Self Regulation is "decriminalization", lets count the ways

[admin]

to speed things along I will simply post the site of some of the public case examples that illustrate the use of industry tricks to defraud investors of their money or their rightful earnings on their money invested:

http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/ ... _Cases.htm

You will see so called protective agencies like investment dealers self regulatory groups brushing seniors aside when they complain about investment dealers...........saying "Mr. Simpson was not affected by the decision".......and "therefore not every decision meets the definition of a decision" etc.

There are several stories on Ernie Wotton's plight " 81 year old Abused Investor denied justice by IDA and OSC". I listened to his speech given to the Ontario Legislature as he spoke about how each and every agency in Canada that was supposed to protect investors, basically ran him in circles for years.

The list could go on forever, most cases are a) not reported, b) not public, c) settled with gag orders forcing abused investors to promise to remain silent about their abuse, to get even pennies on the dollar back. Canada uses the 30 odd (and many others unknown to me) common violations of financial rules, codes or laws to violate customers freely. Daily. Easily. With impunity.

I will move on now from client cases, and touch on some criminal code violations that I am afraid that our investment industry gets a free ride on.....because we regulate ourselves.....ha!

[admin]

http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/ ... _index.htm

Don't even read this case if you do not want to make yourself sick at the predatory nature of a "trusted" Canadian Bank.

Violates any concept of written codes, rules, laws, (letter or spirit) and decency. Steals seniors entire account from them to protect the bank, because "we can".

[admin]

Read up on Mel and Marion (Peggy) Hunt at http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Hunt/Hunt.htm

Their broker sold their Bell Canada shares without permission, causing damage to the Hunts.

"The Hunts complained to TD, and when the price of BCE shares rose, they commenced an action in July 1998 for the loss in value of the BCE shares. Ontario Superior Court Justice Peter Hambly found a fiduciary relationship existed between Mr. Schram and the Hunts and that Mr. Schram breached his fiduciary obligation through the unauthorized sale of the BCE shares. Damages crystallized on July 1998 and were assessed at $59,319. Solicitor-client costs of $156,935.47 were also awarded. TD appealed." (from Investorvoice.ca case)

The appeal judge side with TD Bank. "While the Hunts were elderly and in poor health, they were not vulnerable.

Opps!! No fiduciary duty owed. Sorry.

"The Financial Post article reports that senior practitioners believe the court’s decision will become the seminal case on the broker-client relationship. The ruling now requires courts to decide cases on a much more fact-specific basis; one can no longer establish vulnerability from the fact that an individual is harmed, but rather by the nature of the relationship." (translation, "we can screw you over, and you still cannot do anything about it, because we have more lawyers.....and we will appeal until we get the decision we want........"

With apologies for the shortness of this summary, if incorrect, please read the case yourself. I know that the husband was dying of cancer, and spent time, on his death bed, in his living room, where it was set up for his comfort, to give depositions to lawyers, after losing his money to fraudulent action by his bank. It is offensive to even contemplate the power, strength and inhumane treatment that our giant Canadian banks deal to their victims if they have the gall to complain about financial abuse. Again, read the case and then tell me having the strongest banks in the world is always positive.

http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Hunt/Hunt.htm

[admin]

Check out the case of 92 year old Norah Cosgrove, on http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/ ... _index.htm

She held blue chip bank and utility type stocks until her "advisor" got hold of her trust. The problem with bank and utility blue chips is that they pay no annual fee to hold them (they are free) and they earn a broker no commission unless they are sold........soooo....... all was sold for commission and her money was put into the house owned wrap account, for a juicy 2.5% annual management fee that goes straight to the broker's commission. (picture a broker moving all of his or her $100 million dollar book of clients into the house wrap account, and you can then picture that same broker having "gross" commission earnings of $2.5 million coming to them without them having to lift another finger...........

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, when this 92 year old took her investment dealer to court, after she had trusted them and taken their advice, they told here that they owed her no fiduciary duty, since she failed the one test of signing over discretionary control of her funds to them to manage. She may have met the other four tests of a fiduciary duty, but missing one out of four......and sending one of Canada's top lawyers to beat an old lady in small claims court......worked it's magic.

No duty to act as a fiduciary for a 92 year old. Despite the company and it's employees hinting fairly heavily in it's advertising to meet (or serve) the other four out of five requirements to owe a fiduciary duty: trust, reliance, vulnerability, professional standards/codes of conduct

Just take as much financial advantage of her as a commission salesperson possibly can, and beat em with lawyers. Easy money.

I am going to put this down as one example of using the previous 31 odd industry "tricks" to do financial violence to senior citizens. Investment malpractice seems to be standard practice, when you let commission salespeople pretend to be "professional advisors".

[admin]

In regards to the legal system requirements for an agent or advisor to act on behalf of customers: Violation #31, teasing the consumer with a promise of fiduciary duty, and then pulling the rug out from under them with the help of hungry lawyers.

We have seen first that industry training manuals and texts give every suggestion that a fiduciary duty is owed to a customer of any investment "advice" giver.

We have then seen that professional associations like the CFP suggest that a fiduciary duty is owed to a customer who trusts his or her money to you.

We have seen the FAIR organization, funded entirely by the group of investment dealers, appear to join the dealers in pulling a fast one and removing the fiduciary requirement from the minds of regulators and courts.

Now lets look at what actual court cases say about what constitutes a fiduciary relationship:

click to enlarge
to see the entire case doc go here http://investorvoice.ca/Cases/Investor/Hunt/Hunt.htm
"A proper consideration of the five factors relevant in determining if financial advisors stand in fiduciary relationships to their clients - vulnerability, trust, reliance, discretion, and professional rules or codes of conduct" - from the Ontario Court of Appeal A. Melville Hunt, et al. v. T.D. Securities Inc. c.o.b. as TD Evergreen, et al. (Ont.) (30026)
Coram: McLachlin / Major / Fish

With my thirty years of experience, along with the promises and suggestions of the financial industry, the marketing, the training, the licensing and the regulating, I can think of very few people who rely on or even seek out a person claiming to be a professional, in investing, unless they are relying on at least four of the five factors above. I can also think of even fewer investment industry participants who have not held themselves out in such a manner as to suggest meeting four of the five factors above. Discretion is the only item missing, and at my old firm, (the largest in Canada), less than 30% of the sales force even held the license or training required to handle a discretionary account. It thus saddens me to see how most trusting and vulnerable, elderly people who get abused or violated by those claiming financial professional status, then seem to get then "beaten a second time" if they take those same "professionals" to court. As in the Hunts case, the Cosgrove case (90+ year old) and the myriad of others I have seen over the years, the legal system seems to act as some kind of handmaiden to the financial players, and lets them get away with NOT owing a fiduciary duty in most of the cases I have seen.......despite meeting four out of five of the fiduciary requirements above. 80% of factors met to represent one as a fiduciary constitutes gross or negligent misrepresentation if those same persons then deny a fiduciary duty exists. Or as one SEC study commentator said in the National Post recently: "Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying."

Read more: file:///Users/larryelford/Documents/Make advisors work for investors.html#ixzz1XfhyTlGE

I put this down as violation # 31, whereas the financial industry "gives the promise" of a fiduciary, or at very least, sends strong marketing suggestions that such needs will be met, and then is able to outlawyer the clients who trust them, with an imbalance of power and money. Both the investment industry and their handmaiden, the legal industry should be ashamed of acting together in such a fashion to beat consumers out of honest services.

[admin]

On to some professional codes from folks like CFP, CIM, CFA, etc., etc. Lets start with the CFP folks. I find their web site here https://www.fpsc.ca and their stated code of ethics here:
https://www.fpsc.ca/sites/default/files ... an2010.pdf

Some brief excerpts below with some interesting promises in red:

PRINCIPLE 1: INTEGRITY
A CFP professional shall always act with integrity.
Rule 101 – A CFP professional shall not engage in or associate with conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, or knowingly make a false or misleading statement.
Rule 102 – A CFP professional has the following responsibilities regarding funds and/or other property of clients:
a) A CFP professional who takes custody of all or any part of a client’s assets for investment purposes, shall do so with the care required of a fiduciary;

Rule 103 – A CFP professional shall not solicit clients through false or misleading communications or advertisements,
b) a CFP professional shall not make false or misleading communications to the public or create unverifiable expectations regarding matters relating to financial planning or competence of the CFP professional; and
c) a CFP professional shall not give the impression that he/she is representing the views of FPSC or any other group unless the CFP professional has been authorized to do so.
PRINCIPLE 2: OBJECTIVITY
A CFP professional shall be objective in providing financial planning to clients.
Rule 201 – A CFP professional shall exercise reasonable and prudent professional judgment in providing financial planning.
Rule 202 – A CFP professional shall act in the interests of the client.
5
PRINCIPLE 3: COMPETENCE
A CFP professional shall provide financial planning to clients competently and maintain the necessary competence and knowledge to continue to do so in those areas in which the CFP professional is engaged.
Rule 301 – A CFP professional shall offer advice only in those areas in which the CFP professional is competent to do so. In areas where the CFP professional is not sufficiently competent, the CFP professional shall seek the counsel of quali- fied individuals and/or refer clients to such par- ties.
Rule 302 – A CFP professional shall abstain from intervening in the personal affairs of the client on matters outside the scope of the engagement.
PRINCIPLE 4: FAIRNESS
A CFP professional shall perform financial planning in a manner that is fair and reasonable to clients, principals, partners, and employers, and shall disclose conflicts of interest in providing such services.
Rule 401 – A CFP professional shall make timely written disclosure of all material information relative to the professional relationship. Written disclosures that include the following information are considered to be in compliance with this Rule:
a) A statement indicating whether the CFP professional’s compensation arrangements involve fee-for-service, commission, salary, or any combination of the foregoing. A CFP professional shall not hold out as a fee-for- service practitioner if the CFP professional receives commissions or other forms of economic benefit from parties other than the client;
b) Where financial products are used in implementing the planning strategy, the
client must be informed of the basis upon which the CFP professional is compensated. To this end, the CFP professional is gov- erned by the accepted sales disclosure guidelines and regulations covering securities, mutual funds, real estate, insurance and other financial products utilized in fulfilling the plan;
c) A statement describing material agency or employment relationships a CFP profession- al (or his/her firm) has with third parties, including the nature of the compensation arrangements.
d) A statement identifying any conflicts of interest; and
e) The information required by all laws and regulations applicable to the relationship in a manner complying with such.
Rule 402 – In rendering services (such as taking an order for securities or insurance coverage) that do not encompass financial planning, a CFP professional shall inform the client of the scope of the services that shall be rendered and that the CFP professional is not taking on the responsibilities of a financial planner. Such understanding obtained at the start of a relationship need be updated only when the nature of the services to be performed changes.
Rule 403 – A CFP professional shall inform the client of changes in circumstances and material information that arise subsequent to the original engagement that may have an impact on the professional relationship or services to be ren- dered. Such changes include, but are not limited to:
a) conflicts of interest; b) the CFP professional’s business affiliation; c) compensation structure affecting the
6
professional services to be rendered; and d) new or changed agency relationships.
Rule 404 – Where financial planning may be compensated for on a contingency fee basis, such a fee arrangement must be disclosed in writing to the client.
Rule 405 – A CFP professional shall not engage in discriminatory practices as defined in applicable human rights legislation.
PRINCIPLE 5: CONFIDENTIALITY
A CFP professional shall maintain confidentiality of all client information.
Rule 501 – A CFP professional shall not disclose any confidential client information without the specific consent of the client unless in response to proper legal or regulatory process. A client’s name shall not be disclosed to another party unless specific consent has been granted for the use of the client as a reference.
Rule 502 – A CFP professional is bound to professional secrecy and may not disclose confidential information revealed by reason of his or her position or profession unless required by law.
Rule 503 – The use of client information for personal benefit is improper, whether or not it actually causes harm to the client.
Rule 504 – A CFP professional shall maintain the same standards of confidentiality for employers as for clients while employed and thereafter.
Rule 505 – A CFP professional doing business as a partner or principal of a financial services firm owes to the CFP professional’s partners or co-owners a responsibility to act in good faith. This includes, but is not limited to, adherence to reasonable expectations of confidentiality both while in business together and thereafter.
PRINCIPLE 6: PROFESSIONALISM
A CFP professional’s conduct in all matters shall reflect credit upon the profession.
Rule 601 – A CFP professional shall not engage in any conduct that reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a CFP professional, upon the Marks, or upon the profession.
Rule 602 – A CFP professional shall use the Marks in compliance with the rules and regulations of FPSC, as established and amended from time to time.
Rule 603 – A CFP professional who has knowledge that another CFP professional has committed a violation of this Code, which raises substantial questions as to the CFP professional’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a CFP professional in other respects, shall promptly inform FPSC. This rule does not require disclosure of information or reporting based on knowledge gained as a consultant or expert witness in anticipation of or related to litigation or other dispute resolution mechanisms. For purposes of this rule, knowledge means no substantial doubt.
Rule 604 – A CFP professional shall not criticize another CFP professional without first submitting this criticism to the CFP professional for explanation. Where the criticism may result in a complaint being lodged with FPSC, the CFP professional must, where required, first submit that criticism in writing to the other CFP professional for explanation. Notwithstanding this rule, a CFP professional may first submit a criticism of another CFP professional to FPSC, should the matter be considered of such a nature that prior notice is not appropriate.
Rule 605 – A CFP professional who has knowledge that raises a substantial question of unprofessional, fraudulent or illegal conduct by a CFP professional or other financial professional, shall promptly inform the appropriate regulatory and/or professional disciplinary body. This rule does not require disclosure or reporting of information gained as a consultant or expert witness in anticipation of, or related to litigation or other dispute resolution mechanisms. For purposes of this Rule, knowledge means no substantial doubt.
Rule 606 – A CFP professional who has reason to suspect illegal conduct within the CFP professional’s organization shall make timely disclosure of the available evidence to the CFP professional’s immediate supervisor and/or partners or co-owners. If the CFP professional is convinced that illegal conduct exists within the CFP professional’s organization, and that appropriate measures are not taken to remedy the situation, the CFP professional shall, where appropriate, alert the appropriate regulatory authorities including FPSC in a timely manner.
Rule 607 – A CFP professional shall perform financial planning in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and established policies of governmental agencies or other applicable authorities including FPSC.
Rule 608 – A CFP professional shall not adopt any method of obtaining or retaining clients that tends to lower the standard of dignity of the profession.
Rule 609 – A CFP professional shall not practice any other profession or offer to provide such additional services unless the CFP professional is qualified to practice in those fields and is licensed or registered as required by law.
Rule 610 – A CFP professional shall return the client’s original records in a timely manner after their return has been requested by the client.
Rule 611 – A CFP professional shall not bring or threaten to bring a disciplinary proceeding under this Code, or report or threaten to report
information to FPSC pursuant to Rules 602 or 603 or make or threaten to make use of this Code for no substantial purpose other than to harass, maliciously injure, embarrass and/or unfairly burden another CFP professional.
PRINCIPLE 7: DILIGENCE
A CFP professional shall act diligently in providing financial planning.
Rule 701 – A CFP professional shall enter into a client engagement only after securing sufficient information to be satisfied that the relationship is warranted by the individual’s needs and objectives, and that the CFP professional has the ability to either provide the requisite competent services or to involve and supervise other professionals who can provide such services.
Rule 702 – A CFP professional shall make and/or implement only those recommendations that are suitable for the client.
Rule 703 – Consistent with the nature and scope of the engagement, a CFP professional shall carry out a reasonable investigation regarding the financial products recommended to clients. Such an investigation may be made by the CFP professional or by others provided the CFP professional acts reasonably in relying upon such investigation.
Rule 704 – Before ceasing to act for a client, a CFP professional shall give the client reasonable advanced notice of his or her intent and shall make sure the withdrawal will not prejudice the client.
Rule 705 – A CFP professional shall properly supervise subordinates with regard to their delivery of financial planning, and shall not accept or condone conduct in violation of this Code.
8
Financial Planning Standards Council
902-375 University Avenue,Toronto, ON M5G 2J5 phone 416 593 8587 toll free 1 800 305 9886 http://www.fpsc.ca

(this code, or portions shown here was obtained Sept 11, 2011 from the CFP website)

I can spot violations #25 to 30 within this code of conduct of CFP designates. I wont bore you with the details right now, I think you are getting the picture.

[admin]

Please take a few moments to familiarize yourself with the changes.

FCSI Code of Ethics marketing document
Preface
The FCSI Council has approved this Code of Ethics, prepared by CSI, as a guide for the standards of conduct and behaviour of FCSIs. It is based on the fundamental ethical principles of trust, integrity, justice, fairness and honesty. It conveys ethical rather than legal principles. It interprets these principles with respect to the responsibilities of FCSIs to the profession, employer, clients and prospects and society. The FCSI Code of Ethics contains statements of ethics and responsibilities which FCSIs must interpret and apply to specific circumstances as they arise.

1.0 General Responsibilities
1.1 Make yourself aware of the legal and regulatory requirements to operate in your jurisdiction. However, the Code may set out different standards of behaviour than does the law. Where this is a conflict between the Code and the law, you must abide by the law.
1.2 Act with dignity, integrity, professional competence and in an ethical manner when dealing with the public, clients, prospects, employers, and colleagues. You must use reasonable care and exercise independent, professional judgement.
1.3 Regularly engage in ethics training and professional development to expand your knowledge, skills and attitudes. Comply with CSI’s minimum standards for professional development and compliance training that are required to maintain your FCSI status.
1.4 Practice while judgement is unimpaired by any substance.
1.5 Maintain knowledge of and comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations of any government, regulatory organization, or professional association governing your professional activities.
1.6 Recognize your own limitations. When appropriate, seek additional opinions and services.

2.0 Responsibilities to the Client
2.1 FCSIs with personal clients must treat each client with respect, put the client’s interests ahead of your own, and must not exploit a client for personal advantage.

https://www.csi.ca/student/en_ca/design ... fcsi.xhtml

[admin]

With this "industry promises violated" I think we are up to approximate violation #25, which the industry and the regulators turn a morally blind eye to, in order to gain more of the customer's wallet......

Taking a quick look at what the industry "promises" to customers and to the public, we see a variety of advertising and marketing efforts intended to induce a level of trust in the competency, professionalism, and "client first" type of advice they will provide. Then we can again contrast that with previous posts showing that this client first principle was quietly and secretly sold out from under the public's noses. I worked inside the industry from 1984 until 2004 and at no time was there any information sent out to reflect this change of course. I suspect it was done behind closed doors, with lawyers and regulators (who are nearly all lawyers) to avoid litigation by abused and violated clients.

click to enlarge
click to enlarge

click to enlarge

You should be able to find hundreds of similar examples. The one I like best, but I don't have scanned is the TD ad where they show the new couple having a baby with the caption "you will trust is so much, you will ask us to help name your baby". Collect each example you can find, especially anything from the person claiming to be your "advisor" and use it to hold them to a standard of care above the level they are delivering. Legally, I am told that if a person holds himself out to you in a certain way, that they must then behave in that way. (from an OSC lawyer)

If they then pull the standards shown below out when you get into a bit of a disagreement, then it will be time to see if the original promise was a lie.

[admin]

Thus is post number one of about a half dozen separate posts on the topic of "fiduciary duty".

First we will look at what industry training courses told us when we were hired and studying to write our exams to be "salespersons" in the industry.

Second we will skim over some company promises in their various codes of conduct and behaviour, and promises to the customer.

Third we will look at the CFP, CIM, CFA, etc., professional association codes of conduct and behaviours.

Fourth we will view the legal system requirements for an agent or advisor to act on behalf of customers.

Finally we will post a few cases, of elderly, vulnerable clients who were then told "tough luck", when they were denied delivery of about every promise made by the marketing and advertising of the industry.

In concert, we wish to publicly convey the impression that despite another half dozen violations and deceptions of the law, and the customer, the financial industry can once again rely on "self regulation equals decriminalization" to get away with investment malpractice against customers.

click to enlarge
"".....the IA owes a fiduciary duty to the client if the IA provides investment advice and recommendations to the client, and the client relies on such advice." (page 5 of CSI text above)



What does an 800lb Gorilla do again? Same answer for an 800 Billion dollar investment corp.......
I am going to put his post down as violation #19 in the tricks the investment industry and regulators use to practice malpractice on the public.
======================================================

From the CSI (Canadian Securities Institute) comes this textbook which, "identifies many of the requirements of provincial securities legislation and of the Self Regulatory Organizations (SRO's) which affect registrants in their dealings with clients".

[admin]

Funny story further to the Ontario Securities Commission. When they were asked by the Ontario Legislature (see adjacent posting) why they did not get involved in the ABCP crisis, they said, "it was appropriate for IRROC (the group of investment dealers formerly called the IDA) to conduct initial investigations, since it is the SRO with primary oversight of investment dealers".

They have tried this line of pure lying to officials before and I will post in prior quotes below to demonstrate the lies. One former IDA head even lied to parliament and is now remarkably a cabinet minister. Ouch! We are in trouble with these guys at the helm.

click to enlarge

click to enlarge

Evidently these folks at the SRO's and the Securities Commissions will say and do anything to further their interests......whether true or not......kind of reminds me of the investment sales industry they regulate.

[admin]

Violations # 19 to 24 , these violations by the regulators who serve the investment industry, assisting them in violating the public interest

From the Ontario Legislature comes this report from the Standing Committee on Government Agencies. It is from the 2nd Session of the 39th Parliament and can be found here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPf ... t?hl=en_US

and here http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-procee ... 0English(1).pdf

From the report we see how the steps that the OSC took to facilitate (miss-steps?) the $32 Billion dollar scam against Canadians called the ABCP Crisis. For those unfamiliar, this was where toxic debt and sub prime mortgages were packaged into debt investment vehicles and sold to the public without safeguards. Here is the list of OSC failures.

click to enlarge

As you can see, the Ontario Securities Commission (and twelve others in Canada) allowed the public interest to be violated (which is against each securities act) in favour of being the captured handmaiden to their friends, the investment industry. In point three in the image shown, the granting of "exemptive relief" to allow banks to sell investment products which did not meet the protective laws of the province. The OSC, and the rest, will not provide any reasons, public interest benefits, nor any professional process for the granting of permissions to allow large financial institutions to violate our laws. Other topics in this forum delve into this in greater detail, but suffice it to say, it should form part of future civil or criminal actions against public servants who have sold out the public interest. see also http://www.albertafraud.com

[admin]

violation #18 of the public interest, for money


Section 1.2.1(e) of the MFDA Rules http:// http://www.mfda.ca/regulation/rules.html state that no approved person shall hold themselves out to the public in any manner including, without limitation, by the use of any business name or designation of qualifications or professional experience that deceives or misleads the public, a client or any other person as to the proficiency or qualifications of the approved person under the rules or any applicable legislation.

---------------------

MFDA Rule 1.2.1 (e) prohibits the use of misleading business titles, qualifications and designations.

So, persons who the MFDA and other regulators recognize and refer to as "salesperson" as in the image below......are routinely misrepresenting themselves to the public (while regulators see no evil) as trusted and professional "advisors".

click to enlarge image

click to enlarge image

[admin]

2. Adviser category of registration and proficiency requirements

As noted above, the term "adviser" is defined in subsection 1(1) of the Act, and the requirement for registration of advisers is in subsection 25(3) of the Act. Categories of registration as adviser are in subsection 26(6) of the Act.

Proficiency requirements for individual registrants, including time limits on examination requirements and the requirement for membership in a self-regulatory organization under certain categories, are contained in Part 3 of NI 31-103.

(advocate comment.......the neat thing about self regulation, is that our "friends", the regulators will look the other way as we violate the law. In fact, to make it all "legal", they will even grant us a written "exemption" so that our violation of the law is not illegal, if that makes any sense. (no, but it does make dollars)

As evidence of this it should be noted that persons who are paid, trained and act as commission salespersons, and who do not have to meet the educational requirements, nor the fiduciary requirements of an "advisor" as defined in the Act..........these people have been granted "exemptive relief" so that they can misrepresent themselves to the public as some kind of professionals.....and thus increase their commissions.

I put this down as violation # 17, a clear violation of the public interest and public protection. Sold out to a securities commission lawyer. Shame

[admin]

violation #16 without police or securities commission notice:


SEC staff's study noted, "If the product sold is that of advice, then that advice should be in the best interest of the client. Anything else is fraud, because the seller is delivering a service different from what the consumer thinks he or she is buying." ( Edward Waitzer, Financial Post · Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2011 article)
http://www.financialpost.com/news/Make+ ... story.html

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12XJ ... t?hl=en_US

[admin]

violation # 15 without so much as a casual glance by police or regulators:


A fund salesperson who knowingly sells an expensive
mutual fund to a client whose needs would be satisfied by a less-expensive product
cannot be fulfilling the obligation to act fairly and in good faith that is imposed by OSC
Rule 31-505. Source: Read this piece by lawyer Phil Anisman
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 ... ting-rule-
requires-%E2%80%98good-faith%E2%80%99/