Michael Scott

The applicants sought judicial review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision that refused to renew their mortgage broker licences and imposed $70,000 in administrative penalties.

The Divisional Court declined to review the licensing decision, finding that the applicants had an adequate alternative remedy through a statutory right of appeal, which they had failed to perfect.

Applying a reasonableness standard, the court upheld the administrative penalties, concluding that the Tribunal's findings regarding the applicants' failure to cooperate and the economic benefit derived from delaying the proceedings were amply supported by the evidence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court dismissed Mijanur Rahman's application as frivolous under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application sought orders reinstating and renewing various financial licenses and waiving renewal costs, but the court found that such relief was not available by application to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court held that the application lacked legal merit, was not properly brought under the cited rules or statutes, and would inevitably fail.

The decision clarifies the robust application of Rule 2.1 to prevent clearly unmeritorious proceedings from consuming judicial resources.

The court considered a motion under rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an application as frivolous and vexatious.

The registrar referred the matter to the judge following a request from counsel for FP Canada.

The court ordered that the applicant be given notice and an opportunity to make submissions before any dismissal, stayed the application pending the written hearing, and directed the registrar regarding service and filings.

The judge remained seized of the matter.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario's (FSRA) decision to investigate them, issue a summons, and issue a Notice of Proposal regarding alleged contraventions of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the application for being premature, as there were ongoing proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the administrative process must run its course and that the statutory scheme provided an adequate alternative remedy through a de novo hearing before the tribunal.

The Respondent brought two motions to consolidate proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The first motion sought to combine separate proceedings initiated by the applicants in response to a second Notice of Proposal (NOP2).

The second motion sought to combine the consolidated NOP2 proceeding with an earlier proceeding relating to a first Notice of Proposal (NOP1).

The Tribunal granted the first motion, finding significant commonality of facts and law among the NOP2 applicants.

The Tribunal dismissed the second motion, finding little commonality between NOP1 and NOP2, and noting that combining them would cause prejudice and undue delay to the NOP1 proceeding.

The applicants, a licensed mortgage brokerage and its principal broker, sought to vary a motion judge's decision quashing their application for judicial review of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA).

They also sought judicial review of FSRA's decisions to publish the Notice of Proposal on its website pursuant to its Transparency Guidance and to refuse to publish the applicants' Request for Hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to vary, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the application was premature.

The Court also dismissed the remaining judicial review application, holding that FSRA's publication decisions did not affect the applicants' legal rights and were not amenable to judicial review.

In any event, the Court found the decisions to be reasonable and consistent with FSRA's statutory objects.

The respondents moved to quash an application for judicial review brought by the applicants, a mortgage broker and its principal.

The applicants sought to quash a notice of proposal issued by the regulator and challenged the regulator's decisions regarding the publication of the notice and its refusal to publish the applicants' response.

The Divisional Court quashed the portion of the application challenging the notice of proposal as premature, finding that the pending hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal provided an adequate alternative remedy.

However, the court declined to quash the claims relating to the regulator's publication decisions, finding it was not plain and obvious that those decisions were unreviewable or did not impair the applicants' legal rights.

The claim for mandamus regarding competitors was also quashed.

IBM Canada sought rectification of its retirement plan due to drafting errors affecting 210 current and former employees.

IBM brought a motion for a representation order to appoint Dario Ceci and Jacinthe Ratelle as representative respondents for the affected members, based on a settlement agreement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) did not oppose the motion or the underlying rectification.

The court granted the representation order, finding it necessary and desirable under Rule 10.01(1)(f), and confirmed the commonality of interest among pension plan members for class representation.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' Charter motion to exclude evidence gathered under a summons, the respondent sought costs.

The parties subsequently agreed to a costs order of $500 against the applicants.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the applicants to pay $500 in costs to the respondent.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision finding that post-accident business income from a family pharmacy should be deducted from the applicant's income replacement benefits (IRBs) under s. 7(3)(b) of the Statutory Accidents Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The applicant argued that 'earned' income required active engagement in the business.

The Divisional Court upheld the Director's Delegate's decision as reasonable, agreeing that a contextual interpretation of the SABS focuses on the profit and loss of the business rather than requiring active participation by the self-employed person.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision confirming an Arbitrator's finding that he was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Arbitrator erred in law by relying on surveillance evidence, the applicant's presentation at the hearing, and a psychiatrist's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the issues raised were questions of fact and the weighing of evidence, not errors of law, and that the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable.

This appeal concerned an arbitrator's decision regarding priority for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute was between State Farm Mutual Insurance Company and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario (representing the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund) over whether two claimants, Latchman Sanichar and Asha Basdeo, were 'principally dependent' on State Farm's insured, Prakash Doodram, for financial support.

The court reviewed the arbitrator's decision on a reasonableness standard.

The appeal was granted in part: the arbitrator's finding that Asha was not principally dependent on Prakash was deemed unreasonable and set aside, making State Farm the priority insurer for Asha.

However, the arbitrator's finding that Latchman was not principally dependent on Prakash was affirmed as reasonable, meaning State Farm was not the priority insurer for Latchman.

The appeal on costs was also granted, with no costs awarded due to divided success.

The applicant, an insurance agent, filed a request for hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal five days after the 15-day statutory deadline to dispute a proposal to revoke his licence and impose an administrative penalty.

The respondent requested the matter be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that it had no independent authority to extend the statutory time limit without the consent of both parties under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the respondent did not consent, the Tribunal dismissed the request for hearing without a hearing.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision that allowed an insured's appeal in part regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer had denied claims for an in-home assessment and form preparation, alleging the clinics were engaged in a fraudulent scheme.

The Divisional Court held that the Director's Delegate exceeded his jurisdiction by interfering with the Arbitrator's findings of fact regarding the in-home assessment, as appeals are limited to questions of law.

However, the court upheld the decision requiring the insurer to pay for form preparation because the insurer failed to object to the application within the statutory timeframe.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance for 7.5 months after leaving his sponsoring insurer.

He mistakenly believed his licence and insurance obligations were automatically suspended.

The Superintendent proposed a $1,300 administrative monetary penalty.

The Tribunal found that an AMP was appropriate but reduced the quantum to $750, noting the applicant's honest but negligent mistake, the lack of actual harm, and the minimal economic benefit derived from unpaid premiums.