Elizabeth Shilton

The applicant filed a request for a hearing regarding a notice of proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the request because it was filed beyond the 15-day statutory time limit under the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed late and that it had no jurisdiction to waive the time limit without the consent of all parties, which the respondent refused.

The request for a hearing was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Hearing 73 days after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty, well beyond the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent had already issued the final order before the request was filed.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the statutory time limit had expired without consent to waive it, and there is no statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal from an order already issued by the Superintendent.

The appellant filed a Request for Review of the Tribunal's Notice of Dismissal, which had dismissed her Notice of Appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the threshold test under its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires an applicant to put forward new evidence or arguments not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant merely repeated arguments previously made and dismissed.

Consequently, the Request for Review was dismissed for failing to meet the threshold test.

The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal challenging an order of the Superintendent of Financial Services regarding the administration of her pension plan.

The appellant had previously challenged the Superintendent's Notice of Intended Decision, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, and her subsequent requests for review were also denied.

The Tribunal dismissed the current Notice of Appeal, finding that there is no statutory basis under the Pension Benefits Act for an appeal to the Tribunal from an order issued under section 87, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Applicant claimed entitlement to a deferred pension based on his employment with the company from 1970 to 1982, arguing he was a continuous member of the pension plan despite a brief break in service in 1975.

The Plan administrator and the Superintendent of Financial Services took the position that the Applicant received a Cash Refund Benefit when he terminated his employment in 1982, extinguishing any further entitlement.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, concluding on a balance of probabilities that he had received a Cash Refund Benefit in 1982 and that his benefits were not locked in under the Plan or the Pension Benefits Act because he was under 45 years of age at the time of termination.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant withdrew her request for a hearing regarding spousal pension benefits while experiencing considerable distress during the proceeding.

The following day, she requested to reopen the matter and rescind her withdrawal.

The respondent and added party did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the motion to rescind the withdrawal, noting the unique circumstances and the applicant's apparent distress.

The Tribunal also rescinded the permanent sealing and anonymization orders pending the recommencement of the hearing.

The added party, Canada Life, brought a motion for a confidentiality order to prevent the public disclosure of lists of deferred vested pension plan members it intended to file as evidence.

The applicant and the Superintendent consented to the motion.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a confidentiality order was not necessary because the privacy interests of the non-parties could be fully protected by filing redacted versions of the lists.

The Tribunal emphasized the strong public interest in open proceedings and held that consent of the parties cannot override this principle where reasonable alternative measures exist.

SCI Group Inc. brought a motion to add an estoppel issue to the pending hearing regarding the Superintendent's refusal to consent to a pension asset transfer from the BCE Plan to the Progistix Plan.

SCI also sought additional documentary production from BCE related to the estoppel issue.

BCE opposed the motion, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider estoppel and that there was no factual basis for the claim.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider estoppel under the Pension Benefits Act and found it premature to dismiss the issue on its factual merits.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the estoppel issue and ordered limited production of documents relevant to the alleged representations.

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 sought an early retirement pension from the Rio Tinto Alcan pension plan.

He had left Alcan in 1999 when his division was sold to Eaglebrook, and later became an employee of Kemira when Eaglebrook sold the business.

Alcan refused the pension application, arguing that under s. 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the applicant was deemed to be continuously employed by a successor employer and could not collect a pension until he retired from Kemira.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that s. 80(3) did not bar the applicant from claiming his pension at age 55, as Alcan had explicitly agreed to this option at the time of the original sale in compliance with an order from the Régie des rentes du Québec.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order Alcan to commence payment of the pension.

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.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Financial Services Tribunal considered applications for party status and a motion by the unrepresented applicant to convert the proceeding from an oral to a written hearing.

The Tribunal granted limited party status to two organizations but dismissed the other applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion for a written hearing, finding that the presence of contested expert evidence constituted good reason to maintain an oral hearing to allow for cross-examination, despite the applicant's concerns about being unrepresented.

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

The applicant mistakenly believed his insurance as an associate broker with another brokerage covered his sole proprietorship.

The Tribunal found the applicant was non-compliant but noted the regulator's failure to respond to his specific inquiries.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the revocation immediately, giving the applicant two weeks to surrender the licence, and reduced the administrative penalty to $500.

The applicant requested a hearing to review the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant had mistakenly applied for a brokerage licence instead of a broker licence, believing he was covered under his employer's insurance.

The Tribunal found that while the penalty was justified due to the applicant's negligence in understanding the licensing requirements, the $1,000 standardized penalty was excessive given his lack of intent to evade the law.

The Tribunal reduced the penalty to $250.

The Implementing Administrator of a wound-up pension plan brought a motion seeking party status and clarification regarding the implementation of a Claims Bar Procedure established in a prior consent order.

The Financial Services Tribunal granted the Implementing Administrator limited party status to address implementation issues.

The Tribunal also provided guidance, confirming that the Administrator's proposed practical steps for distributing Member Profile Statements and processing claims, despite incomplete data and the unavailability of the Revised Windup Report, complied with the intent of the original order.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse his mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not respond to communications.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the application pursuant to Rules 37.01 and 37.02, giving the applicant 30 days to make written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant union requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services declined to order partial wind ups of two pension plans.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to require the partial wind ups of the plans, effective June 30, 2007, covering members who ceased employment between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007.

The order was stayed pending the employer's appeal to the Divisional Court regarding whether the plans are subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.