The Ontario Securities Commission has announced Shaida Bandali has been charged with alleged breaches of the Securities Act (Ontario).

The charges follow an investigation by the OSC’s Joint Serious Offences Team, related to the misuse of confidential information at Rouge Valley Hospital earlier this year.

Read: Hospital sued after workers sell patient data to RESP firms

Bandali was a clerk at that hospital, and has been charged with unregistered trading, contrary to s. 25(1) of the Securities Act.

The OSC alleges that between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2014, Bandali engaged in the business of trading in securities without being registered to do so in relation to the following particulars:

  • repeatedly breaching the confidentiality policies of her employer, the Rouge Valley Hospital, by accessing, copying, or distributing confidential personal data of maternity patients to one or more RESP dealer representatives;
  • creating investor lists from unauthorized access to confidential maternity patient information;
  • selling investor lists drawn from unauthorized access to confidential maternity patient information to one or more RESP dealer representatives in the business of soliciting clients; and
  • receiving monies for confidential maternity patient information from RESP dealer representatives without disclosing her conduct to her employer and to maternity patients.

The first court appearance for Bandali in this matter is scheduled to take place on December 12, 2014 at the Old City Hall in Toronto.

The OSC says the JSOT investigation into this matter is ongoing and continues on a priority basis.

Originally published on
See all commentsRecent Comments


Something has been baffling me since I first heard about this story and I am thinking that I must have missed some details.
Why is the OSC going after the clerk rather than the RESP dealer reps? Sure the clerk needs to be “dealt with”, but it seems to me that it would be for more appropriate for her conduct to be punished by her employer whose policies she violated.
Even if the OSC decided that going after the clerk was appropriate, how can they possibly justify doing this before they
“throw the book” at the RESP dealer reps?
I can certainly see why the public would wonder what is going on here, since they would naturally assume the OSC has considerably more jurisdiction over those selling the RESPs than over a clerk who violated the *hospital’s* privacy policies.
What am I missing?

Monday, November 24 @ 5:25 pm //////

Add a comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Register on