FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

Citation: Amin Ali v. Ontario (CEO of FSRA), 2023 ONFST 5 FST File No.: I0957-2022 Date: 2023/07/11

IN THE MATTER OF the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.I.8, as amended (the "Act"), in particular sections 392.4, 302.5 and 407.1;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Licences (NOP) dated June 3, 2022, issued by the Director, Litigation and Enforcement by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a proceeding commenced through Requests for Hearing in accordance with section 407.1 of the Act.

B E T W E E N:

AMIN ALI

APPLICANT

and

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER of the FINANCIAL SERVICES REGULATORY AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

BEFORE: Ian McSweeney, Chair, Financial Services Tribunal

APPEARANCES: For the Applicant – Ms. Seema Sadiq, Applicant’s Representative For the Respondent – Mr. Michael Spagnolo, Counsel with Ms. Monique Gannon, Law Clerk and Mr. Dmitrii Mazur, paralegal student

DATE HEARD: July 10th, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

1The NOP was issued by the Respondent on June 3, 2022. The Applicant was licensed pursuant to the Act as a life insurance and accident & sickness insurance agent from April 20, 2006, to July 12, 2022, (licence number 06091450). This licence expired on July 12, 2022 – more than a month after the NOP was issued proposing to revoke it.

2The NOP includes a proposal to refuse to renew the corporate insurance agent’s licence of Anusha Financial Group Inc., however, Anusha did not file a Request for Hearing with the Tribunal and is not a party to these proceedings.

3A number of pre-hearing conferences were held. During the course of these pre-hearing conferences, the Tribunal was advised that the Respondent had not received a licence renewal application from the Applicant despite repeated inquiries from the Tribunal as to whether the Applicant intended to do so. The Applicant was advised that such filing, followed by the issuance of a renewed licence, would be required to preserve the Respondent’s and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in this proceeding. Otherwise, jurisdiction would be preserved through subsections 407.1(8) and (9) of the Act. These subsections provide:

“(8) If, after the Chief Executive Officer gives notice under subsection (2) [i.e., an NOP],

(a) an applicant withdraws the application to which the proposal relates; or

(b) the licence to which the proposal relates is suspended or expires,

the Chief Executive Officer and the Tribunal retain continuing jurisdiction with respect to the proposal and may take any step and make any order that they could have made relating to the proposal, as if the application had not been withdrawn or as if the licence had not been suspended or had not expired, and the parties may appeal any order of the Tribunal.

(9) The continuing jurisdiction of the Chief Executive Officer and the Tribunal under subsection (8) is terminated when the rights of the parties have been exhausted or have expired and when all proceedings relating to the proposal have concluded.”

4The Applicant was further advised by the Respondent that, in the absence of receiving a licence renewal application from the Applicant, the Respondent’s position would be that the proceeding before the Tribunal should be dismissed. No licence renewal application has been filed by the Applicant.

5The Applicant was originally represented by legal counsel, however, prior to the last pre-hearing conference the Tribunal was advised that the Applicant would be continuing on a self-represented basis and that, in view of certain health issues, Ms. Seema Sadiq, a family member, would be appearing before the Tribunal on the Applicant’s behalf.

II. disposition

6The proceeding is dismissed.

III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

7At the last two pre-hearing conferences the Applicant, through Ms. Sadiq, confirmed that he did not intend to file a licence renewal application, nor did he intend to continue with the proceeding to challenge the NOP on the merits at a hearing. Ms. Sidiq advised that the Applicant wished to have the proceeding otherwise concluded in a way that was “fair”, given that settlement discussions with the Respondent had not been successful. In this regard, the Applicant was advised of two possible options:

a. Option A – the Applicant could withdraw his Request for Hearing by filing a Form 5 with the Registrar, in which case Mr. Spagnolo advised that the Respondent would proceed to issue a final order against the Applicant under the NOP pursuant to its authority under subsection 407.1(8) of the Act; or

b. Option B – if the Request for Hearing is not withdrawn, the Tribunal would consider dismissing the proceeding pursuant to its authority under subsection 407.1(8) of the Act and, if the proceeding was dismissed, the Respondent would be directed to issue a final order against the Applicant under the NOP similar to the final order described in Option A.

8Ms. Sidiq advised that the Applicant wished to proceed under Option B. All parties consented to the Tribunal considering dismissal of the proceeding under Option B on the basis of the current pre-hearing conference record without further hearing or submissions.

9I find, pursuant to subsection 407.1(8) of the Act and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings before the Tribunal, that I have the authority to consider dismissal of this proceeding on the basis of the Applicant’s desire not to proceed with his challenge of the NOP on the merits. I note that under subsection 407.1(4) of the Act the Tribunal may, by order, direct the Respondent to carry out the NOP, with or without changes, or substitute its opinion for that of the Respondent, and may impose such conditions as the Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances.

10Since the Applicant’s licence has expired without renewal as described above, there is no longer any licence in existence to revoke. Therefore, having regard to both the merits of the NOP and the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the substance of this proceeding has been rendered moot. But for subsection 407.1(8) of the Act, I would have, in the circumstances, dismissed the proceeding on this basis alone.

11However, under subsection 407.1(8) of the Act I am, in the circumstances and under Option B, seized with jurisdiction to consider the merits of the NOP as if the licence had not expired. In this regard, I take the Applicant’s decision to not challenge the merits of the NOP before the Tribunal at a hearing as pleading no contest and I dismiss the proceeding on that basis. No evidence or credible explanation has been presented to the Tribunal by the Applicant that would cause me to seriously question the findings in the NOP on the balance of probabilities or otherwise.

IV. ORDER

12The proceeding is dismissed and the Respondent is directed to issue a final order in relation to the NOP.