A former mutual fund rep who was fined and permanently banned by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) for engaging in unapproved outside business activities and personal financial dealings with clients has now had an appeal of the regulator’s findings turned down by the Manitoba Securities Commission (MSC).
In January, a CIRO hearing panel permanently banned Andrew Kazina, a former rep with Investors Group Financial Services Inc. in Winnipeg, fined him $313,500, and ordered him to pay costs of $30,000 after it was found that he breached the self-regulatory organization’s rules.
Specifically, following a hearing in 2023, the panel found that between February 2002 and October 2017, Kazina engaged in unapproved outside business activity by operating a business that offered tax and financial planning services, taking money from several clients and non-clients to finance his outside businesses, and providing false information to his dealer on annual compliance questionnaires.
Kazina initially applied to the MSC for a review of the SRO’s findings against him in 2023, after the merits hearing — but a hearing panel at the provincial regulator rejected that appeal as premature and ruled that the sanctions hearing should play out before any appeal happens.
Then, in February, after the SRO panel issued its decision on sanctions, another appeal was filed, seeking to overturn both the merits and the sanctions decisions.
Now, following a hearing, the MSC panel has rejected that appeal, finding that the CIRO panel didn’t make any reversible errors in either ruling, and that the sanctions ordered in the case “are appropriate and proportionate” to the misconduct.
“The CIRO panel provided detailed and well-reasoned decisions in both the merits decision and the penalty decision,” the provincial regulator said — adding that the SRO didn’t make any “errors of fact or of law” and that it didn’t overlook any evidence in either decision.
“We further determine that the CIRO panel did not proceed on any incorrect principles and that its perception of the public interest does not conflict with that of this panel,” it said.
“The amended appeal is dismissed in its entirety,” it concluded.