Larissa Easson

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty on the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Hearing after the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the request for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the 15-day deadline is a procedural requirement that can only be waived on consent of the parties.

As the Superintendent did not consent to the late filing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging that the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) discriminated against her based on her cognitive disability.

She claimed FSCO failed to intervene when a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) refused to accommodate her request to have a facilitator present during a medical assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that FSCO's refusal to intervene was based on its reasonable belief that the complaint fell under the jurisdiction of its dispute resolution process, rather than its Automobile Insurance Policy Unit.

The Tribunal concluded that FSCO's policy of intervening in physical accessibility complaints but not in assessment conduct complaints did not constitute constructive discrimination.

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

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened the Act by failing to maintain the required insurance, that the failure was intentional and negligent, and that the applicant demonstrated ungovernability.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence and impose the $3,000 penalty.

The Applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant operated without the required insurance for a period of 19.5 months, constituting a second breach of the requirement.

Applying the statutory criteria, the Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's proposal and ordered the imposition of a $3,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision that dismissed an appeal from an Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator had dismissed the applicant's arbitration proceeding because of a parallel civil action raising accident benefit claims from the same accident.

The Divisional Court found no error regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and held that the Director's Delegate reasonably upheld the Arbitrator's decision on choice of forum, noting the diseconomies of parallel proceedings.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,500 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was grossly negligent in failing to renew its insurance but noted no actual harm occurred as the applicant was not conducting business.

The Tribunal increased the administrative penalty to $4,000 due to the premium savings and extreme carelessness, but declined to revoke the licence, finding the increased penalty sufficient to protect the public interest.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $3,000 on 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 before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing that the penalty should be waived or reduced to the equivalent of the unpaid premiums.

The Tribunal upheld the $3,000 penalty, finding that the applicant's failure to maintain insurance was intentional and reckless, that it was a repeat offence, and that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and remove economic benefit.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Superintendent of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario refusing to stay discipline proceedings against him for delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, noting that judicial review of interim administrative decisions is generally refused absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias or denial of procedural fairness that would justify intervening before the hearing on the merits.

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

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally and recklessly failed to maintain the required insurance for over 33 months and failed to respond to the regulator.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to revoke the licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totaling $5,000.

The appellant filed an appeal of a decision revoking his life insurance agent licence after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent refused to consent to an extension of time.

The Tribunal held that under section 4(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it lacks jurisdiction to extend the time limit for filing an appeal without the consent of all parties.

The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant requested a change of venue from Toronto to Sudbury and a shortened hearing schedule as an accommodation for her disabilities.

The Tribunal reviewed medical evidence indicating that travel and prolonged activity would exacerbate her condition and interfere with her rehabilitation.

The Tribunal granted the request, changing the venue to Sudbury and limiting the hearing to two hours, with evidence to be provided primarily through written statements and cross-examination.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for his brokerage and did not attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement to maintain insurance, justifying the revocation of his licence.

The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty, finding it appropriate to promote compliance with the Act.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke its licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, justifying the licence revocation.

The Tribunal also upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals unless the applicant provided proof of insurance by a specified date.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence and answered 'no' to a question about prior criminal convictions, believing she had received a pardon for a 1999 conviction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the licence on the basis that she provided false information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant's false statement was inadvertent and based on a plausible, albeit mistaken, belief that a solicitor had obtained a pardon on her behalf.

The Tribunal concluded that the false statement did not afford reasonable grounds to believe she was unsuitable to be licensed and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse his mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not respond to communications.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the application pursuant to Rules 37.01 and 37.02, giving the applicant 30 days to make written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Ministry of Health decision ordering it to pay the long-term care fees of its insured, who was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The insured had applied for a reduction in nursing home co-payments under the Nursing Homes Act, but the Director refused, finding the insurer liable.

The insurer argued it was exempt under s. 75(13) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because the reduction was a benefit 'reasonably available' to the insured.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Director's decision was reasonable and that social assistance benefits based on financial need do not fall within the ambit of s. 75(13).

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The appellant appealed an order revoking his Level II life insurance agent's licence and applied for a stay of the order pending the appeal.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied the three-part test for granting a stay.

The Tribunal found that the risk of harm to the public if the stay were granted, given the appellant's past misconduct and risk of recidivism, outweighed the irreparable harm the appellant would suffer from being unable to earn a livelihood as an agent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.