Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission ,SFSC/FCAA, Chastised by OIPC Government Watchdog Agency ,Dave Wild, FCAA Chairperson, Regina Saskatchewan

The Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission, now called the Financial and Consumer Affairs Authority (SFSC/FCAA), has been reprimanded in a scathing report released earlier this week by the Saskatchewan government watchdog's Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC).

During the course of an administrative case being conducted by the SFSC/FCAA, the SFSC/FCAA deliberately withheld the disclosure of more than EIGHT (8) BOXES of documents from the Respondent parties. Despite repeated formal requests made to the SFSC/FCAA by the Respondent parties, the SFSC/FCAA has refused to provide these materials; the Respondents are being denied access to the Respondent's own records and information pertaining to this matter.

The Respondent parties filed a formal complaint against the SFSC/FCAA with the OIPC. The OIPC launched an official investigation seeking answers as to why the SFSC/FCAA was refusing to disclose these EIGHT (8) BOXES of documents. The SFSC/FCAA responded by claiming 26 different exemptions in an effort to block their having to release this information. Additionally, the SFSC/FCAA has delayed and dragged out the investigation and review by the OIPC for the past TWO (2) YEARS.

The OIPC has now concluded their review, and prepared and released a public report of their findings. Included in the OIPC's conclusions are the following:

• unreasonable delays, explicit failure, and incomplete and inconsistent submissions by the SFSC/FCAA in responding to the OIPC;
• the SFSC did not fulfill its duties under s.8 of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof in accordance with s.61 of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not exercise its discretion appropriately regarding discretionary exemptions;
• the SFSC did not meet its obligations with respect to third parties;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.13(1)(a) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.14(1) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.15(1)(b)(i) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.15(1)(c) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.15(1)(e) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.15(1)(f) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.15(1)(i) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.17(1)(a) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.17(1)(b) of FOIP;
• the SFSC failed to meet the burden of proof per s.18(1)(f) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.22(a) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.22(b) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.22(c) of FOIP;
• the SFSC did not appropriately apply s.29(1) of FOIP.

The OIPC has ordered the SFSC/FCAA to release of a number of the withheld documents; however, the bulk of the EIGHT BOXES of documents hidden by the SFSC/FCAA are still being withheld, as the SFSC/FCAA claimed a sweeping blanket exemption stating that all of these materials are part of their investigation and therefore do not have to be disclosed.

This massive, unmitigated, all-encompassing exemption will be appealed as unjustifiable, and an unconscionable abuse of power and egregious breach of fundamental legal and Charter rights being perpetrated by the SFSC/FCAA in these proceedings. If the SFSC/FCAA have such a strong, clear-cut case, why are they refusing to release EIGHT BOXES of documents/evidence which rightfully belong to the Respondents; why hide this material? Perhaps because these documents clearly show that the SFSC/FCAA has willfully lied, perjured, defamed, slandered, abused Charter rights, obstructed justice, and outright framed/railroaded the Respondent parties.

The OIPC Report unjustifiably hides the names of those at the FCAA who are implicated in this matter. As the proceedings associated with this case were open for the public record, these people should also be held to open public scrutiny. The following individuals at the FCAA are directly involved with this case: Ed Rodonets, FCAA Deputy Director, Securities Division; Sandy Novak, formerly FCAA lead investigator, Securities Division; Sonne Udemgba, FCAA Deputy Director, Legal Counsel, Securities Division; Dean Murrison, Director, Securities Division; Dave Wild, FCAA Chairperson; Paul Robinson, FCAA Vice-Chairperson; Gordon Hamilton, FCAA Board Member; Peter Carton, FCAA Board Member; Pat Murray, FCAA Executive Assistant; Roger Sobotkiewicz, FCAA Director, Legal Division.

No matter how hard the SFSC/FCAA tries to conceal the truth and bury the evidence, the real facts will ultimately be revealed and the SFSC/FCAA's corruption will be exposed. Additional information will be posted as it becomes available.

Disclosure Note: I am not a named party in any FCAA action or proceeding. I am reporting on facts which are publicly accessible but not yet widely known.