A letter to OSC Commissioner. Mr. Christopher Portner

字体 -

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT

R.S.O. 1990, c.S.5, AS AMENDED

-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF  WEIZHEN TANG

And

TEMPORARY ORDER

(Subsections 127(7) and (8)

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT

R.S.O. 1990, c.S.5, AS AMENDED

-AND-

IN THE MATTER OF WEIZHEN TANG

ALLEGATIONS

(Subsections 127(1) and (10)

Weizhen Tang                                                                 self-represented

Silk Court

Richmond Hill

Ontario

L4B 4A4

Brendan van Niejenhuis                                                   Counsel for OSC staff

STOCKWOODS LLP
Barristers
TD North Tower
77 King Street West
Suite 4130, P.O. Box 140
Toronto-Dominion Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5K 1H1
Direct: (416) 593-2487 | Fax: (416) 593-9345
Mobile: (416) 319-4440

Alice Hewitt

Ontario Securities Commission

Enforcement Branch – Joint Serious Offences Team | Law Clerk
20 Queen Street West, 22nd Floor  |  Toronto ON M5H 3S8
Phone: 416-204-8961 | [email protected]


Thursday, October 1, 2015

Christopher Portner

Commissioner

Ontario Securities Commission

P.O. Box 55, 22nd Floor,

20 Queen Street West

Toronto, ON  M5H 3S8

Dear Mr. Commissioner, Christopher Portner

My investors and I welcome your decision and order on Sept. 18, 2015 to remove all the cease trade orders to my companies since there were no allegations against any of my companies.

OSC staff abused  the OSC and legal processes and made decisions against me over years without due process and fundamental justice, I have 5 grounds to appeal and revoke  OSC Cease Trade Order against me, personally.

Those grounds  are that the commission, in making its decision,

1.     OSC and decision makers failed to observe a principle of fundamental justice: the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms section seven.

Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer  of Supreme Court of Canada said “ A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice,” Lamer wrote, and if Imprisonment is available as a penalty such a law then violates a person’s right to liberty under section seven of the charter of rights.

OSC staff  ceased all my trade, my trading accounts and fund , destroyed my name and my defence because of the temporary cease trade order.

OSC staff abuse the process and judicial system to get malicious conviction and false imprisonment against me.

2.     OSC made an error of law:

I am a private investor and trader, trading is my career and life. To cease my trade is to destroy my life and career and legal defence. The OSC cease trade orders are very defamatory, devastating to my name and  to my investors, I do not invest and trade Canadian Securities because Canadian Securities very fraudulent and illiquid, I do not sell Canadian Securities or any securities.

I only traded US securities, commodity and currencies  for myself and ourselves, we are private investors and exempt accredited investors, I am a registered limited market dealer with OSC.

I had Canadian brokerage accounts and paid huge commissions, million dollars, I never violated any trade rules and never have any disciplinary proceedings for all my trade life. I never trade illegal or did insider trade, none of my trading is fraudulent why OSC cease my trade, my life and my defence because of OSC staff knew the malicious means.

3.      OSC breached or failed to apply commission policy and mandate:

OSC staff  brought one motion or another against me, an unrepresented to conduct unnecessary search and seizure violated charter of rights and freedoms section 8, and breached or failed to apply:

that the Commission recognized that it could order disclosure under s. 17(1) only if Staff established that disclosure to the Philip respondents was “in the public interest”.  Citing Coughlan v. Ontario Securities Commission (2000), 143 O.A.C. 244 (Div. Ct. ) at para. 38, the Commission observed at p. 5 that in determining whether disclosure was warranted:

[I]t must consider the purpose for which the evidence is sought and the specific circumstances of the case. … [I]n determining whether to order disclosure it must balance the continued requirement for confidentiality with its assessment of the public interest at stake, including harm to the person whose testimony is sought.

The OSC has broad responsibility for providing protection to investors from unfair, improper or fraudulent practices and to foster fair and efficient capital markets.

OSC ‘s decision is unreasonable given all of the information available and that the panel erred in law by failing to consider the viability of less restriction option consistent with public interest.

4.     OSC  based its decision on erroneous or incomplete information:

OSC cease trade order destroyed my name, financial resources and legal defence without proper defence and information before trial and due process, the head of the institution and commissioner or  chairman often mislead by the OSC staff and made decision based on erroneous or incomplete information. I tried my best to inform the authority and brought motion to the OSC panel  what was wrong and listed 25 reasons to stop OSC cease trade order, nobody listen and the staff of OSC took advantage of the situation and abuse the process and procedure to harm my investors and the public, in that regard OSC failed its mandate to protect the investors and the public.

The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87 (“Hryniak”): Ensuring access to justice is the greatest challenge to the rule of law in Canada today. Trials have become increasingly expensive and protracted.

Most Canadians cannot afford to sue when they are wronged or defend themselves when they are sued, and cannot afford to go to trial. Without an effective and accessible means of enforcing rights, the rule of law is threatened.

Without public adjudication of civil cases, the development of the common law is stunted. Increasingly, there is recognition that a culture shift is required in order to create an environment promoting timely and affordable access to the civil justice system. This shift entails simplifying pre-trial procedures and moving the emphasis away from the conventional trial in favour of proportional procedures tailored to the needs of the particular case.

The balance between procedure and access struck by our justice system must come to reflect modern reality and recognize that new models of adjudication can be fair and just. … 3 … undue process and protracted trials, with unnecessary expense and delay can prevent the fair and just resolution of disputes.

The full trial has become largely illusory because, except where government funding is available, ordinary Canadians cannot afford to access the adjudication of civil disputes. … Prompt judicial resolution of legal disputes allows individuals to get on with their lives. But, when court costs and delays become too great, people look for alternatives or simply give up on justice.

Sometimes, they choose to represent themselves, often creating further problems due to their lack of familiarity with the law. … This requires a shift in culture. The principal goal remains the same: a fair process that results in a just adjudication of disputes.

A fair and just process must permit a judge to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant legal principles to the facts as found. However, that process is illusory unless it is also accessible – proportionate, timely and affordable.

The proportionality principle means that the best forum for resolving a dispute is not always that with the most painstaking procedure. There is, of course, always some tension between accessibility and the truth-seeking function but, much as one would not expect a jury trial over a contested parking ticket, the procedures used to adjudicate civil disputes must fit the nature of the claim. If the process is disproportionate to the nature of the dispute and the interests involved, then it will not achieve a fair and just result. [Emphasis in original] (Hryniak at paras. 1-2, 24-25, 28 and 31-32.)

5. OSC  acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction, or failed to exercise its jurisdiction:

I am a private investor, my investors and I are partners and accredited investors, who are exempted to register or regulated, I do not sell securities to any investors, I do not buy securities for investors.

I traded securities and currencies for ourselves, I give advantage to my investors and gave my investors approximate 1% weekly return or promotional return, it was a private business and partnership.

My  investors and I had issues and problems, we are sophisticated, accredited investors and we are able to solve our issues and problems, we had our solution. OSC repeatedly ignore our investors’ petition and request,  and the public, OSC acted without jurisdiction or beyond its jurisdiction and mislead the public.

Since March 12, 2009 of OSC investigation interview Ontario Securities Commission  (the “commission “ or OSC ) and your staff brought motions to the court and violated Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 7 of the Canadian charter of rights and Freedoms, Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

OSC never gave me a chance and opportunity to defend myself, failed to observe the principles of fundamental justice, made me lost name, business and house and money borrowed from TD bank and freedom and life and those of investors before trial and due process. My wife and my son, my investors all suffered because of OSC failed to protect the public and public interest.

My investors wanted to fund lawyers to defend me, but the crown put a bail condition to isolate me to contact them, see Oct. 17, 2011 court proceedings transcript before Justice Ian Nordheimer of Superior Court of Justice in Toronto.

This applicant, Weizhen Tang, would like to make a motion to request a fair, reasonable  and meaningful hearing for me on Oct. 2, 2015, a hearing invites all my investors and the tax payer organization,  the public to attend and a hearing has independent and impartial outside legal experts.

A statement of claim against OSC has been filed and served to you for misfeasance of public office and malicious charges and prosecution, breach of constitution act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, gross negligence and intentional harm.

This applicant, Weizhen Tang, is a visionary,  positive,  constructive honourable person, open to talk, discuss and debate and negotiation and settlement in private and/ or public, welcome all honourable process, demand for due process and procedure.

Truly,

Weizhen Tang

分享博文至:

    目前没有评论

发表评论