Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing
File No. 200705

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 Brick

NOTICE OF HEARING


NOTICE is hereby given that a first appearance will take place by teleconference before
a Hearing Panel of the Regional Council of the Central Region of the Mutual Fund
Dealers Association of Canada (the "MFDA"), in the hearing room located at 121 King
Street West, Suite #1000, Toronto, Ontario on Tuesday, May 15, 2007, at 10:30 a.m.
(Eastern) or as soon thereafter as the hearing can be held, concerning a disciplinary
proceeding commenced by the MFDA against Robert Brick (the "Respondent").

DATED at Toronto this 28th day of March, 2007.

“Gregory J. Ljubic”

Gregory J. Ljubic
Corporate Secretary

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
121 King St. West
Suite 1000
Toronto, Ontario
M5H 3T9
Telephone:
(416) 943-5836
Fax:

(416) 361-9781
E-mail:
corporatesecretary@mfda.ca

NOTICE is further given that the MFDA alleges the following violations of the By-laws,
Rules or Policies of the MFDA:

Allegation #1: Between August 2004 and August 2005, the Respondent solicited and
accepted approximately $219,000 from clients to be invested on their behalf and did not
invest, return or otherwise account for the funds, thereby failing to deal with the clients
fairly, honestly and in good faith, contrary to MFDA Rule 2.1.1(a).

Allegation #2: Commencing April 12, 2006, the Respondent failed to submit a report in
writing as required by the MFDA in the course of an investigation, contrary to Section
22.1(a) of MFDA By-law No. 1.

PARTICULARS

NOTICE is further given that the following is a summary of the facts alleged and
intended to be relied upon by the MFDA at the hearing:

Registration History

1.
From December 22, 2002 to April 4, 2006, the Respondent was registered in
Ontario as a mutual fund salesperson.

2.
From December 22, 2004 to February 7, 2005, the Respondent was a salesperson
for Roche Financial Group (“Roche”).1

3.
From February 7, 2005 to November 9, 2005, the Respondent was a salesperson
for HUB Financial Inc. (“HUB”). On November 9, 2005, the Respondent was
terminated from HUB for matters unrelated to this Notice of Hearing.

1 Effective February 7, 2005, Roche was acquired by and changed its name to Audentium Financial Corp.
(“Audentium”) and will hereinafter be referred to as Audentium.

Page 2 of 9

4.
From November 21, 2005 to April 4, 2006, the Respondent was registered with
Sterling Mutuals Inc. (“Sterling”). On April 4, 2006, the Respondent was
terminated from Sterling as a result of the events described herein.

5.
The Respondent is not currently registered in the securities industry in any
capacity.

6.
Audentium has been a Member of the MFDA since April 2002. HUB has been a
member of the MFDA since November 2002. Sterling has been a member of the
MFDA since March 2002.

Allegation # 1

Client 1

7.
JS was a client of Audentium. The Respondent was the mutual fund salesperson
responsible for JS’s account.

8.
Between August 2004 and August 2005, the Respondent solicited and accepted
$219,000 from JS, as outlined in the chart below, for the purchase of investments
for his account.

Client Date of Cheque Payable To
Date of Deposit
Amount of
Cheque
JS
August 24, 2004 Roche Capital September 10, 2004
$25,000
Planners
JS
September 10,
Roche Capital September 10, 2004
$102,000
2004
Planners

9.
The Respondent deposited the funds into a mutual fund account belonging to RF,
who is related to the Respondent, at a different mutual fund dealer and did not
Page 3 of 9

purchase any investments for JS. To date, the Respondent has failed to return or
otherwise account for the funds.

Client 2

10.
MC was a client of HUB. The Respondent was the mutual fund salesperson
responsible for MC’s account.

11.
In August 2005, the Respondent recommended that MC open an investment
account in her name at the Bank of Montreal (“BMO Investment Account”). On
August 29, 2005, MC, acting on the advice of the Respondent, redeemed the
investments in her account at HUB for the purpose of using the redemption
proceeds to purchase investments for her benefit to be held in the BMO
Investment Account.

12.
By cheque dated September 1, 2005 in the amount of $92,000 payable to Wise
Times Financial, a company incorporated by and under the control of the
Respondent, MC provided the Respondent with funds to purchase investments for
MC to be held in the BMO Investment Account.

13.
The Respondent did not purchase any investments for MC and to date, has failed
to return or otherwise account for the funds.

Allegation # 2

14.
On April 4, 2006, Sterling terminated the Respondent and notified the MFDA.

15.
By letter dated April 12, 2006, sent via registered and regular mail to the
Respondent’s home address, the MFDA requested that the Respondent provide
information pertaining to his termination from Sterling and to allegations in a
Statement of Claim arising out of his transactions with client JS during his
Page 4 of 9

employment at Audentium. Although the registered letter was signed for at the
post office, a response was not received by the MFDA.

16.
By letter dated April 18, 2006, sent via registered and regular mail to the
Respondent’s home address, the MFDA sent a second request for information
pertaining to his termination from Sterling and to allegations in a Statement of
Claim arising out of his transactions with client JS during his employment at
Audentium. Although the registered letter was signed for at the post office, a
response was not received by the MFDA.

17.
By letter dated May 9, 2006, sent via registered and regular mail to the
Respondent’s business address, the MFDA sent a third request for information
pertaining to his termination from Sterling and to allegations in a Statement of
Claim arising out of his transactions with client JS during his employment at
Audentium. No response to the letters was received by the MFDA.

18.
By letter dated June 5, 2006, sent via registered mail to the Respondent’s home
address, the MFDA made a fourth request for information pertaining to his
termination from Sterling and to the allegations in the Statement of Claim arising
out of his transactions with client JS during his employment at Audentium. The
registered mail was returned to the MFDA.

19.
By letter dated October 10, 2006, sent via registered and regular mail to the
Respondent’s home address, the MFDA made a fifth request for information
pertaining to his termination from Sterling and to the allegations in the Statement
of Claim arising out of his transactions with client JS during his employment at
Audentium. The registered mail was returned to the MFDA. No response to the
letter sent by regular mail was received by the MFDA.

20.
By letter dated January 30, 2007, sent via registered and regular mail to the
Respondent’s new home address as provided by the Waterloo Regional Police, the
Page 5 of 9

MFDA made a final request for information pertaining to his termination from
Sterling and to the allegations in the Statement of Claim arising out of his
transactions with client JS during his employment at Audentium. Although the
registered letter was signed for at the post office, a response was not received by
the MFDA.

21. To date, the Respondent has not replied to any of the MFDA’s requests for
information and has not cooperated with the investigation, contrary to Section
22.1(a) of MFDA By-law No. 1.

NOTICE is further given that the Respondent shall be entitled to appear and be heard
and be represented by counsel or agent at the hearing and to make submissions, present
evidence and call, examine and cross-examine witnesses.

NOTICE is further given that MFDA By-laws provide that if, in the opinion of the
Hearing Panel, the Respondent:

has failed to carry out any agreement with the MFDA;

has failed to comply with or carry out the provisions of any federal or provincial
statute relating to the business of the Member or of any regulation or policy made
pursuant thereto;

has failed to comply with the provisions of any By-law, Rule or Policy of the
MFDA;

has engaged in any business conduct or practice which such Regional Council in
its discretion considers unbecoming or not in the public interest; or

is otherwise not qualified whether by integrity, solvency, training or experience,

Page 6 of 9

the Hearing Panel has the power to impose any one or more of the following penalties:

(a) a reprimand;
(b) a fine not exceeding the greater of:
(i)
$5,000,000.00 per offence; and
(ii)
an amount equal to three times the profit obtained or loss avoided by such
person as a result of committing the violation;

(c) suspension of the authority of the person to conduct securities related business for
such specified period and upon such terms as the Hearing Panel may determine;

(d) revocation of the authority of such person to conduct securities related business;

(e) prohibition of the authority of the person to conduct securities related business in
any capacity for any period of time;

(f) such conditions of authority to conduct securities related business as may be
considered appropriate by the Hearing Panel;

NOTICE is further given that the Hearing Panel may, in its discretion, require that the
Respondent pay the whole or any portion of the costs of the proceedings before the
Hearing Panel and any investigation relating thereto.

NOTICE is further given that the Respondent must serve a Reply on Enforcement
Counsel and file a Reply with the Corporate Secretary within twenty (20) days from the
date of service of this Notice of Hearing.

A Reply shall be served upon Enforcement Counsel at:

Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada

121 King Street West

Suite 1000

Toronto, ON M5H 3T9
Page 7 of 9

Attention: Maria L. Abate

Fax: (416) 361 – 9073

Email: mabate@mfda.ca

A Reply shall be filed by:

(a) providing 4 copies of the Reply to the Corporate Secretary by personal delivery,
mail or courier to:

The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
121 King Street West
Suite 1000
Toronto, ON M5H 3T9
Attention: Office of the Corporate Secretary; or

(b) transmitting 1 copy of the Reply to the Corporate Secretary by fax to fax number
(416) 361-9781, provided that the Reply does not exceed 16 pages, inclusive of
the covering page, unless the Corporate Secretary permits otherwise; or

(c) transmitting 1 electronic copy of the Reply to the Corporate Secretary by e-mail
at CorporateSecretary@mfda.ca.

A Reply may either:

(i)
specifically deny (with a summary of the facts alleged and intended to be
relied upon by the Respondent, and the conclusions drawn by the Respondent
based on the alleged facts) any or all of the facts alleged or the conclusions
drawn by the MFDA in the Notice of Hearing; or

(ii)
admit the facts alleged and conclusions drawn by the MFDA in the Notice of
Hearing and plead circumstances in mitigation of any penalty to be assessed.

Page 8 of 9

NOTICE is further given that the Hearing Panel may accept as having been proven any
facts alleged or conclusions drawn by the MFDA in the Notice of Hearing that are not
specifically denied in the Reply.

NOTICE is further given that if the Respondent fails:
(a) to serve and file a Reply; or

(b) attend at the hearing specified in the Notice of Hearing, notwithstanding that a
Reply may have been served,

the Hearing Panel may proceed with the hearing of the matter on the date and the time
and place set out in the Notice of Hearing (or on any subsequent date, at any time and
place), without any further notice to and in the absence of the Respondent, and the
Hearing Panel may accept the facts alleged or the conclusions drawn by the MFDA in the
Notice of Hearing as having been proven and may impose any of the penalties described
in the By-Laws.

End.

Doc #106218
Page 9 of 9