OFST 2001

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' proposal to refuse consent for the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The applicant had previously made a successful application for withdrawal based on low income in June 2001.

The current application was made in August 2001.

The Tribunal found that the August application violated the statutory requirement under Ontario Regulation 909 that only one application may be made during each 12-month period.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal.

The applicant submitted a request for a hearing to the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services had already consented to the maximum permitted withdrawal from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

Because the Superintendent had consented to the application and had not issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to deal further with the matter.

The request for a hearing was denied.

The applicants, former employees of the Ministry of Finance, were transferred to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) when the Ministry's property assessment functions were transferred.

At the time of the transfer, both applicants were eligible to retire under the 'Factor 80' provisions of their respective pension plans and sought to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work for OPAC.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to order the pension plan administrators to pay the benefits, finding that under section 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the transfer constituted a sale of a business and the applicants' employment was deemed not to have been terminated.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the applicants could not receive pension benefits without actually terminating their employment with the successor employer.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that based on the applicant's expected income, the maximum allowable withdrawal under the prescribed formula was $336.13.

Because this amount was less than the statutory minimum withdrawal of $500 required by the Regulation, the application did not meet the requirements of the Pension Benefits Act.

The application was dismissed.

The Executive Committee of the London Life Members' Committee sought an award of costs against London Life following a decision directing the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The Members' Committee argued that London Life failed to provide full and accurate information and advanced unreasonable positions.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that London Life's arguments were not patently unreasonable and its delays in providing information did not justify an award of costs under the Tribunal's exceptional circumstances standard.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Director of Licensing and Enforcement revoking his level II life insurance agent's licence.

The revocation followed findings that the appellant had borrowed money from clients, misappropriated funds, forged signatures, and used confidential information for personal loans.

The appellant sought to substitute a one-year suspension for the revocation.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the initial hearing and concluding that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified given the serious nature of the appellant's conduct.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in account on the basis of financial hardship, relying on a final notice from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency regarding an income tax debt.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the application because the debt was not secured against the applicant's principal residence.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, finding that the possibility of the tax debt becoming a lien in the future did not satisfy the regulatory requirement that the debt be currently secured against the principal residence.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship, citing a written demand from the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency for an income tax debt.

The applicant argued that the debt could eventually be secured against her principal residence, leading to eviction.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application because the debt was not currently secured against the residence.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the regulation requires the debt to be currently secured against the principal residence, and the Tribunal lacks authority to expand the grounds for financial hardship.

The respondents requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to order a partial wind up of the applicant's pension plan.

The respondents argued the decision failed to address the inclusion of voluntarily terminated employees and the impact of office closures and amalgamations in 1995 and 1997.

The Tribunal declined to review its decision, finding that both issues were premature and could be addressed through subsequent administrative processes or further hearings if necessary.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

The applicant applied to the Superintendent of Financial Services for withdrawal of money from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse consent because the circumstances did not meet the prescribed requirements under the regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to consent to an application that did not meet the statutory requirements, despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to an application for withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application based on low income, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to direct consent for an application that did not meet the regulatory requirements.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse her application to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent found that the applicant's expected income exceeded the qualifying low income amount under the Regulation.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that it lacked the authority to allow a withdrawal that did not meet the prescribed statutory requirements, despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises Limited to fund a deficit arising from the partial wind-up of its pension plan.

Dustbane argued that the plan was a multi-employer pension plan and that its distributors were separate employers liable for their respective shares of the deficit.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements for a multi-employer pension plan, as there were no written participation agreements and the plan was not administered as such.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposed order, making Dustbane solely liable for the deficit.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a partial wind up of the employer's pension plan following a corporate reorganization in 1996 that resulted in the involuntary termination of 384 administrative employees.

The employer requested a hearing, arguing that the number of terminations was not significant.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that 384 terminations, representing approximately 12.8% to 14.9% of the active administrative plan members, constituted a significant number under section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order the partial wind up for the period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' refusal to consent to the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because the calculated maximum withdrawal amount was $400, which is less than the prescribed minimum withdrawal of $500.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to appeal the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to a withdrawal from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Tribunal applied the formula set out in subsection 88(2) of Regulation 909 under the Pension Benefits Act.

Because the applicant's assets exceeded the amount applied for, the formula resulted in no amount being eligible for withdrawal.

The application was dismissed and the Superintendent's refusal was affirmed.

The applicant made three successive applications to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent approved the first application but proposed to refuse the second and third applications because the regulation permits only one such application per 12-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent, finding that the Superintendent had no authority to approve a second application based on low income within 12 months of the first successful application.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent for the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The application was based on low income.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant's expected total income exceeded the prescribed threshold of 66 2/3 per cent of the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings.

Consequently, the application did not meet the statutory requirements, and the Superintendent's refusal was affirmed.

The Applicant applied to withdraw funds from a registered pension plan based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent because a registered pension plan is not a prescribed retirement savings arrangement under the Pension Benefits Act and its regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal and dismissed the application, confirming that unlocking is only permitted for prescribed arrangements such as life income funds, locked-in retirement accounts, and locked-in retirement income funds.