David Short

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued Notices of Proposal to revoke Future Financial Inc.'s mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required Errors and Omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the principal broker was distracted by family health issues.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the failure to maintain insurance was highly negligent and that the applicant had operated while uninsured.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals, imposing the penalty and revoking the licence.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance for approximately 17.5 months.

The applicant admitted the non-compliance but argued the penalty should be reduced to the cost of the insurance premium, as the lapse was unintentional due to an office relocation.

The Tribunal upheld the $2,500 penalty, finding that a penalty equal only to the premium cost would not serve as an adequate deterrent and that the applicant had conducted mortgage business during the uninsured period, creating potential harm to the public.

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 Applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant operated without the required insurance for a period of 19.5 months, constituting a second breach of the requirement.

Applying the statutory criteria, the Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's proposal and ordered the imposition of a $3,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The Ontario Pension Board (OPB) filed a request for review of a Tribunal decision after the 10-day time limit had expired.

The OPB sought to correct the record regarding its oral submissions, acknowledging the correction would not change the outcome.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no good reason for the delay and concluding the request lacked merit as it did not meet the threshold test for reviewing a final order.

The Applicant requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, and suggested clarifications to the decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review, finding that the Applicant was merely attempting to reargue her case and had not established any material errors of fact or law.

The Tribunal also declined to issue supplementary reasons to clarify the decision, noting that it was functus officio, though it did correct minor clerical errors pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant, a retired member of the OMERS pension plan, challenged an amendment to the plan that changed the method used to calculate inflation indexing.

The applicant argued that the amendment reduced her accrued pension benefits, contrary to section 14(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, because the new method produced a lower increase in the year it was implemented.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the new method was actuarially equivalent to the old method and would produce the same level of inflation protection over time.

The Tribunal held that the amendment did not reduce the aggregate amount or the commuted value of the applicant's accrued pension.

Following a decision on the partial wind-up of a pension plan, the applicant sought costs against the respondent.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the costs claim, finding that the respondent's conduct during the hearing was reasonable and did not meet the criteria for a costs award under Rule 45.01.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it could not award costs for the fees of the applicant's representative, who was not licensed under the Law Society Act, as doing so would contravene public policy.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions (E&O) insurance.

The applicant had mistakenly believed his real estate E&O insurance was sufficient and faced personal difficulties that delayed his response to the regulator.

The Tribunal found that while a penalty was justified to promote compliance, mitigating factors warranted reducing the penalty amount to $500.

The applicant, a mortgage agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to suspend her licence and impose conditions due to a prior criminal conviction for title fraud.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo and applied the Henderson factors to assess her suitability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, which occurred during a severe domestic dispute, did not make her unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to suspend the licence but ordered the imposition of modified supervisory conditions to protect the public interest.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to secure the required insurance and that an administrative penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit from non-compliance.

Applying the regulatory criteria, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, justifying a penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the applicant's honest belief that existing insurance was sufficient and their efforts to rectify the situation, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reduce the penalty to $500.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for his brokerage and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain insurance, justifying the revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty, finding it appropriate to promote compliance with the Act.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke its licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, justifying the licence revocation.

The Tribunal also upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals unless the applicant provided proof of insurance by a specified date.

The Financial Services Tribunal held a hearing to consider the approval of Minutes of Settlement regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan and the distribution of surplus.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, added affected members as parties, and ordered the applicant to file an amendment to the plan and a surplus withdrawal application.

The Superintendent was directed to issue a Notice of Proposal approving the application.

The applicant employer wound up a pension plan and made a lump sum contribution to fund the estimated deficit.

Once all benefit obligations were settled, it was determined the employer had overpaid by $145,361.

The employer applied to the Superintendent for a return of the overpayment under s. 78(4) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of time under s. 105.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application, arguing the excess constituted surplus subject to s. 79 and that the application was out of time.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the excess was an overpayment, that s. 78(4) operates independently of s. 79, and that an extension of time was warranted.

The Superintendent was ordered to consent to the refund.

The applicant employer sought consent to withdraw surplus funds from a wound-up pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initially proposed to refuse consent.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Superintendent to refrain from refusing consent and directing the payment of the surplus to the applicant in accordance with the Surplus Distribution Agreement.