OFST 1999

The appellant brought a motion to stay a decision of the Director suspending his level II life insurance licence for failure to satisfy continuing education requirements, pending his appeal to the Tribunal.

Applying the three-part test from RJR-Macdonald, the Tribunal found there was a serious question to be tried, the appellant would suffer irreparable harm if unable to carry on his business, and the balance of convenience favoured the appellant as his conduct did not call into direct question his competence.

The motion for a stay was granted.

The appellant appealed a decision suspending his level II life insurance agent licence for 30 days for failing to complete the required 47.5 hours of continuing education and misrepresenting his hours on a renewal application.

The Financial Services Tribunal admitted new evidence showing the appellant had completed additional hours, reducing his shortfall.

The Tribunal upheld the finding that the appellant failed to complete the required hours during the relevant period but reduced the penalty to a one-week licence suspension.

The applicant, Monsanto Canada Inc., brought a preliminary motion for orders directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to disclose documents and answer interrogatories regarding past practice on partial wind up reports.

Monsanto argued this information was relevant to its claim of legitimate expectation.

The Financial Services Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the requested information was arguably relevant to a non-frivolous issue, sufficiently particularized, and not privileged.

Following the Superintendent's proposal to partially wind up a pension plan, the employer requested a hearing but withdrew the request shortly before the scheduled dates.

The represented employees applied for $3,500 in costs against the employer.

The Tribunal denied the costs application, finding that the employer provided a reasonable explanation for the withdrawal, raised substantial issues, and did not cause unreasonable delay that prejudiced the employees.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Prohibition Order against Transamerica, preventing the issuance of a variable insurance contract with a negotiable initial sales charge.

The Superintendent argued this feature could lead to unfair discrimination among insureds of the same class and expectation of life, violating the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Financial Services Tribunal quashed the order, finding that differences in negotiated charges result from individual consumer choice and market competition, not from discriminatory acts by the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded the Prohibition Order was a disproportionate response to speculative harm and emphasized the need for full disclosure of the negotiable nature of the charges to consumers.