|
¶ 20 By letter
of 7 June 2004 Farrell responded to
Simpson, advising him that
"there is insufficient evidence of regulatory violations to
necessitate an investigation in this case. Accordingly, our
file in this matter remains closed". Earlier in that letter,
Farrell said that "the particulars of our review are
confidential", and refused to elaborate on the factors
considered by IDA Staff in assessing
Simpson's complaints. Her
letter also included the following statement:
|
|
Please be
advised that as a not for profit organization with
limited resources, the [IDA] cannot
formally investigate all complaints brought to its
attention ... the courts have ruled that the [IDA]
must have clear and convincing evidence of
misconduct [to impose disciplinary sanctions]. |
|
¶ 21
Simpson responded in a
letter of 24 June 2004, challenging the explanation of "lack
of financial resources" and concluding as follows:
|
|
An
investigation would in any case be necessary to
establish the clear and convincing evidence you
refer to in your letter. I also put it to you that
the courts set out this standard of evidence as one
that the IDA must meet to impose sanctions after a
hearing of the evidence gathered by an IDA
investigation not one that the complainant investor
must meet to have the IDA commence an investigation. |
...
¶ 26
Simpson struck us as a
sincere man, genuinely frustrated with what he perceives to
have been mishandling of his investment accounts over the
years and with his lack of success in obtaining satisfaction
through regulatory authorities, specifically the IDA.
¶ 27 Without
reaching any conclusion on the merits of his original
complaints, or how his complaints were handled, we express
our sympathy for Simpson
and his frustration. However, as we explained to
Simpson at the hearing,
securities regulation is a matter of law, and we, as well as
Simpson himself, are
bound by those laws. Here, we must identify and resolve the
issues before us in accordance with those laws.
...
¶ 58
To summarize, for the reasons discussed above we
have found that:
|
-- |
|
the IDA Staff Determination not to conduct any
further investigation of
Simpson's complaint was not
a "decision" as defined in either IDA By-Law 20.1 or
subsection 73(1) of the Act; and |
|
|
-- |
|
even had the IDA Staff Determination constituted a
"decision",
Simpson was not "directly affected" by
it for purposes of subsection 73(1) of the Act. |
|
¶ 59
We therefore conclude that we have no
jurisdiction under subsection 73(1) of the Act to determine
this matter. It follows that there is no basis on which this
appeal can proceed. This appeal must therefore be dismissed.
|
