An Ontario court has found that the Ontario Securities Commission was justified in denying an adjournment and proceeding with an enforcement hearing, and that the decision it made in that hearing was reasonable.

According to the court’s decision, Richard Ochnik and a numbered company (1464210 Ontario Inc.) appealed an order of the OSC that was issued in April 2006. The OSC found that Ochnik, in establishing an RRSP/loan scheme, had violated securities law and acted contrary to the public interest. Ochnik and the company asked the court to set aside the order.

However, the court ruled, “On a review of the evidence before the commission, we find that it was reasonable for the commission to conclude that the appellants engaged in an RRSP/loan scheme and traded while unregistered and without a prospectus and that the sanction orders were reasonable.” Therefore, it dismissed the appeal.

The OSC issued a notice of hearing in the case on Sept. 19, 2005. Ochnik sought and received an adjournment to Dec. 5, 2005 to retain counsel. At that hearing Ochnik had not retained counsel, and the OSC adjourned the hearing to March 1, 2006, but indicated that it would not look favourably on another adjournment request, the court reported. At the March 1, 2006 hearing, Ochnik sought another adjournment so he could retain counsel. His request was refused and the hearing proceeded, and the OSC found against him.

The court supported the OSC’s decision. It said, “A decision to grant or not grant an adjournment is best determined by the tribunal. Ochnik had already been granted two adjournments. He had ample time to retain counsel to represent him at the hearing. He had ample time to review disclosure.”

“We find that the OSC reasonably concluded that it was in the public interest to expeditiously hear the allegations of misconduct in respect of investments made by the public and that an adjournment was not warranted in the circumstances,” it added.