Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Securities — Investigation procedure — Refusal to testify — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that individual summoned to testify in course of investigation under Securities Act, R.S.Q. c. V 1.1 (“Act”) not entitled to object to impropriety of questions asked by respondent’s investigator — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that lawfulness of questions asked by investigator during examination not reviewable by Superior Court judge — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that individual who agrees to testify and answer certain questions by investigator but who, on advice of advocate, objects to other questions and asks judge to rule on objections has “refused to testify”, thus committing actus reus of offence under s. 195(4) of Act — Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that defence of due diligence to offence under s. 195(4) of Act is not applicable to individual relying in good faith on advice of advocate and requires proof that advocate’s advice legally sound — Securities Act, R.S.Q. c. V 1.1, ss. 195(4), 239, 240, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246.

In 2006, the respondent ordered an investigation under ss. 239 et seq. of the Act with regard to the dealer or adviser activities and the transactions conducted by the officers, employees, representatives and mandataries of various companies. On January 14, 2008, the applicant was summoned to appear before an investigator designated to carry out the investigation. The applicant, who was not the target of the investigation, appeared before the investigator with his advocate as specified in the summons. When the investigator asked the first question during the examination, the applicant’s advocate objected on the ground of irrelevance. The investigator stated that the advocate could not object and that the applicant had to answer the question asked. Objections were subsequently made to other questions, prompting the investigator to end the examination. On March 12, 2008, the respondent served a statement of offence on the applicant under s. 195(4) of the Act for refusing to testify in the course of an investigation.