Decision in brief: Ontario Securities Commission v Emerge Canada Inc, Enforcement Proceeding, Motion for adjournment and witness summaries, February 27, 2026

In this enforcement case, the OSC says the respondents acted in their own interest instead of in the best interests of the Emerge Canada Inc. funds.

Two respondents, Emerge and Langley, asked to delay the start of the merits hearing and extend several deadlines. They said they needed more time to find a lawyer, hire expert witnesses, and deal with overlapping deadlines. The OSC and two other respondents opposed the request, while two other respondents stayed neutral.

The Tribunal decided not to delay the start of the merits hearing, because there were no exceptional circumstances to justify doing that. Langley has said since March 2025 that she is looking for a lawyer and there is no evidence to show that she will find one soon. The Tribunal also set new deadlines for the remaining steps in the case.

In addition, the OSC asked for better summaries of what Emerge and Langley expect three of their witnesses will say at the merits hearing. The OSC says that the summaries provided do not meet the Tribunal’s requirements because they only contain a few sentences that mention the topics, but do not describe the substance of what the witnesses are expected to say.

The Tribunal decided that Emerge and Langley need to provide revised witness summaries for these three witnesses, because the summaries provided do not meet the Tribunal’s requirements.

The OSC also asked that the Tribunal decide now that evidence from one of the witnesses being called by the respondents Hutchins and Rounding should not be permitted. Based on the summary Hutchins and Rounding provided, the OSC said this witness was going to provide an opinion that he was not qualified to give and was going to testify about facts that were not relevant to this case. Hutchins and Rounding said Woods would not provide an opinion.

The Tribunal said that it was too early to decide that this witness’s evidence was not relevant. It may depend on how the evidence is used at the hearing. The Tribunal also decided that Hutchins and Rounding should provide a revised witness summary for this witness that provides detail about the witnesses’ interactions with the two of them and with the respondent Friesen.