commenced to buy Masonite shares. By 10:55 a.m., Azeff and
Bobrow had bought 10,100 shares at a value of $346,450 for their
parents, siblings, themselves and some clients. By the end of the
day, Azeff and Bobrow had bought 33,150 shares for a value of
$1,134, 578, representing approximately 48 per cent of the total
trading of Masonite on the Toronto Stock Exchange that day.
 The Panel concluded that Finkelstein informed Azeff
about the Masonite transaction sometime between November 16
and 19. The Panel found that this communication occurred
. . . either in the telephone call of November 17, or in a work-to-work call
between November 17 and 19 or in text messages.
 Finkelstein contends that the Panel erred in drawing an
inference that there were work-to-work calls in this period,
between Finkelstein and Azeff, because there was “no evidence”
of those calls. That contention is overstated.
 There is no direct evidence of those calls because of the
lack of records, but there is, nonetheless, indirect evidence of
those calls. I accept that there is no foundation in the evidence
for the finding that there could have been communication
between Finkelstein and Azeff through text messages. The
available evidence was that Finkelstein and Azeff did not
communicate in this fashion in 2004. However, that does not
undermine the finding that communication could have taken
place in work-to-work calls.
 The CIBC telephone records showed that, in 2007, there
were 190 work-to-work calls between Azeff and Finkelstein. That
amounts to almost one call per working day. Further, there was
the evidence that Azeff and Finkelstein were good friends and
that they communicated regularly. Still further, neither Azeff nor
Finkelstein, in their evidence to the Panel, made any suggestion
that the volume of calls in 2007 was somehow unusual, or more
frequent, than in prior years. I reject the contention by Finkelstein that there was no obligation on him to bring any such evidence forward.
 By the time Finkelstein gave his evidence, he knew that
the respondent was alleging that he had “tipped” Azeff about the
Masonite transaction. All of the telephone records were in evidence. If Finkelstein was going to ultimately suggest that the
volume of calls in 2007 was not reflective of the volume of calls
that occurred between Azeff and him in other years, then it rested
on Finkelstein to say so, when he had the opportunity. It does
not now lie with Finkelstein to complain that the Panel could
not draw, what was otherwise a reasonable and logical inference,
based on the evidence that the Panel did have, when one of