OSC v. Marilyn Dianne Stuart (ponzi schemes, 2021)

Judgment entered

✓ Checked against the primary document on October 2, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.

Report an error in this record (osc-marilyn-dianne-stuart-ponzi-schemes-2021) by email

In January 2021 the Ontario Securities Commission began a reciprocal proceeding against Marilyn Stuart, who pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for a scheme run from 2004 to 2013, and on March 3, 2021 imposed permanent market bans.

The record

What was ordered

Civil penalty

—

Disgorgement

—

Prejudgment interest

—

Total relief

—

Alleged gain

—

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.

What is alleged to have happened

Stuart pleaded guilty in December 2019 and received a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence, probation and a $1.1 million restitution order to the mutual fund dealers' investor protection fund. The allegations say client money was not used as promised but to pay interest and principal to other investors, devolving into a Ponzi scheme, and that an in-house client portal she designed showed false growth.

The order of March 3, 2021 bans her permanently from trading, acquiring securities, relying on exemptions, serving as a director or officer, and acting as a registrant or promoter. The record showed the matter only as filed.

This library tags the matter as ponzi schemes because the tribunal or the court it relies on describes money from later investors being used to pay earlier ones. The tagging is ours, not the regulator's: agencies charge statutory provisions, not technique names.

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.

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

Timeline

1. 2021-01-12 Statement of Allegations
2. 2021-01-13 Notice of Hearing
3. 2021-03-03 Reasons and Decision
4. 2021-03-03 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
• Statement of Allegations
• Notice of Hearing
• Reasons and Decision
• 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 10, 2026. submit a correction.