The British Columbia court of appeal has granted an appeal of a reciprocal enforcement order from the B.C. Securities Commission, saying the lack of reasons for the order make it impossible to review.

The case concerns Patricia McLean, a former director of Ontario junior mining company Hucamp Mines Ltd. The company became dormant in early 2002. McLean entered a settlement agreement with the Ontario Securities Commission in 2008.

Among other things, the agreement with the OSC suspended McLean’s registration, banned her from trading securities and banned her from acting as an officer or director of any issuer.

In 2010, the BCSC sought, and received, an order against McLean, imposing a ban that was essentially identical to the terms of the settlement with the OSC.

McLean appealed the decision, arguing that the BCSC made two errors: making an order more than six years after ‘the events underlying the Ontario Agreement’ had taken place; second, failing to provide reasons for its order.

In its decision published last week, the B.C. court of appeal denied McLean’s appeal on the first ground, but upheld it on the second. “Absent an explanation for the sanctions it imposes, there is a risk that the commission merely reciprocally enforced the Ontario order, which would not be consistent with its mandate… and which might amount to a fettering of discretion,” the court said.

“In the circumstances of this case, the complete absence of reasons makes appellate review of the public interest aspect of the decision and the sanctions imposed impossible. This court cannot discern the ‘why’ of the decision,” the court said.

The court said that a brief explanation of why an order is in the public interest, and a brief explanation for the imposed sanctions “should suffice in this case”, adding that it would not impose the task of providing detailed reasons. It allowed the appeal and has sent the case back to the commission, “to proceed in accordance with the observations in these reasons for judgment”.