Tukacs v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 21

Citation: Tukacs v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2016 ONFST 21 Decision No. M0694-2016-1 Date: 2016/11/09

IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 29 (“Act”), in particular sections 14 and 21;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application dated May 30, 2016 against Joseph Tukacs, 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 filed by Joseph Tukacs.

and

BEFORE:

Florence A. Holden Chair of the Panel and Chair (Acting) of the Tribunal

For the Applicant – Robert Bernstein, counsel

For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Me-Hae Hur, counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. BACKGROUND

1The Applicant, Joseph Tukacs, filed an incomplete Request for Hearing in response to a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Application dated May 30, 2016 (“NOP”). The Request for Hearing was filed June 16, 2016 and indicated that the Applicant intended to retain legal counsel.

2The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss dated August 31, 2016 for the reasons outlined therein, namely that despite several attempts by the Registrar’s office to contact the Applicant, no response or contact was received from Mr. Tukacs.

3The Applicant advised the Registrar’s office by email received September 21, 2016 that he had retained legal counsel, Mathew Stanley to represent him. Mr. Stanley did not contact the Registrar. On October 17, 2016, the Registrar received written submissions by new counsel, Mr. Robert Bernstein.

4The Superintendent filed written submissions on September 30, 2016 in respect of the Notice of Intention to Dismiss and on October 21, 2016 in respect of the Applicant’s submissions.

5I have considered the submissions and under Rule 1.03, 2.03, 13.01 and 13.03 of the Tribunals Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal (“Rules”) grant the Applicant until November 15, 2016 to file a completed Request for Hearing with the Registrar. My reasons follow.

II. ANALYSYS AND REASONS

6The Applicant does not refute that he filed an incomplete Request for Hearing as indicated in his submissions. While the Applicant’s submissions before us do not constitute evidence in these proceedings, I accept that he may have taken some steps to retain counsel to assist him in these proceedings in the interim and may not have fully appreciated the deadlines he was given. It is fair in my view now that he has retained new counsel, to permit him an opportunity for a hearing in respect of the NOP. The Tribunal is sensitive to matters involving licensing and are mindful of the potential financial consequences to the Applicant related to an inability to secure a licence. Further as Mr. Tukacs is not currently licensed there is no immediate harm to the public. Consequently on this basis alone I am content to order the Applicant to complete his Request for Hearing within seven days of the date of this Order.

7I do not find it necessary in these circumstances to respond further to the Applicant’s submissions. I do note however that the parties remain subject to the Rules as well as to the Act in these proceedings.

III. ORDER

8The Applicant is ordered to complete his Request for Hearing and file the completed form with the Registrar by November 15, 2016.

Dated at Toronto, this 9th day of November, 2016.

“Florence A. Holden” Florence A. Holden