Notice of Hearing

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

Allegation #1: Commencing June 9, 2016, the Respondent failed to cooperate with an investigation by Staff of the MFDA into his conduct, contrary to section 22.1 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 March 14, 2003 to November 19, 2014, the Respondent was registered in Ontario as a mutual fund salesperson (now known as a dealing representative) with Sun Life Financial Services (Canada) Inc. (the “Member”), a Member of the MFDA.

2. The Respondent was also designated as a branch manager with the Member from June 13, 2006 to December 5, 2012.

3. At all material times, the Respondent conducted business in Windsor, Ontario.

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

Failure to Cooperate

5. On or about June 9, 2016, Staff of the MFDA (“Staff”) sent a letter to the Respondent concerning allegations that, while registered with the Member, the Respondent:
   1. obtained and maintained pre-signed, falsified or altered client account forms; and
   2. engaged in registerable activities when he was not registered in the securities industry.

6. Staff’s letter dated June 9, 2016 requested that the Respondent provide a written statement, no later than June 30, 2016, responding to the issues outlined by Staff, including an explanation about how or why the Respondent could have discussed investment advice with Sun Life clients in January 2016 given that he had not been registered in the securities industry since November 19, 2014. On or about June 22, 2016, the Respondent contacted Staff by telephone to request an extension of time to respondent to Staff’s request. During that discussion, Staff agreed to the Respondent’s request and extended the response due date to July 7, 2016.

7. On or about June 23, 2016, the Respondent contacted Staff by telephone and advised that he would not provide a written response to Staff’s June 9, 2016 letter.

8. Between July 4, 2016 and March 10, 2017, Staff sent to the Respondent a number of emails, and letters by registered and regular mail and personal service, requesting that he provide a written response to Staff’s June 9, 2016 letter. All correspondence sent by Staff during that time informed the Respondent that he was required to respond to Staff’s information requests pursuant to section 22.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1 and that, should he not provide the requested response, he could be subject to a disciplinary proceeding.

9. The Respondent did not reply to any of Staff’s communications sent between July 4, 2016 and March 10, 2017.

10. On or about March 13, 2017, Staff sent a letter to the Respondent informing him that:
    1. as a result of his failure to provide a written statement responding to Staff’s letter dated June 9, 2016, he was required to attend at an interview with Staff on May 24, 2017, pursuant to section 22.1 of MFDA By-law No. 1; and
    2. should he fail to attend the scheduled Interview, Staff would consider commencing a disciplinary proceeding against him for failing to cooperate with an investigation of the MFDA.

11. On or about March 22, 2017, the Respondent sent an email to Staff informing that he would telephone Staff on March 23, 2017. The Respondent did not telephone Staff on March 23, 2017.

12. On March 24, 2017, the Respondent telephoned Staff and stated that he had not received any of the correspondence sent by Staff after June 9, 2016 as a result of having moved to a new address. Despite Staff’s request, the Respondent refused to provide Staff with his current mailing address.

13. On or about March 27, 2017, Staff sent an email to the Respondent attaching a copy of the March 13, 2017 interview request letter.

14. On March 28, 2017, the Respondent held a telephone conversation with Staff during which the Respondent, among other things:
    1. informed Staff that he had not yet reviewed Staff’s email dated March 27, 2018, including Staff’s letter dated March 13, 2017, but confirmed that he would review it before March 30, 2017 and contact Staff should he have any questions concerning the request for his attendance at an interview; and
    2. refused to provide Staff with his new mailing address.

15. On the same date, Staff sent an email to the Respondent summarizing the telephone discussion.

16. Staff did not receive a response from the Respondent following the March 28, 2017 telephone conversation. In addition, the Respondent did not attend an interview with Staff on May 24, 2017.

17. On May 26, 2017, having not heard anything from the Respondent since or about March 28, 2017, Staff sent an email to the Respondent:
    1. confirming that he had failed to attend at the interview on May 24, 2017; and
    2. informing him that Staff would consider commencing a disciplinary proceeding against him concerning his failure to provide a written statement to Staff and attend an interview with Staff.

18. Staff has received no communication from the Respondent since or about March 28, 2017.

19. The Respondent’s actions have frustrated Staff’s ability to determine the full nature and extent of the Respondent’s conduct and complete its investigation.

20. By engaging in the conduct described above, the Respondent failed to cooperate with an investigation by Staff, contrary to section 22.1 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,

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

1. a reprimand;
2. a fine not exceeding the greater of:
   1. $5,000,000.00 per offence; and
   2. an amount equal to three times the profit obtained or loss avoided by such person as a result of committing the violation;
3. 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;
4. revocation of the authority of such person to conduct securities related business;
5. prohibition of the authority of the person to conduct securities related business in any capacity for any period of time; and
6. 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 Office of 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
Attention: Francis Roy
Email: froy@mfda.ca

A Reply shall be filed by:

1. providing four (4) copies of the Reply to the Office of the Corporate Secretary by personal delivery, mail or courier to:
   1. The Mutual Fund Dealers Association of Canada
      121 King Street West
      Suite 1000
      Toronto, ON M5H 3T9
      Attention: Office of the Corporate Secretary; or
2. transmitting one (1) electronic copy of the Reply to the Office of the Corporate Secretary by e-mail at CorporateSecretary@mfda.ca.

A Reply may either:

1. 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
2. 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.

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:

1. to serve and file a Reply; or
2. 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.