Florence Holden

The self-represented applicant filed a Request for Review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision regarding the University of Toronto Pension Plan.

Although the applicant missed the filing deadline by a few hours, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Review on the merits, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The applicant merely attempted to reargue issues already decided and did not present any new evidence or arguments that were not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services issued a notice of proposal to impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the penalty amount was disproportionate because the brokerage had not conducted any business and had voluntarily surrendered its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the $3,000 penalty, finding that the contraventions were reckless or negligent, that the brokerage derived an economic benefit from avoiding premiums, and that the penalty was necessary for specific and general deterrence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $3,000 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a period of five and a half months.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing that the penalty should be waived or reduced to the equivalent of the unpaid premiums.

The Tribunal upheld the $3,000 penalty, finding that the applicant's failure to maintain insurance was intentional and reckless, that it was a repeat offence, and that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and remove economic benefit.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose administrative penalties for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance and failing to respond to inquiries.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally and recklessly failed to maintain the required insurance for over 33 months and failed to respond to the regulator.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to revoke the licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $5,000.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence and answered 'no' to a question about prior criminal convictions, believing she had received a pardon for a 1999 conviction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the licence on the basis that she provided false information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant's false statement was inadvertent and based on a plausible, albeit mistaken, belief that a solicitor had obtained a pardon on her behalf.

The Tribunal concluded that the false statement did not afford reasonable grounds to believe she was unsuitable to be licensed and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

The applicant sought to purchase past service credits in the OPSEU Pension Plan for casual employment prior to 1979.

He had previously applied to buy back this service in 1979 under the predecessor plan but failed to complete the process within the required timeframe.

When the 1989 Public Service Pension Act came into force, it provided a time-limited window until December 31, 1991, for members to purchase prior non-credited service.

The applicant did not apply within this window.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to refuse an order directing the Plan to allow the purchase, finding that the applicant failed to meet the mandatory statutory deadline and that the Tribunal had no authority to waive the Plan's terms.