MFDA Order

View and Download English PDF
HomeCompleted Hearings201746- Boyd Yahn › Order2-201746

File No. 201746

IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINARY HEARING PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 20 AND 24 OF BY-LAW NO. 1 OF THE MUTUAL FUND DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA

Re: Boyd Dean Yahn

Order

(ARISING FROM HEARING ON THE MERITS ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2017)

WHEREAS on April 13, 2017, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“MFDA”) issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to sections 20 and 24 of By-law No. 1 in respect of a disciplinary proceeding commenced against Boyd Dean Yahn (“Respondent”);

AND WHEREAS the Notice of Hearing was served on the Respondent by registered mail on April 19, 2017;

AND WHEREAS the first appearance in this proceeding took place by teleconference before the Chair of a hearing panel of the Prairie Regional Council of the MFDA (“Hearing Panel”) on May 30, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. (Mountain) in accordance with s. 19.13(b) of MFDA By-law No. 1;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to s. 19.13 of MFDA By-Law No. 1, one public representative of a Regional Council may be designated to act on behalf of a Hearing Panel for the purpose of hearing and determining any procedural matter or motion relating to the conduct of a disciplinary hearing under sections 20 and 24 including, without limitation, granting adjournments, setting dates for hearings, and making any other orders or directions that a Hearing Panel is authorized to make under the Corporation’s rules of procedure, except a final determination of a disciplinary proceeding;

AND WHEREAS no one appeared for the Respondent, although properly notified of the appearance by email, regular mail and registered mail from Staff, and from the Corporate Secretary’s Office as to the purpose, timing and dial-in information of the appearance;

AND WHEREAS the hearing on the merits in this proceeding took place before a hearing panel of the Prairie Regional Council of the MFDA (“Hearing Panel”) on September 7, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. (Central) in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan;

AND WHEREAS no one appeared for the Respondent, although properly notified of the appearance by email, regular mail and registered mail from Staff, and from the Corporate Secretary’s Office as to the purpose, timing and location of the appearance;

AND WHEREAS in the opinion of the Hearing Panel, the Respondent:

  1. Between about November 5, 2004 and January 31, 2013, the Respondent recommended to at least 679 clients that the clients concentrate all or a substantial portion of their investment holdings in precious metals sector funds, without using adequate due diligence to assess the suitability of his investment recommendations on a client-by-client basis having regard to the essential Know-Your-Client (“KYC”) factors relevant to each individual client, including the client’s risk tolerance, investment objectives and investment knowledge, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.
  1. Between about November 5, 2004 and January 31, 2013, the Respondent recorded on account forms in respect of least 679 clients that the clients had, among other things, “100% high” risk tolerance, “100% aggressive growth” investment objectives, and “good” or better investment knowledge, in order to ensure that the clients’ KYC information matched his investment recommendations to concentrate all or a substantial portion of the clients’ investment holdings in precious metals sector funds, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.
  1. Between about November 5, 2004 and January 31, 2013, the Respondent misrepresented, failed to fully and adequately explain, or omitted to explain the risks and benefits of investing in precious metals sector funds, thereby failing to ensure that his recommendations were suitable for the clients and in keeping with their investment objectives, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.
  1. Between about November 5, 2004 and January 31, 2013, the Respondent failed, in his capacity as a Branch Manager, to adequately supervise the activities of an Approved Person, SW, who recommended that clients concentrate all or a substantial portion of the clients’ investment holdings in precious metals sector funds, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.5.5, 2.2.1 and 2.1.1.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

  1. The Respondent shall be permanently prohibited from conducting securities related business in any capacity while in the employ of or associated with any MFDA Member pursuant to s. 24.1.1(e) of MFDA By-law No. 1;
  1. The Respondent shall pay a fine in the amount of $75,000, pursuant to section 24.1.1(b) of MFDA By-law No. 1;
  1. The Respondent shall pay costs attributable to conducting the investigation and hearing of this matter in the amount of $10,000, pursuant to section 24.2 of MFDA By-law No. 1; and
  1. If at any time a non-party to this proceeding, with the exception of the bodies set out in section 23 of MFDA By-law No. 1, requests production of or access to exhibits in this proceeding that contain personal information as defined by the MFDA Privacy Policy, then the MFDA Corporate Secretary shall not provide copies of or access to the requested exhibits to the non-party without first redacting from them any and all personal information, pursuant to Rules 1.8(2) and (5) of the MFDA Rules of Procedure.

DATED: Sep 7, 2017

"Shelley L. Miller"

Shelley L. Miller

Chair


"Nada Israeli"

Nada Israeli

Industry Representative


"James Samanta"

James Samanta

Industry Representative


572120 v1