Heather Gavin

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 retired member of a defined benefit pension plan, challenged the cessation date of his bridge benefit.

He argued that the bridge benefit should continue until his Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security payments commenced, rather than ceasing on the first day of the month prior to his 65th birthday.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the bridge benefit was paid in accordance with the clear terms of the pension plan, which stipulated cessation on the first of the month prior to the attainment of age 65.

The Tribunal also held that the plan terms were consistent with the Pension Benefits Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

The application was dismissed and the Superintendent's Notice of Intended Decision to refuse an order was upheld.

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 brought a motion before the Financial Services Tribunal seeking an order to compel the union to respond to 27 interrogatories and produce two documents.

The underlying dispute concerned the applicant's pension entitlements and access to an early retirement window following her dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the majority of the interrogatories related to the applicant's employment grievance rather than the pension issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and thus failed the Monsanto test for arguable relevance.

The remaining interrogatories were either already answered or lacked sufficient particularization.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened the Act by failing to maintain the required insurance, that the failure was intentional and negligent, and that the applicant demonstrated ungovernability.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence and impose the $3,000 penalty.

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 an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for allegedly committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) by marketing an insurance product that did not exist.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' promotional materials falsely indicated that home and auto insurance coverage would be provided by Lloyd's Canada through Chesterfield, which constituted a UDAP.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to cease and refrain from making statements that they could arrange insurance coverage until a valid contract of insurance was in place.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty against 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 but failed to attend.

The Financial Services Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence, found that the applicant contravened the requirement to maintain insurance, and concluded that the proposed $1,500 penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter future contraventions.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $2,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant admitted the lapse in coverage but argued the failure was inadvertent and pleaded inability to pay.

The Tribunal found the failure was negligent but not intentional, and noted there was evidence of only one transaction during the uninsured period.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a reduced administrative penalty of $1,500.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence based on past conduct involving the facilitation of investments with a third party who subsequently disappeared with the funds.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acted recklessly, placed himself in a conflict of interest, and failed to disclose material information to his clients.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not deal in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

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

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the contraventions were established.

It ordered the imposition of administrative penalties totalling $2,000 ($1,500 for the insurance contravention and $500 for the failure to respond).

The Tribunal declined to order the revocation of the licence, noting the applicant had applied to surrender it, but ordered the licence suspended until the surrender was accepted.

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 111 Pension Rights Association brought a motion to add section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act as an alternative ground for the proposed partial wind up of the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan.

The Superintendent's Notice of Proposal had only relied on section 69(1)(e).

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Superintendent to order a wind up on a basis that the Superintendent had not selected or fully investigated.

The Tribunal found that it could not review the Superintendent's purely investigative functions where no quasi-judicial decision had been made.

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

The applicant argued he mistakenly believed his real estate insurance was sufficient and had attempted to surrender his mortgage brokerage licence upon realizing the error.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, his prompt actions to rectify the situation and honest belief that he had surrendered his licence warranted a reduction in the penalty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a reduced administrative penalty of $250.

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 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 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 after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse his application for a mortgage agent's licence.

The proposal was based on the applicant's prior conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his failure to disclose this conviction on his application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's involvement in the drug offence was inadvertent and that his failure to disclose the conviction was an innocent misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding of the pardon process.

Concluding that the applicant was suitable to hold a licence, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the mortgage agent's licence.

The Society of Energy Professionals brought a motion to correct an alleged misstatement in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the partial wind up of the Hydro One Pension Plan.

The Tribunal accepted that it had misunderstood counsel's position during argument and agreed to correct the decision.

The Tribunal also corrected a typographical error, replacing the word 'interlocutory' with 'interrogatory'.