Craig Brown

The applicant sought a new mortgage broker's licence 14 months after her previous licence was revoked for submitting false income information on mortgage applications.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

At the hearing, the applicant argued that domestic violence was the root cause of her past misconduct and that her circumstances had materially changed.

The Tribunal found that the domestic violence evidence was available at the original hearing and did not excuse the fraudulent conduct.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a full understanding of the seriousness of her past actions, as she continued to minimize her misconduct to investigators and prospective employers.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse the application was upheld.

The Applicant sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the renewal of his insurance agent licence.

The Superintendent alleged that the Applicant submitted five fraudulent continuing education certificates with his renewal application.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had not completed the required 30 hours of continuing education and had purchased the fraudulent certificates from a third party without completing any coursework.

Applying the Henderson factors, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant's conduct demonstrated untrustworthiness and a lack of integrity, rendering him unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refuse to renew the licence.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance for 7.5 months after leaving his sponsoring insurer.

He mistakenly believed his licence and insurance obligations were automatically suspended.

The Superintendent proposed a $1,300 administrative monetary penalty.

The Tribunal found that an AMP was appropriate but reduced the quantum to $750, noting the applicant's honest but negligent mistake, the lack of actual harm, and the minimal economic benefit derived from unpaid premiums.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed chronic pain syndrome and reactive depression.

The insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after she failed to complete a functional restoration program, arguing she was physically capable of working and her failure to cooperate was wilful.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's failure to participate in therapy was not wilful but rather a symptom of her accident-induced depression and pain.

Consequently, the applicant was entitled to weekly income benefits under section 12(1) of the Schedule until the 156-week mark, and under section 12(5)(b) until September 30, 1995, by which time she had sufficiently recovered psychologically to participate in rehabilitation.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's reliance on medical opinions to terminate benefits was not unreasonable.