An Ontario court declined to stay sanctions imposed by the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), amid an ongoing review of CIRO’s enforcement rulings by the Capital Markets Tribunal.
Back in 2025, a CIRO hearing panel imposed sanctions on Peter Deeb, former CEO of Hampton Securities Inc., after finding that he violated securities rules. Among other things, the panel ordered almost $2 million in monetary sanctions, a one-year suspension from registration, a three-year suspension from serving as an industry executive, and a lifetime ban on being approved as the ultimate designated person (UDP) of a firm.
Earlier this year, the Capital Markets Tribunal rejected Deeb’s application for a stay of the CIRO sanctions decision, pending its review of CIRO’s underlying decision finding that he violated securities rules.
Among other things, he sought a stay of the sanctions to allow him to continue working as a rep, and serving as chair of Hampton Securities, pending the outcome of the Tribunal’s review of the CIRO decisions, which is scheduled to be heard in October.
Deeb then applied to the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a stay of the CIRO sanctions decision, pending a judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision not to stay the sanctions.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that an application for a judicial review is premature, given that the Tribunal’s review hasn’t been completed yet.
“[A]bsent exceptional circumstances, parties cannot proceed to the court system until the administrative process has run its course,” the court noted.
In this case, the court said that while “… Deeb has raised grounds that are neither frivolous nor vexatious in his notice of application for judicial review … it is clear that this application for judicial review is premature.”
The court also found that, in this case, there aren’t exceptional circumstances that justify early intervention by the court.
While the court said that it’s prepared to accept that Deeb may suffer irreparable harm if the stay isn’t granted, it also found that it’s hard to quantify that harm, given a lack of evidence about Deeb’s income and his potential loss of clients.
“[G]iven its general, unparticularized and somewhat speculative nature, I cannot ascribe a lot of weight to the harm that Mr. Deeb would suffer should a stay be denied,” the court said — adding that this theoretical harm must be weighed against the importance of maintaining confidence in the authority of the regulatory framework.
“Given the substantial weaknesses in the evidence regarding the harm suffered by Mr. Deeb and the important consideration that must be given to the public interest in this case, I find that the balance of convenience does not favour the granting of a stay,” the court found.
As a result, it concluded that, “granting a stay would not be in the interests of justice” — and it ruled that the sanctions imposed by CIRO should take effect on July 10.