Kevin G. Ashe

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent for a financial hardship withdrawal from a locked-in retirement account.

The applicant sought the withdrawal based on low income and the need to meet personal obligations.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the applicant's expected income of $30,000 exceeded the prescribed maximum of $27,000 (66 2/3 per cent of the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings).

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant applied to withdraw $6,500 from his locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent because the Applicant's net assets exceeded the allowable withdrawal amount under the formula in Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the refusal, finding that it lacked the authority to allow an application that did not meet the strict requirements of the Regulation.

The Applicant applied to withdraw $17,225 from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent because the net assets of the Applicant and their spouse exceeded the allowable withdrawal amount.

The Applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the spouse's RRSP should be excluded from the net assets calculation.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the Regulation does not permit the exclusion of a spouse's RRSP from the calculation.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw $95,467.60 from a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship.

The applicant sought to withdraw an amount greater than the entire mortgage, including legal and other expenses.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the application did not meet the strict requirements of subsection 87(5) of Regulation 909, which limits withdrawals to actual arrears and twelve monthly debt payments.