Moras v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 14

Citation: Moras v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 14 Decision No. IA680-2016-1 Date: 2016/08/03

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, as amended (the “Act”), in particular sections 392.4 and 407.1;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Notice of Proposal to Refuse Renewal Application against Marco Moras, dated March 15, 2016, issued by the Executive Director, Licensing and Market Conduct Division by delegated authority from the Superintendent of Financial Services;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Request for Hearing in accordance with subsection 407.1(3) of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8.

and

BEFORE:

Paul Farley Chair of the Panel and Member of the Tribunal

For the Applicant – Marco Moras, no submissions filed

For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Michael Spagnolo, no submissions filed

I. INTRODUCTION

1The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) to Refuse Renewal Application of the insurance agent licence of Marco Moras (the “Applicant”) alleging serious contraventions of the Act. The Applicant requested a hearing and a pre-hearing conference was scheduled by the Registrar. A Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference (“PHC”) dated April 15, 2016 was served on Mr. Moras by regular mail and electronic mail to the address provided by Mr. Moras in his Request for Hearing. The Notice of PHC advised of the date for the PHC, June 9, 2016 at 10:30 a.m. by teleconference call.

II. THE FACTS

2On June 9, 2016, at 10:30 a.m. the Registrar telephoned Mr. Moras three times at the number he provided as his contact number on the Request for Hearing. Each time the Registrar was connected with an answering machine. The Registrar, at approximately 10:35 a.m., then called a number provided by Superintendent’s counsel which Mr. Moras indicated as a contact number on his licensing application. The Registrar was directed to voice mail where the Registrar left a message identifying herself and advising that the Pre-Hearing Conference was about to commence.

3Mr. Moras did not contact the Registrar prior to or during the PHC and the PHC commenced by teleconference shortly after 10:30 a.m. without his participation. Superintendent’s counsel and the Registrar were present as was the Chair. Because of the failure of Mr. Moras to attend the matter was adjourned.

4Pursuant to Rule 35.01 and 36.01 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings Before the Financial Services Tribunal (“Rules”), the Tribunal, on its own motion, signed a Notice of Intention to Dismiss dated June 9, 2016. The Notice of Intention to Dismiss gave notice that the Tribunal “…proposes to dismiss this proceeding without a hearing if reasonable cause is not shown within 30 days of the giving of this notice for Marco Moras’ failure to participate in the pre-hearing teleconference on Thursday June 9, 2016 at 10:30 a.m., in accordance with the Tribunal’s Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference dated and issued on April 15, 2016.”

5The Assistant Registrar advises that the Notice of Intention to Dismiss was sent to Mr. Moras by both email and regular mail, to his address provided by him on the Request for Hearing filed by Mr. Moras, on June 9, 2016. The Assistant Registrar further advises that, as at July 12, 2016, the regular mail was not returned to the Registrar’s office and the email did not bounce back.

6The Assistant Registrar advises that Mr. Moras did not respond to either the electronic mail or the regular mail sent to him which enclosed the Notice of Intention to Dismiss.

III. DECISION AND ORDER

7Reasonable cause not being shown for Mr. Moras’ failure to participate in the PHC on Thursday June 9, 2016 in accordance with the Tribunal’s Notice of Pre-Hearing Conference dated and issued on April 15, 2016 the Tribunal Hereby Orders that the proceeding commenced by the filing of a Request for Hearing by Mr. Moras with the Registrar on March 31, 2016 be, and is hereby, dismissed.

Dated at Toronto, this 3rd day of August, 2016.

“Paul Farley” Paul Farley