Decision in brief: Ontario Securities Commission v Purpose Investments Inc, Enforcement Proceeding, Bias Motion, June 4, 2026
Ontario Securities Commission v Purpose Investments Inc, 2026 ONCMT 26
In this enforcement case, the OSC says that Som Seif and Purpose Investments made their investment funds sound more focused on environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors than they really were.
Before the merits hearing, Adjudicator Burke told the parties that she knew one of the OSC’s proposed witnesses socially and asked if they had any concerns if she were to be a member of the panel. Seif and Purpose did not, but the OSC did have concerns.
Adjudicator Burke decided to remove herself from the panel because a reasonable person might question whether she could be impartial (neutral). If she were a member of the panel, she would have had to assess the evidence of a witness with whom she had an ongoing social relationship.
Despite what the respondents said, there was no evidence that the OSC was objecting because it was trying to delay the start of the hearing. Anyway, delay is not a part of the test when deciding if the adjudicator could be impartial.