Paul Litner

The York University Faculty Association sought to have the Financial Services Tribunal hear an issue regarding mid-year retirees that was not included in the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the issue, as the Superintendent had not made a preliminary inquiry or decision on the matter.

The Tribunal declined to exercise any discretion to hear the issue as one of first impression, noting the applicant could still request the Superintendent to make an order under section 87 of the Pension Benefits Act.

The applicant, a mortgage agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to suspend her licence and impose conditions due to a prior criminal conviction for title fraud.

The Tribunal conducted a hearing de novo and applied the Henderson factors to assess her suitability.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, which occurred during a severe domestic dispute, did not make her unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to suspend the licence but ordered the imposition of modified supervisory conditions to protect the public interest.

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

The applicant mistakenly believed his insurance as an associate broker with another brokerage covered his sole proprietorship.

The Tribunal found the applicant was non-compliant but noted the regulator's failure to respond to his specific inquiries.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the revocation immediately, giving the applicant two weeks to surrender the licence, and reduced the administrative penalty to $500.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to revoke her mortgage agent licence.

The Superintendent alleged she did not meet the educational requirements and made a false statement on her application regarding her prior experience to claim an exemption.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the strict notice requirements for the exemption, but concluded she honestly believed her statement was true.

Finding revocation too severe, the Tribunal ordered a 120-day suspension to allow her to complete the required education program.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker registration of the corporate applicant.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued oral reasons upholding the Superintendent's proposal and directing the revocation of the registration, with written reasons to follow.