CASE SUMMARY # 201241
April 21, 2015
MFDA Case Summary
This case summary was prepared by Staff of the MFDA.
Hearing Panel Imposes Penalties on Robert Bruce Rush
Robert Bruce Rush (“Rush”) was registered as a mutual fund salesperson with Sun Life Financial
Investment Services (Canada) Inc. (“Sun Life”) from March 2005 to November 28, 2007. While
registered with Sun Life, Rush recommended and facilitated the sale of two investments known
as Gold-Quest International and The Hear Now to clients KC and DC, and possibly to two other
clients of Sun Life and 11 other individuals. These investments were subsequently found to be a
form of Ponzi-scheme. Sun Life had not authorized the investments for sale by Approved
Persons of Sun Life, and the sales were not conducted through Sun Life’s accounts and facilities.
As a result of this the Hearing Panel found that Rush engaged in a securities-related business that
was not carried on for the account of the Member and through the facilities of the Member,
contrary to MFDA Rules 1.1.1(a) and 2.1.1. The Hearing Panel also found that Rush had
continued in another gainful occupation that was not disclosed to and approved by the Member,
contrary to MFDA Rule 1.2.1(d), and that Rush failed to comply with the Member’s policies and
procedures with respect to engaging in outside business activities, contrary to MFDA Rules
1.1.2, 2.5.1 and 2.1.1. Rush was also found to have failed to cooperate with the MFDA in its
investigation, contrary to section 22.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1. The Hearing Panel imposed the
following penalties on Rush: (a) permanent prohibition from conducting securities related
business in any capacity while in the employ of or associated with any MFDA Member; (b) fine
of $90,000; and (c) costs of $10,000.
NOTICE: This case summary has been prepared by Staff of the MFDA, based upon the previously published
Decision and Reasons of an MFDA Hearing Panel presiding over this matter. Every effort is made to ensure that this
case summary accurately reflects the content of the Decision and Reasons. However, where there is a discrepancy
between this case summary and the Decision and Reasons, the Decision and Reasons will prevail.