The Ontario Securities Commission has ruled that the disclosure provided by its staff to a man defending himself from allegations of operating a Ponzi scheme has been appropriate, but that certain evidence should be revealed sooner than required given that he is representing himself in the case.

The OSC has issued an endorsement following a hearing held on January 24, to consider a motion brought by Peter Sbaraglia, who is facing allegations that he participated in a Ponzi scheme and misled the staff during its investigation. These allegations have not been proven, and his hearing is scheduled to start in June.

At the hearing in January, he was seeking an order that OSC staff be required to separate the wheat from the chaff in the disclosure that it has provided to him; that it require disclosure by the receiver of his assets; and that it be required to make disclosure of the evidence it intends to present at the hearing sooner than is currently required.

The commission denied the first two requests, but did order that both sides disclose the evidence to be used in the hearing be made at least 30 days before the hearing starts, instead of the required 20 days; and a list of planned witnesses and summaries 20 days ahead of the hearing instead of the typical 10 days.

“I do not view this as unduly burdensome on staff, which has offered that as an alternative submission to providing no relief to the respondent,” said commissioner, Christopher Portner, in his decision; noting that the commission is “always very mindful of the burdens that are faced by unrepresented respondents, who do not necessarily have the skills, the experience or the resources” to analyze the disclosure they receive.

In terms of the request that the commission staff be required to streamline the disclosure, Portner said that he accepts that OSC staff have complied with their disclosure obligations as diligently as possible, and that they do not believe that they have burdened him “with excessive disclosure in the sense of a full dump of irrelevant information”. As a result, he found that no relief is appropriate or justified.

As for the request that OSC staff direct the receiver in the case, RSM Richter Inc., to provide some disclosure in the case, this request was also denied. The decision indicates that Sbaraglia believes that the receiver has information that could be relevant to his ability to respond to the allegations against him.

“I can understand how deeply this would concern the respondent if he feels that there is information that would assist him in addressing the allegations against him,” the decision says. However, it sides with OSC staff in finding that the commission does not have the authority to order disclosure by the receiver, who is an independent officer of the court.