Decision in brief: Ward, Enforcement Proceeding, Motion for confidentiality order, January 16, 2026

In this enforcement case, the OSC says that Ward did not comply with the Tribunal’s earlier order that he not be a director or officer of any company for six years. The OSC says that Ward continued to be a director and officer of two companies.

Ward asked that the hearing be confidential and that the documents provided to the Tribunal be kept confidential. If the Tribunal did not make a confidentiality order, Ward said that the proceeding should be stayed (permanently ended) because he would not be able to properly defend himself.

The Tribunal decided not to make the hearing and all the documents provided to the Tribunal confidential. Confidentiality orders should only be made rarely. Ward did not identify what specific documents needed to be confidential or provide details of why they needed to be confidential beyond saying it was necessary for him to defend himself.

However, the Tribunal did order that certain parts of the documents already provided to the Tribunal be kept confidential, because the information may be protected by an earlier confidential order, or Ward may have included the information only because he thought it would be kept confidential. It also ordered that any new documents the OSC provides to the Tribunal later in the proceeding will be kept confidential for a short time so that Ward can decide whether to make a more specific request for confidentiality.

The Tribunal also decided not to stay the case. Ward did not show how his right to a fair hearing would be harmed without a confidentiality order. He also failed to show how a different approach, like redacting (blacking out or removing) parts of documents would not be enough.