Finkelstein does not dispute that he accessed the documents. However, he contends that he did so as a “precedent” for
other transactions he was working on. He points to the fact that
it was common for lawyers at Davies to access documents on
other matters for this purpose and that, indeed, other lawyers at
Davies had accessed the same Dynatec documents. Finkelstein
also says, that the reason that the voting agreement was
important to him was because it was one of the first transactions
that followed a decision recently released by the Court of Appeal
for Ontario. Finkelstein said that he was directed to these documents by another lawyer at Davies.
 The Panel rejected Finkelstein’s explanation for accessing
the documents. Contrary to Finkelstein’s submission, the Panel
did give reasons for that rejection. In particular, it noted that the
voting agreement did not appear to, in any way, address any
issue that had arisen from the Court of Appeal’s decision —
a conclusion that Finkelstein does not appear to quarrel with.
The Panel also noted that the lawyer, who Finkelstein said
directed him to the documents, did not give evidence.
 The Panel properly concluded that Finkelstein had material non-public information regarding Dynatec. In fact, Finkelstein does not appear to dispute that he did but, rather, says that
he had known about the Dynatec transaction prior to April 18,
2007 and that, if he had intended to tip Azeff, “he would have
done so before April 18”. That submission finds no support in the
evidence or in logic. There is no established proposition, of which
I am aware, that a person who intends to tip another person must
do so at the first opportunity. The fact that Finkelstein could have
tipped Azeff earlier does not mean that he did not tip Azeff on
April 18, nor does the earlier opportunity preclude a later tip.
 The difference between this situation and Masonite is
that this time there are actual records of the contact between
Finkelstein and Azeff. Interestingly, Finkelstein’s response to
these records is to suggest that there is nothing noteworthy
about multiple calls between Azeff and him on a given day.
Rather, that was a common occurrence. Indeed, Finkelstein points
to the fact that, in his seven busiest months in 2007, there were
are least 12 other days on which three or more phone calls took
place between Azeff and him. This, of course, is the polar opposite
submission to the one that was made regarding the likely volume
of calls between Finkelstein and Azeff in 2004, when the Masonite
transaction was at issue. What this latter submission does do,
though, is demonstrate the reasonableness of the inference that
was drawn by the Panel with respect to the likelihood of calls
between Finkelstein and Azeff in November 2004.