When Gary Ng sought three Bridging Finance executives’ interview transcripts for his criminal case, the Ontario Securities Commission faced a court order to produce records that provincial securities law treats as confidential. Ontario’s Capital Markets Tribunal authorized the commission to give the Superior Court the complete transcripts and related exhibits under seal.

In Ontario Securities Commission v Sharpe, 2026 ONCMT 31, adjudicator Tim Moseley explained his September 16 order allowing the disclosure. His September 28 reasons distinguish the court’s access to the records from any later decision about who else may see them or how they may be used.

The transcripts came from the commission’s investigation of Bridging Finance Inc. In 2024, the tribunal found that Bridging had breached Ontario securities law in connection with loans made by funds it managed. The tribunal also made findings against David Sharpe, Bridging’s chief executive officer, Natasha Sharpe, its chief investment officer, and Andrew Mushore, its chief compliance officer.

Some loans went to entities associated with Ng. He was not a respondent in the tribunal case, but the criminal charges against him arose in part from the same facts. He applied to the Superior Court for the three executives’ examination transcripts and the exhibits used in those examinations. The judge found the records likely relevant because the two proceedings overlapped and the executives might be called as witnesses in Ng’s trial.

The commission had compelled the executives to attend their examinations. It advised the court that section 16 of Ontario’s Securities Act protected the resulting records, then sought the tribunal’s authorization under section 17 to comply with the court’s order.

The executives objected. In 2021, the commission had disclosed the transcripts without authorization in connection with an application to appoint a receiver. The executives argued that Ng had other ways to obtain relevant evidence. If the tribunal did permit disclosure, they wanted it limited to portions bearing on the charges.

Moseley found that the commission’s earlier breach did not diminish the authority of the new court order. The judge required production under seal, and the executives could make submissions in the criminal court about use of the records and any proposed public disclosure. That court, he concluded, could better assess those questions in the context of Ng’s case.

Moseley left open whether the commission needed his authorization. The Superior Court judge had concluded it did not, relying on an earlier criminal case about the limits of provincial legislation. Moseley found that disclosure to the court served the public interest regardless. His order requires the transcripts, exhibits and adjudicative records in the disclosure proceeding to remain confidential unless a court or the tribunal orders otherwise.

Source: Ontario Securities Commission v Sharpe, 2026 ONCMT 31.