Financial Services Tribunal & Pension Commission of Ontario Case Summaries/
Summaires des décisions du Tribunal des services financiers et de la Commission des régimes de retraite de l'Ontario

Case Name/nom du dossier:Joshi v. Superintendent of Financial Services

Type/type:Mortgage Brokers/Courtiers en hypothèque

Decision Date/Date de la décision:2015-05-13


Panel members: Denis Boivin (Chair); Jeffrey Richardson; Bethune Whiston

Parties: Kapil Joshi; Superintendent of Financial Services



The Applicant was a mortgage broker licensed under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 (“MBLAA”). In February 2012 he prepared documents and registered a second mortgage on a matrimonial home without ensuring that the signature purporting to be the wife’s signature was valid. In fact, the husband had arranged to have the signature forged.

Again in April 2012 the Applicant prepared documents and registered a third mortgage on the same matrimonial home without ensuring that the wife’s signature was valid. Again, the signature was forged. The wife discovered the forgeries and reported the matter to FSCO.

On July 11, 2014, the Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the Applicant’s licence for unsuitability. The Applicant requested a hearing.

The hearing was held on February 20, 2015. The decision was released May 13, 2015.

The panel held that the Applicant’s licence should be revoked for unsuitability in order to protect the public. Although the Applicant had not contravened a specific requirement of the MBLAA and had not been previously convicted or disciplined for his actions, and although there was no evidence that he had arranged for the funding of the mortgages, his conduct was still unsuitable within the meaning of the MBLAA.

The panel rejected the Applicant’s arguments that he was the victim of the husband, that the wife suffered no loss in the end, and that his activities in registering the mortgage did not fall within the MBLAA. The panel found that his conduct was part of a scheme to defraud the wife; at a minimum, his conduct enabled the husband to obtain the mortgages. The panel held that this conduct put the public at too much risk and that therefore the Applicant’s licence should be revoked.

The panel therefore directed the Superintendent to revoke the Applicant’s mortgage broker licence.

Cases cited: Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario) v. 751809 Ontario Inc. (Famous Flesh Gordon’s), 2013 ONCA 157

Azizi v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), 2010 ONFST 13

Henderson v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), 2008 ONFST 7

This summary is offered as a public service and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Many factors unknown to us may affect the applicability of any statement or comment made in the summary to your particular circumstances.