IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE PURSUANT TO BY-LAW 20 OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA RE: STEVEN RODNEY JESKE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Transcription

1 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINE PURSUANT TO BY-LAW 20 OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA RE: STEVEN RODNEY JESKE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. INTRODUCTION 1. The staff ( Staff ) of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada (the Association ) has conducted an investigation (the Investigation ) into the conduct of Steven Rodney Jeske (the Respondent ). 2. The Investigation discloses matters for which the Pacific District Council of the Association (the District Council ) may penalize the Respondent by imposing discipline penalties. II. JOINT SETTLEMENT RECOMMENDATION 3. Staff and the Respondent consent and agree to the settlement of these matters by way of this Settlement Agreement in accordance with By-law This Settlement Agreement is subject to its acceptance or the imposition of a lesser penalty or less onerous terms, or the imposition, with the consent of the Respondent, of a penalty or terms more onerous, by the District Council in accordance with By-law Staff and the Respondent jointly recommend that the District Council accept this Settlement Agreement. 6. If at any time prior to the acceptance of this Settlement Agreement, or the imposition of a lesser penalty or less onerous terms, or the imposition, with the consent of the Respondent, of a penalty or terms more onerous, by the District Council, there are new facts or issues of substantial concern in the view of Staff regarding the facts or issues set out in Section III of this Settlement Agreement, Staff will be entitled to withdraw this Settlement Agreement from consideration by the District Council.

2 2 III. STATEMENT OF FACTS (i) Acknowledgment 7. Staff and the Respondent agree with the facts set out in this Section III and acknowledge that the terms of the settlement contained in this Settlement Agreement are based upon those specific facts. (ii) Factual Background 8. The Respondent first entered the securities industry in 1994 and in October 1994 was approved as a Registered Representative ( RR ) subject to his successful completion of Part 1 of the Canadian Investment Management Course (the CIM Course ) within 30 months by April 14, In March 1997 the Respondent transferred to Dominick & Dominick Securities Inc. ( Dominick ). The Association approved his registration as a RR subject to his successful completion of either Part 1 of the CIM Course or the Professional Financial Planning Course (the PFP Course ) by April 14, 1997 as per the date previously set. 10. On April 15, 1997 the deadline for the Respondent s completion of either the PFP Course or Part 1 of the CIM course passed without him having completed either. He was therefore no longer qualified to act as an RR 11. On May 16, 1997 the Respondent applied to the Association to be registered as an Investment Representative ( IR ). In his application he acknowledged that his status as a RR had been suspended. As part of his application, the Respondent wrote a letter to the Association acknowledging his change of status from RR to IR and that he was aware the change meant he could not give investment advice or solicit orders from clients. 12. The Respondent was approved as an IR and at Dominick and worked there as an IR until April 30, 1999 when he left to join Thomson Kernaghan & Co. Limited ( TK ). 13. The Respondent was employed as an IR at TK from May 3, 1999 until December 19, 2001 (the Relevant Period ). 14. Association By-law 1 defines the terms RR and IR as follows: Investment Representative means any person who trades but does not advise on trades in securities, options, futures contracts or futures contract options with the public in Canada, other than a person who trades exclusively in securities of or guaranteed by the government of Canada or any province of Canada or any municipality in Canada, and

3 3 shall include an investment representative (mutual funds) approved pursuant to By-law 18.7; Registered Representative means any person who trades or advises on trades in securities, options, futures contracts, or futures contract options with the public in Canada other than a person who trades or advises on trades exclusively in securities of or guaranteed by the government of Canada or any province of Canada or any municipality in Canada, and shall include a registered representative (mutual funds) approved pursuant to Bylaw 18.7 and a registered representative (non-retail) approved pursuant to By-law The Conduct and Practices Handbook indicates that: Investment Representatives (IRs) are individuals registered solely to take/submit client orders for execution under no circumstances must these registrants provide clients with investment advice. As with the term IA, the term IR refers solely to employees of SRO member firms. Under the legislation of most provinces, IRs are categorized as Registered Representative (Restricted). The proficiency requirements for IRs are similar to those for IAs, with the exception of the length of the training period and the 30- month requirement. That is, IRs must complete the CSC, CPH, a 30-day (as opposed to 90-day) training program, and are subject to continuing education requirements. (Reduction of the training period for IRs from 90 days to 30 days was approved by the IDA on March 17, 2000 and securities commission approval was expected sometime in Spring 2000). There are two types of IRs: ڤ Sales Assistants: These are IRs employed at full-service investment dealers, working with and helping fully registered IAs manage their businesses. This largely involves administrative tasks such as organizing the IA s client records, NCAFs and other client documentation. Sales assistants may speak with clients but are not permitted to give advice. Registered Sales Assistants may take unsolicited client orders to buy and sell securities. Often Sales Assistants work for more than one IA. ڤ IRs at Discount Brokers: These IRs are registered to take/receive orders from clients and submit them for execution. They must recognize when an order is beyond their authority and pass it on to their supervisors. 16. When employed as an IR at TK, the Respondent had his own personal identification code for commission tracking purposes ( Broker Code ). This

4 4 Broker Code was not shared with any RR. After TK deducted its percentage, the Respondent was entitled to all commissions credited to the Broker Code. 17. During the Relevant Period, the Respondent serviced more than 200 accounts for over 100 individual or corporate clients ( His Clients ). The Accounts were opened during the Relevant Period or reopened at TK consequent upon the Respondent s transfer from Dominick to TK. 18. Generally, in respect of the Accounts opened during the Relevant Period, His Clients gave the Respondent the information contained on the New Client Application Form ( NCAF ) verbally and/or or by filling out a NCAF that the Respondent caused to be mailed to them and returning it to the Respondent signed together with other related account opening documentation. Upon receipt of the signed and completed NCAF and other related account opening documentation the Respondent submitted the account opening documents to TK s branch manager s assistant, who in turn would submit them to TK s Vancouver Branch Manager for review and signature, who in turn would forward the documents to TK s Head Office Compliance for final review and approval. Upon approval by TK s Head Office Compliance an account number was assigned and the account would be opened. 19. For each of the Accounts, the Respondent signed the completed NCAF in the section designated for R.R. Signature and filled in his Broker Code in the section designated for Broker Code identification. 20. Securities transactions were made in most of the Accounts. From May 1999 through February 2000 the monthly account statements and trade confirmation slips for the Accounts identified the Respondent as the Registered Representative for each Account. From March 2000 throughout the balance of the Relevant Period the monthly account statements and trade confirmation slips for the Accounts identified the Respondent as the Account Representative for each Account. 21. Throughout the Relevant Period, the Accounts were the Respondent s accounts in that he was the person primarily responsible for servicing the Accounts and that in so doing he was not acting as an assistant to the Branch Manager or any other Registered Representative. 22. TK was a full service firm as opposed to a discount broker. 23. At no time during the Relevant Period did the Respondent give advice with respect to specific securities, or solicit orders from His Clients. All securities transactions in the Accounts were within the investment objectives established by the clients for their respective Accounts. 24. The NCAF for each of the Accounts was signed and approved by the Respondent s Branch Manager and was also approved by TK s head office Compliance before any of the Accounts were open.

5 5 25. The Branch Manager and TK s head office knew that the Respondent was registered as an IR as opposed to an RR. Neither the Branch Manager or TK s head office advised the Respondent that the Respondent s registration status precluded him from servicing His Clients during the Relevant Period in the manner he did and the Respondent did not understand that he was so precluded. 26. Staff have issued a Notice of Hearing and Particulars against the Respondent s Branch Manager alleging, among other allegations, a failure to properly supervise the Respondent and a Hearing is scheduled to commence on August 17, After his employment was terminated by TK in December 2001, the Respondent transferred to Georgia Pacific Securities Corporation ( Georgia ). 28. On January 24, 2002, the Association approved the Respondent s registration as an IR at Georgia subject to close supervision until the outcome of the Association s investigation into the within matter (the Existing Conditions ). 29. The Respondent continued as an IR at Georgia until December 18, 2002 when his registration as a RR was reinstated after his successful completion of the PFP course. His registration remained subject to the Existing Conditions. 30. In January 2003, the Respondent transferred to Northern Securities Inc. ( Northern ) after the amalgamation of Georgia and Northern. His registration remained subject to the Existing Conditions. 31. In September, 2003 the Respondent resigned from Northern and transferred to Bolder Investment Partners, Ltd. where he is currently registered as an RR. 32. Except for being subject to the Existing Conditions since January 24, 2002, the Respondent has no disciplinary history with the Association and has satisfactorily performed under the Existing Conditions. IV. CONTRAVENTIONS 33. During the Relevant Period, the Respondent, by running his own book of business, and by being the primary person responsible for servicing the Accounts, and by signing NCAFs for the Accounts, acted as a RR, when he was only qualified and registered as an IR and thereby engaged in business conduct or practice which was unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest contrary to Association By-law V. ADMISSION OF CONTRAVENTIONS AND FUTURE COMPLIANCE 34. The Respondent admits the contraventions of the Statutes or Regulations thereto, By-laws, Regulations, Rulings or Policies of the Association noted in Section IV

6 6 of this Settlement Agreement. In the future, the Respondent shall comply with these and all By-laws, Regulations, Rulings and Policies of the Association. VI. DISCIPLINE PENALTIES 35. The Respondent accepts the imposition of discipline penalties by the Association pursuant to this Settlement Agreement as follows: (a) (b) a fine in the amount of $ 15,000.00; and a condition of his continuing approval to act in a registered capacity with any Member that the fine and costs herein be paid. VII. ASSOCIATION COSTS 36. The Respondent shall pay the Association's costs of this proceeding in the amount of $ 2, VIII. EFFECTIVE DATE 37. This Settlement Agreement shall become effective and binding upon the Respondent and Staff in accordance with its terms as of the date of: (a) (b) (c) its acceptance, or the imposition of a lesser penalty or less onerous terms, or the imposition, with the consent of the Respondent, of a penalty or terms more onerous, by the District Council. IX. WAIVER 38. If this Settlement Agreement becomes effective and binding, the Respondent hereby waives his right to a hearing under the Association By-laws in respect of the matters described herein and further waives any right of appeal or review which may be available under such By-laws or any applicable legislation. X. STAFF COMMITMENT 39. If this Settlement Agreement becomes effective and binding, Staff will not proceed with disciplinary proceedings under Association By-laws in relation to the facts set out in Section III of this Settlement Agreement.

7 7 XI. PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE PENALTY 40. If this Settlement Agreement becomes effective and binding: (a) the Respondent shall be deemed to have been penalized by the District Council for the purpose of giving written notice to the public thereof by publication in an Association Bulletin and by delivery of the notice to the media, the securities regulators and such other persons, organizations or corporation, as required by Association By-laws and any applicable Securities Commission requirements; and, (b) the Settlement Agreement and the Association Bulletin shall remain on file and shall be disclosed to members of the public upon request. XII. EFFECT OF REJECTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 41. If the District Council rejects this Settlement Agreement: (a) the provisions of By-laws to 20.24, inclusive, shall apply, provided that no member of the District Council rejecting this Settlement Agreement shall participate in any hearing conducted by the District Council with respect to the same matters which are the subject of this Settlement Agreement; and, (b) the negotiations relating thereto shall be without prejudice and may not be used as evidence or referred to in any hearing. AGREED TO by Staff at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 28 th day of June, Wes Chan WITNESS Paul Smith PAUL SMITH Enforcement Counsel, Pacific District Investment Dealers Association of Canada

8 8 AGREED TO by the Respondent at the City of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia, this 28 th day of June, Dana Prince WITNESS Steve Jeske STEVEN RODNEY JESKE ACCEPTED by the Pacific District Council of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada, at the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, this 28 th day of June, INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (PACIFIC DISTRICT COUNCIL) Per: R. John Rogers Per: Don Teatro Per: John Van Koll

9 9 IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA (ENFORCEMENT DIVISION) AND STEVEN RODNEY JESKE DECISION OF A DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE PACIFIC DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTITUTED PURSUANT TO BY-LAW TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION OF THE INVESTMENT DEALERS ASSOCIATION OF CANADA AND STEVEN RODNEY JESKE Settlement Agreement Hearing: June 28, 2004 Panel Members: Counsel: John Rogers, Chair, Don Teatro and John van Koll Paul Smith for the Investment Dealers Association of Canada Dana H. Prince for Steven Rodney Jeske Pursuant to Association By-law 20.26, a disciplinary panel of the Pacific District Council of the Investment Dealers Association of Canada ( Association ) was convened on June 28, 2004 to approve a settlement agreement ( Settlement Agreement ) negotiated between the Enforcement Division of the Association and Steven Rodney Jeske (the Respondent ). Statement of Facts The Settlement Agreement was agreed to by the staff of the Association and by the Respondent on June 28, 2004,(the Settlement Agreement ) and contains certain facts agreed upon by the Association and the Respondent solely for the purpose of the Settlement Agreement. In summary, these facts were: 1. That the Respondent entered the securities industry in 1994 as a registered representative. As is normal with all new registrants, the Respondent was given 30 months until April 14, 1997 to successfully complete either Part 1 of the Canadian Investment Management Course or the Professional Financial Planning Course in order to maintain his registration as a registered representative. 2. The Respondent did not complete either course by the required date. 3. On May 16, 1997, the Respondent applied to the Association to be registered as an investment representative. In his application, the Respondent acknowledged

10 10 that his status as a registered representative had been suspended and that in applying to become registered as an investment representative, this changed status meant that he could not give investment advice or solicit orders from clients. 4. The Respondent s application was approved by the Association and he became registered as an investment representative. 5. The Respondent was employed as an investment representative at Thomson Kernaghan & Co. Ltd. ( TK ) from May 3, 1999 until December 19, 2000 (the Relevant Period ) and, during this time,tk was a full service firm as opposed to a discount broker. 6. During the Relevant Period: a. the Respondent had his personal broker code for commission tracking purposes, meaning that the Respondent did not share commissions with a registered representative; b. the Respondent serviced more than 200 accounts for over 100 individual or corporate clients; c. the Respondent completed New Client Application Forms (NCAF) on behalf of clients from information provided to him by these clients and submitted these forms, together with those NCAF s completed directly by new clients, to TK for approval by TK s head office Compliance; d. the Respondent signed his name in the section designated as R.R. Signature for these NCAF s and inserted his own broker code in the section designated for broker code identification in these NCAF s; e. the monthly account statements and trade confirmation slips for the accounts serviced by the Respondent identified the Respondent as either the registered representative or the account representative for those accounts; and f. the Respondent was primarily responsible for the accounts he serviced, and in this role, he was not acting as an assistant to a branch manager or any other registered representative. 7. However, during the Relevant Period: a. at no time did the Respondent give advice with respect to specific securities or solicit orders from clients; b. all securities transactions in the accounts serviced by the Respondent were within the investment objectives established by the clients for their respective accounts; c. the NCAF for each of the accounts serviced by the Respondent was signed and approved by the Respondent s branch manager and was also approved by TK s head office Compliance before any of these accounts were opened; and d. the Respondent s branch manager and TK s head office knew that the Respondent was registered as an investment representative and not as a registered representative, and the Respondent at no time was advised that his registration status precluded him from servicing his clients in the manner in which he did and the Respondent did not understand that he was so precluded.

11 11 8. After the Respondent s employment with TK ended in December 2001, the Association in January 2002 approved the Respondent s registration as an investment representative at a new member firm, subject to close supervision until the outcome of the Association s investigation into the Respondent s conduct during the Relevant Period was completed. 9. In December 2002, the Association reinstated the Respondent s registration as a registered representative following the Respondent s successful completion of the Professional Financial Planning Course, however the Respondent remained subject to close supervision. 10. Since January 2002, the Respondent has no disciplinary history with the Association and has satisfactorily performed under close supervision. The agreed upon statement of facts also points out that By-Law 1 of the by-laws of the Association defines the positions of investment representative and registered representatives. These definitions are essentially the same, save and except that a registered representative is permitted to advise on trades in securities, while an investment representative is not permitted to proffer such advice. As well, the agreed upon statement of facts observes that the Conduct and Practices Handbook of the Association further defines the role of an investment representative, breaking this role into two types of positions that of a sales assistant employed at full service investment dealers and working for registered representatives, and that of an investment representative at a discount broker. As TK was not a discount broker, this latter role is not applicable to the Respondent. The sales assistant role is defined in more detail as one involving largely administrative tasks such as organizing client records, NCAF s and other client documentation. Sales assistants are permitted to speak with clients, but are not permitted to give advice. Registered sales assistants are permitted to take unsolicited client orders to buy or sell securities. Admission of Contraventions and Future Compliance By executing the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent admitted that during the Relevant Period, by: 1. running his own book of business; 2. being the primary person responsible for servicing the accounts he serviced, and 3. signing NCAF s for these accounts, he acted as a registered representative when he was only qualified and registered as an investment representative and thereby engaged in business conduct or practice which was unbecoming or detrimental to the public interest contrary to Association By-law As well, the Respondent agreed in the future to comply with all By-lays, Rulings, Regulations and Policies of the Association. Agreed Upon Penalty The Settlement Agreement contains the acceptance by the Respondent of the imposition of discipline penalties by the Association as follows:

12 12 1. A fine in the amount of $15,000; and 2. A condition of his continuing approval to act in a registered capacity with any Member be that the fine and costs agreed to in the Settlement Agreement be paid. Agreement to Pay Costs The Settlement Agreement includes the obligation of the Respondent to pay the Association s costs to the amount of $2,000. By-Law By-law of the Association s by-laws provides that a settlement agreement shall only become binding upon its acceptance by the District Council. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the public interest is considered before any agreement concerning disciplinary action for contravention of the Association s by-laws or regulations becomes binding upon the Association and the contravening party. It is therefore incumbent upon the District Council to test the provisions of any settlement agreement for which its approval is being sought against what it considers to be in the best interests of the investing public and of the investment industry. This by-law specifies that upon presentation of a settlement agreement for its approval, the District Council may: 1. accept the settlement agreement as presented; 2. totally reject the settlement agreement; 3. amend the settlement agreement by imposing a lesser penalty or terms less onerous to the contravening party than those negotiated; or 4. with the consent of the contravening party, amend the settlement agreement by imposing a penalty or terms more onerous than those contained in the settlement agreement as negotiated. Decision The District Council has determined to exercise its powers under By-law to accept the Settlement Agreement. Reasons The District Council accepts the Settlement Agreement with great reluctance. The Association by signing the Settlement Agreement acknowledged that that Respondent in the activity complained of during the Relevant Period did not provide investment advice and did not solicit trades. The Respondent performed in accordance with the undertaking he had given in his application to the Association to receive his registration as an investment representative. The Association s complaint of the Respondent s conduct is that during the Relevant Period he appeared to act as a registered representative rather than as an investment representative, the capacity in which he was registered. That is, that the Respondent ran his own book of business, signed NCAF s and was the primary person responsible for servicing the 200 accounts for 100 clients. However, when pressed, the best that counsel

13 13 for the Association could do in defining what the difference in roles were between an investment representative and a registered representative were the definition of each role in By-Law 1 of the Association s by-laws and the description of each in the Association s Conduct and Practices Handbook. It is acknowledged by the Association that during the Relevant Period, the Respondent did not advise on trades, so his activities would appear to fit within the definition of investment representative in By-Law 1 of the Association s by-laws. Therefore, the Association is left with the description of an investment representative in the Conduct and Practices Handbook. If the activities of the Respondent during the Relevant Period were somehow in breach of the description of investment representative in the Conduct and Practices Handbook, there is no indication that the Respondent at any time agreed to operate within that description. Indeed, there is nothing in the agreed upon facts which indicate that neither the Respondent s branch manager nor anyone within the head office Compliance department of TK at any time questioned the Respondent s activities. Nor is there any evidence in the agreed upon statement of facts to suggest that the Respondent in any manner attempted to conceal his activities. It would appear that in dealing with the reduction in the Respondent s status from a registered representative to an investment representative, little thought was given by the Association to clearly defining how the activities of the Respondent might be restricted in this new role. For instance, there was nothing in the agreed upon statement of facts as to what the Respondent was expected to do with his book of business built up when he was a registered representative now that his status had been restricted to that of an investment representative. We are, therefore, not surprised that the Respondent s branch manager and TK head office Compliance did not attempt to restrict the Respondent s activities. The Respondent was complying with the definition of investment representative he was not advising on trades in securities. The District Council is pleased to observe that the Association no longer permits a new registered representative who has not successfully completed either Part 1 of the Canadian Investment Management Course or the Professional Financial Planning Course within 30 months of initial registration to become registered as an investment representative until he or she has properly qualified. Their registration is suspended until the qualification has been met. This will prevent a situation similar to that facing the Respondent from occurring in the future. We were advised by counsel for the Association that the Respondent has cooperated fully with the Association in the Association s investigation into the allegations of wrong doing by the Respondent. As the statement of facts disclose, since January 2002, a period of over 2 years, the Respondent has maintained his registration firstly as an investment representative and then, when he had completed the Professional Financial Planning Course, as a registered representative, in both instances subject to close supervision while the Association conducted its investigation into the allegations against the Respondent. And since January 2002, the Respondent has satisfactorily performed under these restricted conditions.

14 14 We are deeply troubled that a fine of $15,000 has been settled on for what the District Council finds, at best, to be a technical breach of the rules. As both counsel for the Association and for the Respondent acknowledge, the facts set out are unusual facts and, therefore, there is no similar situation that we can look to for guidance on the appropriateness the fine agreed upon between the Association and the Respondent. As was pointed out by the Ontario District Council in Milewski [1999] I.D.A.C. No. 17, August 5, 1999 at p. 11, the standards to be applied by a District Council in determining whether or not to accept a settlement agreement are not the same as those applied by a District Council when making a penalty determination after a contested hearing. To reflect the public interest benefits of the settlement process, a District Council should not reject the penalty negotiated as part of a settlement agreement unless the District Council views the penalty as clearly falling outside a reasonable range of appropriateness. We are concerned that the fine of $15,000 is excessive for the matter at hand, especially following a period of over 2 years of close supervision. However, we are advised that throughout his dealings with the Association and in the negotiation of the Settlement Agreement, the Respondent has been represented by counsel. And, in applying the test set out in Milewski, we are not able to view this agreed upon penalty as clearly falling outside a reasonable range of appropriateness. Therefore, the District Council has determined to accept the Settlement Agreement. At the hearing, we asked counsel to assist us in understanding how the amount of $2,000 was arrived at in determining how much of the costs incurred by the Association in its investigation and prosecution of this matter should be borne by the Respondent. We were advised that the figure of $2,000 was arrived at by negotiation and that counsel were not able to supply us with guidelines we could apply in determining whether this amount of contribution to the Association s costs was appropriate. We expressed our concern that the fine agreed to in this Settlement Agreement included a tradeoff on the amount that the Respondent contributes to the Association s costs. To a respondent it is probably of little relevance as to whether or not the amount he or she is required to pay is in the form of a fine or a contribution to costs. However, to ensure a fair process, fines and costs should remain separate from each other and the quantum of each should be based upon a different set of established guidelines. The by-laws of the Association recognize this distinction. By-law grants the applicable District Council the power to impose a fine. While a separate by-law, By-law 20.12, authorizes such District Council in its discretion to require a respondent to pay the whole or part of the costs of the proceedings before the District Council and any investigation relating thereto. This latter by-law, therefore, envisages that the amount of the Association s costs the District Council requires the respondent to pay will vary from the entire amount to none at all.

15 15 Put another way, a fine should reflect the gravity of the offence committed by the respondent against the Association s by-laws. The amount of costs the respondent is required to pay should be a function of the actual costs incurred by the Association and what portion of that amount the District Council believes the respondent should bear. The costs incurred by the Association will vary from case to case, but will be a sum certain introduced in evidence by the Association at a discipline hearing. It will then be left for the District Council to determine what portion of those costs are to be borne by the respondent. The District Council in making this determination will consider such factors as the gravity of the offence, the cooperation of the respondent in the Association s investigation, the financial hardship caused by the actions of the respondent, and the benefit received by the respondent from the activities leading to the offence. The amount of contribution to the Association s costs agreed to be paid by a respondent pursuant to a settlement agreement is clearly part of the burden agreed to by a respondent when entering into a settlement agreement. When considering the acceptance of a settlement agreement, a District Council has to consider whether or not the amount of the costs agreed to fits within a reasonable range of appropriateness. To properly make this consideration, the District Council will have to know the actual quantum of these costs and then determine what portion of these costs it is reasonable for the respondent to bear. Dated at Vancouver, British Columbia, this 28 th day of June R. John Rogers John Rogers, Chair Don Teatro Don Teatro John van Koll John van Koll