Ian McSweeney

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority brought a motion to stay an order of the Financial Services Tribunal pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the CEO to issue an insurance agent licence to the responding party on conditions, despite a Notice of Proposal to refuse the licence.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal to revoke his life insurance and accident and sickness insurance agent licence.

During pre-hearing conferences, the applicant's licence expired and he confirmed he did not intend to renew it or proceed with a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding pursuant to subsection 407.1(8) of the Insurance Act and directed the respondent to issue a final order carrying out the Notice of Proposal.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' Charter motion to exclude evidence gathered under a summons, the respondent sought costs.

The parties subsequently agreed to a costs order of $500 against the applicants.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the applicants to pay $500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to issue him an insurance agent licence with conditions, based on ongoing Law Society disciplinary proceedings.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to exclude the Law Society decisions from evidence and, alternatively, to adduce evidence challenging the underlying facts of those decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the Law Society decisions as relevant evidence and held that challenging their underlying facts would constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.

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 Applicant, a licensed insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance coverage for an eleven-month period from April 2014 to February 2015.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $1,650.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant contravened the Insurance Act and that the proposed AMP was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $1,650 AMP.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance for 7.5 months after leaving his sponsoring insurer.

He mistakenly believed his licence and insurance obligations were automatically suspended.

The Superintendent proposed a $1,300 administrative monetary penalty.

The Tribunal found that an AMP was appropriate but reduced the quantum to $750, noting the applicant's honest but negligent mistake, the lack of actual harm, and the minimal economic benefit derived from unpaid premiums.

The Applicant, a paralegal facing professional misconduct allegations from the Law Society, applied for an insurance agent licence.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to issue the licence with conditions based on the Law Society proceedings.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking particulars of the evidence the Superintendent intended to rely on and an order that the Superintendent was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 449 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Superintendent had been transparent in relying on the Law Society proceeding as a whole, and that the limitation period applies only to prosecutions for offences, not to the issuance of licences.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion to adjourn a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to issue a conditional insurance agent licence to the applicant.

The Superintendent argued the hearing should be adjourned sine die until a pending Law Society disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, a licensed paralegal, was finalized.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the uncertainty of the Law Society proceeding's outcome was no different than when the Notice of Proposal was originally issued, and that the issues regarding the applicant's suitability for a licence remained live and relevant.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse a service provider's licence to the applicant because its proposed principal representative had allegedly failed to fulfill regulatory duties for a previous employer.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the representative had left the previous employer before the application naming her was filed, and she was unaware of the designation.

The Tribunal concluded she was not burdened with the responsibilities of a principal representative unknowingly and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

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 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, 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, 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.