Colin McNairn

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant argued financial hardship and non-receipt of notices due to a change of address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to maintain the insurance and failed to notify the Superintendent of its address change.

The Tribunal confirmed the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the requirement to maintain the insurance and that his failure was negligent.

The Tribunal confirmed the Superintendent's proposal and directed the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty.

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, a registered real estate brokerage, applied for and received a mortgage brokerage licence but failed to obtain the required errors and omissions insurance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was reckless in failing to comply with the insurance requirement and upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty, while noting the parties' agreement regarding the potential surrender or revocation of the licence.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, justifying a penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the applicant's honest belief that existing insurance was sufficient and their efforts to rectify the situation, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reduce the penalty to $500.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain insurance and acted recklessly by not informing itself of the requirements or securing insurance after being notified.

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

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 before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for his brokerage and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain insurance, justifying the revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty, finding it appropriate to promote compliance with the Act.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, justifying the licence revocation.

The Tribunal also upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals unless the applicant provided proof of insurance by a specified date.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse his application for a mortgage agent's licence.

The proposal was based on the applicant's prior conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his failure to disclose this conviction on his application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's involvement in the drug offence was inadvertent and that his failure to disclose the conviction was an innocent misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding of the pardon process.

Concluding that the applicant was suitable to hold a licence, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the mortgage agent's licence.

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 applicant employer wound up a pension plan and made a lump sum contribution to fund the estimated deficit.

Once all benefit obligations were settled, it was determined the employer had overpaid by $145,361.

The employer applied to the Superintendent for a return of the overpayment under s. 78(4) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of time under s. 105.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application, arguing the excess constituted surplus subject to s. 79 and that the application was out of time.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the excess was an overpayment, that s. 78(4) operates independently of s. 79, and that an extension of time was warranted.

The Superintendent was ordered to consent to the refund.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement between Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., the Superintendent of Financial Services, and a group of former employees regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The settlement provided for the distribution of wind-up surplus and 'grow-in' benefits to affected members.

Upon approval of the revised report, the applicant's request for a hearing was withdrawn, and the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal was withdrawn.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against Executive Barter Exchange Inc. and its principals for promoting insurance products of unlicensed insurers.

The respondents requested a hearing but subsequently agreed to a consent order.

The Financial Services Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately cease advertising unlicensed insurance, post a warning notice on their website, provide information regarding their insurance-related transactions to the Superintendent, and repay any insurance monies collected from the public.