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:2015-08-20

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF




Kapil Joshi v. Superintendent of Financial Services

FST File No.: M0577-2014

Date of decision: August 20, 2015

Panel members: Denis Boivin

Parties: Kapil Joshi; Superintendent of Financial Services

SUBJECT: STAY OF REVOCATION ORDER PENDING APPEAL

Summary

The Applicant was a mortgage broker who registered two successive mortgages on a matrimonial home without ensuring that the spouse consented to the mortgages or that the spouse had signed the mortgage documentation. In fact, the signatures were forged.

The Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the Applicant’s mortgage broker licence. The Applicant requested a hearing. The hearing was held before the FST on February 20, 2015. On May 13, 2015, the FST issued a decision directing the Superintendent to issue an order revoking the Applicant’s mortgage broker licence. The Superintendent issued the revocation order on June 24, 2015

The Applicant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Divisional Court respecting the FST decision. The Applicant also filed a motion with the FST requesting a stay of the revocation order pending his appeal. The Superintendent opposed the stay.

The FST held, in a decision dated August 20, 2015, that it would not be appropriate to grant a stay. Although the Applicant’s appeal was not frivolous and vexatious, it did not appear that the revocation order would cause irreparable harm to the Applicant. However, the FST did not need to resolve that issue because the risk of harm to the public (as demonstrated in the FST’s reasons for directing the Superintendent to revoke the licence) outweighed any risk of harm to the Applicant. Granting a stay in this case would mean a loss of public confidence in the Superintendent’s ability to discipline members of the regulated sectors.

Cases cited:

RJR Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311
Rendall v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 1999 ONFST 5
Global Mortgage Link Corp. v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2004 ONFST 3
Shrivastava v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2006 ONFST 6
Sazant v. College of Physicians & Surgeons (Ontario), 2011 CarswellOnt 15914

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.