Kathryn M. Bush

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposed Cease and Desist Order against the applicants, alleging they were trafficking in life insurance policies without a license by selling viatical settlement purchase programs.

The applicants requested a hearing and challenged the Financial Services Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the programs did not constitute 'insurance undertaken in Ontario'.

The Tribunal found that the assignment of benefits under an American life insurance policy is a chose in action, not a contract of insurance.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and declared the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal of no force or effect.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises Limited to fund a deficit arising from the partial wind-up of its pension plan.

Dustbane argued that the plan was a multi-employer pension plan and that its distributors were separate employers liable for their respective shares of the deficit.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements for a multi-employer pension plan, as there were no written participation agreements and the plan was not administered as such.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposed order, making Dustbane solely liable for the deficit.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to appeal the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to a withdrawal from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Tribunal applied the formula set out in subsection 88(2) of Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act.

Because the applicant's assets exceeded the amount applied for, the formula resulted in no amount being eligible for withdrawal.

The application was dismissed and the Superintendent's refusal was affirmed.

The employer requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent related to a partial wind-up report of its pension plan.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the employer withdrew its request.

The union, which had been granted party status, applied for an award of costs against the employer.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious, and that the delay caused by the change of position was not unnecessary or unreasonable.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for advertising illegal insurance products on their website.

The applicants requested a hearing to challenge the requirement that the corrective website notice specifically name the unlicensed entities involved.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's requirement to include the specific names, but modified the notice wording on consent to clarify that the warning was based on advice from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to respond to interrogatories regarding the delay in processing a partial wind-up application for a pension plan.

The Superintendent refused to answer, arguing the reasons for delay were irrelevant.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied the Monsanto test and ordered the Superintendent to answer the interrogatories, finding that the issue of delay was arguably relevant as it had been included in the agreed Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum.