The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario v. Mark Norris Lau, 2026 ONRIBODC 7

File No: 6986

REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE

Between:

THE REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO

and

MARK NORRIS LAU (Registration No. 37322) and OVERSEAS INSURANCE BROKERS CORPORATION (Registration No. 1677) (the “Brokerage”)

Heard: March 26, 2026

PANEL MEMBERS:

• Rose Cavaliere, Broker and Chair
• Mario Laraia, Broker
• Darren Hamilton, Broker
• Paul Armstrong, Broker
• Frances Kordyback, Public Member

IN ATTENDANCE:

• Jeremy Ruffolo, Counsel for RIBO
• Mark Norris Lau, Licensee
• Heather Vaughan, Discipline Committee Independent Legal Counsel

DECISION AND REASONS

INTRODUCTION:

1This matter was referred to the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) by the Complaints Committee in accordance with the Registered Insurance Brokers Act section 18.

2This matter was convened and heard virtually on March 26, 2026 pursuant to the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.19, (RIBA) and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 and regulations thereunder and was governed by the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO).

3The hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) proposed by the parties. Mr. Lau appeared on behalf of himself and the brokerage and were not represented by counsel.

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT:

4The allegations of misconduct as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated December 19, 2025, against Mark Norris Lau on his own behalf and on behalf of Overseas Insurance Brokers Corporation (the “Licensees”), which was marked as Exhibit #1, were as follows:

1. That Mark Norris Lau (hereinafter “Licensee”) may be guilty of misconduct pursuant to Ontario Regulation 991 Code of Conduct, section 15(1) (9) by failing to comply with the provisions of the Act, the Regulation and the By-Laws of the Corporation by failing to process policy change requests in a timely manner, and by charging impermissible service fees in respect of Facility Association policies, contrary to sections 14(1), 14(3) and 14(4) of the Code of Conduct, which state as follows:

S. 14 (1): A member shall discharge the member’s duties to clients, members of the public, fellow members and insurers with integrity.

S. 14 (3): A member shall serve the member’s client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and shall provide a quality of service at least equal to that which members would generally expect of a member in a like situation.

S. 14 (4): A member shall be both candid and honest when advising the member’s client.

THE LICENSEES’ PLEA:

5The Licensees pled guilty to the allegations set out in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Hearing, breach of section 14(1), 14(3) and 14(4) of the Code of Conduct in Regulation 991 to RIBA. The Panel conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that this guilty plea was free and voluntary.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS:

6RIBO and the Licensees advised the Panel that an agreement had been reached on the facts and filed an ASF which was accepted by the panel and filed as Exhibit #2. The relevant facts in the ASF provide as follows:

Background

1. Mark Norris Lau’s registration number with RIBO is R37322. His current license status with RIBO is “Active.”

2. The Brokerage’s registration number with RIBO is 1677. Its current license status is “Active.”

3. On May 17, 2022, RIBO received a written complaint from a client of the brokerage (the “Complainant”) regarding:

a) the failure to process the Complainant’s requested policy change; and,

b) charging and collecting service fees from Facility Association clients (the “Complaint”).

4. Based on the information received from the Complainant, RIBO investigated the Complaint (the “Investigation”).

5. On April 14, 2025, the Complaints Committee referred this matter to the Discipline Committee.

Key Facts

Refund Request

6. On November 18, 2019, the Complainant delivered to the Licensees a signed request to delete coverage, effective November 19, 2019. The subject policy was a provided through a Facility Association fleet policy with Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada (the “Insurer”) in respect of a fleet of tour buses (the “Policy”). The term of the Policy was July 29, 2019 to January 29, 2020.

7. The Licensees inadvertently failed to deliver the request to delete coverage to the Insurer in November 2019. After receiving a notice from the Insurer of the Policy’s renewal on July 29, 2020, the Licensees discovered the said error and ultimately submitted the cancellation request on August 12, 2020.

8. The Licensees sought to have the Insurer retroactively cancel the Policy as of November 2019, but that request was denied at first instance, and again on appeal. The Insurer agreed only to delete coverage for the July 29, 2020 to January 29, 2021 term, but not for the November 19, 2019 to January 29, 2020 term, nor the January 29, 2020 to July 29, 2020 term.

Service Fees

9. The Licensees previously held the mistaken belief that they were entitled to charge Facility Association clients a service fee in the amount of $200.00 in two instances:

a) on renewal of each/any vehicle with liability coverage; and,

b) on the addition of coverage to each/any vehicle during a policy term;

provide such service fees were disclosed to the clients prior to their being charged.

10. The Licensees charged the Complainant such service fees each time he requested to deactivate or reactivate his commercial auto insurance coverage.

11. Upon learning that they were not permitted to charge fees over and above commissions paid in respect of Facility Association policies, the Licensees ceased such practice.

Admissions and Acknowledgments of the Broker

12. The Licensees admit to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing that they breached sections 14(1), 14(3) and 14(4) of the Code of Conduct.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

7The parties did not make submissions regarding the evidence in the ASF.

FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

8The panel found that there was sufficient evidence in the ASF to support the finding of guilt and we find the Licensees guilty of misconduct for the breach of sections 14(1), 14(3) and 14(4) of Regulation 991 of RIBA.

JOINT SUBMISSION ON ORDER:

9The Panel was advised that the parties had agreed on the appropriate penalty in this case and the parties filed a Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) which was marked as Exhibit #3.

10The parties jointly requested that the panel of the Discipline Committee impose the following penalty:

1. That the Licensees are hereby reprimanded.

2. That the Licensees shall pay a fine payable to the Minister of Finance in the amount of $350.00.

PENALTY ORDER MADE:

11The panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty of the parties and made the order accordingly, effective immediately.

REASONS FOR PENALTY:

12The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) is a self-governing organization that regulates the licensing, professional competence, ethical conduct and insurance related financial obligations of all independent general insurance brokers in the province of Ontario to ensure the public is served and protected accordingly.

13In accepting the proposed penalty, the panel considered the severity and nature of the misconduct alleged, the mitigating and aggravating factors, rehabilitation of the Licensees and specific and general deterrence.

14The panel members were not of the same mind regarding the appropriate value of a fine in this case, however, the panel recognizes the high bar set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, to reject a joint submission, which applies to this tribunal pursuant to the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303, and this tribunal’s prior decisions accepting its application.

15The failure to follow the insured’s directions to delete coverage provided through a Facility Association fleet policy issued by the Insurer resulted in the insured paying premium on a risk that was no longer required. The Licensees acted appropriately when they identified the error and attempted to rectify the situation for the customer but were only able to secure a deletion of coverage for one of the three terms of the policy.

16The Facility Association is a nonprofit association of insurers that operate in various provinces and territories in Canada. The Facility Association is not an insurance company and instead works with specific insurance companies that issue policies, collect premiums and handle claims on behalf of the Association.

17In Ontario, all automobiles must be properly insured for use on a highway. The Facility Association provides insurance coverage to consumers who cannot obtain insurance in the voluntary market and they are considered the insurer of last resort. This is a residual market mechanism designed to ensure that all customers have access to automobile insurance but the premiums are generally much higher than the voluntary market given the risk profile.

18The Facility Association maintains strict control over costs to prevent further financial burden on consumers. Charging more than the published commission, or charging additional service fees to clients, is prohibited by the Facility Association’s Manual of Rules and Rates.

19The evidence in this case was that the Licensees believed that the service fees were permissible, as outlined in the agreed statement of facts, which the panel accepts. No discipline history was alleged.

20It is, however, incumbent on insurance brokers to ensure that they are complying with the insurer’s rules and brokers issuing automobile liability policies through the Facility Association should be well aware of the limitations on commission and service charges for those types of policies.

21The panel also accepts that the Licensees stopped charging the service fees once they became aware that they were in breach of the Facility Association rules.

22The additional mitigating factors in this case include that Mr. Lau admitted the errors that the brokerage made with respect to the complainant’s Facility Association fleet policy and worked to rectify the issues. He cooperated with the RIBO investigation and immediately stopped the improper charges to the client for Facility Association insurance.

23In addition, the Licensees admitted the conduct and pled guilty to the charges saving RIBO the cost and expense of conducting a fully contested hearing on these matters.

24The reprimand and this public decision will serve to deter further conduct of this nature from this Licensees as well as the broker community at large thereby protecting the public.

Rose Cavaliere, Discipline Committee Chair March 26, 2026