Index of forum topics, talk to us.


Postby admin » Fri Nov 25, 2011 11:32 pm

(Advocate comments: anyone with an RRSP, or a basic garden variety investment account has what is called a "non discretionary" account. Here is good info on how the industry will use this to screw you if they need to)

Sponsored by The Hayes Law Firm
Non-discretionary Accounts
August 06, 2007
by Lawrence C. Melton, THE HAYES LAW FIRM,, 1-866-332-3567 (toll free)

There are two general types of investments accounts: non-discretionary and discretionary. A non-discretionary account requires the broker to obtain authorization before it makes any investment decisions. A discretionary account allows an investment broker to make account transactions without the client’s prior approval. The problem is twofold: (1) brokers often treat non-discretionary accounts as if they were discretionary, and (2) brokers do not adequately explain the difference between the two accounts to the customer.
Suppose you, the average investor, open an account with a brokerage firm. Chances are you will do so without knowing whether the account is discretionary or non-discretionary. Down the road, the broker messes up, defrauds you, and makes grossly unsuitable investments. You want to take legal action, but you are uncertain. What will be the broker’s defense? He will say the account was non-discretionary and deny responsibility. In other words, he will blame you. He will say you were in control of the account, not him. No doubt, this is news to you. After all, the broker acted like he was in control. There was implicit understanding that he was in control. The only basis the broker has for saying that he was not in control is the non-discretionary status of the account.
How do you overcome this defense? How do you prove that the broker was in control, even though the account was non-discretionary? Answer: You have to prove the broker “assumed” or “usurped” control of your account.

A broker is not insulated from a charge of unsuitable trading merely because the customer did not vest the broker with formal written discretionary authority. Rather, where it can be shown that the customer-broker relationship is such that the broker in fact manages the trading in the account, control will be found. (In re Thomas McKinnon Secs., CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶ 99104 (1996, SDNY)).
Typically, this occurs when the customer evinces such trust and confidence in his or her broker that the customer invariably follows the broker's advice and recommendations. (See Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977); Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1980)).
The question is whether the customer has sufficient understanding and financial acumen to evaluate the broker's recommendations and reject them when the customer thinks it inappropriate. (See Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977); Carras v. Burns, 516 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1975); Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross, 563 F.2d 1057 (2nd Cir. 1977)). ... _accounts/ 11/25/2011
ABOUT BROKER FRAUD BLOG: Non-discretionary Accounts Page 2 of 3
Where the customer is relatively naive and unsophisticated, and the customer routinely follows the broker's advice, control will generally be found. (Mihara v. Dean Witter & Co., 619 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1980); Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417 (9th Cir. 1980)).
While an otherwise intelligent customer will not be allowed to hide behind a mask of ignorance, the customer's sophistication and success in one area of life will not necessarily mean that he or she will be found sophisticated enough to understand all the risks of a particular investment or trading strategy, so as to protect the broker from a finding that the broker controlled an account. Clark v. John Lamula Investors, Inc., 583 F.2d 594 (2nd Cir. 1978); Cruse v. Equitable Sec. of New York, Inc. 678 F.Supp.1023 (SDNY 1987).
Whether or not a broker controls the trading in his or her customer's account is a question of fact. Control may exist as a result of an express written agreement between the broker and the customer, or may be inferred from their particular relationship. (Fey v Walston & Co. 493 F2d 1036, CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶94437, 18 FR Serv 2d 835 (7th Cir. 1974); Newburger, Loeb & Co. v Gross (1977, CA2 NY) 563 F2d 1057, CCH Fed Secur L Rep ¶96148, 1977-2 CCH Trade Cases ¶61604, 24 FR Serv 2d 42 (2nd Cir. 1977), cert denied 434 US 1035, 54 L Ed 2d 782, 98 S Ct 769, appeal after remand (CA2 NY) 611 F2d 423, 28 FR Serv 2d 602).
To determine whether a broker exercised de facto control over trading in a non-discretionary account, courts look to several factors. Zaretsky v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 509 F.Supp. 68 (SDNY 1981); In re Thomas McKinnon Secs., CCH Fed Secur L Rep 99104 (SDNY 1996).
Of critical importance are the personal characteristics of the customer, such as his or her age, education, general intelligence, and business and investment experience. Control is likely to be found where the customer is particularly old, young, lacking in education, or was inexperienced in the stock market or lacked financial sophistication. Hecht v. Harris, Upham & Co., 283 F.Supp. 417 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding control when customer was particularly old); Kravitz v Pressman, Frohlich & Frost, Inc., 447 F.Supp.203 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 1978) (finding control when customer was particularly young); Leib v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (E.D. Mich. 1978) (finding control when customer lacks education); Carras v. Burns, 516 F.2d. 251 (4th Cir. 1975) (finding control when customer lacks education or is inexperienced in the stock market or is lacking financial sophistication).
Another factor closely examined by the courts is the relationship between the broker and customer, whether it was an arm's length business relationship or a combination of business and friendship.
Also significant are the reliance placed on the broker by the customer. Fey v. Walston & Co., 493 F.2d 1036 (7th Cir. 1974); Petrites v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 646 F.2d 1033 (Fla. 5th DCA); Marshak v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 413 F.Supp. 377 (ND Okla 1975). If a broker has acted as an investment adviser, and particularly if the customer has almost invariably followed the broker's advice, the fact finder may consider this as evidence that the relationship is discretionary and that the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the customer. Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 741 N.E.2d 841 (Mass. 2001).
A course of dealing in which a broker executes trades without client's prior approval suggests that the account is discretionary for purposes of broker's fiduciary duties; similarly, if a broker has acted as an investment adviser and client has frequently relied on that advice, there is a strong indication that the account is discretionary. In re Murphy, 297 B.R. 332, 41 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 226 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2003). ... _accounts/ 11/25/2011
ABOUT BROKER FRAUD BLOG: Non-discretionary Accounts Page 3 of 3
Past evidence of following broker's advice will establish control. If a broker has acted as an investment adviser, and particularly if the customer has almost invariably followed the broker's advice, the fact finder may consider this as evidence that the relationship is discretionary and that the broker owes a fiduciary duty to the customer. Patsos v. First Albany Corp., 433 Mass. 323, 741 N.E.2d 841 (Mass. 2001).
As noted by the Second Circuit, a broader duty may be recognized in a non-discretionary account in the following circumstances:
(1) if the broker has engaged in unauthorized transactions or has otherwise effectively taken over the handling of an account even though it is labeled as a self-directed account;
(2) if the client is prevented by "impaired faculties" or extreme lack of sophistication from understanding the basics of trading and thus simply lacks the capacity to handle such an account;
(3) if the broker "has a closer than arm's length relationship" with the client;
(4) if the broker violates legal or industry requirements concerning risk disclosure when opening an account; or
(5) if the broker offers advice on a specific transaction that was "unsound, reckless, ill-formed, or otherwise defective."
Stewert v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., 2004 WL 1823902, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 16114 (NYSD 2004) (citing Kwiatkowski v. Bear Stearns & Co., 306 F.3d 1293, 1302-03, 1307-08 (2d Cir. 2002)).
If you can establish the above elements, the broker will not be able to hide behind the non-discretionary account defense. THE HAYES LAW FIRM,, 1-866-332-3567 (toll free) Free Weblog Directory Posted at 04:03 PM in Non-discretionary Accounts | Permalink|Comments (1)|TrackBack (0)
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Mon Oct 31, 2011 5:54 pm

320712_256292294408596_201546203216539_630310_586027531_n.jpg (22.77 KiB) Viewed 24416 times
If you have lost money with the help of someone who claimed to be an "advisor", I suggest you get your money back. Spend some time on this forum and have your research in order and then email me with any questions. I will gladly help you write the letter, file the statement of claim or the private criminal charge for negligent misrepresentation. Only talk to me however if you are able and willing to take a no nonsense, no bull approach to getting your money back. That is what it will take to overcome the vast "reputation protection racket" that the investment industry has placed around itself.

And here is a link for those who have been encouraged to BORROW to invest.

x ... -final.pdf

there is hope
there may even be justice if you demand it

Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sat Oct 29, 2011 2:37 pm

Screen shot 2011-10-29 at 3.36.49 PM.png

some useful help in getting your money back from a person or a firm who "sold" you something under the guise of investment "advice"
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Oct 21, 2011 3:28 pm

30 Rep product pusher_027.jpg
Advocate comments: This article is important to abused investors because............Industry rules require the investment firm to oversee and be financially responsible for each of their "dealing representatives" (salespeople who improperly call themselves "advisor")

Just one of the many closely guarded secrets the firm will keep from you when you complain about your "advisor's" advice. It works like this......we make a ton of money letting phoney "advisors" manipulate customer's money for commissions, we share in those juicy commissions, BUT if push comes to shove, we will try and shove the salesman under the bus and have him lose everything, while we maintain our attitude that he was a "rouge" salesman, and we had nothing to do with it. Make sure your getting your money back involves going after the firm and not simply the licensed salesperson, or the representative of that dealer.

Berkshire Securities Inc. admits it didn't properly supervise broker

OCTOBER 18, 2011
A Toronto-based brokerage firm has agreed to pay a $120,000 fine and $10,000 in costs to settle allegations that it failed to properly supervise one of its former Abbotsford brokers.
In a settlement agreement No. 11-0292 with the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada, Berkshire Securities Inc. (now operating as Manulife Securities Inc.) admitted that it failed to properly supervise Syvert (Sy) Mytting in 2007.
According to the settlement agreement, Mytting recommended that five of his clients borrow money to invest in mutual funds.
Berkshire admitted that its supervisory personnel failed to determine whether this leverage strategy was suitable for these clients, given their age and financial circumstances.
The settlement agreement also reveals that Mytting personally guaranteed losses in another client account, which is strictly against brokerage industry rules.
Berkshire admitted that, when Mytting first raised the issue of compensating clients, it failed to promptly inquire into the matter, which could have uncovered unsuitable investment recommendations and curbed further losses.
The settlement notes that, in all cases, Berkshire compensated the clients for losses suffered on account of Mytting's misconduct.
Warren Funt, IIROC's vicepresident for Western Canada, said in an interview Monday that he expects disciplinary action to be initiated against Mytting.
Even before this regulatory action, Mytting was a controversial figure. More on this later.
As I have noted in previous columns, borrowing money for investment purposes can be profitable, but it is also extremely risky.
Berkshire heavily promoted the benefits of leverage. Its promotional literature listed "five laws of wealth creation." One of those laws was "use other people's money," that is, borrow money for investment purposes.
Mytting, it appears, was more than willing to recommend this strategy to his clients.
The settlement agreement states that, in one case, he recommended a couple borrow $750,000 from AGF Trust Company, which charged interest at 6.5 per cent annually.
The loan represented 114 per cent of their net assets of $660,000, and 3,750 per cent of their liquid assets of $20,000. Their combined annual income was just $99,000.
In another case, he recommended a couple - 71 and 62 years old - borrow $863,000. The loan was 63 per cent of their net assets of $1.36 million, and 81 per cent of their liquid assets of $1.1 million in liquid assets. Their combined income was only $62,000.
According to the settlement agreement, each Berkshire account that contained leveraged investments was identified to supervisors with the code "LEV," for leverage. Also, Berkshire's supervisors were generally aware that Mytting commonly recommended leveraged loans to his clients.
However, the firm didn't have electronic systems to monitor the extent of the leverage, and branch supervisors didn't sufficiently review client accounts to determine whether the leverage was suitable for each client, Berkshire admitted.
After Manulife acquired Berkshire, the firm introduced new criteria for determining when leverage levels are excessive, including age, loan-to-asset and loan-to-income thresholds.
The settlement agreement also notes that in February 2007, another client deposited $1 million into his account, and bought $1 million worth of equity mutual funds.
In August 2007, Mytting talked to the branch manager about personally guaranteeing the client against losses. A few days later, he was told that this was against the rules.
Berkshire admitted that Mytting's inquiry should have prompted further questions.
"The fact that Mytting was considering making up losses in the account should have alerted the branch manager that Mytting had possibly made poor or unsuitable recommendations in the account which caused the client unexpected losses," the settlement agreement states.
In September 2007, the branch manager discovered that Mytting had agreed that he would cover any losses, and the client would pay him any profits.
However, the branch manger didn't contact the client until December 2007, by which time the value of the account had declined by another $50,000.
A few days later, Mytting was terminated. He is no longer working in the brokerage industry.
According to the B.C. Securities Commission database, Mytting became a licensed broker in 1994. From 1996 until it went bankrupt in 1998, he worked at Vantage Securities, where he sold millions of dollars of investments in cranberry and oyster farms, and other high-risk illiquid deals that caused investors all sorts of grief. He also pitched financial products through radio infomercials.
He is now billing himself as the co-founder and CEO of Green Trust Innovations, which is offering distributorships for the "Performax injector" for internal combustion engines.
He claims the device can provide 30-per-cent better fuel mileage and 90-per-cent less emissions while providing more horsepower.
When I asked him to provide scientific proof, he said he would do so only if I signed a non-disclosure agreement, which I refused to do.
Green Trust's website describes Mytting's stint at Berkshire in glowing terms: "As one of Berkshire's top investment advisers, Sy managed over $65,000,000 of client investments and was the top business developer out of 1,000 Investment Advisors. Sy received numerous financial and recognition awards for his outstanding achievements at Berkshire Securities and was invited to have dinner with Mr. Warren Buffett, one of the great investors of our time."
There is no mention of his compliance problems and subsequent dismissal.
Mytting also bills himself as "an Isness master," which he describes as somebody "who has recognized that their true identity is divine consciousness and lives that truth ... so that it might be revealed on earth."
Hopefully, IIROC will reveal the truth about his dealings at Berkshire.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Fri Aug 05, 2011 12:30 pm

Picture 27.png
click on image to enlarge
(go to your securities commission and LOOK UP the license and registration category of the person calling themselves your trusted "advisor". I can almost promise you that this person is misrepresenting his or her license and responsibilities to you. GEY YOUR MONEY BACK if you have been thus defrauded.)

This is a good article that helps illustrate the dozen different "opinions" or thoughts on the salesperson or "advisor" question. It is a billion dollar question: ... ators.aspx
Vancouver Sun
David Baines: Victoria financial planner David Michaels sidelined by insurance regulators


Filed under: b.c. securities commission, Insurance Council of B.C., David Michaels, Gerry Matier
Victoria financial planner David Michaels, principal of Michaels Wealth Management, has been prohibited from selling insurance products.

Gerry Matier, executive director of the Insurance Council of B.C., said in an interview Thursday that Michaels’ licence is contingent on him being supervised by an experienced life insurance agent. However, Michaels' supervisor, Arthur Rowland of North Vancouver, declined to continue his supervisory role, which means Michaels’ licence has been rendered inactive.

The action follows a series of reports in The Vancouver Sun that Michaels sold tens of millions of dollars of high-risk illiquid securities investments to people who, due to age or financial circumstance, should never have bought them in the first place.

The general rule in B.C. is that nobody can sell or advise in securities unless they are registered to sell securities. However, Michaels sold these investments under exemptions from prospectus and registration requirements in the B.C. Securities Act.

He advertised these investments as safe and secure, and promised high returns, however, many of them have collapsed or discontinued distributions to investors. Among them are Focused Money Solutions, Pepper Creek Oil & Gas, and the Bethel Care facility in Sidney, B.C.

B.C. Securities Commission investigators are now trying to determine whether Michaels, in the course of selling these products, advised people to buy them, which he could not legally do because he was not registered as an securities advisor.

This is not the first time Michaels has been in regulatory trouble. He was previously licensed as a mutual fund salesman with Dundee Securities. Then, in 2004, he was caught selling penny stock in off-book transactions with clients and borrowing money from clients, then lying about it to investigators.

The Investment Dealers Association of Canada (now the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada) revoked his mutual fund licence for two months and fined him $60,000. When his suspension expired, he did not get re-licensed as a securities salesman or advisor, but that did not preclude him from selling exempt securities products.

He also held an insurance licence, but due to his securities problems, the insurance council insisted he be supervised by an experienced life insurance agent. That supervisor bowed out last week after The Sun reported that Michaels’ clients had lost, or stood to lose, substantial amounts of money on account of exempt securities products that he had sold them.

Although Michaels has been precluded from selling insurance products, at least until be finds another supervisor satisfactory to the insurance council, that does not necessarily end the matter. The council has become increasingly concerned about insurance agents who sell exempt securities products to their clients, particularly if the agent has advised the client to liquidate insurance products to pay for these investments.

Matier said that, as a matter of policy, he could not confirm or deny that the council is investigating Michaels’s conduct, but he noted that the council is permitted to pursue agents even if they have left the industry or are no longer active.


Advocate comment.......does that clear it up for you?........the industry is making up the story AFTER the fact to support whatever behaviours they wish to support. Use this kind of obvious subterfuge to GET YOUR MONEY BACK if you have been dealing with a guy who cannot tell you, let alone show you what his license says.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Thu Jul 07, 2011 1:13 pm

not legal advice, but you CAN file private criminal charges yourself if the police refuse to get involved:
from ... cution.htm

If you have reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed contrary to a provincial or federal statute [i.e. Criminal Code of Canada], a regulation made under that statute, or a municipal bylaw, you may prosecute the offender yourself. Before launching a private prosecution, you may want to make a complaint to the police. If the police refuse to lay charges and you believe there is enough evidence of an offence to support a conviction, you may lay your own charges.

Prosecutions consist of five (5) basic parts:

Laying the information

issuing the summons

serving the summons

setting the trial date

the trial

1. Laying the Information

The first step is to go to a justice of the peace (JP) at your local court and sign a form on which you set out the details of the alleged offence. This form is called an "information," and you are referred to as the "informant." The JP then asks you to swear that this statement is true, and the JP signs his or her name as a witness. This process is called "swearing the information." Formal charges have now been laid.

Draft the charges with care, because inaccurate information may hurt your chances of a successful prosecution. Often the JP will draft the charges for you, or you may wish to fill out the form with the help of a lawyer. Here are some tips:

The forms used for provincial offences are different from those for federal offences, so be sure you get the right one.

Be sure to lay the information promptly. Under the Ontario Provincial Offences Act and the summary conviction provisions of the Criminal Code, you have only six months from the time an offence occurred to lay the charges. Some statutes have shorter or longer limitation periods.

Be precise. It is safest to follow the wording of the statute describing the offence (e.g., the Highway Traffic Act) as closely as possible.

State the specific date and place where the offence occurred, and give the name of the accused in full. If the accused is a corporation, use the full corporate name.

When the information relates to more than one breach of the law, set out each offence in a separate "count" (separately numbered paragraphs each setting out all the details of one offence).

When laying charges under the Highway Traffic Act against the registered owner of a motor vehicle, set out not only the section of the Act that was violated but also that the violation occurred contrary to section 207, the section that makes the owner liable for violations by the driver.

2. Issuing the Summons

The JP has no discretion in swearing the information – he or she can't refuse to do it. However, the JP does have discretion not to take the next step: issuing the summons to the accused. The summons is a copy of the information that also states the time and place where the accused must appear to answer the charges.

JPs are mainly used to issuing summonses for the police, and some JPs may be reluctant to issue a summons requested by a private citizen. The JP can ask you probing questions, so it is advisable to be well prepared when you visit the JP to swear the information, and even to bring a lawyer with you if you anticipate difficulty.

If the JP issues the summons, he or she will usually make it "returnable" in about two to four weeks' time. At least two weeks should be allowed, so there is enough to serve the summons on the accused. The "return date" will not be the trial date, but the date when the prosecutor and the accused appear in court to set a date for the trial.

3. Serving the Summons on the Accused

Serving the summons means delivering the summons to the accused. Serving a summons is generally valid only if it is done by a designated person – usually a police officer. [The staff of the county and district sheriff's offices are also peace officers, and for a fee they may serve summonses for you. Give them the summons as early as possible and follow up with them to check that the summons has been filed.]

To be on the safe side, it's a good idea to also personally deliver or mail a copy of the summons to the accused. Even though the accused is not required to respond, many people do not know this and will come to court. Once the accused or his or her lawyer appears in court, the accused is bound by the summons, even if he or she need not have appeared.

Once a summons has been served, the person who served it must fill out and sign an "affidavit of service" on the back of a copy of the summons. This affidavit sets out the identity of the person served with the summons, and the time and place the summons was served. It is then up to you to make sure the copy of the summons with its affidavit of service is filed in the proper court before the return date (this will mean chasing up the police officer or whoever served the summons).

4. Setting the Trial Date

On the return date, the informant and the accused or their lawyers meet to set a trial date. Choose a date far enough away to give you time to prepare, and to give the accused written notice of all the documents you intend to use as evidence. (Otherwise the documents may be inadmissible.) Also make sure you choose a date when all your witnesses are available.

The court will set a trial date and adjourn the case to that day.

If the accused does not turn up on the return date, the court will go ahead anyway and set a date for the trial. But if the affidavit of service has not been filed with the court, the court will not proceed, and a new summons will have to be issued.

A brief glance at the broader history of criminal prosecution may help
to put this article in its proper context. For the purposes of this section,
it is useful to divide English history into four periods. 12
1. The first age of private prosecution (seventh to tenth
centuries). During this period criminal prosecutions were almost entirely
private. Prosecution was at least partially motivated by the possibility of
monetary compensation. Until at least the late tenth century, those
convicted of crime were not ordinarily hanged, incarcerated, or otherwise
punished, but instead owed the victim compensation (bot) or, in homicide
cases, owed the victim's family the deceased's wergild, a monetary payment
that varied with the deceased's social status.6 13

2. The rise of presentment (tenth to fourteenth centuries).
Starting in the late tenth century, Anglo-Saxon kings began to change the
nature of criminal prosecution. Aethelred's third code, promulgated around
1000, required the twelve leading thanes (nobles) of a wapentake (district)
to accuse and arrest those suspected of crime in their locality.7 This
procedure seems to foreshadow presentment, which, according to some
historians, did not became a routine part of judicial administration until
almost two centuries later, during the reign of Henry II. Under the
presentment procedure, leading men were chosen from each locality and were
required to present (that is, report) on oath crimes committed in their
neighborhoods. These leading men were known as the presenting jury, which is
the ancestor of the grand jury. Like the medieval trial (petit) jury, the
presenting jury was self-informing.8 Little or no evidence was presented in
court. The jurors were expected to gather information informally before they
came to court and to present their conclusions to the judges. 14

The nature of criminal penalties also began to change during this
period. As early as the late tenth century, bot seems to have been payable
to church, king, or community at large rather than to the injured kin.9
There is also archaeological evidence that the death penalty was frequently
imposed in the eleventh century.10 By the late twelfth century, these
changes were firmly entrenched and are regularly attested to by the
surviving records. Hanging and fines payable to the king were the only
criminal penalties regularly imposed in royal courts. In addition, hanging
was usually accompanied by forfeiture of land and chattels. 15

Although presentment and noncompensatory punishments were
becoming increasingly important, no English king even attempted to abolish
private prosecutions, which by the late eleventh century were called
"appeals." In fact, until the turn of the fourteenth century, presentments
were confined almost exclusively to homicide and theft,11 and nearly all
accusations of rape, mayhem,12 wounding, false imprisonment, assault and
battery were brought by way of appeal, as were large numbers of homicide and
theft cases. Although the legal sanction for crime was death or fines
payable to the king, victims (and their families) could appeal and use the
threat of legally imposed hanging or fines to induce compensatory monetary
settlements. By the end of the thirteenth century, however, the appeal was
becoming much less common, and presentment had become the way nearly all
crimes were prosecuted. 16

3. The return of private prosecution (fourteenth to nineteenth
centuries). As noted above, twelfth- and thirteenth-century juries (both
presenting juries and trial juries) were largely self-informing. During the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, however, for reasons that have yet to be
fully explained, juries became more passive.13 Trial juries began to rely on
evidence that parties presented in court, and the presenting jury (now
called the grand jury) less frequently made accusations based on its own
knowledge. Instead, the grand jury primarily screened accusations made by
others, declaring "true bill" of accusations ("indictments") it approved.14
Although these prosecutions were formally brought in the name of the Crown,
the predominance of victim initiative suggests that they are properly
classified as private prosecutions.15 Nevertheless, royal officials did
provide investigative assistance. From the late twelfth century, the coroner
had been gathering evidence in homicide cases.16 Justices of the peace
performed a similar function for other crimes from, at latest, the sixteenth
century, and possibly as early as the fourteenth.17 17

4. The age of public prosecution (nineteenth century to present).
In the nineteenth century, partly in response to the growing problem of
urban crime, pressure began to mount for public prosecution. Victims
frequently did not prosecute because it was expensive, time consuming, and
brought few benefits other than the satisfaction of revenge or justice.18 As
a result, by the mid-nineteenth century, most prosecutions were private in
name only, as the "private" prosecutor was in most instances a policeman.
Nevertheless, public prosecution was perceived as a threat to liberty, and
Parliament did not pass legislation to set up a national system of public
prosecutors until 1879.19 Even this statute did not fundamentally undermine
private prosecution, because public prosecutors had very limited
authority.20 It was only with the passage of the 1985 Prosecution of
Offenses Act that England established an effective system of public
prosecution, and even this legislation preserved a limited right of private
prosecution.21 In America, public prosecution seems to have become common
somewhat earlier.22 18


26.1 Introduction
The relationship between the private citizen, as prosecutor, and the
Attorney General, who has exclusive authority to represent the public in
court1, has been described as follows2:

The right of a private citizen to lay an information, and the right
and duty of the Attorney General to supervise criminal prosecutions are both
fundamental parts of our criminal justice system.

The right of a citizen to institute a prosecution for a breach of the law
has been called "a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or
partiality on the part of authority"3. However, this right can be abused. It
is sometimes necessary for the Attorney General to intervene and conduct or
stay the prosecution to prevent the harms that may flow from such
prosecutions, for example: 1) the harm suffered by a defendant who is
factually innocent; 2) the harm to the court system caused by a frivolous

Please note that it is a well known fact in the Province of British Columbia, the secret policy directive of the Attorney General's office, is "not to proceed on any private prosecution", and there are many examples of their interference in cases where of overwhelming evidence of criminal wrongdoing was demonstrated to a Justice of the Peace. [Stay in tune with BCREVOLUTION for examples]

Both of the excuses raised above, on behalf of the Attorney General to quash a private prosecution, fail to consider that the private party must FIRST present his/her evidence of the charge(s) to a Justice of the Peace, who themselves are already direct appointees of the government.

It therefore belies all common sense for the Attorney General to assert that "Private Prosecutions" are in any way MORE harmful to the innocent, or frivolous, than the thousands of Prosecutions THEY themselves commence on a daily basis.

An impartial Justice of the piece is more than qualified in making the lawful determination of facts; AS IS A JURY, WHICH OUR LAW OF THE LAND (Eternal Magna Carta) states is our inherent right before we can be imprisoned, or our property seized.

It is THE JURY OF OUR PEERS that is our greatest safeguard against harm to the innocent.

See below (as you read this government document) how the government is continuing to obstruct justice, and encroach on your unalienable right to bring the guilty to justice under our common law, as preserved in our Great Charter of Liberties, 1215, 1297.

This chapter explains the law on initiating and conducting private
prosecutions. It also explains when the Attorney General of Canada may and
should intervene either to conduct or stay such prosecutions.

26.2 Origin of Private Prosecutions
A private citizen's right to initiate and conduct a private prosecution
originates in the early common law. From the early Middle Ages to the 17th
century, private prosecutions were the main way to enforce the criminal law.
Indeed, private citizens were responsible for preserving the peace and
maintaining the law5:

[U]nder the English common law, crimes were regarded originally as
being committed not against the state but against a particular person or
family. It followed that the victim or some relative would initiate and
conduct the prosecution against the offender ...

Another feature of the English common law was the view that it was not
[actually] the privilege but the duty [by right] of the private citizen to preserve the
King's Peace and bring offenders to justice6.

Because of the increase in courts and cases in the Middle Ages, the King
began to appoint King's Attorneys to intervene in matters of particular
interest to the King. Intervention took two forms. The King could initiate
and conduct certain prosecutions through a personal representative. The King
could also intervene in cases begun by a private prosecutor where the matter
was of special concern to the King. By intervening, the King's Attorney
could then conduct or stop the proceedings7. As the English common law
developed, the role of Crown law officers grew. Still, private prosecutions
were allowed. To this day they are recognized in several English statutes8.

26.3 Foundation for Private Prosecutions in Canadian Law
No Criminal Code provision expressly authorizes private prosecutions.
Several provisions, however, impliedly recognize such proceedings. Except
where the Attorney General's consent is required, section 504 of the Code
permits anyone to lay an information. As well, the definitions of
"prosecutor" in sections 2 and 785 make it clear that someone other than the Attorney General may institute proceedings. These provisions apply to
proceedings under the Code and all other federal acts9.

Prior to the 2002 amendments to the Criminal Code10, courts had held: a) a
private citizen may institute and conduct a prosecution under federal
legislation without the knowledge or participation of the Attorney General
of Canada;11 b) clear and specific language is required to abolish private
prosecutions under a federal statute.12

Pursuant to the 2002 amendments, however, important limitations were
introduced on the right of a private citizen to institute proceedings.
Section 507.1 of the Code requires a justice receiving such an information
to refer it to a judge or designated justice, and requires notice to the
Attorney General and an opportunity for the Attorney General to participate
in a hearing to determine whether a summons or warrant for the arrest of the
accused shall issue. In summary conviction proceedings, the private
prosecutor controls the proceedings from start to finish unless the Attorney
General intervenes. In indictable matters, a private prosecutor may conduct
the trial, including the preliminary inquiry. However, the private
prosecutor requires a judge's consent under subsection 574(3) of the Code to
prefer an indictment.

26.4 Authority of the Attorney General of Canada to Intervene in Private

At common law the Attorney General could intervene in private prosecutions
and either conduct the prosecution or enter a nolle prosequi (the
traditional power of the Attorney General to stop proceedings)13. Under
section 5 of the Department of Justice Act, the Attorney General of Canada
is "entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the
Office of the Attorney General of England by law or usage, insofar as those
powers and duties are applicable to Canada".

[There is absolutely no such thing as a "common law" right of an "Attorney General" to stop a proceeding at their whim. Our common law has always been based on Rule of Law, and the equality of ALL under the law.

Their assertion is a complete fabrication, and misdirection of the true common law, which is the law for the people, not the re-written half-drunken ramblings [precedents] of government puppet judges who will sell their own soul for 30 pieces of silver.] [LINK to Judges]

The Criminal Code provides that the Attorney General of Canada and Attorneys
General of the provinces share responsibility for conducting prosecutions.
However, several Supreme Court of Canada decisions have made it clear that
the authority of provincial Attorneys General to prosecute under federal
statutes, including the Criminal Code, is given by the Code. Their authority
does not flow from any constitutional principle based on subsection 92(14)14
or from some historic role15. The provincial prosecutorial role is assigned
through legislation by Parliament, not constitutionally entrenched.

Section 2 of the Criminal Code assigns prosecutorial roles as follows:

"Attorney General"

1.. with respect to proceedings to which this Act applies, means the
Attorney General or Solicitor General of the province in which those
proceedings are taken and includes his lawful deputy, and

2.. with respect to

1.. the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, or

2.. proceedings commenced at the instance of the Government of Canada
and conducted by or on behalf of that Government in respect of a
contravention of a conspiracy or attempt to contravene or counselling the
contravention of any Act of Parliament other than this Act or any regulation
made under any such Act, means the Attorney General of Canada and includes
his lawful deputy.
Under this definition, it follows that if a private individual lays an
information, the Attorney General of Canada lacks authority to intervene in
the case, whether to conduct or stay the proceedings. This is because the
proceedings were not "commenced at the instance of the Government of

This lack of authority for the Attorney General of Canada to intervene
applies only to prosecutions brought in a province. According to the
definition set out above, the Attorney General of Canada has full authority
to start and stop proceedings and intervene in private prosecutions brought
in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon Territory, and Nunavut.

"Attorney General" is defined somewhat differently for drug prosecutions.
Section 2 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act states as follows:

"Attorney General" means

1.. the Attorney General of Canada, and includes their lawful deputy; or

2.. with respect to proceedings commenced at the instance of the
government of a province and conducted by or on behalf of that government,
the Attorney General of that province, and includes their lawful deputy.
Pursuant to this definition, the Attorney General of Canada has authority to
intervene in private prosecutions of drug matters throughout the country.

Another source of the Attorney General's power to intervene in private
prosecutions may be found in section 579.1 of the Criminal Code. This
section was added in 1994 to give the Attorney General of Canada authority
to intervene in private prosecutions commenced under federal statutes other
than Criminal Code, where the provincial Attorney General has not

Section 579.01 was added to the Criminal Code in 2002 to permit the Attorney
General to intervene in the proceedings without staying them. Under this
provision the Attorney General may call witnesses, examine and cross-examine
witnesses, present evidence and make submissions without actually conducting
the proceedings.

26.5 Statement of Policy
26.5.1 Private Prosecutions in the Yukon Territory, the Northwest
Territories, and Nunavut
The Attorney General has the responsibility to ensure that all criminal
prosecutions are in the public interest. The Attorney General must also
ensure that it is appropriate to permit private prosecutions to remain in
private hands.

When considering whether to intervene, Crown counsel should consult with the
Prosecution Group Head and consider the following:

1.. the need to strike an appropriate balance between the right of the
private citizen to initiate and conduct a prosecution as a safeguard in the
justice system, and the responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada for
the proper administration of justice in the territories;

2.. the seriousness of the offence - generally, the more serious, the more
likely it is that the Attorney General should intervene;

3.. whether there is sufficient evidence to justify continuing the
prosecution, that is, whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction
based on the available evidence;

4.. whether a consideration of the public interest criteria described in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute", leads to the conclusion
that the public interest would not be served by continuing the proceedings;

5.. whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the decision to
prosecute was made for improper personal or oblique motives, or that it
otherwise may constitute an abuse of the court's process such that, even if
the prosecution were to proceed, it would not be appropriate to permit it to
remain in the hands of a private prosecutor; and

6.. whether, given the nature of the alleged offence or the issues to be
determined at trial, it is in the interests of the proper administration of
justice for the prosecution to remain in private hands.
Whenever the Attorney General intervenes, the decision to continue or stay
the proceedings should be made in accordance with the criteria set out in
Part V, Chapter 15, "The Decision to Prosecute".

In some cases, it may be difficult to assess whether there is sufficient
evidence to justify continuing the proceedings, because no police
investigation preceded the laying of charges. If so, it will in most
instances be appropriate for the Attorney General to intervene, request an
adjournment, and ask the RCMP to investigate. It may, in some situations, be
necessary to stay proceedings while the investigation is conducted. After
the investigation, Crown counsel should assess whether to commence
proceedings in accordance with the criteria set out in Part V, Chapter 15,
"The Decision to Prosecute". If a decision is reached not to prosecute,
subsequent proceedings brought privately should, in the absence of unusual
circumstances, be taken over on behalf of the Attorney General and stayed.

26.5.2 Private Prosecutions in the Provinces
As noted above, the Attorney General of Canada has a limited authority to
intervene in private prosecutions in the provinces. Where such authority
exists, it should be exercised on the same basis as outlined in s. 26.5.1

The Government of Canada may still have an interest in certain proceedings.
Many private prosecutions are commenced on the basis of an enforcement
scheme found in regulatory enactments such as the Fisheries Act. Charges of
this nature ought to be brought to the attention of the Regional Director,
as it may be appropriate to bring enforcement or policy concerns to the
attention of the Attorney General of the province so that provincial
authorities can then make an informed decision about intervening.

26.6 Consultation With Senior Management
Where an issue concerning the conduct or potential termination of a private
prosecution needs to be resolved, Crown counsel should refer the matter to
the Senior Regional Director who, in cases of particular public interest,
should confer with the Assistant Deputy Attorney General (Criminal Law)
before making a decision.

26.7 Case References
Re Bradley and The Queen (1975), 9 O.R. (2d) 161 (Ont. C.A.): Where the
interests of justice require, the Attorney General may intervene and take
over a private prosecution of a summary conviction offence.

MacIssac v. Motor Coach Ind. Ltd., [1982] 5 W.W.R. 391 (Man. C.A.): Since
the word "prosecutor" includes the informant or counsel for the informant,
it is incontestable that a private prosecution can take place in the absence
of intervention by the Crown.

Re Hamilton and The Queen (1986), 30 C.C.C. (3d) 65 (B.C.S.C.): An
intervention by the Attorney General in a private prosecution does not
contravene section 7 of the Charter.

Campbell v. A.G. of Ontario (1987), 31 C.C.C. (3d) 289; aff'd. 35 C.C.C.
(3d) 480 (C.A.): The court cannot review a decision by the Attorney General
to stay a private prosecution, absent flagrant impropriety.

Re Faber and the Queen (1987), 38 C.C.C. (3d) 49 (Que. S.C.): A decision to
stay does not infringe sections 7 or 15 of the Charter.

Chartrand v. Quebec (Min. of Justice) (1986), 55 C.R. (3d) 97 (Que. S.C.):
Ministerial decisions, whether based on a statute, a prerogative, or the
common law, are reviewable by virtue of section 32 of the Charter.
Therefore, the Attorney General's decision to intervene and stay a private
prosecution is also reviewable.

R. v. Cathcart and Maclean (1988), 207 A.P.R. 267 (N.S.S.C.): A superior
court judge does not need to approve a private prosecution of a hybrid
offence. An order under subsection 504(3) [now subsection 574(3)] of the
Criminal Code is required only after the accused has been committed to stand
trial on an indictable offence.

Osiowy v. Linn (1988), 67 Sask. R. 215 (Sask. Q.B.), sub nom. R. v. Osiowy
(1989), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 189 (Sask. C.A.): The Attorney General's discretion
to intervene and stay a private prosecution was upheld.

Kostuch (Informant) v. Alberta (Attorney General) (1995), 101 C.C.C. (3d)
321 (Alta. C.A.): The court will not interfere with the Attorney General's
exercise of discretion to intervene in a private prosecution unless there
has been a "flagrant impropriety".

Werring v. B.C. (Attorney General) (1997), 122 C.C.C. (3d) 343 (B.C.C.A.):
An informant seeking judicial review of Attorney General's decision to stay
a private prosecution is not entitled to cross-examine the prosecutor who
entered the stay without showing a basis for the belief that such
cross-examination would show flagrant impropriety by the Crown

Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:23 am ... &utm_term=

The costly consequences of inadequate supervision

Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Ellen Bessner and Jessica Zagar
June 7 2011
A recent decision by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Straus Estate v. Decaire, 2011 ONSC 1157 (“Straus”) serves to reiterate the importance of ensuring that compliance policies and proper training of sales representatives are practiced at the branch level. This is yet another cautionary tale for dealers of the importance of providing oversight and ensuring compliance policies not only exist, but are functionally implemented throughout the organization. A full copy of the case is available here.

In Straus, the plaintiffs sought damages for losses sustained from an “off-book” investment opportunity recommended by the advisor that was neither part of the dealers’ registered mutual fund financial products, nor suitable for the plaintiffs.1

The dealers argued that the terms of their contract with the advisor was limited to the sale of the dealers’ mutual funds and that the plaintiffs knew that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund and beyond the authority of the advisor as mutual fund representative of the dealers.

Despite finding that the plaintiffs were aware that the investment opportunity was not a mutual fund investment, the trial judge denied the dealers’ defence and found them vicariously liable for the plaintiffs’ losses. The conduct of the dealers in failing to maintain proper compliance practices played an important role in the trial judge’s reasons for finding the dealers vicariously liable. According to the trial judge, even a “superficial inquiry” by the governance officer would have revealed that the advisor was actively engaged in off-book activity.

While the plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages was denied, the trial judge took the rare step of awarding the plaintiffs substantially all of their costs (full indemnity costs) to restore the plaintiffs to their original financial position, in effect punishing the defendants for being motivated by profit through the exploitation of trust and for the defendants’ assertion at trial that the plaintiffs were the authors of their own misfortune.

(nearly every case of financial abuse I have seen carries that "you were the author of your own misfortune" defence by the industry. I am pleased to see in this case the investment dealer being punished for such a false and bullying tactic. If one checks the advertising, the promises implied, the terms used to mislead and misinform the public by most investment sellers, they will soon learn that the industry practices the world's best "bait and switch", to do financial violence to customers. see for a full explanation of the industry bait and switch)
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:18 pm

Hi Larry,

Questions for you:

Re the statement below that you write:

If you were to combine the MFDA "suitability" rule violation by IG with the false and misleading title that IG allows it's licensed sellers to use to misinform investors, you will have struck a blow for not only yourself but for millions of others. I hope you see the position of strength you are in by having possession of this info about IG.

i) Does this mean that MFDA is getting a little nervous at all?

ii) Since I “caught them” (MFDA) – should I be hiring a lawyer? Would anyone take my case at all?

What are your thoughts on this.


Yes, you have caught them in violating industry rules, industry principles, their VERY OWN rules on suitability, on title misrepresentation and perhaps criminal code laws on fraud and misrepresentation. Certainly the criminal provisions in the Competition Act of Canada against "misrepresentation".

You are a victim of a classic "bait and switch" in which you the customer, are led to believe that you are dealing with a trusted and trained professional investment person, and then when push comes to shove, you find you have been lied to and given a buyer beware relationship with a correspondence school commission salesperson, who does not even posses a licence for the category of professional that he or she led you to believe...........

You have them soooooo caught, that you are very much in the drivers seat, IF you know what to do with it. here is what will probably happen though, based on my experience with the industry.

First they will jerk you around for may have already seen some of that. They will refer you to one of hundreds of people all paid to protect THEM. Paid by them.

Second, if they are really, really caught, they will offer you pennies on the dollar for your losses, subject to you signing away your rights to share what happened to you. Your silence will be "bought" with your own money.

If you accept that, and 99% of Canadians do accept that deal, (after years of bullying), they will have earned the right to go forward and do this same financial violence to thousands and thousands of others with impunity since your silence, bought with your own pain and money, will let them.

I look forward to the day when one, just one Canadian, steps out of that procession, and makes sure that the world knows what they are doing to financially molest Canadians.

Demand all your money back, threaten to file criminal charges, summarize your story in a one page "release" for the media if you need to follow through on those threats, and show them who holds the cards in this case. If you do not, they are very likely to bully you into the same end game that they do with the rest.

cheers and best


Be using FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION, VIOLATIONS of MFDA RULES etc., etc loudly and often in your complaint and it will change the tone from the weasel-like discussion you are now engaged in about "disclosure" of the DSC ( which may or may not have merit). The "disclosure" debate is a great smoke screen to keep you away from the more serious violations they have done.

PS. Re: the lawyer thing. I do not know the answer to this one. It depends on whether you are going to "follow the system", "fall into the system", "buck the system", "find a lawyer that will help you to buck the system".................I would be happy to be on a conference call with a lawyer, and to help him or her to understand the damages/violations, IF you can find one who can and will listen, and help you to write some letters on your behalf. THAT would be a huge benefit, just to have a legal mind to help you write and think outside your situation. $500 to $1000 spent up front for some talented help in this area would work wonders for getting beyond the "bullshit and bullying" stage that financial industry players usually operate under.

Do it, if you need my help, I am happy to help edit or contribute. Best solution, if you can would be to find the right lawyer and see if they understand some of the violations I have given you to think about in regards to your situation.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:44 pm

the following may also be posted in MFDA topic, abuse by trusted professional topic, etc, but I felt it held such significant information that points toward fraudulent misrepresentation that it had to be posted in the GET YOUR MONEY BACK topic, for those who have been used and abused.

The situation seems to be that the industry has every well written rule in the book, which is necessary and well intentioned. However, the enforcement of this rule book is left to people whose very salaries are paid for by the industry itself, so the self regulation aspect leads to a very client damaging "de-criminalization". See below:

Two questions for the MFDA.

Question # 1, Misrepresentation refers to the MFDA requirement not to
mislead, misinform or misrepresent oneself or ones role as an
investment industry employee.

For example, MFDA Rule 1.2.1(e) generally prohibits Approved Persons
from using any business name (or title) or designation that deceives
or misleads, or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead, a
client or any other person as to the proficiency or qualifications of
the Approved Person. In addition, business titles that deceive or
mislead clients or the public as to the Approved Person's category of
registration are also prohibited.

How then, do you justify and allow investment persons who are
registered, licensed, and compensated in the license category of
"salesperson", to inform, advertise, and generally represent
themselves to the public as being trusted, professional, "advisors"?
(advisor being a totally different license and registration category,
different duty of care, different motivation and compensation)

Question #2, Suitability refers to the MFDA requirement that
investment industry persons should ensure that each and every trade
meet suitability requirements:

From MFDA MEMBER REGULATION NOTICE MR-0069 regarding “suitability”. To the extent that there is subjectivity in the analysis, the expectation
of MFDA staff is that the Member and AP take the most conservative
approach and act in the best interests of the client:

How do you explain (or allow) mutual fund salespersons to place mutual
funds product sales into the highest revenue generating mutual fund
class (DSC), when equal and identical mutual fund classes are more
cost effective to the client, and therefore more suitable for the
client?" This practice is forbidden by US regulators, yet accepted or
ignored by yours. Why?

I believe that actions or infractions against the public, such as the
above, are a contributing factor in bringing about the conditions of a
“perfect storm” in our financial markets. I ask that you please
explain your part in condoning these actions or in failing to police
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:25 pm


Dante finally enters hell-- at least its outer region--by passing through a gateway. The inscription above this gate--ending with the famous warning to "abandon all hope"-- establishes Dante's hell..................

If a financially abused investor accepts and trusts in the objectivity and impartiality of the Canadian financial regulatory system to protect the abused investor, and if that abused investor enters into the regulatory and self regulatory maze of self serving dealers from hell, I say that Dantes quote should be placed above the entrances to the OCS, MFDA, IDA, IIROC, ASC, BCSC, SFSC, MSC, CBA, CCIR, CFIE, CICA, CSA, CFSON, FATF, FCAC, FSCO, ICB, IOSCO, IFIC, ETC......

Once you enter, you will be turning your life and your complaint over to the very people who are paid a salary NOT to resolve your complaint and NOT to see that you are made whole. Finance is the only retail game in the world that still has a "no satisfaction, no return" policy, even on knowingly toxic, and tainted, misrepresented products.

DO NOT enter into the self regulatory den to get your money back. Go directly to an experienced lawyer and stick to simple right from wrong. I am happy to help with the details.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue Jun 14, 2011 11:14 pm

I found this rule section from the MFDA :

1. Relationship Disclosure Requirements MFDA
Rule 2.2.5 (Relationship Disclosure) requires that, on account opening, all clients be provided with written disclosure that sets out certain core information about the nature of their relationship with the Member and its Approved Persons. The required disclosure, which may be adopted in one document or several, includes a description of:
• the nature of the advisory relationship; • products and services offered by the Member; • the Member’s procedures regarding the receipt and handling of client cash/cheques;
• the Member’s obligation to ensure that each order accepted or recommendation made is suitable for the client and advising when the Member will assess the suitability of investments in the client’s account;
(advocate comments on the MFDA info above are this:

1. wouldn't you think that part of the "all clients be provided with written disclosure that sets out certain core information about the nature of their relationship" rule would include the part where the salesperson has to place in writing that they are indeed a salesperson, rather than continuing the ruse of "financial planner", "wealth manager", "consultant", "advisor", or about anything but what they are licensed and compensated as?
2. And as for "the nature of the advisory relationship", it is probably not practiced that they should be telling clients that they are not licensed, nor compensated as advisors, but only as salespersons. (I will dually post this info in "GET YOUR MONEY BACK" topic as this matter should be available for the courts to decide upon)
3. The suitability obligation is also discussed in the get your money back section. The industry position is this: "everything we sell is suitable". Whereas the industry practice is to search among the open field of "suitable investments and too often sell the one which pays the most commission. Further, if two otherwise identical investments are available, the industry tends to strongly favour sales of the choice which gives them the higher commission. Evidence of sales (and not advisory) relationship is very heavy and goes beyond the fact that most are licensed in the category of sales.
4. It is simple consumer fraud, when an industry participant misrepresents his services, AND his license to provide those services. Inflating his position to one where no such duty or qualifications exist is a criminal offence. The only reason it is allowed is due to a plethora of organizations like the MFDA, who tout great rules, but enforce only those they so choose. It allows an entire industry of "reputation protection" to be built around the financial industry, allows them to capture the high moral ground with this, and then allows them to do immoral things to the public and skim billions of dollars with be continued
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:43 pm

Laying private charges, (called "Lay an information" in section 504 of the criminal code, page 1072 of Tremeears Criminal Code 2011.

Most investment (abused) customers are informed by the various police agencies they approach, that they "will have to deal with the securities commissions with investment problems", and thus criminal code violations are largely ignored by every police agency in Canada that I am familiar with. Then again, the RCMP Securities police (IMET), have an annual budget of about $17 million for the entire country, so they can handle less cases than a couple dozen cases for the entire country. Chance are your case will not even hit the trash as the RCMP. They are widely written in Canadian media, as being an abject failure. (Search RCMP in this forum for yourself).

My notes from reading it yesterday are that "anyone can lay an information......before a justice.......about an indictable offence......" It certainly does not mean that it will be followed up on, but it might, (just might) be one of the methods by which independent research (like Diane Urquhart etc) and information can be shown to be of higher and better quality than any police agency in Canada. It might be a stepping stone towards the type of Securities Investigative Unit that she and Hugh envision. I would fully support and sign my name to such a project, and I think if others were in agreement, that it might have some impact. It certainly would be newsworthy , would it not, if the RCMP were shown to be incapable of proper investigation and prosecution.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:04 pm

(the following info was shared with one or two victims of fraudulent investment selling practices, by trusted Canadian institutions. I assume that the same was done to millions of people overall, and that some of this might also serve others who have been victimized.)

Some thoughts about your predicament: (take what works for you and leave the rest...)

1. Your case is a very important and delicate one (speaks to fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent selling practices) the investment industry has so long operated as it's own judges, that it no longer feels it has to answer to anyone.......for any infraction. It feels as if it is "above the law."

2. for those and other reasons (industry breaking laws consistently) YOU are the one in charge and in the one holding the cards......THEY are the ones who should be frightened of this

3. due to a well developed "reputation protection system" and "self regulation" they have nothing to fear from you unless you work and think outside the box

4. if you try to solve your problem with the same level of "help" that got you into the situation, you will be twice victimized (if you succumb to the lure of an investment industry regulator solution to your complaint)

5. exposure, threat of lawsuit, threat of criminal sanction, threat of legislative changes are all things that the industry would fear

6. your background with PR might serve you in any one of these areas (or others I have not mentioned)

7. OBSI is in the news at the moment so this should help (except with timid reporters)

8. document your story, make it short, make it sweet, make it clear to understand the case of abuse

9. figure out a way to give it very wide exposure (i will publish is to begin, but that is not very wide)

10. file a small claims court action for $50,000 against your seller for the various frauds and unethical sales practices (you already have Ellen Roseman Star article, OBSI recommendation, my writing etc to support this)

11. small claims court is free to use

12. small claims puts your case on public record

13. public record is what your investment seller most afraid of (repetitional damage.......millions of other clients might follow suit)

14. give up working within the "system" and use the courts instead (ask for the maximum due to the further abuse of withholding your money from you for a year or two)

15. as a legal step and to raise the stakes on the company file private charge of criminal code violations (called "laying an information") with the courts (also free). I know of only one person who has done this in Canada, and it would also be somewhat of a newsbreaking story to have a private person hold large corporation to account for criminal violation........believe me, I do not expect you to win with such an will only be making waves with this action, possibly making news for your case of abuse, and making the road paved and easier for the next abused person

16. that is about it for the moment. That alone should keep you busy for a long time. Keep working with your investment seller, and as you keep raising the stakes until they start to become a little too high for the firm to ignore, you should eventually have success. they will pay you to make your claim go away just to prevent embarrassment. their opinion, you have no cards, and no power. They have both. Go outside their level of thinking, and play the cards that you have very, very hard and I think you will change their position.

I am not giving advice, nor opinion, having not enough info about your case, your side and their side. this is just what I would do if I were sold the highest cost product by a guy who led me to believe he was there to advise me professionally.........especially if I learned later that he did not even honestly represent to me what his true licence was. Really illegal practices should not be met with "tough luck, we are bigger than you, and we police ourselves". I oppose abuse and that is abuse or bullying.

Imagine an industry that can use fraud and abuse to get money from trusting people, and then bullying to keep from paying ti back and you will imagine what the public should be aware of.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Mon May 30, 2011 7:37 pm

images.jpeg (2.97 KiB) Viewed 18034 times
Principles of common law say that if your represent yourself to others in some fashion, lets say as a financial "advisor", then you have assumed a duty to act in such a manner. If on the other hand, you are simply utilizing the path of least marketing resistance, namely fooling people with a professional and accountable sounding name or title, and then duping them into commission sales tricks for your own benefit..........if that is the game, then........hey, wait a minute, that IS the game in Canada.

Get a lawyer, and get your money back. Don't even bother with the industry lineup of highly paid and highly loyal "self regulators". Self regulation involving money pretty quickly turns into some form of decriminalization. Correct me if I am wrong on that.
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Postby admin » Tue May 03, 2011 8:32 am

images.jpeg (11.75 KiB) Viewed 18088 times

Won $450,000 case today without trial .[ 100% recovery + interest]
Case involved unauthorized trading,fund churning and wholly unecessary borrowing to invest in high MER mutfunds..
The 85 year old widow 's eyes said Thank You . Her voice siad God Bless You.
What a high and great feeling. Took 14 mos. and many letters ,statistical analysis and spreadsheets!

Have to sign gag order but it's finally over..

The dealer capitualated at the 12th hour.

With Bin Laden finished off, today was a day to remember.


(advocate is unfortunate that our trusted Canadian investment firms will practice this kind of financial bullying towards their customers when they get caught causing financial violence upon them. An 85 year old widow is an easy target for financial predators, posing as professionals. Adding insult to injury is the failure to make her whole once caught and pushed into court.........finally forcing a gag order seems like an industry blackmail deal to give her own money back in exchange for prevents the public from being informed or warned and allows the financial predator to repeat this process again and again upon others. How many crimes must our investment industry be allowed to "perfect" before we lift a finger? Buyer Beware in Canadian investing)
Site Admin
Posts: 3033
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 9:05 am
Location: Canada


Return to Click here to view forums

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests