Proceedings

IN THE MATTER OF THE SECURITIES ACT
R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, AS AMENDED

AND

IN THE MATTER OF
IRVINE JAMES DYCK

STATEMENT OF ALLEGATIONS OF STAFF OF THE ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission ("Staff") make the following allegations:

Introduction

1. Irvine James Dyck ("Dyck") is an individual residing in Ontario and is not currently registeredin any capacity under the Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, as amended (the "Act"). Dyckwas registered from June 9, 1994 to October 21, 1998 as a salesperson with Triple AFinancial Services Inc. ("Triple A"), a mutual fund dealer and limited market dealer, pursuantto section 26(1) of the Act.

Trading Without a Prospectus Contrary to the Requirements of Ontario Securities Law

2. During the period from October, 1994 to May, 1996, Dyck traded in securities, namelylimited partnership units (the "Units") of Dual Capital Limited Partnership (the "LimitedPartnership"), where such trading was a distribution of such securities, without having fileda preliminary prospectus and a prospectus and obtaining receipts therefor from the Directoras required by section 53(1) of the Act.

3. The Units were purportedly offered for sale pursuant to the "seed capital" prospectusexemption set out in section 72(1)(p) of the Act. The requirements of the "seed capital"exemption from the prospectus requirements in Ontario securities law were not satisfied.

Trading in the Units Contrary to Requirements of Ontario Securities Law

4. During the material times, Dyck traded in securities, namely the Units, on his own behalfand/or on behalf of a company operating under the name "Dual Financial Group", and not asa salesperson registered with Triple A. Therefore, Dyck did not trade in accordance with hisregistration under section 26(1) of the Act.

5. Dyck did not provide the Offering Memorandum dated October 18, 1994 as amended onDecember 19, 1994 for the Limited Partnership (the "Offering Memorandum") to his clientsprior to the sale of the Units.

6. In addition, Dyck sold speculative securities, namely the Units, and failed to assess thesuitability of the investments to the needs of the investors.

Conduct Contrary to the Public Interest

7. Dyck acted contrary to the public interest by:

(a) trading in securities on his own behalf and/or on behalf of a company operating underthe name "Dual Financial Group" contrary to his registration as a salesperson withTriple A under section 26(1) of the Act;

(b) trading in securities, namely the Units, which constituted a distribution without aprospectus contrary to section 53(1) of the Act; and

(c) failing to assess the suitability of the Units to the needs of his clients.

8. Such additional allegations as counsel may advise and the Commission may permit.

DATED at Toronto this 13th day of October, 1999.