John W. Goldsmith

The appellant appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario.

A previous order had imposed a penalty, suspended it on conditions, and specified that the penalty would take effect immediately if the conditions were breached.

When the appellant breached the conditions, the Committee imposed a harsher 15-month suspension instead of the prescribed penalty.

The Divisional Court found this unreasonable, as the breach was specifically contemplated by the previous order.

The appeal was allowed, and the original penalty was ordered to be enforced.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario following a guilty plea for operating in a net trust deficit position and failing to maintain proper records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding it was statute-barred as it was filed out of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court also addressed the merits, concluding the Committee's decision was reasonable, the brief written reasons were sufficient, and the requirement to file audited financial statements for three years was within the Committee's jurisdiction.

The appellant insurance broker appealed the revocation of its certificate of registration by the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO).

The revocation was based on the appellant's failure to maintain at least two contracted standard insurance markets, as required by RIBO guidelines interpreting the regulatory requirement to conduct business as an insurance broker.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Committee had the implied statutory authority to revoke the certificate, reasonably interpreted the regulation, and properly proceeded without a hearing because the appellant failed to request one after receiving notice.

Six individuals appealed orders to pay issued against them as directors of a bankrupt corporation for unpaid wages and vacation pay.

Five of the individuals were registered directors or signatories to a unanimous shareholder agreement and were found jointly and severally liable.

The sixth individual, Katharine Renison, was a significant investor whose shares were held in trust by her husband.

The Ministry argued she was the beneficiary of a bare trust and liable as a principal.

The Board found that she did not have control over how her shares were voted and was therefore not a director under the Employment Standards Act.

The orders to pay were affirmed for five applicants and rescinded for Renison.