Shiraz Bharmal

The applicant filed a Request for Review of a previous Tribunal decision regarding her pension benefits.

She argued that she was entitled to immediate vesting and a transfer of her deferred pension to a locked-in RRSP based on the terms of the pension plan and subsequent amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was attempting to reargue the case and that her new arguments regarding immediate vesting failed because she did not meet the statutory requirement of 24 months of continuous membership, and the legislative amendments were not retroactive.

The applicant challenged the calculation and transfer of her defined contribution pension account following the termination of her employment.

She argued her employment ended on the date of her termination meeting, making subsequent pension deductions unauthorized, and that her funds should have been transferred to a locked-in RRSP.

The Tribunal found that her employment continued through her statutory notice period, making the deductions valid.

Furthermore, because she had less than two years of plan membership, the Pension Benefits Act and the plan text did not require the funds to be transferred to a locked-in account.

The application was dismissed without costs.

The Applicant claimed entitlement to a deferred pension based on his employment with the company from 1970 to 1982, arguing he was a continuous member of the pension plan despite a brief break in service in 1975.

The Plan administrator and the Superintendent of Financial Services took the position that the Applicant received a Cash Refund Benefit when he terminated his employment in 1982, extinguishing any further entitlement.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, concluding on a balance of probabilities that he had received a Cash Refund Benefit in 1982 and that his benefits were not locked in under the Plan or the Pension Benefits Act because he was under 45 years of age at the time of termination.

The application was dismissed.

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.

The Applicant, a retired member of a defined benefit pension plan, challenged the cessation date of his bridge benefit.

He argued that the bridge benefit should continue until his Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security payments commenced, rather than ceasing on the first day of the month prior to his 65th birthday.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the bridge benefit was paid in accordance with the clear terms of the pension plan, which stipulated cessation on the first of the month prior to the attainment of age 65.

The Tribunal also held that the plan terms were consistent with the Pension Benefits Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

The application was dismissed and the Superintendent's Notice of Intended Decision to refuse an order was upheld.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter back to the Financial Services Tribunal to reconsider its order revoking the applicant's mortgage agent licence, specifically to provide reasons why revocation was appropriate instead of a lesser penalty.

The Tribunal reviewed written submissions and confirmed its original order of revocation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, which resulted in significant financial losses for three clients due to his reckless disregard for their interests, demonstrated he was unsuitable to remain licensed.

The Tribunal concluded that a suspension would not adequately protect the public and that revocation was a proportional response.

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 applicant sought an early retirement pension from the Rio Tinto Alcan pension plan.

He had left Alcan in 1999 when his division was sold to Eaglebrook, and later became an employee of Kemira when Eaglebrook sold the business.

Alcan refused the pension application, arguing that under s. 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the applicant was deemed to be continuously employed by a successor employer and could not collect a pension until he retired from Kemira.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that s. 80(3) did not bar the applicant from claiming his pension at age 55, as Alcan had explicitly agreed to this option at the time of the original sale in compliance with an order from the Régie des rentes du Québec.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order Alcan to commence payment of the pension.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence based on past conduct involving the facilitation of investments with a third party who subsequently disappeared with the funds.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acted recklessly, placed himself in a conflict of interest, and failed to disclose material information to his clients.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not deal in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose administrative penalties for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance and failing to respond to inquiries.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally and recklessly failed to maintain the required insurance for over 33 months and failed to respond to the regulator.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to revoke the licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $5,000.

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 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 mortgage brokerage requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The brokerage obtained a license but did not conduct business, mistakenly believing its existing real estate insurance was sufficient.

The Tribunal found that the brokerage breached the requirement to maintain insurance and, applying the regulatory criteria, concluded that the $1,000 penalty was appropriate given the negligence and the economic benefit derived from unpaid premiums.

The applicant, a former member of a wound-up pension plan, claimed he elected to receive a monthly pension and did not receive the commuted value of his pension.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse to make an order under the Pension Benefits Act, asserting the applicant's pension entitlement was transferred to a locked-in RRSP in 1990.

Applying the best evidence rule due to incomplete records, the Tribunal evaluated banking documents, statements from the funding agent, and the applicant's testimony.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the applicant had received the commuted value of his pension into a locked-in RRSP, discharging the administrator's obligations.

The applicant's request was dismissed.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence and answered 'no' to a question about prior criminal convictions, believing she had received a pardon for a 1999 conviction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the licence on the basis that she provided false information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant's false statement was inadvertent and based on a plausible, albeit mistaken, belief that a solicitor had obtained a pardon on her behalf.

The Tribunal concluded that the false statement did not afford reasonable grounds to believe she was unsuitable to be licensed and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the Superintendent's proposal to revoke her mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent proposed revocation after discovering the applicant had been convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and failed to disclose these convictions on her licence application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct and her provision of false information on her application demonstrated she was not suitable to be licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

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 applicant, a former member of a pension plan, sought to transfer the commuted value of his pension to a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the transfer because the applicant was eligible for an immediate pension and his annual benefit exceeded the statutory threshold for a lump sum payment.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Superintendent's proposal was premature, as the plan administrator had discretion to permit the transfer.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to ascertain whether the plan administrator would exercise its discretion to allow the transfer before making a final decision.

The applicant union requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services declined to order partial wind ups of two pension plans.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to require the partial wind ups of the plans, effective June 30, 2007, covering members who ceased employment between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007.

The order was stayed pending the employer's appeal to the Divisional Court regarding whether the plans are subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.

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'.