Administrative Monetary Penalties - AMPS (Constitutional Validity)

Rowan v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2012 ONCA 208 (CanLII)

[4] The appellants challenge the constitutionality of s. 127(1)(9) of the Act, the provision that allows the Commission to impose administrative monetary penalties ("AMPs"). The appellants argue that because the maximum penalty of $1 million can be imposed for each transaction in a single course of infractions, the potential size of an AMP is so large that it amounts to a penal sanction, and a party who is subject to such a penalty is a person "charged with an offence" within the meaning of the Charter, s. 11(d). As the Commission does not accord the rights guaranteed by s. 11(d) when conducting administrative hearings, the appellants say that s. 127(1)(9) should be struck down. Rowan also argues that the Commission erred by taking into account breaches of the public interest in awarding an AMP against him. WCI and Carmichael contend that the Commission made no finding that they breached Ontario securities law and that, as a result, the Commission had no jurisdiction to impose an AMP against them. Carmichael also argues that there was no basis to find that he was under any duty under Ontario securities law to supervise Rowan and that the Commission's sanctions imposed against him on that account should be set aside. WCI, Carmichael and McKenney also argue that the finding that they failed to adequately supervise Rowan was unreasonable. Finally, the appellants appeal the Commission's award of costs.

[5] In my view, the Commission and the Divisional Court correctly concluded that the only remedy available to the appellants under s. 11(d) of the Charter is to limit the authority of the Commission to impose AMPs to levels that qualify as administrative, rather than penal, sanctions. The AMPs at issue here do not transgress that limit. Accordingly, I would dismiss the constitutional challenge to s. 127(1)(9). I would also dismiss the other grounds of appeal on the basis that [the] Divisional Court properly concluded that the Commission's reasons are to be reviewed on a standard of reasonableness, and that they met that standard. The Commission provided careful and detailed reasons for its decision, making all the necessary findings to support the sanctions it imposed. I agree with the Divisional Court that the appellants have failed to show any basis for appellate intervention. [page497] Facts

Burlington (City) v. Eshed, 2024 ONCJ 299 (CanLII)

Burlington (City) v. Eshed, 2024 ONCJ 299 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k5fw8>, retrieved on 2025-07-24