4 total
Application for judicial review of ongoing regulatory investigation quashed as premature.
The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.
The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.
The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.
Motions to combine regulatory proceedings granted in part; unrelated proceedings kept separate to avoid delay.
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.
Motion to vary and judicial review dismissed; regulator's publication of enforcement proposal was reasonable and not premature.
The applicants, a licensed mortgage brokerage and its principal broker, sought to vary a motion judge's decision quashing their application for judicial review of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).
They also sought judicial review of FSRA's decisions to publish the Notice of Proposal on its website pursuant to its Transparency Guidance and to refuse to publish the applicants' Request for Hearing.
The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the application was premature.
The Court also dismissed the remaining judicial review application, holding that FSRA's publication decisions did not affect the applicants' legal rights and were not amenable to judicial review.
In any event, the Court found the decisions to be reasonable and consistent with FSRA's statutory objects.
Motion to quash judicial review partially granted; challenge to notice of proposal quashed as premature.
The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by the applicants, a mortgage broker and its principal.
The applicants sought to quash a notice of proposal issued by the regulator and challenged the regulator's decisions regarding the publication of the notice and its refusal to publish the applicants' response.
The Divisional Court quashed the portion of the application challenging the notice of proposal as premature, finding that the pending hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal provided an adequate alternative remedy.
However, the court declined to quash the claims relating to the regulator's publication decisions, finding it was not plain and obvious that those decisions were unreviewable or did not impair the applicants' legal rights.
The claim for mandamus regarding competitors was also quashed.
