Plastic2Oil Inc (PTOI)

[Johnik]

Cite a law.

I did, and I quoted it verbatim in the very post you responded to. Here it is again:

Except in accordance with section 17, no person or company shall disclose at any time, except to his, her or its counsel,

(a) the nature or content of an order under section 11 or 12

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90s05_e.htm#s16s1

(Note that you can switch back and forth between English and French by either clicking the applicable "English" or "Francais" button or by clicking on the statute section itself.)

Accepting, arguendo, that the person who first posted the summons and cover letters on the board is correct that the investigation relates to JBI (which you appear to believe yourself), then I disagree with this assertion of yours:

2. "The nature of the investigation identified in the order" wasn't disclosed.

How would one know that the summons and cover letters involve an investigation relating to JBI if that fact were not disclosed? If the person who posted the summons and cover letters came across them in their redacted form, there would be no reason to believe the underlying investigative order relates to JBI or involves JBI shareholders absent a disclosure to that effect. Perhaps you just give the phrase "nature or content of an order under section 11" a very narrow interpretation, whereas I accord it a broader one. In my view, disclosing even in general terms who or what is being investigated (e.g., JBI, John Bordynuik Inc., or the shareholders of either) is a disclosure of the "nature" of the investigation. Again, in my view, if it took a more detailed disclosure of the precise subject matter of the investigation to run afoul of section 16, then one could hint all day long at the subject of the investigation without running the risk of a nondisclosure violation, thereby thwarting the central purpose that the regulation serves.

Has a law been broken, you ask? Who knows? For me to opine in the affirmative would first require acceptance of the veracity of the poster who linked those documents in the first place (as noted above). That is a conclusion I will not now make, although I also will not dismiss the possibility. (Although the fact that it is being plastered across this board is enough to raise suspicion.)

Did you ask Mr Bordynuik?

No.

I don't think that the OSC is interested in chatting with 200+ witnesses whose names appeared on a withdrawn registration statement either.

I don't either.