When the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO) issues a sanctions decision that affects a registrant’s ability to work, that registrant often wishes to secure two things as a matter of urgency: firstly, a review of the decision, and, secondly, the ability to keep working while that review is pending. Getting the first does not automatically get you the second. A recent Capital Markets Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) decision, Deeb v Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization, 2026 ONCMT 22, shows what a registrant has to prove to obtain a stay, and what happens when they do not satisfy the relevant legal test.
An application for a review does not pause anything by itself
Filing an application for review of a CIRO decision with the Tribunal starts a separate process. The application does not, on its own, pause or suspend the CIRO decision under review. If a registrant wants that decision paused while the review is considered, the registrant will need to bring a separate motion asking the Tribunal for a stay. That motion has its own legal test, and the registrant has to satisfy it with evidence.
What happened in Deeb v. CIRO
Mr. Deeb applied to the Tribunal for a partial stay of a CIRO Sanctions and Costs Decision, pending his application for review of the Sanctions and Costs Decision and an earlier Liability Decision. . The Sanctions and Costs Decision imposed on Deeb: (a) a one-year suspension on being approved or registered as a registered representative; and (b) a three-year suspension from being approved or registered as an Executive or Supervisor. These are the parts of the decision he applied to stay. His position was that, without a stay, he would not be able to keep working in his current roles with his employer and its parent company.
The Tribunal’s authority to grant a stay of a CIRO decision is contained in section 8(4) of the Securities Act. The Tribunal denied the application in Deeb’s case after considering the three-part test for the granting of a stay: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) the moving party (Deeb) would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was refused; and (3) the balance of convenience favours granting the stay. The onus of establishing that all three parts of the test have been met was on Deeb as the applicant.
Whilst it was effectively agreed between Deeb, CIRO, and the OSC that there was a serious issue to be tried, which satisfied one part of the test, Deeb failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted. Irreparable harm, means harm that cannot be fixed later, including through money. The Tribunal found Deeb had not shown this. The Tribunal found that: Deeb had only raised serious concerns and held a belief that clients would leave his business; Deeb did not provide evidence that he would actually lose his employment, and no evidence of how his finances or income would be affected by the suspension.
The Tribunal did not need to consider the balance of convenience part of the test in light of its finding of no irreparable harm. However, the Tribunal indicated that it gives “significant weight” to the benefit of public confidence in the disciplinary process of CIRO when assessing relative harm from a balance of convenience perspective.
Why the Tribunal came to this conclusion
Asserting that a CIRO decision will cost you your current role, or your clients, or your income is not the same as showing it. The Tribunal’s reasoning turns on that distinction: irreparable harm is a factual finding, and a factual finding needs a factual record. The evidence a registrant puts forward in support of a stay application needs to be clear and not speculative, in other words that the registrant will suffer – not may suffer – irreparable harm. The Tribunal was not persuaded by concerns or beliefs that such harm may occur.
In practical terms, this means that, if a registrant is alleging client attrition, then there needs to be examples of those clients leaving, or intimating that they will leave in their communications. Loss of employment needs confirmation from the employer, not an assumption about what the employer might do in light of the CIRO decision. Financial harm requires detailed numbers of income loss and current obligations. However, harm that can be fixed later with money is not irreparable, so a stay applicant who is worried about their income has to show why that particular harm would not be compensable after the fact, not merely assert that their income is potentially at stake. For example, it may be because the registrant cannot ‘cure the harm’ by collecting damages at a later date.
The Tribunal’s comments on Deeb’s evidence are helpful for future applicants. The Tribunal stated that even if some level of financial loss was likely – for instance, from an inability to earn commissions – this was insufficient to establish irreparable harm. In addition, the Tribunal appeared to be looking for evidence of Deeb’s broader financial situation, his obligations, or any other sources of income of the kind that was put forward in an earlier successful case of Eley (Re), 2020 ONSEC 30. The inclusion of such information is likely to improve the evidentiary record in a stay motion.
In addition, with respect to the balance of convenience part of the test, registrants applying for a stay should seek to address the broader public interest mandate of CIRO to protect investors and the integrity of the capital markets. In Eley, this was partly addressed by the registrant proactively agreeing to be subject to close supervision by his employer. These kinds of practical safeguards are something to consider including in every application for a stay in order to address the balance of convenience.
What this means for registrants facing a CIRO decision
- A stay is a separate motion with its own evidentiary burden. Applying for a review of a CIRO decision does not pause it. If continuing to work matters, plan for the worst and consider the evidentiary requirements involved in a stay motion from the start.
- Bring evidence, not assertions. Client correspondence, a statement from the employer about the practical consequences of the CIRO decision, and detailed financial documentation of income, outgoings, and associated financial obligations, carry weight that a general claim of harm does not.
- “I’ll lose my job” needs support. If continued employment is the harm being claimed, get something from the employer confirming that outcome before the motion is filed.
- Money-fixable harm is a harder sell. If the harm is really about income, be ready to explain why that loss would not be capable of being remedied later, since that is what the “irreparable harm” test requires.
- Build the record early. Evidence gathered after a motion is filed is leaving it too late. The record needs to exist at the time the stay is argued.
How we help
Ghahhary Thomas LLP represents registrants and firms in proceedings before the Capital Markets Tribunal and in matters involving CIRO, including applications for review and stay motions. If you are facing a CIRO decision and need to know whether a stay is available, and what it will take to get one, we can assess your position and help build the evidentiary record a stay motion requires.
This article is general information, not legal advice. It is based on the public reasons in Deeb v Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization*, 2026 ONCMT 22. For advice on a specific situation, speak with a lawyer.*
Frequently Asked Questions
Does applying for a review of a CIRO decision automatically pause it? No. An application for review and a stay motion are separate steps. The CIRO decision continues to apply, unless the Tribunal grants a stay pending the review.
What is “irreparable harm” in a stay motion? It is harm that cannot be fixed later, including through an award of money. It is one part of the legal test the Tribunal applies on a stay motion. Importantly, the Tribunal stated that even if some level of financial loss was likely – for instance, from an inability to earn commissions – this was insufficient to establish irreparable harm.
What kind of evidence does a stay motion need? Evidence that supports the specific harm being claimed: for example, documentation showing client impact, confirmation from an employer about the practical consequences, and detailed financial records, rather than a general statement that harm will or may occur.
