Michael Spagnolo

The appellant appealed an order imposing $46,500 in summary administrative penalties for failing to file its pension plan's Annual Information Return and Financial Statements on time.

The filings were 215 days late.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the appellant had a history of late filings and had ignored multiple warnings from the regulator.

The Tribunal confirmed the order, holding that the penalties were properly calculated under the prescribed regulations and were appropriate to promote compliance with the Pension Benefits Act.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal to revoke his life insurance and accident and sickness insurance agent licence.

During pre-hearing conferences, the applicant's licence expired and he confirmed he did not intend to renew it or proceed with a hearing on the merits.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding pursuant to subsection 407.1(8) of the Insurance Act and directed the respondent to issue a final order carrying out the Notice of Proposal.

The Applicant requested a review or variance of a pre-hearing conference order to allow for the late filing of reply submissions on a motion regarding jurisdiction.

The Applicant had missed multiple extended deadlines and failed to attend the pre-hearing conference where the order was made.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the public interest in the finality of decisions and the need to maintain the integrity of Tribunal orders outweighed any prejudice to the Applicant.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker and agent licences of the applicants.

The applicants requested a hearing, but their licences expired before the hearing took place and were not renewed.

The Chief Executive Officer of FSRA brought a motion arguing that the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to revoke the expired licences.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the Notice of Proposal had become moot, and dismissed the proceedings pertaining to the individual applicants.

The applicant brought a motion for the recusal of the adjudicator from hearing another recusal motion.

The applicant argued that the adjudicator should recuse himself from hearing the motion for his own recusal due to an apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator declined to recuse himself, finding that the law is well-settled that it is up to the individual adjudicator whose recusal is sought to make the decision on the recusal motion.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose administrative penalties of $300,000 on the applicant for dealing in mortgages without a licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but subsequently failed to provide ordered disclosure and indicated it would take no further steps.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss for delay.

As the applicant made no submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the proceeding and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the penalties.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, failed to maintain errors and omissions (E&O) insurance for two periods totaling 14.5 months due to a serious illness.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty (AMP) of $2,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing the penalty was excessive given his illness and the fact that he had not written any policies for seven years.

The Tribunal found that while an AMP was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit, the proposed amount did not account for the exceptional circumstances.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a reduced AMP of $1,000.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application issued by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

After participating in a pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant failed to comply with the agreed-upon timetable, failed to respond to communications from the respondent, and failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing for delay pursuant to Rule 34.03 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure.

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 Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $4,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant health service provider for allegedly charging for services not provided.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while there were inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the clinic's calendar and invoices, the Superintendent failed to prove that the billed services were not actually provided.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the proposal to impose the penalty.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,700 for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Applicant admitted to lacking coverage for over 15 months but argued the lapse was unintentional and occurred while he was not conducting business.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant breached the requirement to maintain continuous coverage and that a penalty was appropriate to promote compliance.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $1,700 penalty, noting it was consistent with previous decisions for similar contraventions.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage agent, received Notices of Proposal to revoke his licence and impose an administrative monetary penalty.

He filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal 22 days after deemed receipt of the notices, missing the 15-day statutory deadline under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Superintendent did not consent to waive the procedural time limit.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to extend the deadline or conduct a hearing without the Superintendent's consent, and dismissed the proceeding without a hearing.

The applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $2,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over 14 months.

The applicant admitted to the failure but argued she was unaware of the penalty and had not conducted business during that time.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter others, noting that the applicant saved on premiums during the uninsured period.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $2,000 penalty as proposed.

The applicants requested a hearing regarding a proposal to revoke their mortgage administrator licence.

The proceeding was held in abeyance while the individual applicant was incarcerated for criminal fraud.

After his release, the applicants failed to take steps to proceed, failed to appear at a pre-hearing conference, and failed to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding without a hearing for undue delay and failure to appear.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the application based on the applicant's prior criminal conviction for identity theft while employed at a bank.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Applying the Henderson criteria, the Tribunal found that the applicant had demonstrated a consistent and prolonged pattern of reformed behaviour since the misconduct occurred over six years prior.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence subject to strict supervisory conditions.

The Applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, requested a hearing after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for 16.5 months.

The Applicant claimed she had given money to a friend to renew the policy and was unaware it had lapsed, later discovering the friend had provided a falsified certificate of coverage.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant breached the requirement to maintain insurance and that she could not delegate her statutory obligations.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to impose the $2,500 penalty, emphasizing general deterrence and the Applicant's negligence.

The applicant applied to renew his life insurance agent licence but failed to respond to multiple requests from the Superintendent for information regarding his employment history, errors and omissions insurance, and continuing education.

The Superintendent issued a proposal to refuse the application.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal but failed to appear.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements to provide information, rendering him unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refuse the licence renewal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,700 on the applicant, a licensed life insurance agent, for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for over a year.

The applicant requested a hearing but conceded she did not maintain the required coverage, believing it was unnecessary while she was inactive in the industry.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter others, noting that agents cannot suspend coverage while licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the imposition of the $1,700 penalty.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse the renewal of the applicant's insurance agent licence.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, to which the applicant did not respond.

The Tribunal dismissed the proceeding for failure to show reasonable cause for not participating.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding Statutory Accident Benefits without first appealing to the Director's Delegate as required by s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act.

After a previous stay, the applicant's late appeal to the Director's Delegate was dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the current application for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's decision directly and that the applicant must instead seek judicial review of the Director's Delegate's final decision.