Audrey Mak

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to issue him an insurance agent licence with conditions, based on ongoing Law Society disciplinary proceedings.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to exclude the Law Society decisions from evidence and, alternatively, to adduce evidence challenging the underlying facts of those decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the Law Society decisions as relevant evidence and held that challenging their underlying facts would constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.

The Applicant, a paralegal facing professional misconduct allegations from the Law Society, applied for an insurance agent licence.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to issue the licence with conditions based on the Law Society proceedings.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking particulars of the evidence the Superintendent intended to rely on and an order that the Superintendent was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 449 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Superintendent had been transparent in relying on the Law Society proceeding as a whole, and that the limitation period applies only to prosecutions for offences, not to the issuance of licences.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,700 for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Applicant admitted to lacking coverage for over 15 months but argued the lapse was unintentional and occurred while he was not conducting business.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant breached the requirement to maintain continuous coverage and that a penalty was appropriate to promote compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $1,700 penalty, noting it was consistent with previous decisions for similar contraventions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion to adjourn a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to issue a conditional insurance agent licence to the applicant.

The Superintendent argued the hearing should be adjourned sine die until a pending Law Society disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, a licensed paralegal, was finalized.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the uncertainty of the Law Society proceeding's outcome was no different than when the Notice of Proposal was originally issued, and that the issues regarding the applicant's suitability for a licence remained live and relevant.