Stephen Scharbach

The applicant, a licensed mortgage broker, failed to obtain the required errors and omissions insurance.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to revoke his licence and impose an administrative penalty.

The applicant surrendered his licence and requested a hearing regarding the penalty amount, seeking a reduction to $250.

The Financial Services Tribunal considered the criteria under the Administrative Penalties Regulation and directed the Superintendent to impose an administrative penalty of $1,000 to secure compliance and prevent the applicant from deriving an economic benefit from his failure to pay insurance premiums.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal to contest the amount of a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty proposed by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant's mortgage brokerage failed to maintain the required errors and omissions insurance for ten months.

The Tribunal reviewed the statutory criteria for determining the penalty amount, finding that the failure to secure insurance was intentional or reckless and that the brokerage derived an economic benefit by avoiding the $750 annual premium.

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

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 mortgage brokerage requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent's proposal to impose a $1,000 administrative penalty for failing to maintain errors and omissions insurance.

The brokerage obtained a license but did not conduct business, mistakenly believing its existing real estate insurance was sufficient.

The Tribunal found that the brokerage breached the requirement to maintain insurance and, applying the regulatory criteria, concluded that the $1,000 penalty was appropriate given the negligence and the economic benefit derived from unpaid premiums.

The applicant 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 the required errors and omissions insurance for her mortgage brokerage licence for several months.

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

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

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to impose a $1,000 administrative monetary penalty.

The penalty was proposed because the applicant failed to obtain and maintain errors and omissions liability insurance as required by the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was in contravention of the Act, communication errors by the Superintendent's office hindered the applicant's attempt to surrender his licence before formal prosecution began.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Superintendent to assess a reduced administrative monetary penalty of $400.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal refusing his application for a mortgage broker licence.

The Tribunal had denied the licence due to the appellant's recent criminal convictions for assault, criminal harassment, and mischief, as well as his false statement on the application that there were no outstanding criminal charges against him.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Tribunal's assessment of the appellant's honesty and integrity within the context of the mortgage industry was well-founded.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

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 insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario granting the respondent an extension of time to appeal an arbitrator's decision.

The arbitrator had previously dismissed the respondent's claim for income replacement benefits as statute-barred.

The Director's Delegate extended the time to appeal because a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision raised a novel issue of broad significance regarding limitation periods.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the Director's Delegate's discretionary decision to extend the time was not patently unreasonable.

The applicant sought judicial review of decisions by an Arbitrator and the Director's Delegate, which found he was not injured in an 'accident' as defined in the Statutory Accident Benefit Schedule 1996.

The applicant, a taxicab driver, was struck on the head with a rock by an assailant while in his cab.

The Arbitrator found his injuries were caused solely by the assault and not by striking any part of the vehicle, thus failing the causation test for an 'accident'.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was patent unreasonableness and found the Tribunal's decisions were not only reasonable but correct.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the mortgage broker registration of the corporate applicant.

The applicants requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

Following the hearing, the Tribunal issued oral reasons upholding the Superintendent's proposal and directing the revocation of the registration, with written reasons to follow.

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 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.

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 appellant appealed the revocation of his Level II life insurance agent's licence by the Superintendent of Financial Services.

The revocation followed an Advisory Board hearing regarding the appellant's dishonest conduct, which included borrowing money from a client, failing to repay it, and providing fraudulent statements regarding a supposed investment policy.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Superintendent's decision, as the hearing was fair and the decision had a reasonable basis.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Director of Licensing and Enforcement revoking his level II life insurance agent's licence.

The revocation followed findings that the appellant had borrowed money from clients, misappropriated funds, forged signatures, and used confidential information for personal loans.

The appellant sought to substitute a one-year suspension for the revocation.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no unfairness in the initial hearing and concluding that the Director's decision was reasonable and justified given the serious nature of the appellant's conduct.