Denis Boivin

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a notice of proposal to impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the penalty amount was disproportionate because the brokerage had not conducted any business and had voluntarily surrendered its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the $3,000 penalty, finding that the contraventions were reckless or negligent, that the brokerage derived an economic benefit from avoiding premiums, and that the penalty was necessary for specific and general deterrence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance on two occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, conceding the contraventions but presenting mitigating personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that a penalty was warranted to promote compliance and deter non-compliance, but reduced the quantum to $2,000 due to the applicant's low degree of negligence and complete cooperation.

The proposal to revoke the licence was deemed moot as the licence had already expired.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty against the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a period of five and a half months.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend.

The Financial Services Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence, found that the applicant contravened the requirement to maintain insurance, and concluded that the proposed $1,500 penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter future contraventions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence based on past conduct involving the facilitation of investments with a third party who subsequently disappeared with the funds.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acted recklessly, placed himself in a conflict of interest, and failed to disclose material information to his clients.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not deal in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose administrative monetary penalties for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance and failing to respond to requests for information.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the contraventions were established.

It ordered the imposition of administrative penalties totalling $2,000 ($1,500 for the insurance contravention and $500 for the failure to respond).

The Tribunal declined to order the revocation of the licence, noting the applicant had applied to surrender it, but ordered the licence suspended until the surrender was accepted.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the amount of a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty proposed by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant's mortgage brokerage failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for ten months.

The Tribunal reviewed the statutory criteria for determining the penalty amount, finding that the failure to secure insurance was intentional or reckless and that the brokerage derived an economic benefit by avoiding the $750 annual premium.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,000 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had contravened the requirement to maintain insurance for approximately eight months.

Considering the criteria for administrative penalties, including the reckless nature of the contravention and the potential harm to the public, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to secure the required insurance and that an administrative penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit from non-compliance.

Applying the regulatory criteria, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the Superintendent's proposal to revoke her mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent proposed revocation after discovering the applicant had been convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and failed to disclose these convictions on her licence application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct and her provision of false information on her application demonstrated she was not suitable to be licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.