Citation and Court Information
CITATION: Duric v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 6819
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 20/14
DATE: 20141124
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, HARVISON YOUNG AND D. BROWN JJ.
BETWEEN:
PETER DURIC
Appellant
– and –
REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
Mark M. O’Donnell and
Brianne L. Simionati, for the Appellant
John W. Goldsmith and
Jasmeet Kala, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: November 24, 2014
Oral Reasons for Judgment
SACHS J. (oralLY)
[1] The central question before us is whether, in light of the November 1, 2012 Order of the Discipline Committee (the “November Order”), the decision under appeal is reasonable.
[2] On November 1, 2012, the appellant plead guilty to the misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing for Breach of Order, both personally and on behalf of Oxford Insurance. The resulting November Order contained the following provisions:
3.(a) IT IS ORDERED that the Certificate of Registration of Peter Duric is hereby restricted to Y-“Unrestricted Technical Only” (Discipline Order). This restriction is to be in effect no later than December 31, 2012.
(b) AND IT IS ORDERED that a recommendation be made to the Qualification and Registration Committee that they not consider any application by Peter Duric to have the restriction removed until after three years from the date that this order is breached. Should Mr. Duric wish to have the restriction removed at that time, he must first attend the IBAO Advanced Broker Management Course and pass the RIBO Management Exam to be set by RIBO. The restriction noted above is hereby suspended pending full compliance with the following:
[conditions omitted]
(c) AND IT IS ORDERED that upon, and in the event of, a failure by Oxford Insurance or by Peter Duric to comply with any one of the conditions referred to in paragraphs 3(b)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) above, then the restriction referred to in paragraph 3(a) above, shall become and is hereby effective immediately thereafter.
[3] Thus, in effect, the November Order imposed a penalty, suspended the operation of that penalty if certain conditions were complied with and provided what was to happen if the conditions were not complied with, i.e. the penalty was to become effective immediately.
[4] On December 5, 2013, the Discipline Committee found that the appellant had failed to comply with the conditions set out in the November Order. However, instead of imposing the penalty that the November Order prescribed in the event of a non-compliance with its conditions, the December Discipline Committee imposed a much harsher penalty on the appellant of a fifteen month suspension.
[5] The December Committee’s reasons as to why a harsher penalty was imposed state at para. 23 that:
The Panel bases their decision on the repeated breaches by Peter Duric of the previous Order and believes that this decision is fair and appropriate as a general deterrent against breaching Orders of this Committee.
[6] What the reasons of the December Committee do not disclose is any justification for why the Committee chose to ignore the provisions of the November Order that clearly specified what was to happen if that order was breached. Nor does an examination of the record before the Committee, including the submissions it heard, shed any light on this issue. In particular, there is no suggestion of any other conduct by the appellant that was not contemplated by the November Order. That order, by its very terms, contemplated future and even repeated breaches.
[7] If the conduct under consideration at the December hearing was conduct that had not specifically been contemplated by the November Order, it would have been reasonable for the Committee to not regard itself as bound by the terms of that order (which was never appealed). However, the conduct at issue was specifically contemplated by the November Order. Therefore, it was unreasonable for the Committee to depart from the clear and specific terms of that order.
[8] For these reasons, the appeal is allowed. The Order of the Discipline Committee of December 5, 2013 is set aside and we order that the Order of the Discipline Committee dated November 1, 2012, specifically paragraph 3(c), be enforced.
[9] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book, “For reasons provided orally, this appeal is allowed; the Order of the Discipline Committee of December 5, 2013 with respect to penalty (see para. 22(a) of a Decision of the Committee with Reasons) is set aside and the Order of the Committee dated November 1, 2012, particularly para. 3(c), is to be enforced. The appellant has requested his partial indemnity costs in the amount of $6,578.07. We find these costs to be reasonable and we order that they be paid by the respondent.”
SACHS J.
HARVISON YOUNG J.
D. BROWN J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 24, 2014
Date of Release: November 26, 2014
CITATION: Duric v. Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario, 2014 ONSC 6819
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 20/14
DATE: 20141124
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
SACHS, HARVISON YOUNG AND
D. BROWN JJ.
BETWEEN:
PETER DURIC
Appellant
– and –
REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SACHS J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 24, 2014
Date of Release: November 26, 2014