Decision in brief: Ontario Securities Commission v Akbar, Enforcement Proceeding, Merits, January 21, 2026

Citation

Ontario Securities Commission v Akbar, 2026 ONCMT 3.

Arbitres
James Douglas (chair of the panel), Sandra Blake and M. Cecilia Williams
Date des motifs:
Numéro de dossier:
2024-7
Type d'audience:
Merits
Parties:
Ontario Securities Commission v Ahmed Kaiser Akbar

In this enforcement case, the OSC alleged that Ahmed Kaiser Akbar drafted two press releases and other public filings for SoLVBL Solutions Inc. that contained false and misleading statements. Among other roles, Akbar acted as SoLVBL’s legal counsel. The OSC alleged that by drafting these documents, Akbar committed securities fraud that could harm investors and made misleading statements that could affect the price of SoLVBL’s shares.

The press releases described an agreement allowing New Foundation Technologies Corp to use SoLVBL’s technology worldwide. The OSC said that the press releases falsely described New Foundation as an established international business. In fact, New Foundation had no customers, no employees, no international operations, and had been incorporated only days earlier by Akbar.

The Tribunal found that the statements in the press releases were false or misleading.

However, the Tribunal decided that Akbar did not commit fraud under the Securities Act. The OSC alleged that Akbar committed fraud himself, not that he participated in a fraud committed by SoLVBL. Akbar prepared draft press releases, but it was SoLVBL that made the misleading statements that could harm investors as it approved and released them to the public. The OSC did not show that Akbar “caused” SoLVBL to do so.

For the same reason, the Tribunal decided that Akbar did not make misleading statements that could affect the price of SoLVBL’s shares.

The Tribunal did not make any findings based on other SoLVBL filings, because the OSC did not clearly identify those documents in its allegations. Making findings based on those documents would have been unfair to Akbar.

The Tribunal noted, however, that Akbar’s conduct was “reprehensible” and not what is expected of a lawyer or trusted advisor in the capital markets. The Tribunal might have found that Akbar’s conduct deserved sanctions had the OSC framed its allegations differently.

Allez à détails de l’instance

Préparées par le personnel du Secrétariat de la gouvernance et du Tribunal, les décisions en bref aident le public à mieux comprendre les décisions du Tribunal. Elles ne font pas partie des motifs invoqués par le Tribunal et ne sont pas utilisées dans les procédures judiciaires.