Re:
Order
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: STEPHAN HEADLEY
ORDER
WHEREAS on September 8, 2005, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of
Canada (the “MFDA”) issued a Notice of Hearing pursuant to sections 20 and 24 of
MFDA By-Law No. 1 in respect of a disciplinary proceeding commenced against
Stephan Headley (the “Respondent”);
AND WHEREAS the first appearance in this hearing was held before a Hearing
Panel of the Ontario Regional Council of the MFDA on October 26, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the Respondent did not appear at the first appearance, nor did
anyone appear on his behalf although he had been properly served;
AND WHEREAS the hearing of this matter on the merits was scheduled to
proceed on December 14, 2005;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with the October 26, 2005, Order issued by the
Hearing Panel, MFDA Staff took steps to notify the Respondent that the hearing on the
merits had been scheduled to proceed on December 14, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the Hearing Panel is satisfied that the Respondent did have
notice of the fact that the hearing on the merits was proceeding on December 14, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the Respondent did not file a Reply to the Notice of Hearing;
AND WHEREAS the Respondent did not appear at the hearing on the merits, nor
did anyone appear on his behalf;
AND WHEREAS in accordance with the October 26, 2005, Order issued by the
Hearing Panel, MFDA Staff filed evidence and written submissions in support of the case
against the Respondent;
AND WHEREAS UPON reading the affidavit of Terri Spence, sworn
December 8, 2005 (the “Spence Affidavit”), the affidavit of Ian Smith, sworn December
7, 2005 (the “Smith Affidavit”), and the written submissions of Staff of the MFDA and
upon hearing the oral submissions of Staff of the MFDA, the Hearing Panel determined
that the Respondent breached MFDA Rule 2.1.1 and section 22.1 of MFDA By-Law No.
1.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.
The Spence Affidavit and the Smith Affidavit, filed by Staff of the MFDA, are
admissible in accordance with Rules 1.6 and 13.4 of the MFDA Rules of Procedure.
2.
In accordance with Rules 1.8(2) and (5) of the MFDA Rules of Procedure the
following exhibits to the Smith Affidavit that contain sensitive personal information of
former clients of the Respondent shall be marked “confidential” and kept separate and
apart from the public record:
(a) The copies of personal cheque No. 249 drawn on the account of the Respondent’s
former client IB which were attached to the Smith Affidavit at Tabs 4 and 23;
– 2 –
(b) The copies of personal cheques dated April 22, 2003 and June 19, 2003 which
were drawn on the account of the Respondent’s former client NL which were
attached to the Smith Affidavit at Tab 5 and as exhibits 1 and 2 to the transcript of
the interview between MFDA Staff and NL at Tab 17;
(c) The client documentation attached to the Smith Affidavit at Tabs 18 and 22.
3.
The Respondent is permanently prohibited from conducting securities related
business in any capacity pursuant to section 24.1.1(e) of MFDA By-Law No. 1.
4.
The Respondent shall pay a fine, in the amount of $100,000.00, pursuant to
section 24.1.1(b) of MFDA By-Law No. 1, in respect of Allegation No. 1, set out in the
Notice of Hearing.
5.
The Respondent shall pay a fine, in the amount of $50,000.00, pursuant to section
24.1.1(b) of MFDA By-Law No. 1, in respect of Allegation No. 2, set out in the Notice of
Hearing.
6.
The Respondent shall pay costs of the investigation and this proceeding, in the
amount of $7,500.00, pursuant to section 24.2 of MFDA By-Law No. 1.
DATED at Toronto this 21st day of February, 2006.
Per: “Thomas J. Lockwood”
Thomas J. Lockwood Q.C., Chair
Per: “Sandy Grant”
Sandy Grant
Per: “Robert Hovianseian”
Robert Hovianseian
Doc #77538
– 3 –
