Skip to Main Content

MFDA Hearing Panel makes findings against John Richard Wolfenden and issues Decision and Reasons (Misconduct)

For further information, please contact:

Charles Toth
Vice President, Enforcement

MFDA Hearing Panel makes findings against John Richard Wolfenden and issues Decision and Reasons (Misconduct)

January 9, 2017 (Toronto, Ontario) – A Hearing Panel of the Central Regional Council of the Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“MFDA”) has issued its Decision and Reasons (Misconduct) in connection with a disciplinary hearing held in Toronto, Ontario on September 27, 2016 in the matter of John Richard Wolfenden (the “Respondent”).

The parties completed their oral submissions with respect to conduct on September 27, 2016, at which time the Hearing Panel advised that it would announce its decision and issue written reasons in due course.

In its Decision and Reasons (Misconduct), dated January 5, 2017, the Hearing Panel found that the allegations made against the Respondent in the Notice of Hearing dated June 18, 2015 (the “Notice of Hearing”) had been established. In particular:

Allegation #1: between June 2010 and October 2013, he borrowed $20,000 from client MP and $80,000 from client JM, thereby engaging in personal financial dealings with clients which gave rise to a conflict or potential conflict of interest between the Respondent and the clients that the Respondent failed to address by the exercise of responsible business judgment influenced only by the best interests of the clients, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.1.1 and 2.1.4.

Allegation #2: failed to report to the Member within two (2) business days or at all, client MP’s complaint received on May 15, 2013 regarding the Respondent’s failure to repay the monies he borrowed from client MP which constituted a complaint in respect of personal financial dealings with a client, contrary to MFDA Policy No. 6, subsection 4.1(b)(v).

Allegation #3: between August 8, 2013 and September 17, 2013, he misled the Member with respect to his personal financial dealings with client MP and client JM, thereby interfering with the Member’s ability to conduct a reasonable supervisory investigation of the Respondent’s activities and failing to observe high standards of ethics and conduct in the transaction of business, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1.

Submissions with respect to penalty will take place on a date to be determined and announced accordingly.

Copies of the Decision and Reasons (Misconduct) and Notice of Hearing are available on the MFDA website at During the period described in the Decision and Reasons (Misconduct), the Respondent conducted business in the Sarnia, Ontario area.

The MFDA is the self-regulatory organization for Canadian mutual fund dealers, regulating the operations, standards of practice and business conduct of its Members and their approximately 83,000 Approved Persons with a mandate to protect investors and the public interest. For more information about the MFDA’s complaint and enforcement processes, as well as links to ‘Check an Advisor’ and other Investor Tools, visit the For Investors page on the MFDA website.

DM 518369