Tariffs-Free Regulatory Importing?
Asad Akhtar
Staff devolves claimants from a fundamental aspect of procedural fairness. Additionally, it
denies future claimants with valuable information in assessing the success of their claim.
Finally, no relative weighting attached to the factors raised in the Proposed Policy introduces
ambiguities into what factors may be determinative in relation to each other.
Blowing the Whistle on the Whistleblower Program
Davies, a prominent securities law firm, raised additional concerns in their aptly named
submission, “Blowing the Whistle on the Whistleblower Program”.91
Davies questions if the Commission is the appropriate forum for overseeing
administrative sanctions ordered in respect to anti-retaliation provisions. As such proceedings
may become heavily facts dependent and tied to matters of employment law, it may quickly fall
outside the expertise of the Commission.92 The law firm recommends that a specialized tribunal
or the courts be the appropriate forum for these disputes. In the opinion of this author, and in
light of the aforementioned American experience with SOX, the use of specialized employment
tribunals should be avoided.93
Additionally, the firm highlights the potential for the program to be abused by frivolous
claims that waste the resources of the agency and the employer; while simultaneously protect the
employee from any repercussions through anonymity protection and anti-retaliation provisions.94
In consideration, it is not clear how widespread such abuse is in practice for whistleblower
programs. If this is found to be a claim with merit, the OSC should, if not already in
contemplation, adopt a declaration statement that is similar in substance to the one in use by the
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, “Blowing the Whistle on the Whistleblower Program” (May 8, 2015),
online: Davies .
92
Ibid at 1.
93
See earlier discussion under the American experience regarding the use of specialized tribunals with SOX.
94
Supra note 91 at 1-2.
91
28