Ontario’s Capital Markets Tribunal ordered Maurice Aziz to pay a $22,000 administrative penalty for remaining a director or officer of seven companies despite a permanent ban, but refused to increase the penalty on an argument he had not had a chance to answer.
In Ontario Securities Commission v Aziz, 2026 ONCMT 24, decided May 26, 2026, adjudicator M. Cecilia Williams also ordered $7,757.50 in investigation and hearing costs. The accompanying order required Aziz to resign any remaining director or officer positions by June 25, 2026.
The decision enforced an existing prohibition. It did not impose a new permanent ban or make a criminal finding.
Corporate roles continued after the ban
A June 2023 order in an earlier First Global proceeding required Aziz to resign and permanently prohibited him from being a director or officer of any issuer. In the new case, the Ontario Securities Commission relied on affidavits and corporate records showing that he continued in roles at seven Ontario corporations.
He ceased holding the relevant positions at two companies in September 2025 and four more in October 2025. On the record before the tribunal, he remained an officer of the seventh, MembersCanada.com Ltd., as of April 2, 2026, with no evidence of a subsequent resignation.
Aziz participated in the written hearing and said he had not intended to breach the order. He described difficulty accessing corporate filing keys, reaching other people connected to the companies and securing their co-operation. His accountant helped with the eventual filings.
Williams accepted his evidence that he had made genuine efforts and encountered practical difficulties. The commission had not cross-examined him or challenged his credibility on that point.
The problem was when he started. Aziz began taking steps in January 2025, after the commission contacted him in December 2024, about 18 months after the original order. Good intentions and later corrective efforts did not undo the breach.
Serious misconduct, but not the most egregious
The tribunal rejected Aziz’s characterization of the breach as merely administrative. Compliance with its orders was essential to effective market regulation, Williams explained.
She nevertheless found that his conduct was not among the most egregious cases before the tribunal. The circumstances differed from precedents involving additional aggravating features.
Aziz also argued that he had not actively performed directors’ duties, received compensation or exercised control, and that there had been no investor harm or financial gain. The tribunal did not treat the absence of those features as mitigation: their presence could instead have made the misconduct more serious.
Because the original director-and-officer prohibition was already permanent, the commission did not seek another ban. The fresh resignation order addressed any roles Aziz still held.
Higher penalty raised too late
The commission initially requested $22,000, calculated using the number of companies and the duration of the breaches. In reply submissions, it suggested that a more recent decision could support a $32,000 penalty.
Williams declined to apply the higher calculation. Reply submissions are meant to address new issues raised by the other party. Aziz had generally argued that the proposed sanctions were disproportionate, but had not had an opportunity to respond to the new request for a larger penalty.
The tribunal found $22,000 reasonable in the circumstances.
It also reduced the commission’s costs request from $9,386.11. The allowed $7,757.50 covered work attributed to Aziz’s investigation and proceeding. The remaining $1,628.61 represented a one-ninth share of common work across nine similar cases.
Without enough information about the other eight cases or the shared work, Williams was not prepared to make Aziz pay that additional amount. The result combined enforcement of the original ban with limits on a late penalty argument and inadequately explained shared costs.
