Kit Moore

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 account.

The applicant had previously made a successful withdrawal application based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Tribunal found that Ontario Regulation 909 strictly limits such applications to one per 12-month period.

As the Tribunal has no authority to waive the regulation, the Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

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

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application based on low income, contrary to the Pension Benefits Act regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirement despite the Applicant's evidence of financial hardship.

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

The Applicant had previously made a successful application based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirement that only one application based on low income may be made in a 12-month period.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because the applicant had already made a successful application on the same basis within the preceding 12 months, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Regulation 909.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to waive the regulatory requirements despite the applicant's compelling evidence of financial hardship due to credit card debt.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The applicant had previously made a successful withdrawal application based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the regulation strictly prohibits more than one successful application based on low income within a 12-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

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.