Bethune Whiston

The appellant appealed an order imposing $46,500 in summary administrative penalties for failing to file its pension plan's Annual Information Return and Financial Statements on time.

The filings were 215 days late.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the appellant had a history of late filings and had ignored multiple warnings from the regulator.

The Tribunal confirmed the order, holding that the penalties were properly calculated under the prescribed regulations and were appropriate to promote compliance with the Pension Benefits Act.

The respondent brought a motion for summary dismissal after the self-represented applicants missed two scheduled pre-hearing conferences without notice.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The applicants subsequently provided doctor's notes and written submissions explaining the absences.

The Tribunal found it just to provide the applicants with another opportunity to proceed toward a hearing, dismissing the motion on the condition that the applicants attend future scheduled events and meet deadlines.

The Applicants filed a Request for Hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to impose a compliance order and administrative penalties.

After failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing conference and indicating an unwillingness to continue participating, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Applicants failed to provide written submissions showing reasonable cause for their non-attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Hearing pursuant to section 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Rule 35.01 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Applicant requested a review or variance of a pre-hearing conference order to allow for the late filing of reply submissions on a motion regarding jurisdiction.

The Applicant had missed multiple extended deadlines and failed to attend the pre-hearing conference where the order was made.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the public interest in the finality of decisions and the need to maintain the integrity of Tribunal orders outweighed any prejudice to the Applicant.

The applicant, a former licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to dispute a Notice of Proposal to impose $82,500 in administrative penalties.

Over the course of nearly a year and six pre-hearing conferences, the applicant repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal orders, retain counsel, or provide medical evidence to support his requests for delay.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding for delay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, giving the applicant 30 days to comply.

The applicant failed to respond, and the Tribunal dismissed the request for hearing, ordering the imposition of the administrative penalties.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to amend the applicant's mortgage broker licence and impose an administrative penalty of $3,500 for failing to maintain E&O insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal but subsequently failed to attend three scheduled pre-hearing conferences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding.

As the applicant failed to provide written submissions showing reasonable cause for their non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the request for hearing.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose administrative penalties of $300,000 on the applicant for dealing in mortgages without a licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but subsequently failed to provide ordered disclosure and indicated it would take no further steps.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for delay.

As the applicant made no submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the penalties.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative penalty on the applicant.

The applicant filed a Request for Hearing after the 15-day statutory deadline had expired.

At a pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant conceded the late filing and did not challenge the Superintendent's refusal to waive the deadline.

The Tribunal ordered that it lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing in the matter.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an administrative monetary penalty of $4,000 against the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to facilitate an examination into whether she had errors and omissions insurance and whether she conducted business while unlicensed.

The Superintendent withdrew the second allegation and sought a $2,000 penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant failed to facilitate the examination by missing deadlines, providing inconsistent responses, and failing to provide the requested proof of insurance.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse his application for an insurance agent licence.

The applicant repeatedly failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders to provide documentary disclosure, witness statements, and input on an agreed statement of facts.

The Superintendent requested a dismissal for delay.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for hearing and ordered the Superintendent to refuse the licence application.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $4,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant health service provider for allegedly charging for services not provided.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the clinic's calendar and invoices, the Superintendent failed to prove that the billed services were not actually provided.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, filed a Request for Hearing regarding Notices of Proposal to refuse to renew his licence and impose administrative penalties.

The Superintendent raised a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the request was filed beyond the 15-day statutory deadline.

The applicant argued he had been locked out of his home and failed to update his address with the regulator.

The Tribunal held that licensees have a strict obligation to maintain an updated mailing address.

Since the notices were properly delivered by registered mail to the address on file, and the applicant failed to file within the time limit without the Superintendent's consent to waive it, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Request for Hearing was dismissed.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant was unsuitable to remain licensed as a mortgage broker but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.

The Tribunal considered fresh evidence, including an affidavit demonstrating genuine remorse and rehabilitation, and letters of support.

Noting that the applicant had already served a 14-month de facto suspension and that the revocation order severely impacted his ability to earn income from registering mortgages, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension already served was a proportional penalty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reinstate the applicant's license subject to conditions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,000 on the applicant for contravening the Insurance Act.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend the pre-hearing conference and the scheduled hearing.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the proceeding due to the applicant's non-attendance and directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty against a life insurance agent for failing to respond to a mandatory market conduct questionnaire.

The agent requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while the agent breached the Insurance Act by failing to respond, imposing the penalty was not appropriate due to the agent's extreme personal and family hardships at the time, including the severe illness and frequent hospitalization of his infant son.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $2,000 on a mortgage brokerage for failing to disclose the number of lenders it represented and for improperly paying a commission to a broker affiliated with another brokerage.

The brokerage requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the proposed penalties were excessive.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the contraventions resulted from negligence and that the penalties were appropriate for general and specific deterrence.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $2,000 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $5,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for seven contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 and its regulations.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, admitting the contraventions but arguing the penalties were excessive due to personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the penalties were appropriate to promote general and specific deterrence and that the applicant's personal circumstances did not excuse the failure to comply with strict regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $5,500 penalties.