John M. Solursh

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 Intended Decision to partially wind up the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan following the relocation of the applicant's head office.

The applicant reached settlements with all affected members except the respondent, who sought a partial wind-up to receive enhanced pension benefits from the plan rather than a lump sum payment directly from the applicant.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to order a partial wind-up, finding that the applicant's irrevocable offer of a lump sum payment provided the respondent with the equivalent value of any additional benefits she would have received upon a partial wind-up.

The appellant filed an appeal of a decision revoking his life insurance agent licence after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent refused to consent to an extension of time.

The Tribunal held that under section 4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it lacks jurisdiction to extend the time limit for filing an appeal without the consent of all parties.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant obtained a mortgage brokerage licence but failed to acquire the required errors and omissions insurance due to financial constraints and a lack of business.

He eventually surrendered his licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an administrative penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to obtain the insurance, deriving a modest economic benefit by avoiding the premium.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

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, a licensed mortgage broker, failed to obtain the required errors and omissions insurance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke his licence and impose an administrative penalty.

The applicant surrendered his licence and requested a hearing regarding the penalty amount, seeking a reduction to $250.

The Financial Services Tribunal considered the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation and directed the Superintendent to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000 to secure compliance and prevent the applicant from deriving an economic benefit from his failure to pay insurance premiums.

The applicant requested a hearing to review the Superintendent's proposal to revoke its mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant surrendered its licence and consented to the $1,000 penalty, acknowledging that its real estate insurance through RECO did not cover mortgage services.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty on consent.

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.

The applicant, a former member of a multi-employer pension plan, challenged the calculation of his pension benefits and the composition of the Board of Trustees.

He argued that his pension should have been calculated based on a 2% defined contribution formula and that the plan was not a multi-employer plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal confirmed the Superintendent's proposal to refuse to order a recalculation, finding that the pension was correctly calculated under the plan's defined benefit formula and that there was no evidence of improper board composition or retroactive reduction of benefits.