Decision in brief: Bridging Finance Inc, Enforcement Proceeding, Hearing to schedule motions, May 9, 2023

In this enforcement proceeding, OSC staff alleges that David and Natasha Sharpe and the other respondents committed fraud. The Sharpes want the Tribunal to stay (permanently end) this proceeding because of what they say was an abuse of process. They say that the abuse of process arises from OSC staff providing confidential documents in the OSC’s court application to appoint a receiver over Bridging’s assets. The Sharpes say that the OSC first had to get permission from the Tribunal. See the March 30, 2022 reasons for the Tribunal’s earlier decision agreeing with the Sharpes on that point.

To help them make that argument, the Sharpes asked the Tribunal to order OSC staff to turn over certain additional documents. The Tribunal decided not to do so.

The Sharpes applied to the Divisional Court for “judicial review” of the Tribunal’s decision not to order OSC staff to provide additional documents. A judicial review is like an appeal, but with some legal differences. In another decision, the Tribunal decided that the judicial review should not delay the Tribunal proceeding.

The Sharpes asked the Tribunal to take the timing of the judicial review into account when scheduling other steps in the proceeding.

The Tribunal decided that the Sharpes’ application for judicial review should not delay the scheduling of motions and other steps. Tribunal proceedings need to move forward without too much delay, while at the same time in a way that is fair to the parties.