pedigree of the information, i.e. the path that the information took to arrive
at his or her immediate source (one person up the chain).3
 Miller’s submission reads language into the subsection
that is simply not there. There is no requirement in the statute
that one must trace the information back to the originator.
There is also nothing in the statute that requires the identification of all of the individuals, who may have transferred the non-public information, prior to the conveyance of that information
 Rather, all that the subsection requires is that the
information must be a material fact or material change with
respect to an issuer, and that the recipient knew or ought reasonably to have known that the person, who was providing the
information to him/her, is him or herself caught by the section.
Contrary to Miller’s submission, that includes a person who is
caught by s. 76(5)(e).
 In considering this issue, it is important to keep in mind
the intent behind adding s. 76(5)(e) to the Act. The Minister of
Financial Institutions referred to this purpose when he spoke in
the legislature at the time that the legislation was introduced.
The minister said that the purpose was to “strengthen provi-
sions governing illegal trading on insider information”. The min-
ister stated the reason behind that purpose:
Obviously, the principle we have in mind is that everyone trading in the
securities market should have equal access to information.4
 In considering the issue of “ought reasonably to have
known”, as it related to Miller, the Panel set out a series of fac-
tors to be taken into account, at para. 64:
(a) What is the relationship between the tipper and tippee? Are they close
friends? Do they also have a professional relationship? Does the tippee
know of the trading patterns of the tipper, successes and failures?
(b) What is the professional qualification and standing of the tipper? Is he
a lawyer, businessman, accountant, banker, investment adviser? Does
the tipper have a position which puts him in a milieu where transactions are discussed?
(c) What is the professional qualification of the tippee? Is he an investment adviser, investment banker, lawyer, businessman, accountant,
etc.? Does his profession or position put him in a position to know he
cannot take advantage of confidential information and therefore
3 Miller factum, at para. 73.
4 Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 33rd
Parl., 2nd Sess., No. 79 (December 11, 1986), at 4152.