6 total
Life insurance agent's licence suspended for three months for failing to complete continuing education credits.
The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend his licence for three months.
The parties agreed that the Applicant failed to complete his required continuing education credits for five consecutive licensing periods and made false statements on two licence renewal applications regarding the completion of those credits.
The Tribunal found that the Applicant's repeated failure to comply with continuing education requirements and his provision of false information justified the proposed sanction.
The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to suspend the Applicant's licence for a period of three months.
Insurance agent fined $2,000 for failing to facilitate the Superintendent's examination into her errors and omissions coverage.
The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an administrative monetary penalty of $4,000 against the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to facilitate an examination into whether she had errors and omissions insurance and whether she conducted business while unlicensed.
The Superintendent withdrew the second allegation and sought a $2,000 penalty.
The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant failed to facilitate the examination by missing deadlines, providing inconsistent responses, and failing to provide the requested proof of insurance.
The Tribunal ordered the imposition of a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty.
Judicial review dismissed; strict settlement disclosure rules do not apply to accident benefit claims settled during litigation.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which upheld an arbitrator's decision dismissing his claim for accident benefits.
The applicant had settled his claim in 2003 after eight years of litigation but purported to rescind the settlement in 2014, arguing the settlement disclosure notice did not comply with the Settlement Regulation.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably and correctly applied binding Court of Appeal precedent establishing that the regulation's strict disclosure requirements do not apply to settlements reached after a court action has commenced.
Appeal of administrative penalty dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to late filing.
The appellant, an insurance agent, appealed a summary administrative penalty of $3,000 imposed for failing to disclose the names of all insurers he represented.
The Notice of Appeal was filed five days after the 15-day statutory deadline.
The Tribunal held that the 15-day deadline in subsection 441.4(4) of the Insurance Act is a substantive requirement, not a procedural one, and therefore cannot be waived under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The appeal was dismissed without a hearing for lack of jurisdiction.
Summary judgment was granted making the children Crown wards without access for adoption purposes.
The Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking orders that three children be found in need of protection and made crown wards without access for adoption purposes.
The parents consented to the eldest child being made a crown ward.
During the hearing, the parents also consented to the two younger children being found in need of protection.
The mother did not oppose the balance of the motion, but the father opposed it and proposed a plan for the children to be placed with him subject to supervision.
The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the society's motion, making the two younger children crown wards without access for adoption.
Court authorizes writ of possession to remove unauthorized occupant from incapable person’s home.
The statutory guardian of property sought leave to issue and enforce a writ of possession to remove an individual residing in the incapable person's home without authorization.
The respondent argued he provided care and support and should be permitted to remain.
The court considered the guardian’s fiduciary duties under the Substitute Decisions Act and evidence regarding the incapable person’s vulnerability, financial exploitation concerns, and availability of community support services.
The court concluded that removal of the respondent was in the incapable person’s best interests and authorized the issuance and enforcement of a writ of possession.
