2019 QCCQ 3646, 2019 QCCQ 3646

Autorité des marchés financiers c. Hael 2019 QCCQ 3646 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Criminal and penal division No.: 500-61-469238-183 500-61-469233-184 DATE: June 19, 2019 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING: THE HONOURABLE ALEXANDRE ST-ONGE, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ AUTORITÉ DES MARCHÉS FINANCIERS Prosecutrix v.

CHARLITO HAEL Defendant ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT [1] ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On December 5, 2017, the Autorité des Marchés Financiers (hereinafter the “AMF”) issued a statement of offence comprising 16 counts against the defendant, Charlito Hael, in regard to offences under the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services , CQLR, c. D-9.2 (hereinafter the “ ADFPS ”) (file no. 500-61-469238-183), as detailed below: 500-61-469238-183 Offences

Section of the Act Number of counts Making a misrepresentation to a client 469.1 ADFPS 11 Having contravened the trading instructions of a client 469.2 ADFPS 2 Having granted a premium rebate that did not appear in the insurance contract issued by or on behalf of the insurer 469.3 ADFPS 3 [ 2 ] On January 23, 2018, the AMF issued a second statement of offence bringing a new count against the defendant regarding an offence under the ADFPS (file no. 500-61-469233-184): 500-61-469233-184 Offence

Section of the Act Number of counts Having contravened a decision of the Authority or the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal 468(1) ADFPS 1 [ 3 ] The prosecution alleges that the defendant, who held a certificate [2] issued by the AMF allowing him to act as an independent representative in insurance of persons from October 2, 2014, to May 5, 2017, made misrepresentations to some of his clients by issuing them certificates of insurance, leading them to believe that their relatives travelling to Canada had insurance coverage, when, in fact, that insurance was not in effect.

[ 4 ] The prosecution essentially argues that the defendant had provided confirmations of insurance to his clients, who had paid him the insurance premiums, who had not been remitted to Manulife, such that the insurance purchased had never come into effect. [ 5 ] The prosecution further argues that Mr. Hael had contravened the instructions of one of his clients by not having paid Manulife the insurance premium on time for the travel insurance policy his client had purchased for his parents.

Thus, unbeknownst to them, the client’s parents were not covered by insurance for the first few weeks of their stay in Canada. [ 6 ] Also, the prosecution alleges that the defendant had granted a premium rebate to some clients by convincing them, among other things, to pay him the premiums for a lesser amount than the one stated in the certificate of insurance, and that they should do so in cash or by cheque, made out to him personally. [ 7 ] Finally, the prosecution is of the view that the defendant had contravened an order of the Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the “FMAT”) by having opened a bank account and carried out several transactions despite a FMAT ruling prohibiting him from doing so. [ 8 ] At trial, the prosecution asked the Court to withdraw counts 10 and 11 from file 500-61-469238-183. [ 9 ] The defendant testified in his defence.

He denied the essential elements of some of the offences alleged against him. He generally maintained that he had paid the premiums to Manulife for the insurance purchased by his clients. Furthermore, he did not characterize as a rebate the fact that he had invoiced his clients a lower amount for the premiums than the one indicated in the insurance certificates. ISSUES [ 10 ] The Court must decide the following issues: 1. What is the credibility of the testimony of Charlito Hael? 2.

Has the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offences set out in the two statements of offence? 3. Do the explanations provided by the accused constitute a defence of reasonable diligence or mistake of fact? CONTEXT [ 11 ] The defendant had held a certificate issued by the AMF allowing him to act as an independent representative in insurance of persons from October 2, 2014, to May 5, 2017.

During the trial, the prosecution called to testify the defendant’s former clients, who had purchased travel insurance policies for their relatives, in preparation for their trips to Canada. 500-61-469238-183 Counts # 1 and #2 (Client: Celso Atas) [ 12 ] Celso Atas met the defendant in 2014 when he purchased travel insurance for his father. The premium was around $3,200 and he stated that the accused had offered him a 10% rebate off the premium if he would pay cash or by cheque made out to the defendant. He had to pay half of the premium, while his sister would pay the other one.

He gave a cheque for his half to Hael ($1,446.39), [3] and his sister paid her half. This cheque was deposited into the bank account of Services Financiers APO, Mr. Hael’s personal company. [4] [ 13 ] Mr. Atas received a certificate of insurance #4E07070Z [5] directly from the defendant to insure his father, from July 20, 2014, to July 19, 2015. The premium indicated on the certificate is $3,214.19.

The defendant told him that he could adjust the period of coverage when his father would arrived to the country. [ 14 ] The defendant was informed in an email [6] dated December 7, 2014, that Celso Atas ’ father had arrived in Canada in November 2014. [ 15 ] Insurance policy #4E07070Z [7] never came into effect because Manulife never received payment for the premium. On July 16, 2014, Manulife had sent the defendant an email concerning the non-payment of that policy.

It also had sent a second email on August 14, 2014. [ 16 ] On March 4, 2015, the defendant issued a certificate of insurance #5C917460 [8] in the name of Agustin Atas, with a coverage from March 22, 2015, to November 29, 2015. On April 4, 2015, the defendant sent the new policer number # 5C917460 [9] by email [10] to Celso Atas. This policy came into effect on April 28, 2015, when the premium was paid by credit card.

The defendant received a 35% commission ($812.89) on May 6, 2015. [ 17 ] Agustin Atas had no insurance coverage between November 2014 and April 28, 2015. [ 18 ] In November 2015, Celso Atas called the defendant again to purchase a new insurance policy [11] for his father because the latter was not going back to the Philippines. The defendant offered him a rebate on the premium if he paid cash or by cheque, made out to him [12] . Celso Atas paid the $2,900 premium by cheque, [13] which was deposited into the defendant’s personal account. The defendant

gave him a certificate of insurance #5K70659L [14] for the period from November 30, 2015, to November 28, 2016. The premium indicated on the certificate was $3,350.70. The defendant considered the rebate he granted Mr. Atas as a “gift”. [ 19 ] During his testimony, the defendant said he had paid the premium for policy #5K70659L by sending Manulife a cheque in the amount of $3,350.70. He argues that exhibit D-3 confirms this fact. [ 20 ] In April 2016, Mr.

Atas’ father was hospitalized and significant fees were incurred. [15] He called Manulife to obtain an authorization for medical fees and filed a claim. [16] [ 21 ] Manulife refused to pay the fees incurred since policy #5K70659L had never come into effect because the premium had not been paid. A follow-up email for non-payment of the premium had been sent to the defendant in January 2016. [17] [ 22 ] Celso Atas believed his father was covered because he had paid the insurance premiums.

He contacted the defendant to find out what had happened, and the latter told him that he would file a claim with his liability insurer. [18] Neither the defendant nor Manulife ever reimbursed him for the medical fees. Ultimately, he asked the defendant to insure his father for the remainder of his stay. [ 23 ] It was only in July 2016, however, that the defendant followed through on this request by taking out a policy with Allianz, [19] for which the defendant received a $529.73 commission. [ 24 ] The defendant admits that Celso Atas bought three insurance policies.

Policy #4E07070Z was cancelled and replaced by policy #5C917460. He paid the $2,322.54 premium for that policy by credit card. Count # 3 (Clients: Sonia Bhatia and Gurtej Singh) Policy #5G31499W [ 25 ] On July 22, 2015, Sonia Bathia and Gurtej Singh purchased travel insurance [20] for Jaspreet Kaur, Gurtej Singh’s mother, for the period from August 31, 2015, to August 29, 2016. The premium indicated in the contract was $1,854.93. They paid a $1,250 premium, by cheque, drawn on their company’s account. [21] The cheque was deposited into the bank account of Services Financiers APO, the defendant’s personal company.

Insurance policy #5G31499W had never come into effect because the premium had not been paid to Manulife. A reminder email due to non-payment had been sent to the defendant. [22] Policy #6E2255457 [ 26 ] Ms. Kaur arrived in Canada in April 2016, and Sonia Bhatia contacted the defendant to activate the insurance policy in Ms. Kaur’s name. She left him several messages. A few days later, the defendant told her that he would activate the insurance policy.

On May 24, 2016, certificate of insurance #6E25545Y was issued in the name of Jaspreet Kaur. [23] This policy covered the period from May 24, 2016, to March 22, 2017. It never came into effect because the $1,886.63 premium was never paid to Manulife. Policy #6157581Z [ 27 ] On September 22, 2016, a third policy #6157581Z [24] was issued for Jaspreet Kaur. The $1,133.22 premium was paid by the defendant by credit card on September 22, 2016. This insurance policy covered the period from September 22 to 26, 2016. [ 28 ] Mr. Singh’s mother left Canada on September 26, 2016.

She had been insured therefore only from September 22 to 26, 2016, even though she had arrived in Canada in April 2016. [ 29 ] Ms. Bathia called the defendant to inform him that her mother-in-law had left and ask him for a reimbursement, but the defendant did not answer. Sonia Bathia then called Manulife and found out that there were two policies in her mother-in-law’s name, [25] and that only one policy, policy #6157581Z, had been paid. Before Manulife informed Ms.

Bathia that her mother-in-law was not insured, she thought that the insurance had been in effect from the day of her arrival in Canada, in April 2016, until the day of her departure on September 26, 2016. [ 30 ] After several discussions with the defendant, Ms. Bathia and her husband obtained two reimbursements, one for $465.46, and the other for $246.12. Initially, the defendant told them they were not entitled to a reimbursement because the amount of the premium was $1,800 and they had paid only $1,250.

The defendant then told them that he had to keep 40% of the reimbursement. [ 31 ] The defendant stated that he had paid the insurance premium by credit card. He also had received a reimbursement from Manulife. He denied that Ms. Bathia or her husband went to pick up the reimbursement cheques at his home because, according to him, he had sent them the reimbursement by mail. Count # 4 (Client: Éloisa Sarmiento) [ 32 ] Éloisa Sarmiento met the defendant in February 2016 to purchase travel insurance for her parents, who were supposed to arrive in Canada in March 2016.

She did not know the exact date of their arrival, but it was before March 15, 2016. Her parents had stayed three months in Canada before going back to the Philippines. [ 33 ] She had paid the insurance premiums by cheque ($1,100 [26] ) made out to Charlie A. Hael. She wrote the defendant’s name on the cheque at his request. This cheque was deposited by the defendant into his personal account [27] on February 8, 2016. Two certificates of insurance (one per parent) [28] were given to her by the defendant for policies #6B95256Q and #6B95257J. The date of

purchase stated on these certificates was February 7, 2016. The period of coverage was from March 10, 2016, to July 4, 2016.

According to the Manulife representative, these two policies had never come into effect because Manulife had never received payment for the premiums, despite the fact that Manulife had followed up with the defendant. [ 34 ] Éloisa Sarmiento believed that her parents were insured during their stay in Canada when in fact, according to the Manulife representative, they were not. [ 35 ] The defendant recognizes that the $1,100 premium had been paid by Éloisa Sarmiento and that he had granted her a rebate, at her request. He alleges that he had paid the $614 premium for each policy with his wife’s credit card.

He filed a certificate of insurance [29] concerning policy #6B95257J in the name of Leonidas Sarmiento that indicates that the premium had been paid by credit card on March 24, 2016. [ 36 ] Concerning the follow up he made of his commissions, the defendant said that he did not track them closely. [ 37 ] He also submitted that the insurance company must be in possession of travel documents like plane tickets or boarding passes for the policy to come into effect. Count # 5 (Client Manpreet Singh Chopra) [ 38 ] Manpreet Singh Chopra met the defendant to purchase travel insurance for his parents.

He chose the defendant because he was offering the lowest price. He purchased two insurance policies [30] for his parents and gave the defendant three cheques [31] , made out to him personally, and an amount of $200 or $300 to pay the premiums for his parents’ insurance policies. The cheques were deposited into the defendant’s personal account. [ 39 ] Two certificates of insurance had been issued for each parent. The period of coverage ranged from July 15, 2015, to July 13, 2016. The premiums indicated in the certificates vary depending on the amount of the deductible. Thus, with respect to Mr.

Chopra’s father, the premium indicated is $1,148.29 with a $5,000 deductible, and $1,854.93 with no deductible. The situation was the same with respect to Mr. Chopra’s mother. [ 40 ] Mr. Chopra received the certificates #5F16009U and #5F16023Y for his father, Shesh Paul Chopra, and #5F16010Q and #5F16024O for his mother, Amarjit Kaur Chopra, the same day he paid the premiums to the defendant. [32] Because his mother arrived in Canada before his father, he wanted to cancel the latter’s insurance policy, but the defendant told him that the insurance would begin when his father arrived in Canada.

He was not aware of the existence of two policies in his father’s name and two, in his mother’s name. [33] [ 41 ] The policies identified as exhibits P-80 and P-81 did not come into effect because the premiums were not paid to Manulife. A notice for non-payment was sent to the defendant on June 11, 2015. [ 42 ] The defendant testified that Mr. Chopra still owed him $1,400, representing a balance due on the insurance premiums. Counts #6, #7, #8 and #9 (Client: Tarun Bhanot) [ 43 ] Mr. Bhanot called the defendant in May 2013 to obtain travel insurance for his parents.

A friend had told him that the defendant’s prices were amongst the lowest. [ 44 ] He purchased travel insurance for his two parents, who were living in India, and paid the premiums requested by the defendant, amounting to $2,560.41, by cheque, on May 4, 2013. [34] This cheque was cashed by the defendant on May 7, 2013. [35] Mr. Bhanot received a certificate of insurance for each of his parents [36] directly from the defendant.

The date of purchase indicated on these policies is May 4, 2013. [ 45 ] The certificate of insurance [37] concerning Bishamber Nath, #3E17712T, indicates a period of coverage from June 15, 2013, to June 14, 2014. The premium indicated is $1,430.25. As for the one concerning Sunita Rani, [38] #3E17713T, the period of coverage is the same as in the one above, and the premium indicated is $1,414.74, for a total of $2,844.99 to insure his parents. In both cases, the date of June 15, 2013, is indicated on the certificates as the date of arrival in Canada. [ 46 ] Mr.

Bhanot testified that the defendant had explained to him that he would grant him a rebate, by reducing his commissions, which explained the difference from the price he paid, and the premium indicated on the certificates. His parents arrived in Canada in June 2013 and left in May 2015. The premiums concerning policies #3E17712T and #3E17713T were paid to Manulife on July 25, 2013, by the defendant, and he received commissions of $500.59 and $495.16. At the expiry of the insurance policies on June 14, 2014, he purchased two more travel insurance policies for his parents through the defendant. [ 47 ] Mr.

Bhanot believed that his parents were insured for the entire duration of their stay when, in fact, they were uninsured from the time they arrived in Canada, in June 2013 until July 25, 2013, when the premiums were paid to Manulife by the defendant. According to Manulife’s representative, Gabriela Cosman, Manulife did not grant rebates on the premiums in question, and never authorized the defendant to offer a rebate on any premium. [ 48 ] The defendant acknowledged that the policies had been paid by Mr.

Bhanot and that he had received an amount of $2,560.41, even if the premiums amounted to $2,844.99 in the certificates. He stated that he had paid the premiums, and had received commissions. He did not keep a record of the commissions he had received, however. Count #12 (Client: Amalia Reyes)

[ 49 ] Amalia Reyes first contacted the defendant in July 2012 to buy travel insurance for her mother, Severina Reyes, in order for her to come visit her in Canada. Her mother arrived in November 2012 and left in December 2013. She came back in January 2014, and has been in Canada ever since. [ 50 ] Ms. Reyes renewed the travel insurance policies through the defendant. On March 7, 2016, she paid an amount of $1,485.60 to renew her mother’s travel insurance, [39] and gave a cheque to the defendant. This cheque was cashed into the defendant’s personal account.

She received the certificate of insurance #6C04071S [40] , covering the period from March 7, 2016, to March 6, 2017. The premium indicated on the certificate is $1,839.78. She was told that by paying cash, or by cheque made out to the defendant, she could benefit from a premium rebate. The defendant had never been authorized to grant a premium rebate. [ 51 ] It was only on August 23, 2016, that the defendant had paid the premium for the insurance policy [41] concerning Severina Reyes.

He had paid the $987 premium to Manulife with his wife credit card. [42] This policy #6H50145G covered the period from August 23, 2016, to March 6, 2017. He had received a commission of $345.78 this policy. [ 52 ] Amalia Reyes believed her mother was insured throughout her stay in Canada because she had received a certificate of insurance from the defendant. [ 53 ] As for the defendant, he acknowledged receiving a cheque for $1,485.60 [43] and granting Ms. Reyes a premium rebate using a portion of his commission.

Count #13 (Client: Manpreet Mutti) [ 54 ] Manpreet Mutti met the defendant to purchase health insurance for her parents, which was required for them to obtain a visa. On July 31, 2014, she gave the defendant a $3,400 cheque made out to Charlie A.

Hael. [44] Concurrently, the defendant gave her two certificates of insurance, with a coverage period for one year starting on October 15, 2014, bearing #4G30604H and #4G30605O. [45] The premium for each policy, indicated in the certificate, is $2,081.05, for a total of $4,162.10. [ 55 ] Her parents arrived in Canada on January 4, 2015, and stayed here for only one and a half months. The defendant had told her to keep the tickets or boarding passes to obtain a reimbursement. She therefore attempted to communicate with him to obtain a reimbursement.

She called him twice, but the defendant never returned her calls. [ 56 ] According to Gabriela Cosman’s testimony, a senior representative working for Manulife, on July 31, 2014, the defendant had requested the issuance of two insurance policies #4G30596V and #4G30596V for Ranjit Singh Thind, and Gurnam Kaur Thind, Manpreet Mutti’s parents, for a period of one year starting on October 15, 2014. [46] The premium indicated in each certificate of insurance was $2,081.05, for a total of $4,162.10. [ 57 ] Those policies #4G30596V and #4G30597V, in the name of Ranjit Singh Thind and Gurnam Kaur Thind, had never come into effect because the premiums had not been paid to Manulife. [ 58 ] The defendant admitted that he had granted Manpreet Mutti a rebate.

He claimed to have a note indicating that both policies had been paid. This note was not adduced at trial. He could not say whether he had granted Ms. Mutti a reimbursement. Count #14 (Client: Zenaida Gaton) [ 59 ] Zenaida Gaton contacted the defendant in June 2015 to obtain health insurance for her mother concerning her visit to Canada. The defendant was the representative offering the lowest price. [ 60 ] She gave the defendant two cheques, each in the amount of $1,240.28, to pay the premium.

One of these cheques was not dated because the defendant was supposed to cash it only when her mother would arrived in Canada. [47] The first cheque was deposited into the defendant’s personal bank account on June 23, 2015. [48] [ 61 ] The defendant gave her certificate of insurance #5F2186J, valid from July 1, 2015, to June 29, 2016.

The premium indicated on the certificate was $3,153.60. [49] She could not explain the difference between the amount of the premium indicated on the certificate ($3,153.60) and the amount she paid ($2,680.56) the defendant for the the premium. [ 62 ] Because her mother never came to Canada, she had asked the defendant to reimburse her.

The defendant did reimburse an amount of $1,215.28, representing the amount of the deposited cheque, [50] less a $125 service charge. [51] The reimbursement cheque was drawn on the bank account of Services Financiers APO, the defendant’s personal company. [ 63 ] The defendant admitted that Zenaida Gaton gave him two cheques for a total amount of $2,680.56, while the premium indicated was $3,153.60, the agreement being that the second cheque would be cashed only when her mother arrived or when she obtained her visa.

Count #15 (Client: Daljit Singh Jauhal) [ 64 ] Daljit Singh Jauhal met the defendant on July 14, 2015, to purchase travel insurance for his in-laws. He found the defendant through a friend and had an email exchange [52] with him using the email address indicated on his business card. [53] Mr. Jauhal did business with the defendant because he had offered the lowest price for the premiums, and because Mr. Hael had offered him a rebate. [ 65 ] He purchased travel insurance for his in-laws, paid the premiums and then obtained the policy number for both insurance policies.

He later received the certificates of insurance. [54] He gave the defendant two cheques, each made out to Charlie A. Hael. [55] The first, in the amount of $2,218.18, dated September 21, 2015, was deposited by the defendant into Services Financiers APO’s account

on September 23, 2015, [56] and the second, for $1,977.27, dated June 21, 2016, was deposited into the defendant’s personal account on June 21, 2016. Written on each of these cheques are the following policy numbers #51510999W and #5151098J. The premiums paid totalled $4,195.45. The defendant admitted that he had received both cheques, but did not remember whether he had sent Manulife the payments, because he had not received the travel documents. [ 66 ] Certificate #5150999W, issued in the name of Sohan Singh referred to an insurance coverage period from November 1, 2015, to October 30, 2016.

The premium mentioned was $2,730.20. [57] [ 67 ] Certificate #5151098J, issued in the name of Gurbax Kaur referred to an insurance coverage period from November 1, 2015, to October 30, 2016. The premium indicated was $2,087.98. [58] The premiums for both of Daljit Singh Jauhal’s in-laws, therefore amounted to $4,818.18. [ 68 ] Daljit Singh Jauhal requested a partial reimbursement because his in-laws stayed in Canada only a few months, from May 11, 2016, to September 20, 2016.

The defendant had told him about the possibility of being reimbursed a portion of the premiums if the duration of his in-laws’ stay was less than six months. He received two cheques from Hael, with the notation “refund policy” and the two policy numbers. [59] These reimbursement cheques, in the amount of $1,176.65 and $1,000 were drawn from Services Financiers APO’s account, and cashed by Mr. Jauhal on February 8, 2017, and March 6, 2017. [ 69 ] He believed his in-laws were insured for the entire duration of their stay.

The two policies, however, had never come into effect because the premiums had not been paid to Manulife, despite a notice of non-payment that had been sent by email to the defendant on January 11, 2016. [60] [ 70 ] The defendant testified that he did not know whether he had paid the insurance premiums or not to Manulife because he had not received the travel documents. Count #16 (Client: Sarbjit Kaur) [ 71 ] Sarbjit Kaur contacted the defendant in 2014 to purchase travel insurance for her parents in order for them to come to Canada.

To insure her parents, she paid premiums of $3,000 with a bank draft. [61] [ 72 ] The defendant gave her a certificate of insurance for each of her parents. The defendant told her she could pay $3,000 for the premiums because he could offer a special price to certain clients. According to the certificates, the premiums totalled $3,514.40. [ 73 ] Her parents arrived in Canada on June 8, 2014, and left on December 8, 2014. The defendant had told her he could reimburse 50% of the amount if they would leave less than six months after their arrival.

She received a $1,056.50 [62] reimbursement from Services financiers APO, but did not know why there was a $400 difference with the amount she should have received (half of the premiums paid, around $1500). [ 74 ] She believed that her parents were insured for the entire duration of their stay in Canada.

According to the Manulife representative, neither insurance policy for her parents had ever come into effect because the premiums had not been paid to Manulife or the policies had been cancelled by the defendant. [ 75 ] The defendant admitted that he had received the $3,000 bank draft, that he had granted Sarbjit Kaur a rebate on the premiums, and that he had reimbursed her $1,056.60. He stated that he had paid the premiums to Manulife and argues that exhibit D-5 confirms it. He also received a reimbursement from Manulife. Other defence evidence [ 76 ] The defendant also filed exhibit D-6 into the record.

It is a certificate of insurance in the name of Manuel Fausto, a client who is not part of the present proceedings. The AMF initially alleged that this premium had not been paid by the defendant, but the defendant testified that he had.

After the prosecution verified this point, it admitted that the insurance premium for that client had been paid by the defendant. [ 77 ] The defendant argues that exhibits D-4, D-5, and D-6 raise a reasonable doubt concerning to the reliability of Manulife’s computer system with regard to whether or not premiums have indeed been paid to Manulife for a particular certificate of insurance. 500-61-469233-184 (Non-compliance with a ruling of the FMAT) [ 78 ] On May 3, 2017, the FMAT rendered various orders against the defendant, to wit, freeze orders on some of his assets, the suspension of his right to exercise his profession, a prohibition against performing transactions, and various orders to ensure compliance with the law. [63] [ 79 ] That ruling ordered the defendant not to dispose, directly or indirectly, of funds, securities, or other property in his possession or that have been entrusted to him, and not to withdraw his funds, securities, or other property on deposit with or under the control or in the safekeeping of another person on his behalf. [ 80 ] That decision was served on the defendant personally on May 5, 2017.

A reasoned decision with the same conclusions was rendered by the FMAT on May 10, 2017. [64] The defendant opened a Bank of Montreal bank account on May 11, 2017, [65] and transactions were conducted as of May 12, 2017. [66] The defendant’s first withdrawal happened on May 16, 2017, for a sum of $1,800. [ 81 ] Deposits and withdrawals then followed on a regular basis until December 21, 2017 when the freeze was lifted.

[ 82 ] The defendant admitted that he had received the documents from the FMAT. He stated that he did not read the documents, and that his attorney had told him he could open a bank account. He did not know the exact scope of the FMAT’s decision. ANALYSIS Principles 1. Liability regime [ 83 ] First, the Court must determine whether the offences alleged against the defendant are mens rea offences, strict liability offences, or absolute liability offences. [67] [ 84 ] The offences with which the defendant is charged are regulatory offences.

Offences of this type generally belong to the category of strict liability offences, which do not require proof of mens rea . [68] [ 85 ] Indeed, in the absence of specific words showing legislative intent to the contrary, the alleged offences are presumed to belong to the strict liability category of offences. [ 86 ] The offences, in the present case, are enacted as “incidental sanctions whose purpose is to enforce the performance of various duties, thereby safeguarding the general welfare of society”. [69] The purpose of the regime set out under the ADFPS is to provide a framework for the insurance products distribution industry in order to protect the public. [70] [ 87 ] The Court is of the opinion that the offences of having contravened the trading instructions or failing to execute transactions requested by a client are strict liability offences. [71] The same is true with regard to the offences of having contravened a decision of the FMAT [72] and having granted a premium rebate that did not appear in the insurance contract issued by the insurer. [73] [ 88 ] As for the offence of making a misrepresentation to a client, the Court also finds that it is also a strict liability offence. [74] [ 89 ] Indeed, the Quebec Court of Appeal, in Cottone c.

Autorité des marchés financiers , [75] characterized s. 197 of the Securities Act , [76] which prohibits making a misrepresentation under the Securities Act , as a strict liability offence. The analogy with the offence of misrepresentation set out under the ADFPS is obvious. [ 90 ] Finally, failure to include terms like “in order to” or “with the intention” in the wording of s. 469.1 of the ADFPS , confirms the general rule that it is a strict liability offence. Consequently, the Court finds that the offences alleged against the defendant are strict liability offences.

Thus, proof of the defendant’s guilty mind is not necessary. [77] [ 91 ] The defendant may avoid liability by proving reasonable diligence in exercising the regulated activity or, that he believed on reasonable grounds in a non-existent state of facts, which would have made the act innocent, had it existed. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the constituent elements of the offences set out in the statement of offence. A defence based on a mistake of fact or on reasonable diligence must be proved on a balance of probabilities. 2.

Credibility and reasonable doubt [ 92 ] The credibility and reliability of the defendant’s testimony are at the heart of this case because the defendant testified and denied, on several of the counts, certain constituent elements of the offence. [ 93 ] The burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is always on the prosecution, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the constituent elements of the various offences. The defendant needs to prove nothing, unless he raises reasonable diligence or mistake of fact. [ 94 ] The Court must therefore follow the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v.

W.(D.) concerning contradictory versions. [78] Consequently, if the Court believes the defendant’s version, it must acquit him. Even if it does not believe his version, but has a reasonable doubt, it must acquit him. Finally, even if there is no reasonable doubt following the defendant’s testimony, it must ask itself whether it is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt, based on the rest of the evidence that has been accepted. [ 95 ] The defendant is presumed innocent.

Reasonable doubt may come from evidence that affects the reliability or credibility of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It may also come from the prosecution’s evidence lacking an air of reality or the fact that the probative value of the evidence presented is insufficient to convince the Court beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt. Also, the Court can have a reasonable doubt even if the prosecution’s evidence on some of the counts is not contradicted.

The fact that the evidence is not contradicted does not mean that it must be accepted. [79] [ 96 ] A witness’s credibility is not assessed in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of the evidence, but by considering it with the evidence as a whole. The standard of reasonable doubt does not apply to individual items of evidence. [80] [ 97 ] Finally, even if the evidence presented by the prosecution is believed, the latter must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the essential elements of the offences set out in the statements of offence. 3.

Similar facts evidence [ 98 ] The Court will not take into consideration evidence of similar facts or “modus operandi” to draw inferences concerning the

essential elements the prosecution must prove with respect to each of the counts filed against the defendant.

The prosecution did not ask for a voir dire to decide the matter, which must necessarily be adjudicated before the defendant decides whether or not to present a defence. [81] Principles applied Credibility of the defendant’s testimony [ 99 ] In the present case, for the following reasons, the Court does not believe the accused’s testimony when he mentioned having paid the premiums to Manulife, by cheque, concerning policies purchased by some of his clients: • The defendant’s assertion that he had sent Manulife a cheque for $3,350.70 to pay the premium for insurance policy 5K70659L purchased by Celso Atas (counts #1 and #2) is contradicted by the evidence as a whole, Gabriela Cosman and Celso Atas’ testimonies in particular.

The Court does not assign any probative value to the cheque stub filed by the defendant [82] because that document was prepared by the defendant, and does not prove that the payment was made, or even sent to Manulife; • The defendant’s testimony concerning the premiums of the policies purchased by Manpreet Singh Chopra (count #5), to the effect that there was a remaining balance to be paid by Mr.

Chopra, is not believed and contrary to the evidence as a whole; • The defendant’s explanations concerning the fact that the rebate he had granted some of his clients, was not a “rebate” but rather a “gift” from him, taken from his commissions, does not make any sense, and affects the overall credibility of his testimony; • The defendant’s testimony concerning his client Daljit Singh Jauhal (count #15) is not reliable, because he did not know whether or not he had paid the insurance premiums to Manulife; • The defendant’s testimony to the effect he had paid the premiums for the insurance policies purchased by Sarbjit Kaur (count #16) is contradicted by the testimony of Manulife’s representative, Ms.

Gabriela Cosman. Furthermore, exhibit D-5, contrary to what the defendant argues, does not prove that the defendant had paid the premiums to Manulife. The first page of exhibit D-5, titled “Travel Insurance Confirmation” has the same information, also found on the second page of exhibit D-5, titled “Manulife Financial Travel Insurance Confirmation”.

The Court is of the opinion that the inferences that may be drawn from exhibit D-5 are different from those concerning exhibit D-4 insofar as the date of transaction recorded on the “Travel Insurance Confirmation” in exhibit D-4 is different from the one in the “Manulife Financial Travel Insurance Confirmation”, also under exhibit D-4.

The situation is different in the case of exhibit D-5, where the “transaction date” recorded on the “Travel Insurance Confirmation” is the same as the “purchase date” recorded on the “Manulife Financial Travel Insurance Confirmation”; • The defendant’s assertion that he did not keep track of the commissions he had received is implausible.

The evidence as a whole shows that the defendant’s bank accounts balances were low, such that it is implausible that the defendant would not react if a significant commission of $500 to $1,000, for example, [83] was not paid to him, when it was due following the sale of an insurance policy; • The assertion that the defendant had to receive his clients’ parents travel documents for the policy to come into effect is implausible. [ 100 ] For the reasons that the Court has just laid out, the defendant’s testimony is not believed and does not raise a reasonable doubt concerning the payment of the premiums to Manulife, with the exception of those concerning Éloisa Sarmiento (count #4) for the purchase of her parents’ insurance policies. [84] [ 101 ] Despite the conclusion regarding the defendant’s testimony, the Court must nevertheless consider whether the prosecution has proved the essential elements of the various counts beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 102 ] After analyzing the evidence as a whole, the Court is of the view that exhibits D-4, D-5, and D-6 do not raise a reasonable doubt as to the general reliability of Manulife’s computer system on the issue of whether or not the premium for a given insurance policy has been paid. [ 103 ] Firstly, the client concerned by exhibit D-6 is not one of the clients concerned by the present statements of offences under the ADFPS .

Secondly, with regard to exhibit D-5, the Court is of the view that this exhibit, for reasons stated above, does not show that the defendant had paid the premiums to Manulife. [ 104 ] As for exhibit D-4, analyzed with the evidence as a whole, which includes the defendant’s testimony, and exhibits D-5 and D-6, does not raise a reasonable doubt concerning the general reliability of Manulife’s computer system with respect to the payment of the premiums to Manulife concerning count #4 (Éloisa Sarmiento), even though the Court is not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt those premiums (count #4) were not paid to Manulife. [ 105 ] The Court will now examine the different essential elements the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Essential elements of the offences 1. Misrepresentations [ 106 ]

Section 469.1 of the ADFPS stipulates:

Every person that in any manner makes a misrepresentation to the Authority, an insured, a client or any other person when pursuing activities governed by this Act or the regulations is guilty of an offence. [ 107 ] The ADFPS is a protective public order statute which must be interpreted in such a way as to ensure that its mission is carried out, including providing a framework for financial services and protecting the public. [85] [ 108 ] As with the securities market, the financial products and services market is based on the public’s trust in it, and in its actors. In the case Autorité des marchés financiers c.

Lacroix [86] , Justice Claude Leblond states: [ translation ] [88] The public investing in the securities market has very high expectations. This is completely understandable, since often an entire life’s savings is entrusted to the people authorized to trade in this industry. The public is therefore entitled to expect the highest level of professionalism and ethics from such professionals. Trust is at the very heart of this industry. [ 109 ] Moreover,

interpretations based on securities regulation apply to the ADFPS , which pursues the same type of objective. [87] [ 110 ] Firstly,

section 469.1 of the ADFPS does not impose any restriction on the method of transmitting the information. [88]

Section 469.1 of the ADFPS encourages industry professionals to send reliable and accurate information to the clients with whom they do business.

The objective is to guarantee the reliability and accuracy of the information sent to an insured about his or her insurance coverage, and the period covered. [ 111 ] Because the defendant gave his clients a certificate of insurance issued by Manulife, upon payment of the premium, they thought the insurance protection was in effect. [ 112 ] Secondly, since the defendant indicated his personal email address on the application form, he was the only one who received non-payment notices sent by Manulife. [ 113 ] The Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the constituent elements of the offences set out under 469.1 of the ADFPS beyond a reasonable doubt.

Indeed, misrepresentations were made while pursuing activities governed by the ADFPS , specifically, the purchase of travel insurance. [ 114 ] Thus, the defendant provided information to his clients to the effect that their relatives were covered by travel insurance, for the term indicated on the certificate given to them, or for the duration of their stay in Canada.

The information provided by the defendant to his clients was false or misleading because he never paid the insurance premiums with the consequence that the insurance policies never came into effect, or, if he did, he did not do it on time, with the consequence that the insurance was in effect for a shorter term than the one indicated on the certificate. [ 115 ] Finally, the information concerning the premiums was false, resulting in the client paying less than what was indicated on the certificate of insurance. [ 116 ] Consequently, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the following misrepresentations: Count #1 (Client Celso Atas) Misrepresentations • That policy #4E070702, in the name of Agustin Atas, was in effect from July 20, 2014, to July 19, 2015, when it was not, because the premium had not been paid to Manulife by the defendant; • That policy #5C917460, in the name of Agustin Atas, was in effect from March 22, 2015, to November 29, 2015, when, in truth, it had only come into effect on April 28, 2015.

Count #2 (Client Celso Atas) Misrepresentations • That policy #5K70659L, in the name of Agustin Atas, was in effect from November 30, 2015, to November 28, 2016, when it was not, because the premium had not been paid to Manulife by the defendant; • That the premium for policy #5K70659L was $2,900 (amount paid by Celso Atas to insure his father Agustin Atas), whereas the premium indicated on the certificate of insurance was $3,350.70.

Count #3 (Clients Sonia Bhatia and Gurtej Singh) Misrepresentations • That the premium for policy #5G31499W, in the name of Jaspreet Kaur, was $1,250 (amount paid by Sonia Ghatia and Gurtej Singh) whereas the premium indicated on the certificate was $1,854.93; • That Jaspreet Kaur was covered by policy #5G31499W from August 31, 2015, to August 29, 2016, when she was not covered, because the premium had not been paid to Manulife; • That Jaspreet Kaur was covered by insurance policy #6E2255457 from May 24, 2016, to March 22, 2017, when that policy had never come into effect, because the premium had not been paid to Manulife.

In fact, Jaspreet Kaur was only covered from September 22 to September 26, 2016. Count #4 (Client Éloisa Sarmiento) Misrepresentations • That Éloisa Sarmiento’s parents were covered by policies #GB95256Q and #GB95257J as of March 10, 2016, when the evidence indicates no premiums have been paid before March 24, 2016.

Therefore, Éloisa Sarmiento’s parents were not covered as March 10, to March 24, 2016; • That premiums for policies #GB95256Q and GB95257J were $1,100 (amount paid by Éloisa Sarmiento), whereas the premiums indicated in the certificates of insurance were $1,228.50. [ 117 ] The Court is of the view that the defendant’s testimony, and the filing of exhibit D-4 raise a reasonable doubt as to the fact that policy #GB95257J was paid by the defendant on March 24, 2016, by credit card. That exhibit also raises a reasonable doubt concerning the payment of policy #GB95256Q by the defendant.

Nevertheless, the Court is of the view that the evidence as a whole establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Éloisa Sarmiento’s parents were not covered before March 24, 2016, and that, consequently, the defendant had made misrepresentations to Ms. Sarmiento concerning the date on which the insurance policies had come into effect. Count #5 (Client Manpreet Singh Chopra) Misrepresentations • That Mr.

Singh Chopra’s father, Shesh Paul Chopra, was covered by an insurance policy from July 15, 2015, to July 13, 2016, when he was not, because the premiums indicated in certificates #5F16009U and #5F16023Y had not been paid to Manulife; • That his mother, Armarjit Kaur Chopra, was covered by an insurance policy from July 15, 2015, to July 13, 2016, when she was not, because the insurance premiums indicated in certificates #5F16010Q and #5F16024O had not been paid to Manulife.

Count #12 (Client Amalia Reyes) Misrepresentations • That Amelia Reyes’s mother, Severina Reyes, was covered by policy #6C040715 from March 7, 2016, to March 6, 2017, when in fact, she was covered only from August 23, 2016, to March 6, 2017, because it was only on August 23, 2016, that the defendant had paid the premium for policy # 6H50145G;

• That the premium for policy #6C040715 was $1,485.60 (amount paid by Amalia Reyes to the defendant), whereas, the premium indicated on the certificate was $1,839.78. Count #13 (Client Manpreet Mutti) Misrepresentations • That the premiums for the coverage of both Manpreet Mutti’s parents, from October 15, 2014, to October 14, 2015, amounted to $3,400 (amount paid by Manpreet Mutti) whereas the amount in the certificates totalled $4,162.10. [ 118 ] The Court is of the view that it is the only misrepresentation made by the defendant, in relation to count #13, proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thus, the prosecution was unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that insurance policies #4G30604H and #4G30605O never came into effect. The testimony of Manulife’s representative was silent on whether or not the accused had paid these premiums (#4G30604H and #4G30605O). [ 119 ] Because policies #4G30604H and #4G30605O are identical in every respect to policies #G4G30596V and #4G30597V, except for the policy number, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Manpreet Mutti’s parents were not covered by an insurance policy.

Evidence has not been adduced beyond a reasonable doubt that the premiums for policies #4G30604H and #4G30605O were not paid by the defendant. [ 120 ] However, the defendant misled his client concerning the amount of the premiums for the policies he had bought for the benefice of his parents.

Count #15 (Client Daljit Singh Jauhal) Misrepresentations • That the parents of Daljit Singh Jauhal were covered from November 1, 2015, to October 30, 2016, when they were not because policies #5151099W and #5151098J had never come into effect because the premiums had not been paid to Manulife; • That premiums for the insurance coverage of Daljit Singh Jauhal’s parents amounted to $4,195.45, whereas the premiums indicated in policies #5151099W and #5151098J totalled $4,818.18.

Count #16 (Client Sarbjit Kaur) Misrepresentations • That Sarbjit Kaur’s parents had insurance coverage in effect during their stay in Canada when no policy was in effect, in their names, because the defendant had not paid the premiums to Manulife; • That premiums to insure his parents amounted to $3,000 whereas, they totalled $3,514.40 in the certificate. [ 121 ] Consequently, after analyzing the evidence as a whole, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant’s guilt on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, and 16 in case 500-61-469238-183.

Section 469.2 of the ADFPS: contravening trading instructions or failing to execute transactions [ 122 ]

Section 469.2 ADFPS stipulates: Every representative who contravenes the trading instructions of a client or fails to execute transactions requested by a client is guilty of an offence. [ 123 ] Thus, the constituent elements of the offence set out under s. 469.2 of the ADFPS are: 1) The fact of having contravened the trading instructions of a client

2) On the dates and places indicated in the statement of offence. [ 124 ] In this case, the defendant contravened the trading instructions requested by a client on two occasions, in violation of s. 469.2 of the ADFPS . [ 125 ] Indeed, the defendant had not remitted immediately to Manulife the insurance premiums for the policies purchased by his client Tarun Bhanot, when the latter had paid him the premiums for his parents, Bishamber Nath Rani and Sunita Rani. His parents were, unbeknownst to them, without insurance coverage for a few weeks at the beginning of their stay in Canada.

The evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that M. Bhanot purchased the policies on May 4, 2013, so that his parents would be covered when they arrived in Canada on June 15, 2013. [ 126 ] Nothing justified the delay between the payment of the premiums by Mr. Bhanot to the defendant (cheque cashed by the defendant on May 7, 2013), and the subsequent payment to Manulife by the defendant on July 25, 2013.

Finally, while recognizing that the defendant does not have the burden of raising a reasonable doubt about the existence of the essential elements of the offence, the Court notes that the defendant did not offer any explanation concerning the delay. [ 127 ] Consequently, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant contravened the trading orders requested by Mr. Bhanot by failing to ensure that the insurance policies in Mr. Bhanot’s parents name came into effect at the time required by him.

Consequently, the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on counts 7 and 9.

Section 469.3 of the ADFPS [ 128 ]

Section 469.3 of the ADFPS provides: Every firm, independent representative, independent partnership or representative that grants a premium rebate that does not appear in the insurance contract issued by or on behalf of the insurer is guilty of an offence. [ 129 ] It appears from the wording of s. 469.3 of the ADFPS that the constituent elements that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution are: 1) The fact of having granted a rebate on the premium; 2) That does not appear in the insurance contract issued by the insurer; 3) On the dates and places indicated in the statement of offence. [ 130 ] As for the French version of the ADFPS , it mentions “ accorder ” or “ consentir ” a rebate on the premium as the prohibited act.

The English version only mentions “grants”.

Since the terms “ accorder ” and “ consentir ” are not defined in the ADFPS , the common meaning of these words may help the Court find their sense. [ 131 ] According to the Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien , the verb “ consentir ” is defined as “donner un consentement” [to give consent]. [89] [ 132 ] It is also defined in the Le Petit Robert as “ accepter qu'une chose se fasse, ne pas l'empêcher ” [accepting that a thing be done, or not preventing it] or “ accepter ” [accepting], and by the Multi Dictionnaire de la langue française as “ accepter ” [to accept] or “ autoriser ” [to authorize]. [90] [ 133 ] As for the verb “ accorder ” it is defined by the Multi Dictionnaire de la langue française as “ autoriser ” [to authorize].

According to Le Petit Robert , it refers to the verb to consent and is defined as “ consentir à admettre, à reconnaitre, à tenir pour vrai ” [consent to admit, to recognize, to accept as true]. [91] [ 134 ] Thus, the usual meaning of the words “ accorder ” and “ consentir ” refers to the fact of agreeing to grant a rebate on the premium or authorizing such a rebate. As soon as there is an exchange of consent between a representative and the client concerning a rebate, the offence has been committed.

In this respect, there is nothing in the wording of s. 469.3 of the ADFPS that requires the demonstration that the contract eventually came into effect. [ 135 ] Moreover, when the payment of the premium is made to the defendant, it is deemed to have been given to the insurer.

That being so, the insurance contract is deemed to have come into effect. [92] [ 136 ] The objective of the ADFPS would not be achieved if the Court were to find that the offence under s. 469.3 ADFPS had not been committed due to the fact that the defendant had never remitted the premiums he received from his clients to Manulife. [ 137 ] More particularly, concerning counts #6 and #8, (Tarun Bhanot) and #14 (Zenaida Gaton), the premiums paid to the defendant were lower than the ones indicated on the certificates, thereby confirming a premium rebate, without the insurer’s knowledge or permission, and with no mention of any rebate appearing on the certificates. [ 138 ] The Court does not accept the defendant’s explanation concerning the difference he makes between a rebate and a discount.

These two words, in the context of an ADPFS analysis, are synonymous. They mean that the client purchasing a policy pays a lower premium than the amount indicated on the certificate of insurance. The defendant’s explanation does not raise a reasonable doubt. [ 139 ] Consequently, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant granted Tarun Bhanot (counts #6 and #8) a rebate of $284.58 on premiums paid of $2,560.41.

This rebate did not appear on the certificates, where the premiums totalled $2,844.99. [93] The rebate was not mentioned on the certificate. [ 140 ] The prosecution has also proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant granted a rebate of $473.04 to Zenaida Gaton

(count #14) when she paid a $2,680.56 premium whereas the amount indicated on the certificate amounted to $3,153.60. [94] Finally, the rebate was not mentioned on the certificate.

Violation of a FMAT Order [ 141 ] The uncontradictory evidence revealed that on May 3, 2017, the FMAT rendered a decision in which it ordered the defendant, among other things, [ translation ] “ not to dispose, directly or indirectly, of funds, securities, or other property in his possession or that have been entrusted to him, and not to withdraw funds, securities, or other property on deposit with or under the control or in the safekeeping of another person on his behalf ... ”. [95] That decision was served on the defendant personally on May 5, 2017. [96] [ 142 ] The defendant opened a bank account with the Bank of Montreal on May 11, 2017, and transactions were conducted as of May 12, 2017. [97] The first withdrawal by the defendant had been made on May 16, 2017, in the amount of $1,800. [ 143 ] Deposits and withdrawals then followed on a regular basis until the freeze order had been lifted on December 21, 2017. [ 144 ] Firstly, the Court is of the view that the FMAT ruling did not explicitly prohibit opening a bank account, or depositing funds into that account.

What was prohibited is [ translation ] “ not to dispose, directly or indirectly, of funds, securities, or other property in his possession or that have been entrusted to him, and not to withdraw his funds, securities, or other property on deposit with or under the control or in the safekeeping of another person on his behalf ...”. [98] [ 145 ] Also, the Court considers that evidence has not been adduced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily carried out the debit transactions of May 15, 2017. [ 146 ] Consequently, the Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved non-compliance with the FMAT order starting on May 16, 2017, when the defendant had made his first withdrawal. [ 147 ] Finally, the Court finds that the date of the defendant’s first withdrawal, on May 16, 2017, is included in the period indicated in the statement of offence, which states [ translation ] “on or about May 11, 2017”.

The prosecution has proved that by making a withdrawal on May 16, 2017, the defendant contravened a FMAT decision [ translation ] “on or about May 11, 2017”. [ 148 ] The defendant’s explanations to the effect that he did not read the documents, and did not know the exact scope of the judgment, and that his lawyer had told him he could open a bank account, are implausible, and are rejected. They do not raise a reasonable doubt. Even if they would had been believed, which is not the case, they would not have constituted a defence of reasonable diligence or mistake of fact.

Consequently, the prosecution has proved the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. FOR ALL THESE REASONS, THE COURT: FINDS the defendant GUILTY on counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 in file 500-61-469238-183; FINDS the defendant GUILTY in file 500-61-469233-184. ____________________________ ALEXANDRE ST-ONGE, J.C.Q. Me Sylvie Boucher Me Eve Demers Autorité des marchés financiers For the prosecution Me Jean H. Philippe For the defendant Trial dates: October 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, 2018, and January 24, and 25, 2019