collection”. Nor did the trial judge make any finding with respect
to the value of that collection. The trial judge recognized that,
under the Reves “family resemblance” test, “notes” are presumptively securities, and the onus was on the defence to prove that
the notes did not meet the overall statutory definition of “
security” (see paras. 21 and 52). Without evidence of the actual value of
the “collateral”, the trial judge could not conclude that the collateral specified in the agreement “significantly” reduced the risk to
the lenders. Even if the toy soldier collection was worth $540,000,
the collateral equalled only approximately 60 per cent of the value
of the loans and the interest owed.
 Given my conclusion that the trial judge erred in law and
that the promissory notes in issue were “securities” and subject
to the Securities Act, the appeal is allowed and a conviction is
substituted pursuant to s. 121(b)( ii) of the Provincial Offences
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33. The parties may schedule a date to make
submissions on the appropriate sentence.