OFST 2019

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to amend the applicant's mortgage broker licence and impose an administrative penalty of $3,500 for failing to maintain E&O insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal but subsequently failed to attend three scheduled pre-hearing conferences.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the proceeding.

As the applicant failed to provide written submissions showing reasonable cause for their non-attendance, the Tribunal dismissed the request for hearing.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to challenge the Superintendent's refusal to order the Ontario Pension Board to transfer his pension to the federal Public Service Pension Plan and pay him the excess commuted value.

The applicant argued he was treated unfairly compared to plan members under age 55.

The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, as neither the Superintendent nor the Tribunal has authority to compel the federal government or the Federal Plan to accept a pension transfer.

The Superintendent was ordered to carry out the Notice of Intended Decision.

The applicant filed a Request for Hearing with the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a decision of the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The Tribunal issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the request and gave the applicant 30 days to make written submissions.

The applicant failed to make any submissions within the required timeframe.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that the Request for Hearing be dismissed.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to issue him an insurance agent licence with conditions, based on ongoing Law Society disciplinary proceedings.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to exclude the Law Society decisions from evidence and, alternatively, to adduce evidence challenging the underlying facts of those decisions.

The Tribunal admitted the Law Society decisions as relevant evidence and held that challenging their underlying facts would constitute an impermissible collateral attack.

Consequently, the Tribunal adjourned the proceeding sine die pending the outcome of the applicant's appeal before the Law Society Tribunal Appeal Division.