Decision and Reasons

FILE #200710

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: Robert Franklin Leer

REASONS FOR DECISION

Heard July 19, 2007 at Vancouver, B.C.

Hearing Panel of the Pacific Regional Council:

Stephen D. Gill, Chair

Margot Howard, Panel Member

Archie Sullivan, Panel Member
Appearances:

H.C. Clement Wai

)
For the Mutual Fund Dealers

)
Association of Canada

Dwight M. Stewart

)
Counsel for Robert Franklin Leer



Page 1 of 4

REASONS

On April 17, 2007, the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (the “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 Robert Franklin Leer (“Leer” or the “Respondent”). A hearing
panel (the “Hearing Panel”) of the Regional Council of the Pacific Region of the MFDA was
convened with respect to the disciplinary proceeding, and a hearing date of July 19, 2007 was set.
The Respondent entered into a settlement agreement with staff of the MFDA, dated July 17, 2007
(the “Settlement Agreement”) in which the Respondent agreed to a proposed settlement of
matters for which the Respondent could be disciplined pursuant to Sections 20 and 24 of By-Law
No. 1. The Hearing Panel convened on July 19, 2007 and at the commencement of the
proceedings considered a joint motion by Staff and the Respondent to hold the proceedings “in
camera”. The motion was granted.
The Hearing Panel then considered the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, aided by
submissions as to the applicable law which should guide the Hearing Panel in determining
whether to accept or reject the Settlement Agreement.
Counsel for the Association reviewed, in detail, the Settlement Agreement, and in particular the
joint settlement recommendation and the agreed facts. We heard submissions as to the terms of
settlement, and in particular why the penalty, that had been agreed upon, was appropriate to the
circumstances of this particular case. The Hearing Panel also heard submissions from counsel
for the Respondent. After deliberation, the Hearing Panel unanimously concluded that it was
appropriate to accept the Settlement Agreement, and the Order was made.
With reference to the law, the Hearing Panel notes that in past cases MFDA Hearing Panels have
taken into account the following considerations when determining whether a proposed settlement
should be accepted:
(a)
Whether acceptance of the Settlement Agreement would be in the public interest
and whether the penalties imposed will protect investors;
Page 2 of 4

(b)
Whether the Settlement Agreement is reasonable and proportionate, having regard
to the conduct of the Respondent as set out in the Settlement Agreement;
(c)
Whether the Settlement Agreement addresses the issues of both specific and
general deterrence;
(d)
Whether the proposed settlement will prevent the type of conduct described in the
Settlement Agreement from occurring again in the future;
(e)
Whether the Settlement Agreement will foster confidence in the integrity of the
Canadian Capital Markets;
(f)
Whether the Settlement Agreement will foster confidence in the integrity of the
MFDA;
(g)
Whether the Settlement Agreement will foster confidence in the regulatory
process itself.
Investors Group Financial Services (Re), [2005] MFDA Ontario Regional Council, File
No. 200401 at p.2-4,
Zollo (Re), [2007] MFDA Ontario Regional; Council, File No. 200610 at pp.2-3.
In the opinion of the Hearing Panel, each of these factors is dealt with appropriately by the
Settlement Agreement.
With respect to penalty, the Hearing Panel accepts that at law, the penalties set out in the
Settlement Agreement should be considered acceptable provided they are within the reasonable
range of appropriateness given the conduct of the Respondent.
Clark (Re), [1999] I.D.A.C.D. No. 40 at p. 3,
Milewski (Re), [1999] I.D.A.C.D. No. 17 at p. 10
The Hearing Panel considers the penalties in the Settlement Agreement are acceptable, and
within the reasonable range in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the fact that the
Page 3 of 4

Respondent has no past discipline history with the MFDA, and has been active in the securities
industry for many years; and that the misconduct arose from an unusual, isolated transaction; and
the Respondent has expressed his regret for his conduct to his clients, family, partners, and
member company. In the opinion of the Hearing Panel, the proposed penalties will deter future
misconduct by the Respondent, and deter others from engaging in similar misconduct, improve
overall compliance by mutual fund industry participants, and foster public confidence in the
mutual fund industry. It should be noted that the penalties include a fine and payment of costs.
For all these reasons, the Hearing Panel has accepted the Settlement Agreement and has signed
the Order to implement the Settlement Agreement.
These Reasons can be signed in counterpart.

DATED at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 25th day of September, 2007.

“Stephen D. Gill”

Stephen D. Gill, Chair

“Margot Howard”

Margot Howard, Panel Member

“Archie Sullivan”

Archie Sullivan, Panel Member

Doc #120516

Page 4 of 4