Financial Services Tribunal

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with the insurance requirement under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, justifying a penalty.

However, considering mitigating factors such as the applicant's honest belief that existing insurance was sufficient and their efforts to rectify the situation, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to reduce the penalty to $500.

The applicant mortgage brokerage requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to 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 statutory requirement to maintain insurance and acted recklessly by not informing itself of the requirements or securing insurance after being notified.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to impose the $1,000 administrative penalty.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent proposed to revoke her mortgage agent licence.

The Superintendent alleged she did not meet the educational requirements and made a false statement on her application regarding her prior experience to claim an exemption.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the strict notice requirements for the exemption, but concluded she honestly believed her statement was true.

Finding revocation too severe, the Tribunal ordered a 120-day suspension to allow her to complete the required education program.

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 requested a hearing to review 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 had mistakenly applied for a brokerage licence instead of a broker licence, believing he was covered under his employer's insurance.

The Tribunal found that while the penalty was justified due to the applicant's negligence in understanding the licensing requirements, the $1,000 standardized penalty was excessive given his lack of intent to evade the law.

The Tribunal reduced the penalty to $250.

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 requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to revoke his mortgage brokerage licence and impose an administrative penalty of $1,000.

The applicant failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for his brokerage and did not attend the hearing.

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

The Tribunal also upheld the imposition of the $1,000 administrative penalty, finding it appropriate to promote compliance with the Act.

The applicant applied for a mortgage agent's licence and answered 'no' to a question about prior criminal convictions, believing she had received a pardon for a 1999 conviction.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse the licence on the basis that she provided false information.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the applicant's false statement was inadvertent and based on a plausible, albeit mistaken, belief that a solicitor had obtained a pardon on her behalf.

The Tribunal concluded that the false statement did not afford reasonable grounds to believe she was unsuitable to be licensed and ordered the Superintendent to issue the licence.

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 Implementing Administrator of a wound-up pension plan brought a motion seeking party status and clarification regarding the implementation of a Claims Bar Procedure established in a prior consent order.

The Financial Services Tribunal granted the Implementing Administrator limited party status to address implementation issues.

The Tribunal also provided guidance, confirming that the Administrator's proposed practical steps for distributing Member Profile Statements and processing claims, despite incomplete data and the unavailability of the Revised Windup Report, complied with the intent of the original order.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the Superintendent's proposal to revoke her mortgage agent's licence.

The Superintendent proposed revocation after discovering the applicant had been convicted of two counts of fraud over $5,000 and failed to disclose these convictions on her licence application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct and her provision of false information on her application demonstrated she was not suitable to be licensed.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse his application for a mortgage agent's licence.

The proposal was based on the applicant's prior conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his failure to disclose this conviction on his application.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's involvement in the drug offence was inadvertent and that his failure to disclose the conviction was an innocent misrepresentation based on a misunderstanding of the pardon process.

Concluding that the applicant was suitable to hold a licence, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to issue the mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse his mortgage agent's licence.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and did not respond to communications.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to issue a Notice of Intention to Dismiss the application pursuant to Rules 37.01 and 37.02, giving the applicant 30 days to make written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed.

The Financial Services Tribunal held a hearing to consider the approval of Minutes of Settlement regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan and the distribution of surplus.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, added affected members as parties, and ordered the applicant to file an amendment to the plan and a surplus withdrawal application.

The Superintendent was directed to issue a Notice of Proposal approving the application.

The applicant, a former member of a pension plan, sought to transfer the commuted value of his pension to a locked-in retirement account due to financial hardship.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the transfer because the applicant was eligible for an immediate pension and his annual benefit exceeded the statutory threshold for a lump sum payment.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Superintendent's proposal was premature, as the plan administrator had discretion to permit the transfer.

The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to ascertain whether the plan administrator would exercise its discretion to allow the transfer before making a final decision.

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.