Citation: Thind v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2015 ONFST 37 Decision No. I0624-2015-1 Date: 2015/11/10

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended (the “Act”) in particular sections 441.1, 441.2, and 441.3;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of Proposal to Impose an Administrative Monetary Penalty dated March 6, 2015 issued by the Executive Director, Licensing & Market Conduct Division by delegated authority from the Superintendent of Financial Services against Navdeep Thind;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accordance with subsection 441.3(5) of the Act.

and

RESPONDENT

BEFORE:

Denis Boivin Chair of the Panel and Vice-Chair (Acting) of the Tribunal

Ian McSweeney Member of the Panel and Member of the Tribunal

Jeffrey Richardson Member of the Panel and Member of the Tribunal

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant – Navdeep Thind

For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Robert Conway

DATE HEARD: September 24, 2015

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant in this matter, Navdeep Thind, is licensed to carry on business as a life insurance and accident and sickness insurance agent. On March 6, 2015, a delegate of the Superintendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”) issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) in which he proposes to impose a general administrative monetary penalty (“general AMP”) of $2,500 on Ms. Thind.

2In the NOP, it is alleged that the Applicant furnished false, misleading or incomplete information to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”) in response to three questions asked during her online licence renewal application, contrary to subsection 447(2)(a) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

II. issues

3The Prehearing Conference Memorandum and Notice of Hearing that were prepared for this matter identify three issues:

a. Did Ms. Thind contravene subsection 447(2)(a) of the Insurance Act by furnishing false, misleading or incomplete information to FSCO in her online licence renewal application dated July 18, 2013?

b. If the answer to question (a) is yes, would the imposition of a general AMP be appropriate, considering subsection 441.2(1) and 441.3 of the Insurance Act? That is, would a monetary penalty promote compliance with requirements under the Insurance Act and/or prevent Ms. Thind from deriving an economic benefit from her non-compliance?

c. If the answer to question (b) is yes, what is the appropriate amount for the general AMP, taking into account the five factors listed in subsection 4(2) of Ontario Regulation 408/12?

4For reasons that follow, we find that Ms. Thind has contravened [subsection 447(2)](https