Anne Corbett

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a second time.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing it believed its licence had been surrendered and thus insurance was not required.

The Tribunal found the applicant's belief that the licence was surrendered was genuine and reasonable, meaning the failure to maintain insurance was not intentional, reckless, or negligent.

The Tribunal reduced the administrative penalty to $1,000 and ordered a six-month licence suspension instead of revocation.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $3,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation and found that the proposed penalty of $3,000 was appropriate, given the applicant's negligence, the potential harm to the public, and the economic benefit derived from not paying insurance premiums.

The York University Faculty Association sought to have the Financial Services Tribunal hear an issue regarding mid-year retirees that was not included in the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue, as the Superintendent had not made a preliminary inquiry or decision on the matter.

The Tribunal declined to exercise any discretion to hear the issue as one of first impression, noting the applicant could still request the Superintendent to make an order under section 87 of the Pension Benefits Act.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant mistakenly believed its real estate broker insurance was sufficient and delayed rectifying the issue due to personal circumstances while out of the country.

The Tribunal found the penalty was justified but reduced the amount to $500, considering the applicant's honest mistake, lack of actual harm, and prompt remedial action once the deficiency was understood.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse his application for a mortgage agent's licence.

The proposal was based on the applicant's prior conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his failure to disclose this conviction on his application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's involvement in the drug offence was inadvertent and that his failure to disclose the conviction was an innocent misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding of the pardon process.

Concluding that the applicant was suitable to hold a licence, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant made a second application to the Superintendent of Financial Services for a withdrawal from a locked-in account based on medical expenses within 12 months of a successful first application.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application because the Regulation precludes more than one application for withdrawal on the basis of medical expenses in a 12-month period.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, finding it had no authority to direct the Superintendent to act contrary to the Regulation.

The applicant requested a review of the Tribunal's July 11, 2005 order regarding the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan.

The request was filed slightly past the 10-day deadline, but the Tribunal agreed to consider it as the respondent did not object.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any material error of law or fact that would have led to a different decision.

The request for review was denied and the original order was confirmed.

The applicant, a former member of a multi-employer pension plan, challenged the calculation of his pension benefits and the composition of the Board of Trustees.

He argued that his pension should have been calculated based on a 2% defined contribution formula and that the plan was not a multi-employer plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal confirmed the Superintendent's proposal to refuse to order a recalculation, finding that the pension was correctly calculated under the plan's defined benefit formula and that there was no evidence of improper board composition or retroactive reduction of benefits.

The Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.

Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.

The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.