Decision in brief: Ontario Securities Commission v Purpose Investments Inc, Enforcement Proceeding, Motion for disclosure and particulars, February 27, 2026

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.

Seif asked the Tribunal to require the OSC to disclose (give to him) certain documents, in addition to the documents that the OSC had already disclosed:

• The OSC said it will not rely on correspondence between the OSC and other fund managers, industry practice, OSC guidance to investment funds, or its compliance review in support of its case. Based on that, Seif withdrew his request for correspondence between the OSC and other fund managers who are not part of this case.
• The Tribunal did not order the OSC to disclose OSC internal documents discussing what Purpose said to investors about ESG. Generally, OSC internal documents, containing analysis, commentary or opinion do not prove or disprove allegations and are not relevant.
• The Tribunal did not order the OSC to provide a privilege log (a list of documents the OSC says it does not have to disclose because they are protected for some legal reason), because that is not a requirement in Tribunal proceedings.

Seif also asked for more details to understand the OSC’s allegations. He did not provide any examples of how the OSC’s allegation that he is responsible for Purpose’s actions could be clearer, and the Tribunal did not order that the OSC provide more details. The OSC agreed to make clearer its allegation that Seif “provided quotes and reviewed and edited” some of the statements Purpose made to investors.

Seif also asked, in his written argument that responded to the OSC’s written argument, that the Tribunal remove two paragraphs from the OSC’s Application. The Tribunal said this request was not part of the original motion and there was no good reason to order the OSC to do so.