OFST 2003

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board to pay a member's pension as a joint and survivor pension.

The member and his spouse separated shortly after his retirement but before the first pension payment was made.

The Board requested a hearing, arguing the spouses were living separate and apart on the date the first instalment was due, triggering an exception under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Financial Services Tribunal agreed with the Board, finding that the due date for the first instalment was at the end of the month, by which time the spouses had separated.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the proposed order.

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

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

The Tribunal found that Ontario Regulation 909 strictly limits such applications to one per 12-month period.

As the Tribunal has no authority to waive the regulation, the Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker registration of the corporate applicant.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued oral reasons upholding the Superintendent's proposal and directing the revocation of the registration, with written reasons to follow.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's refusal to consent to the 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 subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Tribunal found that it lacked the authority to direct the Superintendent to allow an application that does not meet the regulatory time requirements.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal.

Following a decision affirming the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal regarding a partial wind-up report, the interested party sought an award of costs against the company.

The interested party argued that the company was wholly unsuccessful and caused unreasonable delays by advancing frivolous positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for costs, finding that the company's arguments were reasonable and necessary for the hearing, and that its conduct was consistent with its fiduciary duty as plan administrator.

The Applicant applied to withdraw $6,500 from his locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent because the Applicant's net assets exceeded the allowable withdrawal amount under the formula in Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the refusal, finding that it lacked the authority to allow an application that did not meet the strict requirements of the Regulation.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the registration of Global Mortgage Link Corp. under the Mortgage Brokers Act after its sole shareholder and director, Peter Chatt, was convicted of theft over $5000.

Chatt brought a motion in criminal court seeking a stay of those proceedings due to delay.

Pending that disposition, the applicants brought a motion before the Financial Services Tribunal to stay the revocation hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the public interest in protecting consumers from a mortgage broker convicted of a serious crime of dishonesty outweighed the negative impact on the applicant's business.

The applicant, CBS Canada Co., and the Superintendent of Financial Services, along with the CAW-Canada, reached a settlement regarding the partial wind-up of the Westinghouse Canada Inc. Pension Plans following several plant closures.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement, which detailed the calculation of early retirement benefits for affected plan members and the withdrawal of the Superintendent's Notices of Proposal to refuse the partial wind-up reports.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

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 account based on financial hardship.

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

The Tribunal held that under the Regulation, only one application may be made during each 12-month period.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, as it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirements.

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

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

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, holding that it lacked the authority to grant an application that failed to meet the strict 12-month time requirement set out in the regulations.

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 Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application based on low income, contrary to the Pension Benefits Act regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirement despite the Applicant's evidence of financial hardship.

The Applicant applied to withdraw $17,225 from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent because the net assets of the Applicant and their spouse exceeded the allowable withdrawal amount.

The Applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the spouse's RRSP should be excluded from the net assets calculation.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the Regulation does not permit the exclusion of a spouse's RRSP from the calculation.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to the 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 subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Regulation 909.

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

The Financial Services Tribunal previously directed the Superintendent to carry out a Notice of Proposal regarding the applicant's registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $15,000 in costs to the Superintendent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant unreasonably prolonged the proceedings by making unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith against the Superintendent's staff and introducing irrelevant matters.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw $95,467.60 from a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship.

The applicant sought to withdraw an amount greater than the entire mortgage, including legal and other expenses.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, finding that the application did not meet the strict requirements of subsection 87(5) of Regulation 909, which limits withdrawals to actual arrears and twelve monthly debt payments.