Mr. Hodgson: Commissioner, just before we leave the issue of the read-in of
the transcripts, I don’t think this is controversial. I think the law is settled
in this, Commissioner, that when Staff seeks to introduce a compelled
statement from a declarant or a respondent, that’s admissible only against
Chair: Oh, for sure.
 It is not clear to me what authority was being relied
upon for placing these portions of the interview of Miller (and
the whole of the transcript of the interview of Cheng) before the
Panel. That said, the parties can always agree to adopt a particular procedure for the purpose of putting evidence before a
tribunal. When that happens, however, the parameters regarding the use of that evidence should be clearly stated and agreed
to. If any objection is going to be taken, or issues raised, as to
its use, the time to raise those matters is then, not later before
 In this case, it appears that the parties were treating
these transcripts much like parties would treat reading-in
admissions from an examination for discovery in a civil proceeding. This was not the only way in which the evidence could have
been received. The evidence could also have been received pursuant to s. 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”), in which case the evidence would have
been admissible in the proceeding generally.2 One of the significant differences between the two methods of receiving evidence
is that under the SPPA, the evidence can be used for any purpose for which it could be used if the witness had given evidence
in person, including for the purpose of making credibility
determinations. Given the exchange I have referred to above,
though, it appears that this court must treat the evidence only
for the narrow purpose that the parties appear to have agreed
upon at the time.
 Returning then to Miller’s evidence, he admitted getting
information from L.K. about Masonite. After receiving that
information, Miller began to buy Masonite shares. He bought
shares for himself, and then for his clients. His purchases, over
the next few days, for his own account represented his largest
equity position at the time.
2 In Fiorillo v. Ontario (Securities Commission),  O.J. No. 5520, 2016
ONSC 6559 (Div. Ct.), s. 15 was relied upon to provide the authority for
the admission into evidence of compelled interviews at an OSC hearing.