OSC v. Christopher Candusso and others (insider trading, 2018)
Judgment entered
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 obtained a judgment against Christopher Candusso and 6 others, alleging conduct this library classifies as insider trading. The release does not state a monetary figure that we were able to extract.
The record
| Agency | OSC |
|---|---|
| Release number | 2018-70 |
| Date filed | 2018-11-23 |
| Date resolved | 2023-01-20 |
| Court | Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario) |
| Status | judgment |
| Asset class | equities |
| Criminal parallel | No |
| Bars imposed | trading ban |
| Defendants | Christopher Candusso ; Claudio Candusso ; Frank Fakhry ; John Fielding ; Donald Alexander Goss (Sandy) ; Majd Kitmitto ; Steven Vannatta |
| Techniques | Insider trading |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
- Penalty as published
- C$600k
What is alleged to have happened
the regulator announced this matter on November 23, 2018 as release 2018-70. The respondents named are Christopher Candusso and 6 others (7 individuals, 0 entities). The action was brought in the Capital Markets Tribunal (Ontario).
This library tags the matter as insider trading, 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 equities.
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.
- Insider trading — see how it works, what statute it engages, and every other action tagged the same way.
Timeline
- 2019-07-15 Reasons and Decision
- 2019-09-25 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-01-03 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-01-24 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-02-11 Other
- 2020-06-02 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-07-20 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-08-07 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-08-20 Reasons and Decision
- 2020-09-21 Other
- 2020-09-22 Other
- 2020-09-22 Other
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
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Other
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Reasons and Decision
- Other
- Other
Related actions
Other actions in the library sharing at least one technique tag with this one.
| Action | Agency | Filed | Technique | Penalty | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEC v. Trijya Vakil and Neeraj Visen (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-09-04 | Insider Trading | — | judgment |
| CFTC v. Gabriel Perez (insider trading, 2026) | CFTC | 2026-08-28 | Insider Trading | $65k | judgment |
| SEC v. Gavin Wolfe and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | unknown |
| SEC v. Jesse R. Mitchell (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-21 | Insider Trading | — | filed |
| SEC v. Benjamin Tesfaye (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-08-11 | Insider Trading | — | judgment |
| SEC v. Jamal (“Jimmy”) Chammout and others (insider trading, 2026) | SEC | 2026-07-17 | Insider Trading | $497k | judgment |