Ralph Scane

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 issued Notices of Proposal to revoke Future Financial Inc.'s mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required Errors and Omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the principal broker was distracted by family health issues.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the failure to maintain insurance was highly negligent and that the applicant had operated while uninsured.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals, imposing the penalty and revoking the licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for allegedly committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) by marketing an insurance product that did not exist.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' promotional materials falsely indicated that home and auto insurance coverage would be provided by Lloyd's Canada through Chesterfield, which constituted a UDAP.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to cease and refrain from making statements that they could arrange insurance coverage until a valid contract of insurance was in place.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,500 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was grossly negligent in failing to renew its insurance but noted no actual harm occurred as the applicant was not conducting business.

The Tribunal increased the administrative penalty to $4,000 due to the premium savings and extreme carelessness, but declined to revoke the licence, finding the increased penalty sufficient to protect the public interest.

The Applicant requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, and suggested clarifications to the decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review, finding that the Applicant was merely attempting to reargue her case and had not established any material errors of fact or law.

The Tribunal also declined to issue supplementary reasons to clarify the decision, noting that it was functus officio, though it did correct minor clerical errors pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant, a retired member of the OMERS pension plan, challenged an amendment to the plan that changed the method used to calculate inflation indexing.

The applicant argued that the amendment reduced her accrued pension benefits, contrary to section 14(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, because the new method produced a lower increase in the year it was implemented.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the new method was actuarially equivalent to the old method and would produce the same level of inflation protection over time.

The Tribunal held that the amendment did not reduce the aggregate amount or the commuted value of the applicant's accrued pension.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing to dispute a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty proposed by the Superintendent of Financial Services for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant's principal broker argued for mitigation based on severe personal and family difficulties that affected his ability to function.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the failure to obtain insurance was intentional and that personal difficulties or impecuniosity did not excuse the non-compliance.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the standard $1,000 penalty.

The 111 Pension Rights Association brought a motion to add section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act as an alternative ground for the proposed partial wind up of the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan.

The Superintendent's Notice of Proposal had only relied on section 69(1)(e).

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Superintendent to order a wind up on a basis that the Superintendent had not selected or fully investigated.

The Tribunal found that it could not review the Superintendent's purely investigative functions where no quasi-judicial decision had been made.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to obtain and maintain errors and omissions liability insurance as required by the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was in contravention of the Act, communication errors by the Superintendent's office hindered the applicant's attempt to surrender his licence before formal prosecution began.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to assess a reduced administrative monetary penalty of $400.

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 applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the requirement to maintain insurance from July 2008 to March 2009.

Applying the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke her licence and impose an administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant surrendered her licence, withdrawing her request regarding the revocation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement and that an administrative penalty was justified to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

Applying the regulatory criteria, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing to review 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 had mistakenly applied for a brokerage licence instead of a broker licence, believing he was covered under his employer's insurance.

The Tribunal found that while the penalty was justified due to the applicant's negligence in understanding the licensing requirements, the $1,000 standardized penalty was excessive given his lack of intent to evade the law.

The Tribunal reduced the penalty to $250.

The Implementing Administrator of a wound-up pension plan brought a motion seeking party status and clarification regarding the implementation of a Claims Bar Procedure established in a prior consent order.

The Financial Services Tribunal granted the Implementing Administrator limited party status to address implementation issues.

The Tribunal also provided guidance, confirming that the Administrator's proposed practical steps for distributing Member Profile Statements and processing claims, despite incomplete data and the unavailability of the Revised Windup Report, complied with the intent of the original order.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse his mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not respond to communications.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the application pursuant to Rules 37.01 and 37.02, giving the applicant 30 days to make written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The Financial Services Tribunal held a hearing to consider the approval of Minutes of Settlement regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan and the distribution of surplus.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, added affected members as parties, and ordered the applicant to file an amendment to the plan and a surplus withdrawal application.

The Superintendent was directed to issue a Notice of Proposal approving the application.

The Society of Energy Professionals brought a motion to correct an alleged misstatement in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the partial wind up of the Hydro One Pension Plan.

The Tribunal accepted that it had misunderstood counsel's position during argument and agreed to correct the decision.

The Tribunal also corrected a typographical error, replacing the word 'interlocutory' with 'interrogatory'.