Skip to content

Brought to you by

Dentons logo

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

Latest trends and developments in commercial litigation.

open menu close menu

Dentons Commercial Litigation Blog

  • Home
  • About us
  • Topics
    • Topics
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
    • Class Action
    • Commercial Litigation
    • Judicial Review
    • Privacy Litigation
    • Professional Liability
    • Securities Litigation
    • Technology and New Media

Respondents’ cross-examination rights in securities enforcement proceedings: First Global Data Ltd (Re)

By Brandon Barnes Trickett, Raphael Eghan, and Jason Roberts
October 31, 2022
  • Securities Litigation
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn

The Ontario Capital Markets Tribunal (CMT) recently considered the limits to a respondent’s right to cross-examine another respondent in a CMT hearing. In First Global Data Ltd (Re),[1] Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) alleged that CA$4.46 million in debentures of the public company First Global Data Ltd. (First Global) were fraudulently distributed by unregistered actors. In its reasons, the CMT Panel elaborated on its mid-hearing ruling addressing the limits on the respondents’ rights to cross-examine each other.

Background

OSC Staff alleged that the First Global debentures were illegally distributed (i.e., sold without a prospectus or an exemption from the prospectus requirement) by three unregistered fundraisers: Global Bioenergy Resources Inc. (GBR Ontario) and its two principals. Staff further alleged that the respondents committed securities fraud by misleading investors regarding the intended uses of their capital, the prospect of returns, and the risk profile of the investment. The CMT Panel ultimately held that all of these allegations had been proven.

Rights of co-respondents to cross-examine each other

During the hearing, the Panel considered the rights of co-respondents to cross-examine each other. The Panel held that co-respondents are generally entitled to cross-examine each other on all issues but that each issue should be analyzed to determine the type of cross-examination questions permitted. The Panel provided the following guidance on the nature of questions that may be posed when one respondent cross-examines another:

  1. On issues where respondents are adverse in interest, leading questions may be posed.
  2. On issues where respondents are aligned in interest, only non-leading (open-ended) questions may be posed.
  3. On issues where it is unclear whether respondents are adverse or aligned in interest, leading questions may be posed, but the questioning party bears the risk of the resulting answer being given less weight if it ultimately becomes clear that the parties were aligned in interest.

The rationale for these rules is that leading questions are designed to challenge or discredit a witness’s evidence, and this objective is absent where the examiner and examinee are aligned in interest. In this context, leading questions only serve to improperly bolster the witness’s testimony, thereby detracting from the search for truth.

Procedure where respondents wish to cross-examine each other

The Panel then described a practical procedure that may be followed when co-respondents exercise their right to cross-examine each other:

  1. A respondent ought to be cross-examined by their co-respondents first before OSC Staff.
  2. The examining party ought to advise the Panel when their questioning is about to deal with a different issue so that the Panel can determine whether leading questions on that issue will be permitted.
  3. After Staff’s cross-examination of a party witness is complete, re-examination by co-respondents is permissible to address a new matter raised in cross-examination, but only with respect to issues on which the questioner and the witness are aligned.

Interestingly, the Panel confined its ruling as applicable to respondents cross-examining each other but suggested that the same principles may apply where one respondent wishes to cross-examine a non-party witness called by another respondent.

Conclusion

The First Global decision emphasizes the need for respondents to be alert to the evidentiary rules governing cross-examination by one respondent of another. Respondents who are, or may be, aligned in interest on certain issues need to ensure that they avoid asking leading questions that may be immediately objected to or later given less weight. In multi-respondent litigation, like OSC Staff, respondents must also be alert to the questions posed by other co-respondents with an aligned interest that is adverse to their own to ensure their position is not prejudiced by answers provided to improper leading questions.

For additional information, please contact the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group at Dentons.


[1] 2022 ONCMT 25.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email Share on LinkedIn
Subscribe and stay updated
Receive our latest blog posts by email.
Stay in Touch
Brandon Barnes Trickett

About Brandon Barnes Trickett

Brandon Barnes Trickett (He/Him/His) is a partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution group at Dentons. Based in the Toronto office, he advises public and private companies, institutional clients, and regulated parties on a wide range of disputes.

All posts Full bio

Raphael Eghan

About Raphael Eghan

Raphael (He/Him/His) is counsel in Dentons’ Litigation and Dispute Resolution group. He provides clients and colleagues with advanced legal research, written advocacy, and tactical analysis and advice.

All posts Full bio

Jason Roberts

About Jason Roberts

Jason Roberts (He/Him/His) is a Knowledge & Legal Operations Lawyer and member of the Dentons’ Knowledge & Legal Operations team for the Canada Region. Jason works alongside the litigation and dispute resolution group leadership and also focuses on furthering the Firm’s technical excellence objectives, publishes thought leadership, creates practice materials, monitors and reports on changes in the law and industry, and works to develop new practice tools.

All posts Full bio

RELATED POSTS

  • Securities Litigation

Green v. CIBC: Court of Appeal Revisits Limitation Period for Secondary Market Securities Class Actions and Limits Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation Class Actions

By Matthew Fleming and Ara Basmadjian
  • Securities Litigation

Test for Leave to bring Secondary Market Securities Class Action is not a “Low Bar”

The recent decision in Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd.[1] saw the Superior Court of Justice reaffirm the position that the […]

By Michael D. Schafler
  • Securities Litigation

Court Invalidates Director Elections Due to Voting Instructions Provided by Telephone

By Matthew Fleming

About Dentons

Dentons is designed to be different. As the world’s largest law firm with 20,000 professionals in over 200 locations in more than 80 countries, we can help you grow, protect, operate and finance your business. Our polycentric and purpose-driven approach, together with our commitment to inclusion, diversity, equity and ESG, ensures we challenge the status quo to stay focused on what matters most to you. www.dentons.com

Dentons boilerplate image

Twitter

Categories

  • Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
  • Arbitration
  • Civil Litigation
  • Class Action
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Covid-19
  • Energy
  • Environmental Litigation
  • Estates and Trusts
  • General
  • Government Investigations
  • Intellectual Property
  • International Arbitration
  • Judicial Review
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Mining
  • Privacy
  • Privacy and Cybersecurity
  • Privacy Litigation
  • Professional Liability
  • Regulatory
  • Securities Litigation
  • Technology and new media
  • White Collar Crime
  • White-Collar Crime

Subscribe and stay updated

Receive our latest blog posts by email.

Stay in Touch

Dentons logo

© 2023 Dentons

  • Legal notices
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms of use
  • Cookies on this site