Martha Milczynski

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker registration of the corporate applicant.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued oral reasons upholding the Superintendent's proposal and directing the revocation of the registration, with written reasons to follow.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the registration of Global Mortgage Link Corp. under the Mortgage Brokers Act after its sole shareholder and director, Peter Chatt, was convicted of theft over $5000.

Chatt brought a motion in criminal court seeking a stay of those proceedings due to delay.

Pending that disposition, the applicants brought a motion before the Financial Services Tribunal to stay the revocation hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the public interest in protecting consumers from a mortgage broker convicted of a serious crime of dishonesty outweighed the negative impact on the applicant's business.

The Financial Services Tribunal previously directed the Superintendent to carry out a Notice of Proposal regarding the applicant's registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $15,000 in costs to the Superintendent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant unreasonably prolonged the proceedings by making unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith against the Superintendent's staff and introducing irrelevant matters.

The applicant employer sought consent to withdraw surplus funds from a wound-up pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initially proposed to refuse consent.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Superintendent to refrain from refusing consent and directing the payment of the surplus to the applicant in accordance with the Surplus Distribution Agreement.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. (SMFI) as a mortgage broker.

SMFI requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the principals of SMFI engaged in a protracted pattern of conduct to hide or withhold information from the Superintendent, failed to comply with trust fund administration requirements, and operated an unregistered related company as a mortgage broker.

Concluding that the past conduct of the principals afforded reasonable grounds for belief that SMFI would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke SMFI's registration.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship to cover medical expenses, including premiums for a drug and extended health plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent for the premium amounts, arguing they did not constitute medical expenses.

The Financial Services Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the refusal, finding that the premiums were a permitted medical expense given the applicant's chronic ailments and the non-exhaustive definition of medical expenses in the regulation.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposed Cease and Desist Order against the applicants, alleging they were trafficking in life insurance policies without a license by selling viatical settlement purchase programs.

The applicants requested a hearing and challenged the Financial Services Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the programs did not constitute 'insurance undertaken in Ontario'.

The Tribunal found that the assignment of benefits under an American life insurance policy is a chose in action, not a contract of insurance.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and declared the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal of no force or effect.

The applicants, former employees of the Ministry of Finance, were transferred to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) when the Ministry's property assessment functions were transferred.

At the time of the transfer, both applicants were eligible to retire under the 'Factor 80' provisions of their respective pension plans and sought to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work for OPAC.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to order the pension plan administrators to pay the benefits, finding that under section 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the transfer constituted a sale of a business and the applicants' employment was deemed not to have been terminated.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the applicants could not receive pension benefits without actually terminating their employment with the successor employer.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' proposal to refuse consent for the withdrawal of locked-in pension funds based on financial hardship.

The Applicant sought to withdraw funds from an active registered pension plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that subsection 67(5) of the Pension Benefits Act only permits unlocking of prescribed retirement savings arrangements, which does not include an active registered pension plan.

The applicant requested a confidentiality order during a pre-hearing conference regarding information produced in response to interrogatories and document disclosure requests.

As none of the responding parties opposed the request, the Tribunal ordered that the produced information be kept confidential and not disclosed without further order or agreement.

The Tribunal also ordered that reasonable notice be given before filing or referencing the confidential information in future submissions.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding his claim for an immediate pension benefit following the divestiture of his employment.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the request for a hearing on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal found that neither the Superintendent nor anyone with delegated authority had made a final decision regarding the applicant's claim.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the merits of the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, sought to transfer the commuted value of his pension upon termination of employment.

The applicant had become eligible for an immediate pension under the plan's early retirement window.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that under section 42(3) of the Pension Benefits Act and the terms of the plan, a member who is eligible for an immediate pension is not entitled to transfer the commuted value of their pension.

The appellant appealed a decision suspending his level II life insurance agent licence for 30 days for failing to complete the required 47.5 hours of continuing education and misrepresenting his hours on a renewal application.

The Financial Services Tribunal admitted new evidence showing the appellant had completed additional hours, reducing his shortfall.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant failed to complete the required hours during the relevant period but reduced the penalty to a one-week licence suspension.