The allegations described on this website have not yet been determined by the Capital Markets Tribunal. Purpose Investments and Som Seif deny wrongdoing and vigorously contested the OSC's case. Until the Tribunal issues its decision, all disputed allegations must be described as allegations.
The OSC's Allegation
The OSC alleges that during the material period there were significant gaps in the amount and quality of ESG data available to Purpose personnel, particularly during the earlier part of the period (approximately 2019–2021). The regulator says these gaps are relevant to its broader allegation that Purpose could not have meaningfully incorporated ESG factors across its funds to the extent its communications suggested.
Language Used on This Page
This site does not use the term "fake data" to describe the OSC's allegations, because no authoritative source has used that term in relation to this proceeding. The preferred descriptions, drawn from the regulatory allegations, are:
- ▸ "incomplete" ESG data;
- ▸ "limited" ESG data;
- ▸ "gaps in ESG data"; and
- ▸ "data-quality issues alleged by the OSC."
Purpose's Position
Purpose disputes the characterization of its ESG data and integration efforts. The firm contends that ESG data availability improved over the material period and that its personnel considered ESG factors using the data that was reasonably available at the time. Purpose argues the OSC's data-quality standard is not the appropriate benchmark for assessing whether ESG was considered.
Why Data Quality Matters
ESG data quality is a known challenge across the asset-management industry, particularly for earlier periods and certain sectors. The OSC's case highlights the regulatory question of whether a firm can represent that it "effectively applies ESG data across industry sectors" when the available data is incomplete. Purpose's response is that data limitations do not negate genuine ESG consideration.