OFST 2002

The Applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in life income fund based on financial hardship under subsection 67(5) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent because the formula prescribed in subsection 88(2) of Regulation 909 resulted in an eligible withdrawal amount of zero.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, holding that it lacked authority to grant an application that did not meet the strict mathematical requirements of the Regulation, despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The applicant sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because the applicant had already made a successful application on the same basis within the preceding 12 months, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Regulation 909.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to waive the regulatory requirements despite the applicant's compelling evidence of financial hardship due to credit card debt.

The Applicant requested a hearing 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 based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirement that only one application based on low income may be made in a 12-month period.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The applicant had previously made a successful withdrawal application based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the regulation strictly prohibits more than one successful application based on low income within a 12-month period.

The applicant company initiated a voluntary partial wind-up of its pension plan following a plant closure and restructuring.

The company excluded its former President and CEO from the wind-up group, arguing he was terminated for cause following a corporate takeover, not as a result of the plant closure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal refusing to approve the wind-up report unless the former executive was included.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal, finding that the executive was terminated during the defined partial wind-up period and the company failed to demonstrate his termination was not a result of the restructuring.

The Tribunal also rejected the company's argument that the Superintendent was functus officio.

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, contrary to the Pension Benefits Act regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to waive the 12-month requirement, but advised the Applicant could reapply once the 12-month period expired.

The applicant employer sought consent to withdraw surplus funds from a wound-up pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initially proposed to refuse consent.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Superintendent to refrain from refusing consent and directing the payment of the surplus to the applicant in accordance with the Surplus Distribution Agreement.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion for an order directing Imperial Oil Limited to answer interrogatories in a proceeding concerning the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The Tribunal applied the test for pre-hearing disclosure and found that while member-specific information was not relevant, general statistical information about the employment status of certain plan members was arguably relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to provide answers to revised interrogatories seeking statistical information within six weeks.

The applicant, Imperial Oil Limited, brought a motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to provide further and better answers to interrogatories and to produce documents related to the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The applicant sought information regarding the Superintendent's past practices on partial wind ups, specifically concerning the inclusion of certain employee categories and the calculation of grow-in benefits.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories based on a representative sample of files processed between January 1993 and October 2000, balancing the relevance of the information against the hardship of reviewing all files.

The Applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent for a withdrawal from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Applicant had previously made a successful withdrawal application based on low income less than 12 months prior.

The Tribunal found that despite compelling evidence of financial hardship, it lacked the authority to override the strict requirement in subsection 89(4) of Regulation 909, which permits only one successful application per 12-month period.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

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

The applicant applied under the low-income provision, but their expected income exceeded the prescribed limit of 66 2/3 per cent of the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings.

The Tribunal held that it had no authority to grant an exception to the requirements of the Regulation and affirmed the Superintendent's refusal.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. (SMFI) as a mortgage broker.

SMFI requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the principals of SMFI engaged in a protracted pattern of conduct to hide or withhold information from the Superintendent, failed to comply with trust fund administration requirements, and operated an unregistered related company as a mortgage broker.

Concluding that the past conduct of the principals afforded reasonable grounds for belief that SMFI would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke SMFI's registration.

The applicant sought to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship to cover medical expenses, including premiums for a drug and extended health plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent for the premium amounts, arguing they did not constitute medical expenses.

The Financial Services Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the refusal, finding that the premiums were a permitted medical expense given the applicant's chronic ailments and the non-exhaustive definition of medical expenses in the regulation.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's refusal to order the replacement of an allegedly improperly constituted pension advisory committee.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as neither the Pension Benefits Act nor the pension plan required the establishment of an advisory committee, and the letters of understanding regarding the committee were part of the collective agreement but not incorporated into the pension plan.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The applicant sought the withdrawal due to a large debt load.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's expected income of $55,000 exceeded the prescribed threshold under the Pension Benefits Act Regulation, resulting in a negative withdrawal entitlement.

As there is no discretion to approve a withdrawal that does not meet the prescribed requirements, the application was dismissed.

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

The Superintendent denied the application because the Applicant did not meet the prescribed low-income conditions.

The Tribunal found that based on the Applicant's expected income, the formula yielded a negative amount, precluding withdrawal.

The application was dismissed, though the Tribunal noted the Applicant could re-apply based on a recent reduction in income.

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

The Superintendent denied the September 2001 application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application made in June 2001, 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 refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

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

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, noting it lacked authority to override the regulatory requirements despite compelling evidence of financial hardship.

The appellant appealed the revocation of his Level II life insurance agent's licence by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The revocation followed an Advisory Board hearing regarding the appellant's dishonest conduct, which included borrowing money from a client, failing to repay it, and providing fraudulent statements regarding a supposed investment policy.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Superintendent's decision, as the hearing was fair and the decision had a reasonable basis.

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 refused the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, noting it lacked authority to override the Regulation, but advised the applicant that she could now submit a new application as the 12-month period had expired.