An Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada hearing panel has denied a bid to require the IIROC to remove a notice of hearing from its website.

The panel dismissed a motion brought by Peter Deeb, chairman of Hampton Securities Inc., seeking an order compelling IIROC staff to immediately remove a notice of hearing issued Sept. 2, 2011, and all references to it, from the regulator’s website.

The notice in question sets out allegations brought against Deeb by IIROC staff in a disciplinary case. The case has not been heard, and the allegations have not been proven.

Earlier this year, IIROC won its bid to quash a judicial review of its disciplinary case against Deeb and his firm. The Ontario Divisional Court sided with IIROC and quashed an application for judicial review brought by Hampton Securities and Deeb, noting that the application for judicial review was premature. It said that all of the issues raised by the application should first be determined by an IIROC hearing panel.

IIROC wins bid to stop judicial review

IIROC held a hearing on Jan. 23 to hear the motion seeking an order to remove the notice of hearing from the IIROC website. According to the panel’s decision, Deeb argued that, as the case had been adjourned pending the application to the Divisional Court, and no date had been set for a hearing, IIROC has no “obligation or right” to publish the notice of hearing, or any specifics of allegations.

The panel disagreed with his position, ruling that while IIROC’s recognition order only requires it to publish the notice of hearing once a date has been set; “it does not prohibit its publication prior to the date being set.” So, while it doesn’t have the obligation to publish the notice, it does have a right to publish it, the panel found.

The decision says that Deeb also argued that the publication of the notice on the IIROC website was unfair, and that he’d lost business as a result. Again, the panel said that it does not agree with his position. “Harm to the respondent does not necessarily equate to unfairness to him,” it said.

Additionally, it says that Deeb argued that the website publication is unfair if anything in the notice is inaccurate or discloses confidential information. “However as pointed out by IIROC counsel, it is clear from the wording of the [notice], that matters contained therein are only allegations and that a hearing must be held to determine if they amount to a breach of the IIROC rules,” the panel said. Also, it notes that a hearing respondent is free to publish their position in response to disciplinary allegations on their website or otherwise.