Decision in brief: Bridging Finance Inc, Enforcement Proceeding, Motion for adjournment, May 8, 2023

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

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

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

The Sharpes applied to the Divisional Court for “judicial review” of the Tribunal’s decision not to order OSC staff to provide additional documents. A judicial review is like an appeal, but with some legal differences. The Sharpes asked the Tribunal to put this proceeding on hold until their judicial review is decided by the Divisional Court. 

The Tribunal decided that the Sharpes’ judicial review application does not justify putting this proceeding on hold for an uncertain length of time.Tribunal proceedings need to move forward without too much delay, while at the same time in a way that is fair to the parties.

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.