A regulatory hearing panel revised a sanctions order against one of the respondents in an enforcement case that led to a landmark Supreme Court of Canada ruling — enabling the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) to continue pursuing the collection of $1.9 million in disgorgement.
In 2015, a BCSC hearing panel ordered $7.3 million in disgorgement against five people, along with other sanctions, after finding that they breached securities rules by engaging in a market manipulation scheme. And, in 2018, the panel revised that disgorgement order at the direction of the B.C. Court of Appeal, after four of the respondents appealed the regulator’s ruling.
Now, the panel has revised its disgorgement order against the fifth respondent, Robert Joseph Leyk, who didn’t participate in the judicial appeal — ordering $1.9 million in disgorgement against Leyk alone, replacing the original $7.3 million disgorgement order against all five respondents.
In its decision, the panel noted that the revision was necessary in order for the BCSC to pursue collection against Leyk under bankruptcy proceedings that he filed in Alberta last year.
“Since Leyk did not participate in the appeal, the disgorgement order imposed on him was unaffected by the court decision and the subsequent revision by the BCSC panel,” the regulator noted.
However, the hearing panel did stay the disgorgement order against him in 2019, ruling that it was “in the public interest” to temporarily stay an order that may be affected by the outcome of a judicial appeal.
In 2025, after Leyk filed for bankruptcy, the BCSC’s executive director applied to have the stay lifted — which the panel granted, along with the revised disgorgement order.
The BCSC said it “intends to file a proof of claim for the disgorgement order in [Leyk’s bankruptcy] proceedings, but needed to establish the appropriate amount ($1.9 million) before doing so.”
Leyk didn’t participate in the panel’s hearing into the BCSC’s application to lift the stay, or revise the order against him.
In its decision, the panel said the stay order was granted “in contemplation that one party or another would eventually apply to adjust the amount payable under the original order to reflect the reasons of the Court of Appeal” — and that it was now in the the public interest to lift the stay and revise the disgorgement order.
The fact that disgorgement orders aren’t wiped out by bankruptcy proceedings was established in a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2024 involving two of Leyk’s co-respondents in the case, Thalbinder Singh Poonian and Shailu Sharon Poonian.
While they were successful in persuading the top court that monetary sanctions imposed by the regulatory panel should be erased by their bankruptcy proceedings, the court also found that disgorgement orders — which seek to deprive wrongdoers of the direct profits of their misconduct — can’t be wiped away by filing for bankruptcy.