Corporate/Commercial Law - OFST

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the applicant's mortgage broker licence and impose administrative monetary penalties totalling $25,000.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant contravened multiple requirements of the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, including giving false information, dealing in mortgages outside his brokerage, receiving fees from clients directly, carrying on unlicensed mortgage lending through his own company, and putting his brokerages at risk of non-compliance.

The Tribunal also found the applicant made false statements on his licence renewal applications regarding his bankruptcy and complaint history.

Concluding that the applicant was no longer suitable to be licensed and that his conduct involved an intentional scheme to defraud vulnerable borrowers, the Tribunal ordered the revocation of his licence and the imposition of $25,000 in administrative penalties.

The Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant was unsuitable to remain licensed as a mortgage broker but remitted the matter for reconsideration of the penalty.

The Tribunal considered fresh evidence, including an affidavit demonstrating genuine remorse and rehabilitation, and letters of support.

Noting that the applicant had already served a 14-month de facto suspension and that the revocation order severely impacted his ability to earn income from registering mortgages, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension already served was a proportional penalty.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reinstate the applicant's license subject to conditions.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a $2,500 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance for approximately 17.5 months.

The applicant admitted the non-compliance but argued the penalty should be reduced to the cost of the insurance premium, as the lapse was unintentional due to an office relocation.

The Tribunal upheld the $2,500 penalty, finding that a penalty equal only to the premium cost would not serve as an adequate deterrent and that the applicant had conducted mortgage business during the uninsured period, creating potential harm to the public.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for allegedly committing an unfair or deceptive act or practice (UDAP) by marketing an insurance product that did not exist.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' promotional materials falsely indicated that home and auto insurance coverage would be provided by Lloyd's Canada through Chesterfield, which constituted a UDAP.

The Tribunal ordered the applicants to cease and refrain from making statements that they could arrange insurance coverage until a valid contract of insurance was in place.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty of $1,500 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a seven-month period.

The applicant requested a hearing, arguing it was inactive and intended to suspend its licence.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the brokerage contravened the Act, as the insurance requirement attaches to the licence regardless of business activity.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to impose the $1,500 penalty.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose a $1,500 administrative monetary penalty against the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance for a period of five and a half months.

The applicant requested a hearing but failed to attend.

The Financial Services Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence, found that the applicant contravened the requirement to maintain insurance, and concluded that the proposed $1,500 penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and deter future contraventions.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant argued financial hardship and non-receipt of notices due to a change of address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant intentionally failed to maintain the insurance and failed to notify the Superintendent of its address change.

The Tribunal confirmed the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage brokerage, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant mistakenly believed its real estate broker insurance was sufficient and delayed rectifying the issue due to personal circumstances while out of the country.

The Tribunal found the penalty was justified but reduced the amount to $500, considering the applicant's honest mistake, lack of actual harm, and prompt remedial action once the deficiency was understood.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant mistakenly believed his insurance as an associate broker with another brokerage covered his sole proprietorship.

The Tribunal found the applicant was non-compliant but noted the regulator's failure to respond to his specific inquiries.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent not to carry out the revocation immediately, giving the applicant two weeks to surrender the licence, and reduced the administrative penalty to $500.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000 on the applicant mortgage brokerage for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to secure the required insurance and that an administrative penalty was appropriate to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit from non-compliance.

Applying the regulatory criteria, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 penalty.

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke her licence and impose an administrative penalty for failing to maintain required errors and omissions insurance.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant surrendered her licence, withdrawing her request regarding the revocation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement and that an administrative penalty was justified to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

Applying the regulatory criteria, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose an administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the requirement to maintain insurance from July 2008 to March 2009.

Applying the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke its licence and impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement, justifying the licence revocation.

The Tribunal also upheld the $1,000 administrative penalty to promote compliance and prevent economic benefit.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposals unless the applicant provided proof of insurance by a specified date.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. (SMFI) as a mortgage broker.

SMFI requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the principals of SMFI engaged in a protracted pattern of conduct to hide or withhold information from the Superintendent, failed to comply with trust fund administration requirements, and operated an unregistered related company as a mortgage broker.

Concluding that the past conduct of the principals afforded reasonable grounds for belief that SMFI would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke SMFI's registration.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposed Cease and Desist Order against the applicants, alleging they were trafficking in life insurance policies without a license by selling viatical settlement purchase programs.

The applicants requested a hearing and challenged the Financial Services Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the programs did not constitute 'insurance undertaken in Ontario'.

The Tribunal found that the assignment of benefits under an American life insurance policy is a chose in action, not a contract of insurance.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction and declared the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal of no force or effect.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against the applicants for advertising illegal insurance products on their website.

The applicants requested a hearing to challenge the requirement that the corrective website notice specifically name the unlicensed entities involved.

The Financial Services Tribunal upheld the Superintendent's requirement to include the specific names, but modified the notice wording on consent to clarify that the warning was based on advice from the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued an interim cease and desist order against Executive Barter Exchange Inc. and its principals for promoting insurance products of unlicensed insurers.

The respondents requested a hearing but subsequently agreed to a consent order.

The Financial Services Tribunal ordered the respondents to immediately cease advertising unlicensed insurance, post a warning notice on their website, provide information regarding their insurance-related transactions to the Superintendent, and repay any insurance monies collected from the public.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Prohibition Order against Transamerica, preventing the issuance of a variable insurance contract with a negotiable initial sales charge.

The Superintendent argued this feature could lead to unfair discrimination among insureds of the same class and expectation of life, violating the Insurance Act.

On appeal, the Financial Services Tribunal quashed the order, finding that differences in negotiated charges result from individual consumer choice and market competition, not from discriminatory acts by the insurer.

The Tribunal concluded the Prohibition Order was a disproportionate response to speculative harm and emphasized the need for full disclosure of the negotiable nature of the charges to consumers.