm" means a person or company registered under securities legislation as a dealer or adviser;

"trade-matching agreement" means, for trades executed with or on behalf of an institutional investor, a written agreement entered into among trade-matching parties setting out the roles and responsibilities of the trade-matching parties in matching those trades and including, without limitation, a term by which the trade-matching parties agree to establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures designed to achieve matching as soon as practical after a trade is executed;

"trade-matching party" means, for a trade executed with or on behalf of an institutional investor,

(a) a registered adviser acting for the institutional investor in processing the trade,

(b) if a registered adviser is not acting for the institutional investor in processing the trade, the institutional investor, unless the institutional investor is

(i) an individual, or

(ii) a person or company that has net investment assets under administration or management of less than $10,000,000,

(c) a registered dealer executing or clearing the trade, or

(d) a custodian of the institutional investor settling the trade;

"trade-matching statement" means, for trades executed with or on behalf of an institutional investor, a signed written statement of a trade-matching party confirming that it has established, maintains and enforces policies and procedures designed to achieve matching as soon as practical after a trade is executed;

"T" means the day on which a trade is executed;

"T+1" means the next business day following the day on which a trade is executedT;

"T+2" means the second business day following the day on which a trade is executedT;

"T+3" means the third business day following the day on which a trade is executedT.

1.2 Interpretation -- trade matching and Eastern Time --

(1) In this Instrument, matching is the process by which

(a) the details and settlement instructions of an executed DAP/RAP trade are reported, verified, confirmed and affirmed or otherwise agreed to among the trade-matching parties, and

(b) unless the process is effected through the facilities of a clearing agency, the matched details and settlement instructions are reported to a clearing agency.

(2) Unless the context otherwise requires, a reference in this Instrument to

(a) a time is to Eastern Time, and

(b) a day is to a twenty-four hour day from midnight to midnight Eastern Time.

PART 2 APPLICATION

2.1 This Instrument does not apply to

(a) a trade in a security of an issuer that has not been previously issued or for which a prospectus is required to be sent or delivered to the purchaser under securities legislation,

(b) a trade in a security to the issuer of the security,

(c) a trade made in connection with a take-over bid, issuer bid, amalgamation, merger, reorganization, arrangement or similar transaction,

(d) a trade made in accordance with the terms of conversion, exchange or exercise of a security previously issued by an issuer,

(e) a trade that is a securities lending, repurchase, reverse repurchase or similar financing transaction,

(f) a trade in a security of a mutual fund to which National Instrument 81-102-Mutual Funds applies,

(g) a trade to be settled outside Canada,

(h) a trade in an option, futures contract or similar derivative, or

(i) a trade in a negotiable promissory note, commercial paper or similar short-term debt obligation that, in the normal course, would settle in Canada on T.

PART 3 TRADE MATCHING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Matching deadlines for registered dealer --

(1) A registered dealer shall not execute a DAP/RAP trade with or on behalf of an institutional investor unless the dealer has established, maintains and enforces policies and procedures designed to achieve matching as soon as practical after such a trade is executed and in any event no later than the end of T.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the dealer may adapt its policies and procedures to permit matching to occur no later than the end of T+1 for a DAP/RAP trade that results from an order to buy or sell securities received from an institutional investor whose investment decisions or settlement instructions are usually made in and communicated from a geographical region outside of the western hemisphere.

3.2 Pre-DAP/RAP trade execution documentation requirement for dealers --

AWithout limiting the generality of section 3.1, a registered dealer shall not open an account to execute a DAP/RAP trade for an institutional investor or accept an order to execute a DAP/RAP trade for the account of an institutional investor unless its policies and procedures are designed to encourage each trade-matching party hasto either

(a) enteredenter into a trade-matching agreement with the dealer, or

(b) providedprovide a trade-matching statement to the dealer.

3.3 Matching deadlines for registered adviser --

(1) A registered adviser shall not give an order to a dealer to execute a DAP/RAP trade on behalf of an institutional investor unless the adviser has established, maintains and enforces policies and procedures designed to achieve matching as soon as practical after such a trade is executed and in any event no later than the end of T.

(2) Despite subsection (1), the adviser may adapt its policies and procedures to permit matching to occur no later than the end of T+1 for a DAP/RAP trade that results from an order to buy or sell securities received from an institutional investor whose investment decisions or settlement instructions are usually made in and communicated from a geographical region outside of the western hemisphere.

3.4 Pre- DAP/RAP trade execution documentation requirement for advisers --

AWithout limiting the generality of section 3.3, a registered adviser shall not open an account to execute a DAP/RAP trade for an institutional investor or give an order to a dealer to execute a DAP/RAP trade for the account of an institutional investor unless its policies and procedures are designed to encourage each trade-matching party hasto either

(a) enteredenter into a trade-matching agreement with the adviser, or

(b) providedprovide a trade-matching statement to the adviser.

PART 4 REPORTING REQUIREMENT FORBY REGISTERED FIRMS

4.1 Exception reporting requirement

A registered firm shall deliver Form 24-101F1 to the securities regulatory authority no later than 45 days after the end of a calendar quarter if

(a) less than 9590 per cent of the DAP/RAP trades in equity securities executed by or for the registered firm. during the quarter matched within the time required in Part 3, or

(b) the DAP/RAP trades in debt securities executed by or for the registered firm during the quarter that matched within the time required in Part 3 represent less than 9590 per cent of the aggregate value of the debt securities purchased and sold in those trades.

PART 5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEARING AGENCIES

5.1 A clearing agency through which trades governed by this Instrument are cleared and settled shall deliver Form 24-101F2 to the securities regulatory authority no later than 30 days after the end of a calendar quarter.

PART 6 REQUIREMENTS FOR MATCHING SERVICE UTILITIES

6.1 Initial information reporting --

(1) A person or company shall not carry on business as a matching service utility unless

(a) the person or company has delivered Form 24-101F3 to the securities regulatory authority, and

(b) at least 90 days have passed since the person or company delivered Form 24-101F3.

(2) During the 90 day period referred to in subsection (1), if there is a significant change to the information in the delivered Form 24-101F3, the person or company shall inform the securities regulatory authority in writing immediately of that significant change by delivering an amendment to Form 24-101F3 in the manner set out in Form 24-101F3.

6.2 Anticipated change to operations --

At least 45 days before implementing a significant change to any item set out in Form 24-101F3, a matching service utility shall deliver an amendment to the information in the manner set out in Form 24-101F3.

6.3 Ceasing to carry on business as a matching service utility --

(1) If a matching service utility intends to cease carrying on business as a matching service utility, it shall deliver a report on Form 24-101F4 to the securities regulatory authority at least 30 days before ceasing to carry on that business.

(2) If a matching service utility involuntarily ceases to carry on business as a matching service utility, it shall deliver a report on Form 24-101F4 as soon as practical after it ceases to carry on that business.

6.4 Ongoing information reporting and record keeping --

(1) A matching service utility shall deliver Form 24-101F5 to the securities regulatory authority no later than 30 days after the end of a calendar quarter.

(2) A matching service utility shall keep such books, records and other documents as are reasonably necessary to properly record its business.

6.5 System requirements --

For all of its core systems supporting trade matching, a matching service utility shall

(a) consistent with prudent business practice, on a reasonably frequent basis, and, in any event, at least annually,

(i) make reasonable current and future capacity estimates,

(ii) conduct capacity stress tests of those systems to determine the ability of the systems to process transactions in an accurate, timely and efficient manner,

(iii) implement reasonable procedures to review and keep current the testing methodology of those systems,

(iv) review the vulnerability of those systems and data centre computer operations to internal and external threats, including breaches of security, physical hazards and natural disasters, and

(v) maintain adequate contingency and business continuity plans;

(b) annually cause to be performed an independent review and written report, in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, of the stated internal control objectives of those systems; and

(c) promptly notify the securities regulatory authority of a material failure of those systems.

PART 7 TRADE SETTLEMENT

7.1 Trade settlement by registered dealer --

(1) A registered dealer shall not execute a trade unless the dealer has established, maintains and enforces policies and procedures designed to facilitate settlement of the trade on a date that is no later than the standard settlement date for the type of security traded prescribed by an SRO or the marketplace on which the trade would be executed.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a trade for which terms of settlement have been expressly agreed to by the counterparties to the trade at or before the trade was executed.

PART 8 REQUIREMENTS OF SELF-REGULATORY ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS

8.1 A clearing agency or matching service utility shall have rules or other instruments or procedures that are consistent with the requirements of Parts 3 and 7.

8.2 A requirement of this Instrument does not apply to a member of an SRO if the member complies with a rule or other instrument of the SRO that deals with the same subject matter as the requirement and that has been approved, non-disapproved, or non-objected to by the securities regulatory authority and published by the SRO.

PART 9 EXEMPTION

9.1 Exemption --

(1) The regulator or the securities regulatory authority may grant an exemption from this Instrument, in whole or in part, subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be imposed in the exemption.

(2) Despite subsection (1), in Ontario, only the regulator may grant such an exemption.

(3) Except in Ontario, an exemption referred to in subsection (1) is granted under the statute referred to in Appendix B of National Instrument 14-101 Definitions opposite the name of the local jurisdiction.

PART 10 EFFECTIVE DATES AND TRANSITION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Note: This unofficial consolidation does not include sections 10.1 and 10.2 which contain coming-into-force provisions and transitional provisions which are only of historical interest.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

10.3 Post-June 2010 Transition

(1) A reference to "the end of T" in subsections 3.1(1) and 3.3(1) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "2:00 p.m. on T+1", for trades executed before July 1, 2012; and

(b) "12 p.m. (noon) on T+1", for trades executed after June 30, 2012 and before July 1, 2015.

(2) A reference to the "end of T+1" in subsections 3.1(2) and 3.3(2) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "2:00 p.m. on T+2", for trades executed before July 1, 2012; and

(b) "12:00 p.m. (noon) on T+2", for trades executed after June 30, 2012 and before July 1, 2015.

(3) A reference to "90 per cent" in paragraphs 4.1(a) and (b) shall each be read as a reference to:

(a) "70 per cent", for trades executed after June 30, 2015 and before July 1, 2016; and

(b) "80 per cent", for trades executed after June 30, 2016 and before July 1, 2017.

FORM 24-101F1

REGISTERED FIRM

EXCEPTION REPORT OF

DAP/RAP TRADE REPORTING AND MATCHING

CALENDAR QUARTER PERIOD COVERED:

From: ____________________ to: ___________________

REGISTERED FIRM IDENTIFICATION AND CONTACT INFORMATION:

1. Full name of registered firm (if sole proprietor, last, first and middle name):

2. Name(s) under which business is conducted, if different from item 1:

3.3a. Address of registered firm's principal place of business:

3b. Please indicate below the jurisdiction of your principal regulator within the meaning of NI 31-103 Registration Requirements and Exemptions:

[ ] Alberta

[ ] British Columbia

[ ] Manitoba

[ ] New Brunswick

[ ] Newfoundland & Labrador

[ ] Northwest Territories

[ ] Nova Scotia

[ ] Nunavut

[ ] Ontario

[ ] Prince Edward Island

[ ] Quebec

[ ] Saskatchewan

[ ] Yukon

3c. Please indicate below all jurisdictions in which you are registered to carry on business:

[ ] Alberta

[ ] British Columbia

[ ] Manitoba

[ ] New Brunswick

[ ] Newfoundland & Labrador

[ ] Northwest Territories

[ ] Nova Scotia

[ ] Nunavut

[ ] Ontario

[ ] Prince Edward Island

[ ] Quebec

[ ] Saskatchewan

[ ] Yukon

4. Mailing address, if different from business address:

5.

Type of business:

O

Dealer

O

Adviser

6. Category of registration:

7.

(a) Registered Firm NRD number:

(b) If the registered firm is a participant of a clearing agency, the registered firm's CUID number:

8. Contact employee name:

Telephone number:

E-mail address:

INSTRUCTIONS:

Deliver this form for both equity and debt DAP/RAP trades together with Exhibits A, B and C pursuant to section 4.1 of the Instrument, covering the calendar quarter indicated above, within 45 days of the end of the calendar quarter if,

(a) less than 9590 per cent* of the equity and/or debt DAP/RAP trades executed by or for you during the quarter matched within the time** required in Part 3 of the Instrument, or

(b) the equity and/or debt DAP/RAP trades executed by or for you during the quarter that matched within the time** required in Part 3 of the Instrument represent less than 9590 per cent* of the aggregate value of the debt securities purchased and sold in those trades.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transition

* For DAP/RAP trades executed during a transitional period after June 30, 2015 and before July 1, 2017, the Instrument comes into force and before January 1, 2010, this percentage will vary depending on when the trade was executed. See section 10.2(3) Part 7 of the Companion Policy to of the Instrument.

** The time set out in Part 3 of the Instrument is 11:59 p.m. on, as the case may be, T or T+1. For DAP/RAP trades executed during a transitional period after the Instrument comes into force and before July 1, 2012, the time is 2:00 p.m. on "T+1" or "T+2", as the case may be. For DAP/RAP trades executed after June 30, 2012 08and before July 1, 2015, this timeline is being phased in andthe time is 12:00 p.m. (noon) on, as the case may be, "T+1" or "T+2". See subsections 10.2(1) and (2) Part 7 of the Companion Policy to the Instrument.