R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED
IN THE MATTER OF
RICHARD THOMAS SLIPETZ
STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS OF STAFF OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION
1. The respondent, Richard Thomas Slipetz ("Slipetz"), is an individual who was at allmaterial times registered with the Ontario Securities Commission (the"Commission") as a salesperson.
2. Slipetz worked for Sutherland Securities Inc. ("Sutherland") during the periodcommencing on or about January 3, 1995 and ending on or about April 8, 1997.
3. Slipetz worked for Fortune Financial Corporation during the period commencing onor about April 21, 1997 and ending on or about June 17, 1998.
Conduct Relating to T.D.
4. T.D. is an individual who was a client of Slipetz.
5. In early 1997, T.D. gave Slipetz a cheque payable to Sutherland in the amount of$3,000 for purposes of making an RRSP contribution. At Slipetz's request, T.D.initialled the payee and amount portions of the cheque.
6. Before the cheque was cashed, Slipetz was substituted for Sutherland as thepayee.
7. Slipetz advised T.D. that his money was invested, but that the paperwork wasprobably delayed. T.D.'s subsequent calls to Slipetz were not returned.
8. Slipetz made no investment on behalf of T.D. with respect to the $3,000.
Conduct Relating to M.C.
9. M.C. is an individual who was a client of Slipetz.
10. In or about February, 1998, M.C. gave Slipetz a cheque in the amount of $685 forpurposes of making an investment. The payee portion of the cheque was left blank.
11. M.C. did not receive written confirmation of her investment, but was advised bySlipetz that her money was invested.
12. M.C. confronted Slipetz after she learned that it appeared that Chick 'N' Deli hadbeen inserted as the payee of her cheque. Slipetz advised M.C. that the moneywas placed in the wrong account and that he was working to rectify the problem.M.C.'s subsequent calls to Slipetz were not returned.
13. Slipetz made no investment on behalf of M.C. with respect to the $685.
Conduct Relating to L.M.
14. L.M. is an individual who was a client of Slipetz.
15. In or about October, 1997, LM gave Slipetz two cheques totalling $15,000 forpurposes of obtaining shares of Infinity Funds Management ("Infinity") for both L.M.and L.M.'s wife. Slipetz had advised L.M. that he and his wife could only purchaseshares of Infinity through Slipetz. Accordingly, the two cheques were made payableto Slipetz. L.M. understood that Slipetz was to hold the shares of Infinity for thebenefit of L.M. and his wife.
16. Slipetz neither purchased shares of Infinity nor made any other investment onbehalf of L.M. or his wife with respect to the $15,000.
Conduct Relating to R.T.
17. R.T. is an individual who was a client of Slipetz.
18. In or about May, 1997, R.T. made arrangements with Slipetz to make an investmentof $600 for her daughter. R.T. gave a cheque to Markiewitz, an associate ofSlipetz. At the request of Markiewitz, R.T. made the cheque payable to Slipetz.
19. R.T. did not receive confirmation that an account had been opened for herdaughter. After speaking with Slipetz several times, R.T.'s subsequent calls toSlipetz were not returned.
20. Slipetz made no investment on behalf of R.T. or her daughter with respect to the$600.
Conduct Contrary to the Public Interest
21. Slipetz converted funds given to him for purposes of investment by each of T.D.,M.C., L.M., and R.T. to his own personal use. Such conduct is contrary to thepublic interest.
22. Such other allegations as Staff may make and the Commission may permit.
DATED at Toronto this 6th day of March, 2000.