OFST 2012

The applicant brought a motion before the Financial Services Tribunal seeking an order to compel the union to respond to 27 interrogatories and produce two documents.

The underlying dispute concerned the applicant's pension entitlements and access to an early retirement window following her dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the majority of the interrogatories related to the applicant's employment grievance rather than the pension issues within the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and thus failed the Monsanto test for arguable relevance.

The remaining interrogatories were either already answered or lacked sufficient particularization.

SCI Group Inc. brought a motion to add an estoppel issue to the pending hearing regarding the Superintendent's refusal to consent to a pension asset transfer from the BCE Plan to the Progistix Plan.

SCI also sought additional documentary production from BCE related to the estoppel issue.

BCE opposed the motion, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider estoppel and that there was no factual basis for the claim.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider estoppel under the Pension Benefits Act and found it premature to dismiss the issue on its factual merits.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the estoppel issue and ordered limited production of documents relevant to the alleged representations.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued Notices of Proposal to revoke Future Financial Inc.'s mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required Errors and Omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing that the principal broker was distracted by family health issues.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the failure to maintain insurance was highly negligent and that the applicant had operated while uninsured.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals, imposing the penalty and revoking the licence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a second time.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, arguing it believed its licence had been surrendered and thus insurance was not required.

The Tribunal found the applicant's belief that the licence was surrendered was genuine and reasonable, meaning the failure to maintain insurance was not intentional, reckless, or negligent.

The Tribunal reduced the administrative penalty to $1,000 and ordered a six-month licence suspension instead of revocation.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Intended Decision to partially wind up the Mine Safety Appliances Company Canadian Pension Plan.

On consent of the parties, the Financial Services Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the partial wind up order, with an effective date of August 1, 2000, and excluding four specific individuals.

The Tribunal further ordered the applicant to file an updated partial wind up report for approval and to fully fund the partial wind up.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to refuse his application for a mortgage agent's licence.

The refusal was based on the applicant's past criminal conviction for drug trafficking, alleged false statements, and an allegedly misleading LinkedIn profile.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not make false statements and did not contravene the Act regarding the LinkedIn profile.

Applying the Henderson factors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct, which stemmed from a drug addiction that he had since addressed, did not render him unsuitable for licensing.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to issue the licence subject to conditions, including supervision by a licensed broker.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance for approximately 17.5 months.

The applicant admitted the non-compliance but argued the penalty should be reduced to the cost of the insurance premium, as the lapse was unintentional due to an office relocation.

The Tribunal upheld the $2,500 penalty, finding that a penalty equal only to the premium cost would not serve as an adequate deterrent and that the applicant had conducted mortgage business during the uninsured period, creating potential harm to the public.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened the Act by failing to maintain the required insurance, that the failure was intentional and negligent, and that the applicant demonstrated ungovernability.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence and impose the $3,000 penalty.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, failed to maintain errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $3,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal applied the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation and found that the proposed penalty of $3,000 was appropriate, given the applicant's negligence, the potential harm to the public, and the economic benefit derived from not paying insurance premiums.

The Applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant operated without the required insurance for a period of 19.5 months, constituting a second breach of the requirement.

Applying the statutory criteria, the Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's proposal and ordered the imposition of a $3,500 administrative monetary penalty.

The Ontario Pension Board (OPB) filed a request for review of a Tribunal decision after the 10-day time limit had expired.

The OPB sought to correct the record regarding its oral submissions, acknowledging the correction would not change the outcome.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no good reason for the delay and concluding the request lacked merit as it did not meet the threshold test for reviewing a final order.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for allegedly committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) by marketing an insurance product that did not exist.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' promotional materials falsely indicated that home and auto insurance coverage would be provided by Lloyd's Canada through Chesterfield, which constituted a UDAP.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to cease and refrain from making statements that they could arrange insurance coverage until a valid contract of insurance was in place.

The applicant sought an early retirement pension from the Rio Tinto Alcan pension plan.

He had left Alcan in 1999 when his division was sold to Eaglebrook, and later became an employee of Kemira when Eaglebrook sold the business.

Alcan refused the pension application, arguing that under s. 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the applicant was deemed to be continuously employed by a successor employer and could not collect a pension until he retired from Kemira.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that s. 80(3) did not bar the applicant from claiming his pension at age 55, as Alcan had explicitly agreed to this option at the time of the original sale in compliance with an order from the Régie des rentes du Québec.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order Alcan to commence payment of the pension.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance on two occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal, conceding the contraventions but presenting mitigating personal circumstances.

The Tribunal found that a penalty was warranted to promote compliance and deter non-compliance, but reduced the quantum to $2,000 due to the applicant's low degree of negligence and complete cooperation.

The proposal to revoke the licence was deemed moot as the licence had already expired.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a notice of proposal to impose a $3,000 administrative monetary penalty on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance on two separate occasions.

The applicant requested a hearing, conceding the contraventions but arguing the penalty amount was disproportionate because the brokerage had not conducted any business and had voluntarily surrendered its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the $3,000 penalty, finding that the contraventions were reckless or negligent, that the brokerage derived an economic benefit from avoiding premiums, and that the penalty was necessary for specific and general deterrence.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a seven-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing it was inactive and intended to suspend its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the brokerage contravened the Act, as the insurance requirement attaches to the licence regardless of business activity.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the $1,500 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty against the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a period of five and a half months.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend.

The Financial Services Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence, found that the applicant contravened the requirement to maintain insurance, and concluded that the proposed $1,500 penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter future contraventions.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $2,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant admitted the lapse in coverage but argued the failure was inadvertent and pleaded inability to pay.

The Tribunal found the failure was negligent but not intentional, and noted there was evidence of only one transaction during the uninsured period.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a reduced administrative penalty of $1,500.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $3,500 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was grossly negligent in failing to renew its insurance but noted no actual harm occurred as the applicant was not conducting business.

The Tribunal increased the administrative penalty to $4,000 due to the premium savings and extreme carelessness, but declined to revoke the licence, finding the increased penalty sufficient to protect the public interest.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the applicant's mortgage agent licence based on past conduct involving the facilitation of investments with a third party who subsequently disappeared with the funds.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had acted recklessly, placed himself in a conflict of interest, and failed to disclose material information to his clients.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe he would not deal in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.