Suspension of securities-law sentences granted pending appeals where statutory penalties, repeat prosecution, fines, and directorship remained arguable.

Suspension of securities-law sentences pending appeal was considered appropriate because the applications raised arguable issues on repeated prosecution based on the same summons, the punishment applicable to an alleged 1998 contravention, the permissible fine where no statutory maximum exists, and whether the applicants were company directors. The pre-2002 penalty framework and the disputed directorial status supported interim protection. The notes also state that a fine without a prescribed maximum could not be exorbitant. The sentences were suspended pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether execution and operation of the sentences imposed for contravention of securities-law requirements should be suspended pending the appeals.

Analysis: The applications raised arguable questions concerning repeated prosecution on the basis of the same summons, the applicable punishment at the time of the alleged 1998 violation, the permissible quantum of fine where no maximum is prescribed, and whether the applicants were directors of the company. The pre-2002 statutory punishment and the disputed status of the applicants warranted interim protection; a fine without a prescribed maximum could not be exorbitant.

Conclusion: Suspension of the sentences pending appeal was warranted, in favour of the appellants.

---