Florence A. Holden

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over 14 months.

The applicant admitted to the failure but argued she was unaware of the penalty and had not conducted business during that time.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter others, noting that the applicant saved on premiums during the uninsured period.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $2,000 penalty as proposed.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke its mortgage brokerage licence.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the applicant consistently failed to comply with prior orders regarding the service and filing of documents.

As no submissions were received in response to the Notice, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Renewal of the applicant's mortgage broker licence.

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

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The applicant claimed he did not receive the conference call, but the Tribunal rejected this explanation as the panel Chair witnessed multiple attempts to contact him at the provided numbers.

The proceeding was dismissed.

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 filed an incomplete Request for Hearing in response to a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application for a mortgage broker licence.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss after the Applicant failed to respond to communications.

The Applicant subsequently retained counsel and filed submissions.

The Tribunal granted the Applicant an extension of time to file a completed Request for Hearing, noting the potential financial consequences of a licence refusal and the lack of immediate harm to the public since the Applicant was not currently licensed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,700 on the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over a year.

The applicant requested a hearing but conceded she did not maintain the required coverage, believing it was unnecessary while she was inactive in the industry.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter others, noting that agents cannot suspend coverage while licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $1,700 penalty.

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, whose employment was terminated due to a plant closure, requested a hearing to challenge the Superintendent's Notice of Intended Decision refusing to order the recalculation of his pension benefits.

The Applicant argued he was entitled to multiple unreduced early retirement pensions under the pension plan and the Pension Benefits Act.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant had received the maximum value of his pension benefits, including an unreduced early retirement pension and bridge benefits, and was not entitled to duplicate pension streams.

The Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's decision and awarded nominal costs of $500 against the self-represented Applicant for pursuing a manifestly unfounded claim.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Licence issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing conference and failed to respond to repeated attempts by the Tribunal to reschedule.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the request for a hearing without further notice pursuant to Rule 35.01 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,250 on the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to maintain continuous errors and omissions insurance for a four-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing that health issues and a lack of funds in his commission account caused the lapse.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant failed to maintain the required coverage and that his health issues did not preclude him from renewing his insurance or surrendering his licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the proposed penalty, emphasizing the importance of general deterrence and consumer protection.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's service provider licence for failing to file an annual information return and pay the related fee.

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

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

After considering the applicant's written submissions, which cited personal complications but provided no explanation for missing the conference, the Tribunal allowed the proceeding to continue subject to strict conditions regarding future attendance and compliance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the service provider licence of the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal beyond the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the hearing request for lack of jurisdiction due to the late filing.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed late, the statutory deadline was not met, and the Superintendent did not consent to waive the deadline.

Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hold a hearing and dismissed the request.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to respond to a mandatory online market conduct questionnaire issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services, despite multiple reminders and deadline extensions.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

Following a hearing, the Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant negligently failed to comply with her statutory duty to provide requested information.

The Tribunal concluded that the proposed penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing to direct the Superintendent of Financial Services to order his former employer to permit him to retroactively purchase pensionable service.

The applicant argued that the employer contravened section 25 of the Pension Benefits Act by failing to provide him with information about his eligibility to join the pension plan when his employment was transferred following an asset sale.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was already eligible to join the predecessor plan, knew of his continuing eligibility, and had previously waived membership.

Consequently, section 25 did not apply to him.

The Tribunal concluded there was no contravention of the Act and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision refusing the order.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to complete a mandatory market conduct questionnaire issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing but conceded he failed to provide the requested information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found the penalty appropriate to promote compliance and upheld the $1,000 amount, noting the applicant's failure was intentional and frustrated the regulator's mandate.

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, failed to complete a mandatory market conduct questionnaire despite multiple reminders from the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing, conceding the contravention but disputing the penalty amount.

The Financial Services Tribunal found the contravention intentional and upheld the $1,000 penalty to promote statutory compliance, noting the failure to respond increases regulatory costs and frustrates the regulator's mandate.

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

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide the requested information, but reduced the penalty to $500 because her failure was negligent rather than intentional, she was not actively working in the industry at the time, and she derived no economic benefit from the contravention.

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.

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

The respondent filed a Request for Hearing after the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the request for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the 15-day deadline is a procedural requirement that can only be waived on consent of the parties.

As the Superintendent did not consent to the late filing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.