Jeffrey Richardson

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to challenge the Superintendent's refusal to order the Ontario Pension Board to transfer his pension to the federal Public Service Pension Plan and pay him the excess commuted value.

The applicant argued he was treated unfairly compared to plan members under age 55.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, as neither the Superintendent nor the Tribunal has authority to compel the federal government or the Federal Plan to accept a pension transfer.

The Superintendent was ordered to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision.

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The applicant sought a new mortgage broker's licence 14 months after her previous licence was revoked for submitting false income information on mortgage applications.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application.

At the hearing, the applicant argued that domestic violence was the root cause of her past misconduct and that her circumstances had materially changed.

The Tribunal found that the domestic violence evidence was available at the original hearing and did not excuse the fraudulent conduct.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a full understanding of the seriousness of her past actions, as she continued to minimize her misconduct to investigators and prospective employers.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse the application was upheld.

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 applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application based on the applicant's prior criminal conviction for identity theft while employed at a bank.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Applying the Henderson criteria, the Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated a consistent and prolonged pattern of reformed behaviour since the misconduct occurred over six years prior.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence subject to strict supervisory conditions.

The applicant applied to renew his life insurance agent licence but failed to respond to multiple requests from the Superintendent for information regarding his employment history, errors and omissions insurance, and continuing education.

The Superintendent issued a proposal to refuse the application.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal but failed to appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements to provide information, rendering him unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refuse the licence renewal.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant was unsuitable to remain licensed as a mortgage broker but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.

The Tribunal considered fresh evidence, including an affidavit demonstrating genuine remorse and rehabilitation, and letters of support.

Noting that the applicant had already served a 14-month de facto suspension and that the revocation order severely impacted his ability to earn income from registering mortgages, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension already served was a proportional penalty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reinstate the applicant's license subject to conditions.

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 maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance for approximately 10.5 months after leaving the industry without formally surrendering his licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $1,800.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant contravened the E&O requirement and that an AMP was appropriate to promote compliance.

However, considering the Applicant's negligence rather than intentional misconduct, the minimal potential harm, and the modest economic benefit derived, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $1,000.

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.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $2,000 on a mortgage brokerage for failing to disclose the number of lenders it represented and for improperly paying a commission to a broker affiliated with another brokerage.

The brokerage requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the proposed penalties were excessive.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the contraventions resulted from negligence and that the penalties were appropriate for general and specific deterrence.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $2,000 penalty.

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 applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Intended Decision to partially wind up the Mine Safety Appliances Company Canadian Pension Plan.

On consent of the parties, the Financial Services Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the partial wind up order, with an effective date of August 1, 2000, and excluding four specific individuals.

The Tribunal further ordered the applicant to file an updated partial wind up report for approval and to fully fund the partial wind up.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance for approximately 17.5 months.

The applicant admitted the non-compliance but argued the penalty should be reduced to the cost of the insurance premium, as the lapse was unintentional due to an office relocation.

The Tribunal upheld the $2,500 penalty, finding that a penalty equal only to the premium cost would not serve as an adequate deterrent and that the applicant had conducted mortgage business during the uninsured period, creating potential harm to the public.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a seven-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing it was inactive and intended to suspend its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the brokerage contravened the Act, as the insurance requirement attaches to the licence regardless of business activity.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the $1,500 penalty.

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 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.

Following a decision on the partial wind-up of a pension plan, the applicant sought costs against the respondent.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the costs claim, finding that the respondent's conduct during the hearing was reasonable and did not meet the criteria for a costs award under Rule 45.01.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that it could not award costs for the fees of the applicant's representative, who was not licensed under the Law Society Act, as doing so would contravene public policy.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to revoke her mortgage agent licence.

The Superintendent alleged she did not meet the educational requirements and made a false statement on her application regarding her prior experience to claim an exemption.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the strict notice requirements for the exemption, but concluded she honestly believed her statement was true.

Finding revocation too severe, the Tribunal ordered a 120-day suspension to allow her to complete the required education program.