Patrick Longhurst

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 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 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 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 Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $5,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for seven contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 and its regulations.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, admitting the contraventions but arguing the penalties were excessive due to personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that the penalties were appropriate to promote general and specific deterrence and that the applicant's personal circumstances did not excuse the failure to comply with strict regulatory requirements.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $5,500 penalties.

The self-represented applicant withdrew her request for a hearing regarding spousal pension benefits while experiencing considerable distress during the proceeding.

The following day, she requested to reopen the matter and rescind her withdrawal.

The respondent and added party did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the motion to rescind the withdrawal, noting the unique circumstances and the applicant's apparent distress.

The Tribunal also rescinded the permanent sealing and anonymization orders pending the recommencement of the hearing.

SCI Group Inc. brought a motion to add an estoppel issue to the pending hearing regarding the Superintendent's refusal to consent to a pension asset transfer from the BCE Plan to the Progistix Plan.

SCI also sought additional documentary production from BCE related to the estoppel issue.

BCE opposed the motion, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider estoppel and that there was no factual basis for the claim.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider estoppel under the Pension Benefits Act and found it premature to dismiss the issue on its factual merits.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the estoppel issue and ordered limited production of documents relevant to the alleged representations.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a second time.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing it believed its licence had been surrendered and thus insurance was not required.

The Tribunal found the applicant's belief that the licence was surrendered was genuine and reasonable, meaning the failure to maintain insurance was not intentional, reckless, or negligent.

The Tribunal reduced the administrative penalty to $1,000 and ordered a six-month licence suspension instead of revocation.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $3,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation and found that the proposed penalty of $3,000 was appropriate, given the applicant's negligence, the potential harm to the public, and the economic benefit derived from not paying insurance premiums.

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.