Deborah McPhail

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to challenge the Superintendent's refusal to order the Ontario Pension Board to transfer his pension to the federal Public Service Pension Plan and pay him the excess commuted value.

The applicant argued he was treated unfairly compared to plan members under age 55.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, as neither the Superintendent nor the Tribunal has authority to compel the federal government or the Federal Plan to accept a pension transfer.

The Superintendent was ordered to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to issue him an insurance agent licence with conditions, based on ongoing Law Society disciplinary proceedings.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to exclude the Law Society decisions from evidence and, alternatively, to adduce evidence challenging the underlying facts of those decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the Law Society decisions as relevant evidence and held that challenging their underlying facts would constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Before the hearing could take place, the applicant's licence expired without renewal.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding without a hearing on the basis of mootness, as it lacked jurisdiction to determine whether to revoke an expired licence.

Receiving no relevant submissions from the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the request for a hearing.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an administrative monetary penalty of $4,000 against the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to facilitate an examination into whether she had errors and omissions insurance and whether she conducted business while unlicensed.

The Superintendent withdrew the second allegation and sought a $2,000 penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant failed to facilitate the examination by missing deadlines, providing inconsistent responses, and failing to provide the requested proof of insurance.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $20,000 administrative penalty on the applicant for acting as an insurance agent without a valid licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but subsequently failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding unless reasonable cause was shown.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions or explanation for his non-attendance.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing pursuant to Rule 35.02 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Applicant, a paralegal facing professional misconduct allegations from the Law Society, applied for an insurance agent licence.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to issue the licence with conditions based on the Law Society proceedings.

The Applicant brought a motion seeking particulars of the evidence the Superintendent intended to rely on and an order that the Superintendent was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period under section 449 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Superintendent had been transparent in relying on the Law Society proceeding as a whole, and that the limitation period applies only to prosecutions for offences, not to the issuance of licences.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage broker licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $25,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened multiple requirements of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, including giving false information, dealing in mortgages outside his brokerage, receiving fees from clients directly, carrying on unlicensed mortgage lending through his own company, and putting his brokerages at risk of non-compliance.

The Tribunal also found the applicant made false statements on his licence renewal applications regarding his bankruptcy and complaint history.

Concluding that the applicant was no longer suitable to be licensed and that his conduct involved an intentional scheme to defraud vulnerable borrowers, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of his licence and the imposition of $25,000 in administrative penalties.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion to adjourn a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to issue a conditional insurance agent licence to the applicant.

The Superintendent argued the hearing should be adjourned sine die until a pending Law Society disciplinary proceeding against the applicant, a licensed paralegal, was finalized.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the uncertainty of the Law Society proceeding's outcome was no different than when the Notice of Proposal was originally issued, and that the issues regarding the applicant's suitability for a licence remained live and relevant.

The appellant, a licensed life insurance agent, appealed an order suspending his licence for nine months and imposing conditions for 24 months.

The order was based on a finding of unsuitability stemming from prior disciplinary proceedings by the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA) for selling unapproved financial products and borrowing money from a client.

The Financial Services Tribunal determined that the applicable standard of review for the appeal was reasonableness.

The Tribunal found that the Director's findings of unsuitability and the imposed penalty were reasonable, subject to striking one unenforceable condition regarding a discharged bankruptcy and modifying an indefinite employment restriction.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, filed a Request for Hearing regarding Notices of Proposal to refuse to renew his licence and impose administrative penalties.

The Superintendent raised a preliminary motion arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the request was filed beyond the 15-day statutory deadline.

The applicant argued he had been locked out of his home and failed to update his address with the regulator.

The Tribunal held that licensees have a strict obligation to maintain an updated mailing address.

Since the notices were properly delivered by registered mail to the address on file, and the applicant failed to file within the time limit without the Superintendent's consent to waive it, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Request for Hearing was dismissed.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant was unsuitable to remain licensed as a mortgage broker but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.

The Tribunal considered fresh evidence, including an affidavit demonstrating genuine remorse and rehabilitation, and letters of support.

Noting that the applicant had already served a 14-month de facto suspension and that the revocation order severely impacted his ability to earn income from registering mortgages, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension already served was a proportional penalty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reinstate the applicant's license subject to conditions.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, appealed a decision suspending his licence for nine months and imposing conditions for a further 24 months.

He brought a motion for a stay of the suspension order pending the determination of his appeal.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the Financial Services Tribunal found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish that he would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were denied.

The evidence of potential job loss was speculative, and the balance of convenience favoured protecting the public interest.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant requested a hearing to direct the Superintendent of Financial Services to order his former employer to permit him to retroactively purchase pensionable service.

The applicant argued that the employer contravened section 25 of the Pension Benefits Act by failing to provide him with information about his eligibility to join the pension plan when his employment was transferred following an asset sale.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was already eligible to join the predecessor plan, knew of his continuing eligibility, and had previously waived membership.

Consequently, section 25 did not apply to him.

The Tribunal concluded there was no contravention of the Act and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision refusing the order.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,000 on the applicant for contravening the Insurance Act.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend the pre-hearing conference and the scheduled hearing.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the proceeding due to the applicant's non-attendance and directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.

The appellant filed a Request for Review of the Tribunal's Notice of Dismissal, which had dismissed her Notice of Appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal applied the threshold test under its Rules of Practice and Procedure, which requires an applicant to put forward new evidence or arguments not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

The Tribunal found that the appellant merely repeated arguments previously made and dismissed.

Consequently, the Request for Review was dismissed for failing to meet the threshold test.

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 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 filed a motion requesting disclosure of certain documents and information from the added party, Holcim, regarding contributions and withdrawals from her pension plan.

The Tribunal treated the requests as interrogatories and document production requests under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information had either already been provided, was irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding, or offended the principle of proportionality.

The self-represented applicant filed a Request for Review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision regarding the University of Toronto Pension Plan.

Although the applicant missed the filing deadline by a few hours, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Review on the merits, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The applicant merely attempted to reargue issues already decided and did not present any new evidence or arguments that were not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.