BCSC ordered to revisit Poonian's sanctions
2017-05-31 19:33 ET - Street Wire
Not available.
© 2024 Canjex Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
Reader Comments - Comments are open to paying subscribers of Stockwatch and unmoderated,
although libelous remarks, obscene language and impersonations may be deleted.
Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Stockwatch.
For information regarding Canadian libel law, please view the
University of Ottawa's FAQ regarding Defamation and SLAPPs.
Mr Stockwatch you forgot to include in your article that BCSC intentionally with-held evidence. If you missed it here is the URL for the OIPC BC Order F15-08. https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1760
Is intentionally with-holding evidence normal due course business for the Canadian court system?
Posted by bushwacker at 2017-05-31 20:26
The bureaucrats at BCSC are over paid, fiefdom building individuals who have ruined the brokerage industry over the last 15 years in BC and have evolved to implementing a two-tier enforcement system in BC. Shouldn't Brenda Leong be behind bars for intentionally withholding evidence and anyone else associated with her at the time? Just because they get fired or quit does not make them immune to prosecution. The OIPC BC Order 1760 which clearly shows that they intentionally withheld evidence.
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 20:41
15 years ago there were 17 BC based investment firms (brokerage houses) and under policies started by Doug Hyndham and carried on by Brenda there are now 2. They have killed the entire brokerage industry and yet there are over 170 full time employees at bcsc at the present time. How is this good public policy? this has always been a two tiered system of enforcement and it has not changed much over the years.
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 20:43
Is BCSC a Sham? Copy and paste this url and be the judge yourself
http://bcsecuritiescommissionasham.blogspot.ca/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/burkechristopher/bc-securities-commission-a-sham-24wgw
BCSC has no clear direction anymore. Time to clear the swamp.
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 20:45
For any law abiding, tax paying Canadian, it is common sense that you cannot hold a third party accountable for one's actions. Why did BCSC go to this extent on this file? What is BCSC hiding? Truth always catches up Brenda and the gang.
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 20:59
Civil lawsuit against Brenda, Paul, Teresa, Paige, and the gang?????
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 21:01
To the new BC government: My advice to you get rid of all the dead wood at BCSC and start fresh with a mandate that is BC First. These bureaucrats have evolved into where their mandate is now job creation and job protection for themselves. From 2010 to 2015 BCSC paid Paul Bourque to fly in from Toronto to work as the Executive Director of BCSC. They could not find anyone local in BC? How is an individual from Ontario going to look after the BC Interest? The results speak for themselves, the brokerage industry has 2 BC based brokerage left. Let's see how long they last.
Posted by OMG at 2017-05-31 21:03
OIPC BC Order F14-24 stated that "The British Columbia Securities Commission applied for authorization to disregard the respondent’s request for records and any similar requests he may make in the future because they are frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b) of FIPPA. The adjudicator found that the access request and any similar future requests are not frivolous or vexatious under s. 43(b). The application was dismissed." He is for sure Thal Poonian.
This is intentionally with-holding evidence. Here is the URL
https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1668
Posted by badger at 2017-06-01 09:46
OIPC Order F15-08 states that "The applicant requested information regarding BCSC’s communications with government and private organizations regarding the applicant and four named companies. BCSC refused to disclose the requested information on the grounds that the information was protected by solicitor-client privilege and s. 14 of FIPPA applied. The adjudicator found that BCSC had proven that litigation privilege applied to some of the records and they could be withheld under s. 14. However, neither litigation privilege nor legal advice privilege applied to the rest of the records, so they could not be withheld
under s. 14." The applicant is for sure Thal Poonian. BCSC was ordered to disclose over 700 records to Thal Poonian. Why did BCSC with-hold these records? Have they done a complete and full disclosure?
Here is the URL https://www.oipc.bc.ca/orders/1760
Posted by badger at 2017-06-01 09:51
Slovenly work by the overpaid, chronically under-achieving commission, or something more sinister? At this point no one knows. Although it would be for a court to decide whether withholding evidence due to ineptitude, slovenly practices, etc would be considered a valid defense. One would assume that with their vast resources and small army of second string amateurs, at least *one* of the nose-pickers could track the money and allocate who owes what. This amateurish blanket order regarding the disgorgement of proceeds shines a cruel and bright light on either a gang of incompetents or a corrupt and calculating group of rule-breakers who themselves deserve to be facing charges. Either way it is high time the commission were temporarily suspended pending a thorough investigation.
Posted by Da Crusader at 2017-06-01 12:19
Now that that's behind Mr. Poonian, I wonder if the BCSC will get paid the $10-million administrative penalty assessed against him?
Posted by harpinder at 2017-06-01 13:27
The BCSC’s latest sanction payment status report (April 21, 2017) shows that the following had unpaid balances as of that date. Below are the penalties originally assessed by the BCSC.
• Thalbinder Poonian pay to the commission an administrative penalty of $10 million:
• Sharon Poonian pay to the commission an administrative penalty of $3.5 million;
• Robert Leyk pay to the commission an administrative penalty of $3.5 million;
• Manjit Sihota pay to the commission an administrative penalty of $3.5 million; and
• Perminder Sihota pay to the commission an administrative penalty of $1 million.
Posted by harpinder at 2017-06-01 14:46
Why would they pay the administrative fine when BCSC can't even add numbers to figure out who actually made the money? The real question is why did BCSC intentionally wih hold evidence?
Posted by Badger at 2017-06-05 18:56
Read this website to see that BCSC staff Difonzo and Leon have international summons from the Federal courts of Chile to appear in the courts of Chile. If they don't then the summons are converted into International Warrants for their arrest.
https://tsxabxlibeled.wixsite.com/mysite
I guess the whole world is catching up to the BCSC's antics. According to the site Brenda Leong is next in line for the summons. Have a good one way trip to Chile.
Posted by Badger at 2017-06-05 19:03
Comments for this item are closed