OSC v. K2 & Associates Investment Management Inc. and others (spoofing, 2018)

Status unknown

Machine-extracted, pending human review. The structured fields on this page were parsed automatically from the regulator's own release, linked below. Read the primary document before relying on any figure here, and tell us if something is wrong.

In 2018, the regulator brought an action against K2 & Associates Investment Management Inc., Shawn Kimel and Daniel Gosselin, alleging conduct this library classifies as spoofing. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

Penalty as published

C$400k

A dash means the release did not state a figure we could extract, not that the figure is zero. Penalty and disgorgement are stored separately so aggregates across the library do not double-count the same dollars. This regulator states penalties in CAD. The figure is recorded as published and is not converted, so it does not appear in the USD totals or medians used elsewhere on this site.

What is alleged to have happened

the regulator announced this matter on October 17, 2018 as release 2018-60. The respondents named are K2 & Associates Investment Management Inc., Shawn Kimel and Daniel Gosselin (2 individuals, 1 entity). The action was brought in the Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario).

This library tags the matter as spoofing, based on the conduct the regulator describes. Each tag links to a page explaining how that technique works, what statute it engages, and what penalties comparable actions have attracted. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

The conduct is recorded against options.

Non-monetary relief recorded: trading ban.

For the regulator's own account of the facts, read the primary document linked above. This page deliberately summarises the structured record rather than reproducing the release.

What technique is this, and how does it work?

This action is tagged with one technique in our taxonomy. The tagging is ours: regulators charge statutory provisions, not technique names, so the mapping is an editorial judgement described in our editorial policy.

• Spoofing — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.

Timeline

1. 2018-10-16 Settlement Agreement
2. 2018-10-16 Statement of Allegations
3. 2018-10-17 Notice of Hearing
4. 2018-10-19 Other
5. 2018-10-19 Reasons and Decision

Primary documents

Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.

• Tribunal proceeding
• Settlement Agreement
• Statement of Allegations
• Notice of Hearing
• Other
• Reasons and Decision

The linked release is published by the issuing regulator under its own terms. Our summary and narrative above are our own writing.

Related actions

Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.

Record added September 9, 2026. submit a correction.