Background: Ranvir Brar and Harjit Gahunia, the appellants, were issued summonses by the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC) under Section 144(1) of the Securities Act to provide information in an investigation. They challenged these summonses on constitutional grounds and sought extensive disclosure of investigation materials. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed their applications, leading to this appeal.

Legal Arguments/Issues: The appellants argued that Section 144(2) of the Securities Act violated sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by undermining judicial independence and being overly broad and vague. They also sought Stinchcombe-like disclosure, asserting a right to access the BCSC’s investigative materials, despite being witnesses. Additionally, they contended that Section 144(2) conflicted with Section 9 of the Criminal Code, suggesting it created a new common law offense.

Court's Ruling: The Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld the chambers judge's decision, dismissing the appeal. The court found the constitutional challenge to Section 144(2) unfounded, citing the precedent set in British Columbia (Securities Commission) v. Branch, which validated similar provisions. The request for disclosure was denied, as the appellants, being witnesses and not the subjects of the investigation, were not entitled to the extensive materials sought. The court also rejected the argument that Section 144(2) conflicted with Section 9 of the Criminal Code.

Costs/Damages Awarded: The document did not specify any costs or damages awarded in favor of the successful party. The court's decision focused on upholding the lower court’s rulings without mentioning specific monetary awards.