RE:RE:RE:TA........I am not familiar with Canadian Security Laws. I dont doubt naked short selling exist in CA. The degree to which it exists is another matter.
In the US, naked short selling can be discovered by looking at what is called Falilure to Deliver.
There is a requirement to account for all sales by security dealers. Sell orders are required to designated long, short, or short exempt. When the naked short is called to deliver the shares, and does not, it is called a Failure to Deliver. While there are legal incidents, FTD's indicate naked short activity and individual stock records can be accessed by anyone if you know how to find it. I suggest you look at the data if its available in CA.
What is Regulation SHO?
Regulation SHO, enacted in 2005, established “locate” and “close-out” requirements. Rule 200(g) of Regulation SHO requires BDs to mark all orders to sell stock as “long,” “short,” or “short-exempt.”[3]
A sale order can be marked “long” only if two conditions are met. First, a seller must be deemed to own the security, which occurs only to the extent that it has a net long position in the security. Second, the BD must either (a) have possession or control of the security to be delivered, or (b) reasonably expect that the security will be in its physical possession or control no later than the settlement date of the transaction.
Rule 203(b)(1) of Regulation SHO requires BDs to “locate” the securities being sold, before effecting a short sale.[4] This “locate” requirement means that BDs must (a) borrow the securities; (b) enter into a bona fide arrangement to borrow the securities, or (c) have a reasonable basis to believe that the securities can be borrowed so that they can be delivered on the delivery due date.