Decision in brief: Bridging Finance Inc, Application, Application to vary disclosure decision, May 29, 2023

Citation and CanLII link
Russell Juriansz (chair of the panel), Timothy Moseley, and Sandra Blake
Date of Reasons:
File Number:
Hearing Type:
Applicants / Respondents:
Bridging Finance Inc., David Sharpe, Natasha Sharpe and Andrew Mushore

The Sharpes want the Tribunal to stay (permanently end) the enforcement proceeding against them because of what they say was an abuse of process. To help them make that argument, the Sharpes asked the Tribunal to order OSC staff to turn over certain additional documents. Earlier in 2023, the Tribunal decided not to do so.

The Sharpes applied to the Divisional Court for “judicial review” of the Tribunal’s decision. A judicial review is like an appeal, but with some legal differences. The Divisional Court decided not to hear the judicial review.

This decision of the Tribunal deals with the Sharpes’ request that the Tribunal vary (reverse) its earlier decision. They said that a recent decision from the Supreme Court of Canada has changed the legal test that should be applied by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal decided not to vary its decision. The legal test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply for three reasons. First, the test applies to criminal proceedings and not administrative proceedings like this one. Second, it applies to a request to dismiss an application for a stay of the proceeding and not a request for documents. Third, the onus (responsibility for making the case) is different in the stay context compared to a request for documents.

Decisions in brief are prepared by Governance & Tribunal Secretariat staff to help the public better understand Tribunal decisions. They do not form part of the Tribunal’s reasons and are not for use in legal proceedings.