OFST 2010

The Applicant requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, and suggested clarifications to the decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review, finding that the Applicant was merely attempting to reargue her case and had not established any material errors of fact or law.

The Tribunal also declined to issue supplementary reasons to clarify the decision, noting that it was functus officio, though it did correct minor clerical errors pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant surrendered its licence, leaving only the penalty at issue.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant negligently failed to obtain the required insurance, justifying a penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors, including the applicant's mistaken belief that its real estate insurance was sufficient and its lack of actual mortgage brokerage business, the Tribunal reduced the penalty to $250.

The applicant, a retired member of the OMERS pension plan, challenged an amendment to the plan that changed the method used to calculate inflation indexing.

The applicant argued that the amendment reduced her accrued pension benefits, contrary to section 14(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, because the new method produced a lower increase in the year it was implemented.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the new method was actuarially equivalent to the old method and would produce the same level of inflation protection over time.

The Tribunal held that the amendment did not reduce the aggregate amount or the commuted value of the applicant's accrued pension.