Grange v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2018 ONFST 18

FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

Citation: Grange v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2018 ONFST 18 Decision No. M0742-2017-1 Date: 2018/09/17

IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.29 (the “MBLA Act”), in particular sections 18, 19, 21 and 43;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Notice of Proposal to Revoke Licence dated June 5, 2017 against Dwight Grange, 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 Hearing in accordance with subsection 21(3) of the MBLA Act.

B E T W E E N:

DWIGHT GRANGE

APPLICANT

and

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

RESPONDENT

BEFORE:

Denis Boivin Chair of the Panel and Vice-Chair of the Tribunal

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

For the Applicant – Dwight Grange (no submissions received)

For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Deborah McPhail & Brendan Forbes (no submissions received)

REASONS FOR DECISION

1The Applicant in this matter, Mr. Dwight Grange, used to be licensed as a mortgage agent under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 29 (“MBLA Act”). His licence expired without renewal on March 31, 2018.

2On June 5, 2017, prior to the expiry of the Applicant’s licence, a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) was issued by the Executive Director, Licensing and Market Conduct Division, by delegated authority from the Superintendent of Financial Services (“Superintendent”). This NOP proposed to revoke the licence of Mr. Grange on the ground that he was no longer suitable to be licensed under the MBLA Act. No other disciplinary measures were invoked by the Superintendent’s delegate in the NOP. In particular, there was no proposal to impose any administrative monetary penalty on Mr. Grange.

3On July 4, 2017, the Applicant requested a hearing in accordance with subsection 21(3) of the MBLA Act. A pre-hearing teleconference was held and it was determined that the hearing would take place on February 15, 16 and 22, 2018, and March 15, 16, 22 and 29, 2018, before a panel of three members.

4The original hearing did not take place as planned. The February dates were dropped, because of scheduling conflicts involving the Applicant, and an extra day was added in March, namely, March 20, 2018. However, three weeks before the hearing was set to begin, the parties made a joint request for an adjournment. I granted their request and adjourned the hearing to the next mutually available dates, June 14, 15, 18, 19 and 22, 2018.

5Under subsection 16(8) of the MBLA Act, a licence continues in effect after its expiry date if a licence application is made before said date. Thus, if Mr. Grange had applied to renew his licence on or before March 31, 2018, his licence would have remained in force and the June hearing would have proceeded, as planned. However, the Applicant did not file a renewal application for his mortgage agent licence.

6The June hearing was adjourned at the request of the Superintendent. Thereafter, on June 14, 2018, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss this proceeding without a hearing pursuant to Rule 33.01 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings Before the Financial Services Tribunal. As explained to the parties, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine whether the NOP issued on June 5, 2017 should be carried out, given that the Applicant was no longer licensed under the MBLA Act. In accordance with Rule 33.02, the parties were given the opportunity to make written submissions on the issue of whether the Tribunal should dismiss the proceeding without a hearing.

7Neither party filed any written submissions. Approximately one month after the deadline stated in the Notice of Intention to Dismiss, the Applicant sent three “witness statements” by electronic mail to the Registrar and to counsel for the Superintendent. I have reviewed these statements, but they are not relevant to the question of whether the proceeding should be dismissed without a hearing.

8Because the NOP to revoke the licence of Mr. Grange is moot, the Tribunal orders that the Request for Hearing filed by the Applicant be dismissed without a hearing.