Christopher Portner

The Respondent brought two motions to consolidate proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The first motion sought to combine separate proceedings initiated by the applicants in response to a second Notice of Proposal (NOP2).

The second motion sought to combine the consolidated NOP2 proceeding with an earlier proceeding relating to a first Notice of Proposal (NOP1).

The Tribunal granted the first motion, finding significant commonality of facts and law among the NOP2 applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the second motion, finding little commonality between NOP1 and NOP2, and noting that combining them would cause prejudice and undue delay to the NOP1 proceeding.

Following the dismissal of three motions brought by the applicants, the parties consented to a costs order.

The Financial Services Tribunal ordered the applicants to pay $2,000 in costs to the respondent within 60 days.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance for two periods totaling 14.5 months due to a serious illness.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $2,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing the penalty was excessive given his illness and the fact that he had not written any policies for seven years.

The Tribunal found that while an AMP was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit, the proposed amount did not account for the exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a reduced AMP of $1,000.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

After participating in a pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant failed to comply with the agreed-upon timetable, failed to respond to communications from the respondent, and failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing for delay pursuant to Rule 34.03 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $4,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant health service provider for allegedly charging for services not provided.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the clinic's calendar and invoices, the Superintendent failed to prove that the billed services were not actually provided.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.