3 total
Human rights application alleging racial discrimination by insurance broker regulator dismissed at summary hearing.
The applicant, a former insurance broker, alleged that the provincial regulatory body discriminated against him on the basis of race, colour, place of origin, and ethnic origin.
He claimed that the regulator disciplined him but did not discipline Caucasian brokers in similar circumstances, and that it unfairly enforced its 'two market' requirement.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any evidence that would establish a link between the regulator's actions and the alleged prohibited grounds of discrimination.
The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.
Request for interim remedy to operate insurance brokerage without required contracted markets dismissed.
The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents regarding discipline and the revocation of an employee's license.
The applicant sought an interim remedy to operate an insurance brokerage without the required two contracted insurance markets for up to two years.
The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the balance of harm did not favour granting the remedy, as it would allow the applicant to bypass established regulatory requirements and create an extraordinary new state of affairs.
Appeal dismissed; requirement for insurance brokers to maintain two contracted markets is a reasonable interpretation of regulations.
The appellant insurance broker appealed the revocation of its certificate by the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.
The certificate was revoked because the appellant failed to maintain at least two contracted markets, as required by the Qualification Guidelines.
The appellant argued the Guidelines contradicted the Registered Insurance Brokers Act and were beyond the Committee's jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the requirement was a reasonable interpretation of the regulation and the Guidelines were discretionary rather than mandatory.
