Colin H.H. McNairn

The appellant appealed an order revoking his Level II life insurance agent's licence and applied for a stay of the order pending the appeal.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied the three-part test for granting a stay.

The Tribunal found that the risk of harm to the public if the stay were granted, given the appellant's past misconduct and risk of recidivism, outweighed the irreparable harm the appellant would suffer from being unable to earn a livelihood as an agent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued interim cease and desist orders against the applicants, a paralegal and his company, alleging operational misconduct and failure to cooperate with an investigation into their statutory accident benefit representation.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found no operational misconduct but concluded the applicants engaged in regulatory accountability misconduct by failing to comply with formal requests for information and breaching the interim orders.

The Tribunal determined it had the authority to issue a time-limited cease and desist order and imposed a one-year order prohibiting the applicants from acting as statutory accident benefit representatives.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superintendent of Financial Services denying his application for a life insurance agent's licence because he failed the qualifying examination.

The appellant argued that the passing grade was unfairly raised from 50% to 60% without notice to him, and that this breached his Charter rights.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superintendent had no duty to notify the appellant of the change in the passing grade and that no Charter rights were infringed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board to pay a member's pension as a joint and survivor pension.

The member and his spouse separated shortly after his retirement but before the first pension payment was made.

The Board requested a hearing, arguing the spouses were living separate and apart on the date the first instalment was due, triggering an exception under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Financial Services Tribunal agreed with the Board, finding that the due date for the first instalment was at the end of the month, by which time the spouses had separated.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the proposed order.

The applicant, CBS Canada Co., and the Superintendent of Financial Services, along with the CAW-Canada, reached a settlement regarding the partial wind-up of the Westinghouse Canada Inc. Pension Plans following several plant closures.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement, which detailed the calculation of early retirement benefits for affected plan members and the withdrawal of the Superintendent's Notices of Proposal to refuse the partial wind-up reports.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion for an order directing Imperial Oil Limited to answer interrogatories in a proceeding concerning the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The Tribunal applied the test for pre-hearing disclosure and found that while member-specific information was not relevant, general statistical information about the employment status of certain plan members was arguably relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to provide answers to revised interrogatories seeking statistical information within six weeks.

The applicant, Imperial Oil Limited, brought a motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to provide further and better answers to interrogatories and to produce documents related to the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The applicant sought information regarding the Superintendent's past practices on partial wind ups, specifically concerning the inclusion of certain employee categories and the calculation of grow-in benefits.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories based on a representative sample of files processed between January 1993 and October 2000, balancing the relevance of the information against the hardship of reviewing all files.

The appellant appealed the revocation of his Level II life insurance agent's licence by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The revocation followed an Advisory Board hearing regarding the appellant's dishonest conduct, which included borrowing money from a client, failing to repay it, and providing fraudulent statements regarding a supposed investment policy.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Superintendent's decision, as the hearing was fair and the decision had a reasonable basis.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the nature of the notice to be provided for a hearing regarding its application to withdraw surplus from a pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services had proposed to refuse the application.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the hearing be provided by ordinary mail to all affected members and former members of the plan, as well as by newspaper publication, with the costs to be borne by the applicant.

The Executive Committee of the London Life Members' Committee sought an award of costs against London Life following a decision directing the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The Members' Committee argued that London Life failed to provide full and accurate information and advanced unreasonable positions.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that London Life's arguments were not patently unreasonable and its delays in providing information did not justify an award of costs under the Tribunal's exceptional circumstances standard.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Director of Licensing and Enforcement revoking his level II life insurance agent's licence.

The revocation followed findings that the appellant had borrowed money from clients, misappropriated funds, forged signatures, and used confidential information for personal loans.

The appellant sought to substitute a one-year suspension for the revocation.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the initial hearing and concluding that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified given the serious nature of the appellant's conduct.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship, citing a written demand from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for an income tax debt.

The applicant argued that the debt could eventually be secured against her principal residence, leading to eviction.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application because the debt was not currently secured against the residence.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the regulation requires the debt to be currently secured against the principal residence, and the Tribunal lacks authority to expand the grounds for financial hardship.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in account on the basis of financial hardship, relying on a final notice from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency regarding an income tax debt.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the application because the debt was not secured against the applicant's principal residence.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, finding that the possibility of the tax debt becoming a lien in the future did not satisfy the regulatory requirement that the debt be currently secured against the principal residence.

The respondents requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to order a partial wind up of the applicant's pension plan.

The respondents argued the decision failed to address the inclusion of voluntarily terminated employees and the impact of office closures and amalgamations in 1995 and 1997.

The Tribunal declined to review its decision, finding that both issues were premature and could be addressed through subsequent administrative processes or further hearings if necessary.

The applicant applied to the Superintendent of Financial Services for withdrawal of money from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse consent because the circumstances did not meet the prescribed requirements under the regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to consent to an application that did not meet the statutory requirements, despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse her application to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent found that the applicant's expected income exceeded the qualifying low income amount under the Regulation.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that it lacked the authority to allow a withdrawal that did not meet the prescribed statutory requirements, despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a partial wind up of the employer's pension plan following a corporate reorganization in 1996 that resulted in the involuntary termination of 384 administrative employees.

The employer requested a hearing, arguing that the number of terminations was not significant.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that 384 terminations, representing approximately 12.8% to 14.9% of the active administrative plan members, constituted a significant number under section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order the partial wind up for the period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.

The applicant made three successive applications to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent approved the first application but proposed to refuse the second and third applications because the regulation permits only one such application per 12-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent, finding that the Superintendent had no authority to approve a second application based on low income within 12 months of the first successful application.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse approval of a partial wind-up report for a pension plan.

The report failed to provide for special early retirement pensions under section 7.3 of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the special early retirement pension was an 'ancillary benefit' under the Pension Benefits Act, and that the employer's consent required by the plan was deemed to be given upon partial wind-up pursuant to subsection 74(7) of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse approval of the report.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for advertising illegal insurance products on their website.

The applicants requested a hearing to challenge the requirement that the corrective website notice specifically name the unlicensed entities involved.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's requirement to include the specific names, but modified the notice wording on consent to clarify that the warning was based on advice from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.