Jill Wagman

The applicant sought a new mortgage broker's licence 14 months after her previous licence was revoked for submitting false income information on mortgage applications.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 issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $4,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant health service provider for allegedly charging for services not provided.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the clinic's calendar and invoices, the Superintendent failed to prove that the billed services were not actually provided.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.

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 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, 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.