Issue #2: The Jurisdiction Issue
 As stated above, Campbell and DaSilva do not dispute
that they “traded” in securities as defined in the Act.
 Campbell and DaSilva submit that the Limelight order
did not prohibit them from “trading securities” in this case
as the OSC did not have jurisdiction to prohibit the trading of
securities outside of Ontario.
 The appellants submit that the test set out in R. v. Libman,  2 S.C.R. 178,  S.C.J. No. 56 and R. v. Greco,
 O.J. No. 4147, 159 C.C.C. (3d) 146, 155 O.A.C. 316
(C.A.) does not apply to confer jurisdiction over extra-provincial
offences. The appellants submit that both cases involved federal
legislation which, constitutionally, can have extra-territorial
effect. The Province of Ontario does not have jurisdiction to pass
legislation which has extra-territorial effect. The appellants
submit the offences in question occurred outside the Province of
Ontario and, as such, the Act (and any orders made thereunder)
has no application.
 The additional facts relied upon by the appellants to
demonstrate that these offences occurred outside of Ontario
(a) ECM is a United Kingdom company;
(b) the potential and actual investors were from Europe (U.K.
(c) The ECM shares traded in Germany;
(d) the investors believed they were dealing with U.K. persons
(Ian Sparks which the learned trial judge found was Camp-
(e) the investor’s monies were sent to Switzerland.
 The OSC points to the following facts to establish that
there was a real and substantial connection between the circum-
stances of the offences and Ontario:
(a) Campbell and DaSilva were subject to a no trade order
made in Ontario;
(b) Campbell and DaSilva resided in Ontario throughout the
activities in question;
(c) Campbell and DaSilva “traded” while physically being present in Ontario through their e-mail communications and
the overseas investors;