John Solursh

The applicants requested a hearing regarding a proposal to revoke their mortgage administrator licence.

The proceeding was held in abeyance while the individual applicant was incarcerated for criminal fraud.

After his release, the applicants failed to take steps to proceed, failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference, and failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing for undue delay and failure to appear.

The appellant, a licensed life insurance agent, appealed an order suspending his licence for nine months and imposing conditions for 24 months.

The order was based on a finding of unsuitability stemming from prior disciplinary proceedings by the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) for selling unapproved financial products and borrowing money from a client.

The Financial Services Tribunal determined that the applicable standard of review for the appeal was reasonableness.

The Tribunal found that the Director's findings of unsuitability and the imposed penalty were reasonable, subject to striking one unenforceable condition regarding a discharged bankruptcy and modifying an indefinite employment restriction.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain continuous errors and omissions (E&O) insurance coverage for a period of approximately nine months.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,600.

The Applicant requested a hearing, acknowledging the contravention but seeking a reduction in the penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the contravention was intentional, the Applicant derived an economic benefit by avoiding premiums, and the proposed penalty was appropriate to deter non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $1,600 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty on the applicant.

The applicant filed a Request for Hearing outside the 15-day statutory time limit under the Insurance Act.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the request without a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the request was filed late and that it had no jurisdiction to proceed because the Superintendent did not consent to waive the time limit under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The motion was granted and the request for hearing was dismissed.

The applicant filed a Request for Review of a previous Tribunal decision regarding her pension benefits.

She argued that she was entitled to immediate vesting and a transfer of her deferred pension to a locked-in RRSP based on the terms of the pension plan and subsequent amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was attempting to reargue the case and that her new arguments regarding immediate vesting failed because she did not meet the statutory requirement of 24 months of continuous membership, and the legislative amendments were not retroactive.

The applicant challenged the calculation and transfer of her defined contribution pension account following the termination of her employment.

She argued her employment ended on the date of her termination meeting, making subsequent pension deductions unauthorized, and that her funds should have been transferred to a locked-in RRSP.

The Tribunal found that her employment continued through her statutory notice period, making the deductions valid.

Furthermore, because she had less than two years of plan membership, the Pension Benefits Act and the plan text did not require the funds to be transferred to a locked-in account.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The applicant filed a motion requesting disclosure of certain documents and information from the added party, Holcim, regarding contributions and withdrawals from her pension plan.

The Tribunal treated the requests as interrogatories and document production requests under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information had either already been provided, was irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding, or offended the principle of proportionality.

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 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 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 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 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 applicant, a registered real estate brokerage, applied for and received a mortgage brokerage licence but failed to obtain the required errors and omissions insurance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was reckless in failing to comply with the insurance requirement and upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty, while noting the parties' agreement regarding the potential surrender or revocation of the licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for his brokerage and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain insurance, justifying the revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty, finding it appropriate to promote compliance with the Act.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, justifying the licence revocation.

The Tribunal also upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals unless the applicant provided proof of insurance by a specified date.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the Superintendent's proposal to revoke her mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent proposed revocation after discovering the applicant had been convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and failed to disclose these convictions on her licence application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct and her provision of false information on her application demonstrated she was not suitable to be licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The applicant, a former member of a pension plan, sought to transfer the commuted value of his pension to a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the transfer because the applicant was eligible for an immediate pension and his annual benefit exceeded the statutory threshold for a lump sum payment.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Superintendent's proposal was premature, as the plan administrator had discretion to permit the transfer.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to ascertain whether the plan administrator would exercise its discretion to allow the transfer before making a final decision.

The applicant requested a review of the Tribunal's July 11, 2005 order regarding the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan.

The request was filed slightly past the 10-day deadline, but the Tribunal agreed to consider it as the respondent did not object.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any material error of law or fact that would have led to a different decision.

The request for review was denied and the original order was confirmed.