Case information

Securities – Prohibited conduct – Insider tipping – Evidence – Divisional Court confirming tribunal decision finding applicant tipped three individuals with material non-public information – What standard of review applies to adherence to the requirements of R. v. Handy, 2002 SCC 56, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 908 – Whether evidence of other discreditable conduct is admissible without applying the Handy framework if the conduct forms part of the narrative of the alleged misconduct – Whether the administrative context lessens the required degree of adherence to Handy – Whether the rule that a decision maker need not consider every piece of evidence or argument relieves the decision maker from the requirement in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, that it consider all reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt – Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, s. 76.

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.

The staff of the respondent, Ontario Securities Commission (“OSC”), brought a case to the Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (“tribunal”) alleging that the applicant, Majd Kitmitto, received insider information (material non-public information (“MNPI”)) relating to a proposed acquisition of the PokerStars brand by the publicly traded company Amaya Gaming Group Inc. (“Amaya”), and that he subsequently tipped three individuals about the Amaya MNPI. The tribunal relied on the circumstantial evidence presented by the OSC to conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that Mr. Kitmitto tipped the three individuals with the Amaya MNPI. On appeal, the Divisional Court found no reversible errors with respect to the tribunal’s conclusion. It dismissed his appeal. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed his motion for leave to appeal.