Joe Nemet

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to complete a mandatory market conduct questionnaire issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing but conceded he failed to provide the requested information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found the penalty appropriate to promote compliance and upheld the $1,000 amount, noting the applicant's failure was intentional and frustrated the regulator's mandate.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain continuous errors and omissions (E&O) insurance coverage for a period of approximately nine months.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,600.

The Applicant requested a hearing, acknowledging the contravention but seeking a reduction in the penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the contravention was intentional, the Applicant derived an economic benefit by avoiding premiums, and the proposed penalty was appropriate to deter non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $1,600 penalty.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a director's delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's finding that the insurer's refusal to designate the respondent as catastrophically impaired did not trigger the two-year limitation period under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness, rejecting the insurer's argument for correctness.

The Court found the director's delegate reasonably concluded that a catastrophic impairment determination is not a benefit itself, and the insurer's denial letter did not constitute a clear and unequivocal refusal of a benefit.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision upholding an Arbitrator's finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent had recorded a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 several days after a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer argued was confounded by medication and other injuries rather than brain impairment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the standard of review is reasonableness and that the SABS regulation uses the GCS score as a proxy measurement without requiring an inquiry into the patient's prognosis or the specific cause of the lowered score.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision upholding an arbitrator's award for private school tuition and a special award for unreasonably withholding benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court found the Delegate's broad interpretation of 'incurred' and 'undertaken' under s. 15 of SABS was reasonable.

The court also upheld the finding that the insurer unreasonably denied benefits by relying on flawed expert reports and ignoring the insured's future needs.

The court fixed the quantum of the special award at $20,000.

The applicant insurance company sought judicial review of a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) decision regarding the applicable interest rate on overdue Statutory Accident Benefits.

The central issue was the interpretation of transitional provisions between the old and new Statutory Accident Benefits Schedules for amounts becoming overdue after September 1, 2010.

The Divisional Court determined the standard of review was reasonableness, as the Tribunal was interpreting its home statute.

The Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded that the 2% interest rate under the old regulation continued to apply to amounts that became overdue after September 1, 2010.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued Notices of Proposal to revoke Future Financial Inc.'s mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required Errors and Omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the principal broker was distracted by family health issues.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the failure to maintain insurance was highly negligent and that the applicant had operated while uninsured.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals, imposing the penalty and revoking the licence.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance for approximately 17.5 months.

The applicant admitted the non-compliance but argued the penalty should be reduced to the cost of the insurance premium, as the lapse was unintentional due to an office relocation.

The Tribunal upheld the $2,500 penalty, finding that a penalty equal only to the premium cost would not serve as an adequate deterrent and that the applicant had conducted mortgage business during the uninsured period, creating potential harm to the public.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a seven-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing it was inactive and intended to suspend its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the brokerage contravened the Act, as the insurance requirement attaches to the licence regardless of business activity.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the $1,500 penalty.

The applicant, an insurance agent, filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment and reprisal against an investigator for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO).

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's allegations of collusion, discriminatory investigation, and reprisal were based on speculation and lacked an evidentiary foundation.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.

The applicants argued breaches of procedural fairness, incorrect application of the burden of proof, improper judicial notice, and failure to accept uncontradicted medical evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's decision reasonable in all respects.

The court affirmed that the burden of proof rests on the insured to establish entitlement to benefits and does not shift to the insurer.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's decision.

The respondent was injured in an accident and subsequently filed an amended tax return reporting previously unreported income.

The Director's Delegate held that under s. 64.1(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the respondent was entitled to have his income replacement benefits adjusted to reflect the higher income reported in the amended return.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the standard of review was reasonableness and that the Director's Delegate's interpretation of s. 64.1(2) was both reasonable and correct.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision, affirmed by the Director's Delegate, awarding costs against him personally in a Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) arbitration.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review.

The court found no denial of procedural fairness, as the applicant had notice and an opportunity to respond.

The court upheld the arbitrator's finding that the applicant caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause, and dismissed the application with costs.

The applicant sought to introduce fresh evidence on an application for judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which had upheld an Arbitrator's decision.

The Director's Delegate had previously refused to admit the applicant's affidavit because it failed the Palmer test, as the evidence was available during the arbitration.

The Divisional Court agreed, refusing to admit the affidavit for the purposes of the application.

The court allowed certain other documents to be referenced on consent of the parties, but excluded the accompanying affidavit.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant surrendered its licence, leaving only the penalty at issue.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant negligently failed to obtain the required insurance, justifying a penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors, including the applicant's mistaken belief that its real estate insurance was sufficient and its lack of actual mortgage brokerage business, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $250.

The applicant obtained a mortgage brokerage licence but failed to acquire the required errors and omissions insurance due to financial constraints and a lack of business.

He eventually surrendered his licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an administrative penalty.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to obtain the insurance, deriving a modest economic benefit by avoiding the premium.

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

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's refusal to declare a mistrial and recuse himself from a statutory accident benefits arbitration.

The applicant argued that the arbitrator's exposure to settlement offers and off-the-record discussions during an emotional outburst by the self-represented respondent created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitrator's knowledge of settlement information did not automatically mandate a mistrial and that his handling of the situation did not raise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

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 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 (E&O) insurance.

The applicant had mistakenly believed his real estate E&O insurance was sufficient and faced personal difficulties that delayed his response to the regulator.

The Tribunal found that while a penalty was justified to promote compliance, mitigating factors warranted reducing the penalty amount to $500.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld two arbitrators' refusals to order independent medical examinations of the respondent claimant.

The arbitrators had denied the insurer's requests primarily due to the insurer's delay in seeking the examinations until the eve of or during the arbitration hearings.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrators had properly exercised their discretion to refuse the examinations in the interests of fairness and preventing delay.