Joshi v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 17

FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

Citation: Joshi v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 17 Decision No. M0577-2014-3 Date: 2016/09/08

IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 29, in particular sections 18, 19, 21 (the “Act”), and section 10 of Regulation 409/07;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Notice of Proposal to Revoke Licence dated July 11, 2014, issued by the Executive Director Licensing & Market Conduct Division by delegated authority from the Superintendent of Financial Services to revoke the mortgage broker licence of Kapil Johsi;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accordance with subsection 21(3) of the Act;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Reasons for Decision of the Financial Services Tribunal dated May 13, 2015;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Notice of Appeal filed by Mr. Joshi with the Divisional Court dated June 11, 2015;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the judgment of the Divisional Court dated June 30, 2016.

B E T W E E N:

KAPIL JOSHI

APPLICANT

and

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

RESPONDENT

BEFORE:

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

Jeffrey Richardson Member of the Panel and Member of the Tribunal

Bethune Whiston Member of the Panel and Member of the Tribunal

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

For the Applicant – Wayne Cunningham For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Deborah McPhail

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. introduction

1In a Decision released on May 13, 2015, the Tribunal concluded that the past conduct of the Applicant, Mr. Joshi, affords reasonable grounds for a belief that he will not deal or trade in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, and that he was therefore unsuitable to remain licensed as a mortgage broker: Joshi v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2015 ONFST 16 at para. 23 (“Joshi”). We made this finding after a careful review of the nine factors set out in the Tribunal’s decision in Henderson v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2008 ONFST 7 (“Henderson”). In addition, given the nature of the conduct in question, we ordered the Superintendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”) to revoke the Applicant’s licence. As concisely explained, “[t]he registration of two mortgages on a matrimonial home without verifying the signature or consent of a spouse puts the public at too much risk” (ibid. at para. 24).

2On June 30, 2016, in the context of an appeal of our decision, the Ontario Divisional Court held that the Henderson analysis conducted by the Tribunal provided a “reasonable basis for its analysis” and that our finding with respect to Mr. Joshi’s past conduct was “within the realm of reasonableness”: Joshi v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONSC 4477 at para. 7-11. In other words,