Administrative Law - OFST

The applicant union requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services declined to order partial wind ups of two pension plans.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to require the partial wind ups of the plans, effective June 30, 2007, covering members who ceased employment between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007.

The order was stayed pending the employer's appeal to the Divisional Court regarding whether the plans are subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The Society of Energy Professionals brought a motion to correct an alleged misstatement in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the partial wind up of the Hydro One Pension Plan.

The Tribunal accepted that it had misunderstood counsel's position during argument and agreed to correct the decision.

The Tribunal also corrected a typographical error, replacing the word 'interlocutory' with 'interrogatory'.

The applicant made a second application to the Superintendent of Financial Services for a withdrawal from a locked-in account based on medical expenses within 12 months of a successful first application.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application because the Regulation precludes more than one application for withdrawal on the basis of medical expenses in a 12-month period.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, finding it had no authority to direct the Superintendent to act contrary to the Regulation.

The applicant employer wound up a pension plan and made a lump sum contribution to fund the estimated deficit.

Once all benefit obligations were settled, it was determined the employer had overpaid by $145,361.

The employer applied to the Superintendent for a return of the overpayment under s. 78(4) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of time under s. 105.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application, arguing the excess constituted surplus subject to s. 79 and that the application was out of time.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the excess was an overpayment, that s. 78(4) operates independently of s. 79, and that an extension of time was warranted.

The Superintendent was ordered to consent to the refund.

The appellant appealed an order revoking his Level II life insurance agent's licence and applied for a stay of the order pending the appeal.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied the three-part test for granting a stay.

The Tribunal found that the risk of harm to the public if the stay were granted, given the appellant's past misconduct and risk of recidivism, outweighed the irreparable harm the appellant would suffer from being unable to earn a livelihood as an agent.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued interim cease and desist orders against the applicants, a paralegal and his company, alleging operational misconduct and failure to cooperate with an investigation into their statutory accident benefit representation.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found no operational misconduct but concluded the applicants engaged in regulatory accountability misconduct by failing to comply with formal requests for information and breaching the interim orders.

The Tribunal determined it had the authority to issue a time-limited cease and desist order and imposed a one-year order prohibiting the applicants from acting as statutory accident benefit representatives.

The applicant requested a review of the Tribunal's July 11, 2005 order regarding the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan.

The request was filed slightly past the 10-day deadline, but the Tribunal agreed to consider it as the respondent did not object.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to identify any material error of law or fact that would have led to a different decision.

The request for review was denied and the original order was confirmed.

The applicant sought to purchase past service credits in the OPSEU Pension Plan for casual employment prior to 1979.

He had previously applied to buy back this service in 1979 under the predecessor plan but failed to complete the process within the required timeframe.

When the 1989 Public Service Pension Act came into force, it provided a time-limited window until December 31, 1991, for members to purchase prior non-credited service.

The applicant did not apply within this window.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to refuse an order directing the Plan to allow the purchase, finding that the applicant failed to meet the mandatory statutory deadline and that the Tribunal had no authority to waive the Plan's terms.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Superintendent of Financial Services denying his application for a life insurance agent's licence because he failed the qualifying examination.

The appellant argued that the passing grade was unfairly raised from 50% to 60% without notice to him, and that this breached his Charter rights.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Superintendent had no duty to notify the appellant of the change in the passing grade and that no Charter rights were infringed.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement between Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., the Superintendent of Financial Services, and a group of former employees regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The settlement provided for the distribution of wind-up surplus and 'grow-in' benefits to affected members.

Upon approval of the revised report, the applicant's request for a hearing was withdrawn, and the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal was withdrawn.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to an application for withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Tribunal found that under the formula in subsection 88(2) of Regulation 909, the Applicant was not entitled to withdraw any funds because the net assets of the Applicant and her spouse exceeded the maximum withdrawal amount.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision and dismissed the application.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board to pay a member's pension as a joint and survivor pension.

The member and his spouse separated shortly after his retirement but before the first pension payment was made.

The Board requested a hearing, arguing the spouses were living separate and apart on the date the first instalment was due, triggering an exception under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Financial Services Tribunal agreed with the Board, finding that the due date for the first instalment was at the end of the month, by which time the spouses had separated.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the proposed order.

The Applicant applied to withdraw $6,500 from his locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship due to low income.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent because the Applicant's net assets exceeded the allowable withdrawal amount under the formula in Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the refusal, finding that it lacked the authority to allow an application that did not meet the strict requirements of the Regulation.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke the registration of Global Mortgage Link Corp. under the Mortgage Brokers Act after its sole shareholder and director, Peter Chatt, was convicted of theft over $5000.

Chatt brought a motion in criminal court seeking a stay of those proceedings due to delay.

Pending that disposition, the applicants brought a motion before the Financial Services Tribunal to stay the revocation hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the public interest in protecting consumers from a mortgage broker convicted of a serious crime of dishonesty outweighed the negative impact on the applicant's business.

The applicant, CBS Canada Co., and the Superintendent of Financial Services, along with the CAW-Canada, reached a settlement regarding the partial wind-up of the Westinghouse Canada Inc. Pension Plans following several plant closures.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement, which detailed the calculation of early retirement benefits for affected plan members and the withdrawal of the Superintendent's Notices of Proposal to refuse the partial wind-up reports.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services refused consent to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The applicant had previously made a successful application based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Tribunal held that under the Regulation, only one application may be made during each 12-month period.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, as it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirements.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent for a financial hardship withdrawal from a locked-in account.

The applicant had previously made a successful application for withdrawal based on low income within the preceding 12 months.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, holding that it lacked the authority to grant an application that failed to meet the strict 12-month time requirement set out in the regulations.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' proposal to refuse consent for the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application based on low income, contrary to the Pension Benefits Act regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it had no authority to waive the regulatory requirement despite the Applicant's evidence of financial hardship.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked the authority to allow an application that did not meet the regulatory requirements.

The Financial Services Tribunal previously directed the Superintendent to carry out a Notice of Proposal regarding the applicant's registration under the Mortgage Brokers Act.

In this costs decision, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay $15,000 in costs to the Superintendent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant unreasonably prolonged the proceedings by making unsubstantiated allegations of bad faith against the Superintendent's staff and introducing irrelevant matters.