Table of Contents (MFDA/CIRO)

1 - Client Complaint Letters

(a) First client complaint letter to Investors Group (IG)

(b) Second client complaint letter to IG

In the second and third client complaint letter, the clients threaten to complain to OBSI (Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments). However, at the end of their first interview with the MFDA, on page 303, they deny any knowledge of OBSI.

2 - Investors Group Investigation

Concluded that I am innocent from all allegations within the client complaint letters, and they deny any compensation for the clients.

3 - First METS (Member Event Tracking System) submission to MFDA from Investors Group

“Violation did not occur”

4 - Second METS submission to MFDA from Investors Group

“Violation did occur”

There was no new evidence, no new investigation. OBSI recommended IG to pay the full amount (commissions and market loss), which I refused to pay back to IG. Afterwards they amended the METS submission and resubmitted it.

5 - Clients first and second interview transcript with the MFDA

6 - Legal and Sworn Affidavit from Eyewitness

Confirming my statement and facts, that clients lied in their complaint letters.

7 - MFDA Hearing Panel Transcripts

8 - Untruthful Statements

9 - Undisputable Facts

10 - Closing Statement

11 - My Interview transcript with MFDA

12 - Loss of Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurance coverage

As a result of losing my license registration due to MFDA announcement of Hearing Panel.

13 - New OSC and MFDA Case

OSC and MFDA conspired to fabricate another case against me while waiting for the Hearing Panel decision.

14 - Hearing Panel Decision and Order

15 - 2016 and 2017 MFDA Annual Enforcement Reports

There was not a single word about my case in the 2016 report, which is when the Hearing Panel happened. The same thing goes for the 2017 report, when the Hearing Panel decision had been released. They only publish cases in which they win. So much for their declared “transparency”.

16 - Mallard Case Article

Did you know that OSC and MFDA have their own rules which give themselves immunity from prosecution? Did you know that they are also self-funded organizations?

At the very least, this is a conflict of interest when their financial existence depends on the fees and penalties they charge.