Skip to Main Content

MFDA Hearing Panel makes findings and reserves judgment on penalty in the matter of Tim Chang

For further information, please contact:

Charles Toth
Vice President, Enforcement

MFDA Hearing Panel makes findings and reserves judgment on penalty in the matter of Tim Chang

August 15, 2017 (Toronto, Ontario) – The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada (“MFDA”) commenced a disciplinary proceeding in respect of Tim Long Chang (“Respondent”) by Notice of Hearing dated December 16, 2016 (“Notice of Hearing”).

A disciplinary hearing in this proceeding was held today in Toronto, Ontario before a three-member Hearing Panel of the MFDA’s Central Regional Council. After hearing submissions from Staff of the MFDA, the Hearing Panel found that the four (4) allegations concerning the Respondent set out in the Notice of Hearing had been established. In particular, the Hearing Panel made the following findings of misconduct against the Respondent:

Allegation #1: Between about November 2012 and November 2014, he engaged in a dual occupation, which was not approved by the Member, contrary to MFDA Rules 1.2.1(c) (now Rule 1.3.2) and 2.1.1.

Allegation #2: In December 2012, he misled the Member when he falsely represented to the Member that he did not have an active role and did not engage in client related activities at his dual occupation, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1.

Allegation #3: Between about February 2012 and November 2014, he failed to report to the Member within two (2) business days, or at all, the fact that he was named as a respondent in a regulatory disciplinary proceeding commenced against him, contrary to MFDA Policy No. 6, subsection 4.1(c) and MFDA Rule 1.2.2(b) (now Rule 1.4(b)).

Allegation #4: In May 2014, he offered to directly reimburse a client for a loss or fee that the client was to incur upon the transfer of the client’s investments to an account serviced by the Respondent, thereby engaging in personal financial dealings with the client which gave rise to a conflict or potential conflict of interest that the Respondent failed to address by the exercise of responsible business judgment influenced only by the best interests of the client, contrary to MFDA Rules 2.1.4 and 2.1.1.

Following submissions from Staff regarding penalty, the Hearing Panel reserved judgment with respect to penalty, and advised that it will issue its written decision and provide its reasons in due course.

A copy of the Notice of Hearing is available on the MFDA website at During the period described in the Notice of Hearing, the Respondent conducted business in the Braeside, 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 568105 v1