Denis Boivin

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend his licence for three months.

The parties agreed that the Applicant failed to complete his required continuing education credits for five consecutive licensing periods and made false statements on two licence renewal applications regarding the completion of those credits.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's repeated failure to comply with continuing education requirements and his provision of false information justified the proposed sanction.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to suspend the Applicant's licence for a period of three months.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Before the hearing could take place, the applicant's licence expired without renewal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding without a hearing on the basis of mootness, as it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether to revoke an expired licence.

Receiving no relevant submissions from the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the request for a hearing.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage broker licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $25,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened multiple requirements of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, including giving false information, dealing in mortgages outside his brokerage, receiving fees from clients directly, carrying on unlicensed mortgage lending through his own company, and putting his brokerages at risk of non-compliance.

The Tribunal also found the applicant made false statements on his licence renewal applications regarding his bankruptcy and complaint history.

Concluding that the applicant was no longer suitable to be licensed and that his conduct involved an intentional scheme to defraud vulnerable borrowers, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of his licence and the imposition of $25,000 in administrative penalties.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage agent, received Notices of Proposal to revoke his licence and impose an administrative monetary penalty.

He filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal 22 days after deemed receipt of the notices, missing the 15-day statutory deadline under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Superintendent did not consent to waive the procedural time limit.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline or conduct a hearing without the Superintendent's consent, and dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

The appellant, a licensed life insurance agent, appealed an order suspending his licence for nine months and imposing conditions for 24 months.

The order was based on a finding of unsuitability stemming from prior disciplinary proceedings by the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) for selling unapproved financial products and borrowing money from a client.

The Financial Services Tribunal determined that the applicable standard of review for the appeal was reasonableness.

The Tribunal found that the Director's findings of unsuitability and the imposed penalty were reasonable, subject to striking one unenforceable condition regarding a discharged bankruptcy and modifying an indefinite employment restriction.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for 16.5 months.

The Applicant claimed she had given money to a friend to renew the policy and was unaware it had lapsed, later discovering the friend had provided a falsified certificate of coverage.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant breached the requirement to maintain insurance and that she could not delegate her statutory obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $2,500 penalty, emphasizing general deterrence and the Applicant's negligence.

The applicants requested a review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision that ordered the revocation of their mortgage broker and brokerage licences for providing false documents to a bank.

The Tribunal denied the request for review, finding that the applicants failed to meet the threshold test of providing new evidence or arguments not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing, and were merely attempting to reargue their case.

The applicant applied to renew his life insurance agent licence but failed to respond to multiple requests from the Superintendent for information regarding his employment history, errors and omissions insurance, and continuing education.

The Superintendent issued a proposal to refuse the application.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal but failed to appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements to provide information, rendering him unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refuse the licence renewal.

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 proposed to revoke the mortgage brokerage licence of MSF Group Inc. and the mortgage broker licence of Lilia Reznik for providing false income and employment documents to Scotiabank in support of five mortgage applications.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicants knowingly provided false documents, contravening sections 43(1) and 43(2) of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants' past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that they would not deal in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, rendering them unsuitable to be licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the revocation of both licences.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, appealed a decision suspending his licence for nine months and imposing conditions for a further 24 months.

He brought a motion for a stay of the suspension order pending the determination of his appeal.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Financial Services Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were denied.

The evidence of potential job loss was speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Applicant, a licensed mortgage agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the Applicant failed to complete a mandatory online questionnaire, contrary to subsection 29(2) of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant breached the Act by failing to respond to multiple emails and a registered letter.

However, considering the Applicant's uncontradicted medical evidence of depression and anxiety during the relevant period, the Tribunal found the contravention was negligent rather than intentional or reckless.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose a reduced penalty of $500.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim order suspending the applicants' mortgage brokerage and broker licences pending a proposal to revoke them.

The applicants sought to bring a motion to lift or stay the interim order.

The Superintendent raised a jurisdictional objection.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that it lacked the express or implied statutory authority under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 or the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997 to lift or stay an interim suspension order pending a hearing on the merits.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance for approximately 10.5 months after leaving the industry without formally surrendering his licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $1,800.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant contravened the E&O requirement and that an AMP was appropriate to promote compliance.

However, considering the Applicant's negligence rather than intentional misconduct, the minimal potential harm, and the modest economic benefit derived, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $1,000.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant, a life insurance agent, for failing to complete a mandatory online questionnaire.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing she did not see the emails as she was caring for a young child and her husband did not check her junk mail folder.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant negligently contravened the Insurance Act by failing to respond to the inquiry.

The Tribunal agreed with the Superintendent's amended proposal to reduce the penalty to $500, finding it proportional to the negligent, rather than intentional, nature of the breach.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the Applicant allegedly provided false, misleading, or incomplete information on her online licence renewal application regarding the termination of her previous registration as a Scholarship Plan Dealer.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant intentionally provided false and misleading answers, contravening subsection 447(2)(a) of the Insurance Act.

However, considering the relevant factors, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $1,500.

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 applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to review a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over a year while licensed.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to maintain the required coverage and derived an economic benefit from unpaid premiums.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal and impose the $1,500 penalty.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter back to the Financial Services Tribunal to reconsider its order revoking the applicant's mortgage agent licence, specifically to provide reasons why revocation was appropriate instead of a lesser penalty.

The Tribunal reviewed written submissions and confirmed its original order of revocation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, which resulted in significant financial losses for three clients due to his reckless disregard for their interests, demonstrated he was unsuitable to remain licensed.

The Tribunal concluded that a suspension would not adequately protect the public and that revocation was a proportional response.

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

The refusal was based on the applicant's past criminal conviction for drug trafficking, alleged false statements, and an allegedly misleading LinkedIn profile.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not make false statements and did not contravene the Act regarding the LinkedIn profile.

Applying the Henderson factors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct, which stemmed from a drug addiction that he had since addressed, did not render him unsuitable for licensing.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to issue the licence subject to conditions, including supervision by a licensed broker.