Paul Farley

The Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority brought a motion to stay an order of the Financial Services Tribunal pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Tribunal had previously ordered the CEO to issue an insurance agent licence to the responding party on conditions, despite a Notice of Proposal to refuse the licence.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the Tribunal found there was a serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm to the public interest if the stay was not granted, and that the balance of convenience favoured the regulator.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The applicant filed a request for a hearing to challenge a Notice of Proposal to impose a $20,000 administrative penalty for paying compensation to a non-licensee.

After a history of adjournments and failures to attend pre-hearing conferences, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing, which had been set peremptory on him.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied Rule 35.01 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to dismiss the proceeding without further hearing and without notice, ordering the CEO to carry out the Notice of Proposal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker and agent licences of the applicants.

The applicants requested a hearing, but their licences expired before the hearing took place and were not renewed.

The Chief Executive Officer of FSRA brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to revoke the expired licences.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Notice of Proposal had become moot, and dismissed the proceedings pertaining to the individual applicants.

The applicant brought a motion for the recusal of the adjudicator from hearing another recusal motion.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator should recuse himself from hearing the motion for his own recusal due to an apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator declined to recuse himself, finding that the law is well-settled that it is up to the individual adjudicator whose recusal is sought to make the decision on the recusal motion.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to challenge the Superintendent's refusal to order the Ontario Pension Board to transfer his pension to the federal Public Service Pension Plan and pay him the excess commuted value.

The applicant argued he was treated unfairly compared to plan members under age 55.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, as neither the Superintendent nor the Tribunal has authority to compel the federal government or the Federal Plan to accept a pension transfer.

The Superintendent was ordered to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision.

The applicant filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a decision of the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the request and gave the applicant 30 days to make written submissions.

The applicant failed to make any submissions within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the Request for Hearing be dismissed.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to issue him an insurance agent licence with conditions, based on ongoing Law Society disciplinary proceedings.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to exclude the Law Society decisions from evidence and, alternatively, to adduce evidence challenging the underlying facts of those decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the Law Society decisions as relevant evidence and held that challenging their underlying facts would constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $20,000 administrative penalty on the applicant for acting as an insurance agent without a valid licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but subsequently failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding unless reasonable cause was shown.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or explanation for his non-attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to Rule 35.02 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Applicant, a paralegal facing professional misconduct allegations from the Law Society, applied for an insurance agent licence.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to issue the licence with conditions based on the Law Society proceedings.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking particulars of the evidence the Superintendent intended to rely on and an order that the Superintendent was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 449 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Superintendent had been transparent in relying on the Law Society proceeding as a whole, and that the limitation period applies only to prosecutions for offences, not to the issuance of licences.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion to adjourn a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to issue a conditional insurance agent licence to the applicant.

The Superintendent argued the hearing should be adjourned sine die until a pending Law Society disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, a licensed paralegal, was finalized.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the uncertainty of the Law Society proceeding's outcome was no different than when the Notice of Proposal was originally issued, and that the issues regarding the applicant's suitability for a licence remained live and relevant.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse a service provider's licence to the applicant because its proposed principal representative had allegedly failed to fulfill regulatory duties for a previous employer.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the representative had left the previous employer before the application naming her was filed, and she was unaware of the designation.

The Tribunal concluded she was not burdened with the responsibilities of a principal representative unknowingly and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

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 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 Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the renewal of the applicant's insurance agent licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding for failure to show reasonable cause for not participating.