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

Case Name/nom du dossier:Chatt & Global Mortgage Link Corp. v. Ontario - M0199-2002

Type/type:Mortgage Brokers/Courtiers en hypothque

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2003-04-07

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Peter Chatt, Global Mortgage Link Corp. v. (Ontario) Superintendent of Financial Services

FST File No.: M0199-2002

Date of Decisions: April 7, 2003
July 17, 2003
January 29, 2004

Panel Members: Martha Milczynski, Chair, Paul Litner and Kevin Ashe

Parties to hearing: Peter Chatt
Global Mortgage Link Corp.
The Superintendent of Financial Services

Subject: REVOCATION OF MORTGAGE BROKER REGISTRATION

Summary:

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Global Mortgage Link Corp. (“Global”) based on the past conduct of Peter Chatt, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that its business would not be carried on in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, pursuant to sections 5 and 6 of the Mortgage Brokers Act (the “Act”). Peter Chatt, the sole shareholder and director of Global, was convicted of theft over $5,000 for having stolen $125,000 from a business partner.

The April 7, 2003 Decision:

The Tribunal dismissed Global’s motion for a stay of the Tribunal proceedings. Following the conviction but prior to sentencing, Mr. Chatt brought a motion to the court seeking a stay of the proceedings before the court. Pending disposition of that motion, Global brought a motion for a stay of the hearing before the Tribunal respecting the Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal. The Tribunal weighed the competing interests of the public and of Mr. Chatt’s ability to make a living. Despite Mr. Chatt’s motion for a stay of the proceedings in court, the conviction was still operative. The Tribunal concluded that the interest of the public must be protected, particularly having regard to the trust placed in mortgage brokers.

The July 17, 2003 Decision:

The Tribunal upheld the Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal and directed the Superintendent to revoke the registration of Global under the Act. The Tribunal found that the proper test to be applied was whether, based on the evidence presented, the Superintendent was wrong in his decision and that the conduct of Peter Chatt did not afford reasonable grounds for the Superintendent’s belief. The criminal conviction, in and of itself, was held to be sufficient grounds for the Superintendent’s actions. In addition, the Tribunal found that Peter Chatt had filed false or misleading returns with the Superintendent. The combination of these activities led to the conclusion that the Superintendent was not wrong in his decision and that there were reasonable grounds to revoke Global’s registration.

The January 29, 2004 Decision:

The Tribunal granted a stay of its Order directing the Superintendent to uphold the Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Global. Mr. Chatt sought the stay of the Tribunal’s decision in order that he might continue to carry on business as a mortgage broker until the final disposition of the appeals of his criminal conviction and of the Tribunal decision. Section 7(9) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may grant a stay of its decision, pending the disposition of an appeal of its decision. In order to determine whether the Tribunal’s discretion should be exercised in this instance, the Tribunal applied the 3-part test it had adopted in a previous hearing in connection with a similar provision under the Insurance Act. Under the first part, there was a serious question to be tried on the appeal; namely whether it had acted in excess of its jurisdiction in adopting its findings of fact and in declining to postpone or stay the proceedings until the criminal appeal was concluded. Under the second part, it was reasonable to conclude that the Applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the request for a stay were denied by the Tribunal because Mr. Chatt would be unable to carry on business as a mortgage broker. He would also be denied the full benefit of his right of appeal. Under the last part of the test, the Tribunal concluded that the risk of harm to Mr. Chatt if the request were to be denied was greater than the risk to the public if the stay of the Order were granted, provided that certain conditions be met. The Tribunal then outlined 13 conditions that were to be satisfied by Mr. Chatt prior to the stay of the Order becoming effective. These included an agreement to be entered into between Global and a Supervisor approved by the Superintendent. At the hearing, Mr. Chatt also requested that the Tribunal’s decision be kept confidential. The Tribunal denied the request on the basis that neither the Mortgage Brokers Act, nor the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997 granted the Tribunal the authority to keep its decisions confidential.

Cases referred to:

Brenner v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers and Salesman), [1983] O.J. No. 1017 (Div. Ct.)
Jatinder Suri v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), (FST File No. 10138-2000)
Luu (Re) [1994] O.C.R.A.T.D. No. 146 (Ontario Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal)
Rendall v. Superintendent of Financial Services (FST File No. 10087-1999)
Re Watt, Ontario License Appeal Tribunal (January 11, 2001)
S.A.M. (Re) [2002] O.L.A.T.D. No. 244 (Ontario License Appeal Tribunal)
Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (FST File No. M00073-1999)

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.

Peter Chatt, Global Mortgage Link Corp. c. (Ontario) Surintendant des services financiers


No de dossier du TSF : M0199-2002

Date des dcisions : Le 7 avril 2003
Le 17 juillet 2003
Le 29 janvier 2004

Groupe d’experts : Martha Milczynski, prsidente, Paul Litner et Kevin Ashe

Parties B l’audience : Peter Chatt
Global Mortgage Link Corp.
Surintendant des services financiers

Objet : RVOCATION DE L’INSCRIPTION COMME COURTIER EN HYPOTHOQUES

Sommaire :

Le Surintendant a mis un avis d’intention de rvoquer l’inscription de Global Mortgage Link Corp. ( Global ) en se basant sur la conduite passe de Peter Chatt, laquelle offrait des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’il n’exploitera pas son commerce de faon intPgre, honnLte et conforme B la loi, comme l’exigent les articles 5 et 6 de la Loi sur les courtiers en hypothPques (la Loi ). Peter Chatt, seul actionnaire et directeur de Global, a t reconnu coupable de recel de plus de 5 000 $ pour avoir vol 125 000 $ B un associ en affaires.

Dcision du 7 avril 2003 :

Le Tribunal a rejet la motion en sursis d’audience du Tribunal de Global. AprPs la condamnation, mais avant le prononc de la sentence, M. Chatt a dpos une motion en sursis d’audience devant le Tribunal. Dans l’attente de la dcision sur cette motion, Global a dpos motion en sursis d’audience devant le Tribunal eu gard B l’avis d’intention du Surintendant. Le Tribunal a apprci les intrLts opposs du public et de la capacit de M. Chatt de gagner sa vie. Nonobstant la motion en sursis d’audience du Tribunal, la condamnation est reste en vigueur. Le Tribunal a conclu que l’intrLt du public doit Ltre protg, particuliPrement tant donn la confiance accorde aux courtiers en hypothPques.

Dcision du 17 juillet 2003 :

Le Tribunal a confirm l’avis d’intention du Surintendant et a enjoint au Surintendant de rvoquer l’inscription de Global en vertu de la Loi. Il a conclu que le test appropri B appliquer consistait B dterminer si, d’aprPs les preuves prsentes, le Surintendant n’avait pas pris la bonne dcision et que la conduite de Peter Chatt n’offrait pas des motifs raisonnables pour son opinion. La condamnation au criminel, en soi, a t juge offrir des motifs raisonnables pour les actions du Surintendant. En outre, le Tribunal a conclu que Peter Chatt avait fourni des dclarations fausses ou trompeuses au Surintendant. La combinaison de ces activits a men B la conclusion que le Surintendant n’avait pas pris la mauvaise dcision et qu’il y avait des motifs raisonnables de rvoquer l’inscription de Global.

Dcision du 29 janvier 2004 :

Le Tribunal a accept de suspendre son ordonnance obligeant le Surintendant B confirmer l’avis d’intention de rvoquer l’inscription de Global. M. Chatt a rclam le sursis de la dcision du Tribunal afin de pouvoir continuer d’exercer ses activits de courtier en hypothPques jusqu’B la dcision finale des appels de sa conviction au criminel et de la dcision du Tribunal. Le paragraphe 7(9) de la Loi prvoit que le Tribunal peut suspendre sa dcision, en attendant le jugement d’un appel de sa dcision. Afin de dterminer s’il devait exercer son pouvoir discrtionnaire dans cette affaire, le Tribunal a eu recours au test en trois parties qu’il avait adopt lors d’une audience antrieure portant sur une disposition similaire de la Loi sur les assurances. PremiPrement, une question grave devait Ltre dcide en appel, B savoir s’il avait outrepass sa comptence en adoptant ses constatations des questions de fait et en refusant de reporter ou de suspendre l’instance jusqu’B la conclusion de l’appel en matiPre criminelle. DeuxiPmement, il tait raisonnable de conclure que le demandeur subirait un tort irrparable si le Tribunal refusait la demande de sursis parce qu’il serait dans l’impossibilit d’exploiter son commerce de courtier en hypothPques. Il serait galement priv du plein avantage de son droit d’appel. TroisiPmement, le Tribunal a conclu que le tort que M. Chatt risquait de subir si la demande tait refuse tait plus grave que le tort que le public risquait de subir si la suspension de l’ordonnance tait accorde, pourvu que certaines conditions soient respectes. Le Tribunal a ensuite nonc treize conditions que M. Chatt devaient remplir avant l’entre en vigueur de la suspension de l’ordonnance. Celles-ci incluaient la conclusion d’un accord entre Global et un superviseur avalis par le Surintendant. A l’audience, M. Chatt a galement demand le traitement confidentiel de la dcision du Tribunal. Le Tribunal a refus la demande, prcisant que la Loi sur les courtiers en hypothPques et la Loi de 1997 sur la Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario ne lui confPrent pas l’autorit d’assurer la confidentialit de ses dcisions.

Jurisprudence :

Brenner v. Ontario (Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers and Salesman), [1983] O.J. No. 1017 (Div. Ct.)
Jatinder Suri c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers) (dossier du TSF no 10138-2000)
Luu (Re) [1994] O.C.R.A.T.D. No. 146 (Commission d’appel des enregistrements commerciaux de l’Ontario)
Rendall v. Superintendent of Financial Services (dossier du TSF no 10087-1999)
Re Watt, Tribunal d’appel en matiPre de permis de l’Ontario (le 11 janvier 2001)
S.A.M. (Re) [2002] O.L.A.T.D. No. 244 (Tribunal d’appel en matiPre de permis de l’Ontario)
Sussman Mortgage Funding Inc. c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers) (dossier du TSF no M00073-1999)

Ce sommaire est offert B titre de service public et ne saurait constituer des avis juridiques. Nombreux sont les facteurs que nous ignorons et qui peuvent avoir une incidence sur l’application de nos commentaires B votre cas particulier.