RIBO 2026

The Licensee, a registered insurance broker, pled guilty to professional misconduct for submitting 39 false health claims totaling $4,799.47 under her employer's group benefits plan.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Committee found the Licensee guilty of failing to act with integrity and ordered a reprimand, a one-month suspension, and the completion of three hours of ethics education, noting her early admission of guilt and arrangement to repay the insurer as mitigating factors.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) brought discipline proceedings against a licensed broker and his brokerage for failing to process a policy cancellation request in a timely manner and for charging impermissible service fees on Facility Association policies.

The licensees pled guilty and submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission, finding that the licensees breached the Code of Conduct.

The Committee ordered a reprimand and a $350 fine, noting the licensees' cooperation, lack of prior discipline history, and immediate cessation of the improper fees.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) brought professional misconduct allegations against a former insurance broker who misappropriated client premiums and issued fraudulent temporary liability slips.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the broker guilty of misconduct for breaching the Code of Conduct and trust money regulations.

Applying the Anthony-Cook standard, the Committee accepted the joint submission, ordering a reprimand and accepting the broker's undertaking to never reapply for registration with RIBO.

The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) alleged that the respondent broker committed professional misconduct by sharing confidential client information and delegating tasks to an unlicensed individual.

The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee found the respondent guilty of breaching sections 14.1, 14.3, and 14.6 of the Code of Conduct.

The Committee accepted the joint submission and ordered a reprimand and the completion of three hours of ethics education, noting mitigating factors including client consent, lack of consumer harm, and the respondent's remorse and cooperation.

The Licensee, an insurance broker, faced allegations of professional misconduct including depositing client premiums into his personal bank account, distributing unauthorized insurance flyers, making false statements to his employers, and breaching client confidentiality.

The Licensee pled guilty to the allegations and agreed to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee accepted a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding that it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and ordered a reprimand and a $2,500 fine.

The Licensee, an insurance broker, pled guilty to professional misconduct for failing to report to the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) that his insurance agent license had been revoked by the Financial Services Tribunal.

He also admitted to providing false information on his annual renewal by indicating he was not subject to any disciplinary action.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty, finding the Licensee guilty and ordering a reprimand along with two hours of ethics education.

The licensee brought a motion for a publication ban prior to the commencement of a professional discipline hearing, arguing that publication of the decision would cause unjust harm to his employment and professional opportunities.

The Discipline Committee applied the Dagenais/Mentuck/Sherman Estate test and found that the licensee failed to establish a serious risk to an important public interest.

The motion was dismissed, as the public interest in transparency and the open court principle outweighed the licensee's private interests in avoiding discomfort or embarrassment.