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:Rendall v. Superintendent - I0087-1999

Type/type:Insurance/Assurance

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:99-12-17

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Keith Rendall v. Superintendent of Financial Services

FST File No.: I0087-1999

Date of Decisions: December 17, 1999
January 8, 2000

Panel Members: Colin H.H. McNairn, Chair, Joseph P. Martin, Joyce A. Stephenson

Parties to hearing: Keith Rendall
The Superintendent of Financial Services

Subject: SUSPENSION OF LIFE INSURANCE AGENT LICENCE
INSURANCE AGENT EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Summary:

The Director of Licensing and Enforcement of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, acting under delegated authority from the Superintendent of Financial Services, ordered the suspension of Keith Rendall’s (“Rendall”) level II life insurance licence for sixty days. The order was made on the basis of Rendall’s conduct, which consisted of a failure to satisfy the continuing education requirements for licensees, furnishing false information as to the completion of those requirements on his licence renewal application and a failure to facilitate an examination of his licensed business by the Superintendent. The order also directed Rendall to make up the deficiency in his continuing education credits within a specified period, failing which the licence would be revoked. The terms of the decision followed the recommendations of an Advisory Board, which were made following a hearing.

The December 17, 1999 Decision

Rendall brought a motion to stay the decision of the Director pending the hearing of the appeal before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal adopted a three part test used by the Supreme Court of Canada for determining whether proceedings under a statute should be stayed pending a final judicial determination. First, there was a serious question to be tried on the appeal, namely whether the Director took account of all relevant factors in deciding the case on the merits and in deciding on the appropriate penalties. Second, Rendall could suffer irreparable harm if the request for a stay were denied because he would not be able to carry on his life agent business during the term of the licence suspension. Third, the risk of harm to Rendall would not be outweighed by the risk of harm to the public if the stay were granted because in this case, Rendall’s conduct did not call into direct and immediate question his competence to carry on his life agent business. Having satisfied all three elements of the test, the Tribunal ordered that the Director’s decision be stayed pending the disposition of the appeal.

The January 8, 2000 Decision

Rendall appealed the order of the Director to the Tribunal on the grounds that the Director did not take into account certain factors such as life situation and temporary disability, the effect of the decision on Rendall’s ability to earn a living and his exemplary record.

Rendall’s request to introduce new evidence at the appeal was refused on the basis that there had already been a hearing at which the he had been given the opportunity to present evidence. In addition, Rendall failed to establish that this evidence was not reasonably available to the party at the time of the original decision nor that it was significant to the issues raised in the appeal.

The term of the suspension was reduced to 50 days thereby granting credit for the 10 days already served between the date of the commencement of the suspension and the date of the stay of the decision. Rendall was also permitted to commence the suspension after the RRSP season was offer. These variations were made to avoid undue prejudice to the Appellant’s clientele and an undue penalty on the Appellant.

Cases referred to:

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 321
RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney-General) (1994), 111 D.L.R. (4th) 385
Transamerica Life Insurance Company of Canada v. Superintendent of Financial Services (FST File No. 10028/98)


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.

Keith Rendall c. Surintendant des services financiers

No de dossier du TSF : I0087-1999

Date des dcisions : Le 17 dcembre 1999
Le 8 janvier 2000

Groupe d’experts : Colin H.H. McNairn, prsident, Joseph P. Martin, Joyce A. Stephenson

Parties B l’audience : Keith Rendall
Surintendant des services financiers

Objet : SUSPENSION DU PERMIS D’ASSUREUR-VIE
SCOLARIT REQUISE DES AGENTS D’ASSURANCE
Sommaire :

Le directeur des licences et de l’excution, en vertu de l’autorit qui lui est dlgue par le Surintendant, a ordonn une suspension de 60 jours du permis d’assureur-vie niveau II de Keith Rendall ( Rendall ), fondant sa dcision sur le comportement de M. Rendall. En effet, ce dernier n’a pas satisfait aux exigences en matiPre d’ducation permanente imposes aux dtenteurs de permis, a fait une fausse dclaration concernant sa conformit B ces exigences sur sa demande de renouvellement de permis d’agent et n’a pas contribu B l’examen de ses activits autorises par le Surintendant. L’ordonnance obligeait galement M. Rendall B obtenir les crdits d’ducation permanente qui lui manquaient dans un certain dlai, sans quoi le permis serait rvoqu. Les conditions de la dcision taient conformes aux recommandations mises par un conseil consultatif B l’issue d’une audience.

Dcision du 17 dcembre 1999

M. Rendall a dpos une motion de sursis B la dcision du directeur pendant l’audition de l’appel devant le Tribunal.

Le Tribunal a eu recours B un test en trois parties utilis par la Cour suprLme du Canada pour dterminer si une instance en vertu d’une loi devrait Ltre suspendue en attendant une dcision judiciaire finale. PremiPrement, une question grave devait Ltre traite en appel, B savoir si le directeur avait pris en compte tous les facteurs pertinents en jugeant la cause sur le fond et en choisissant les sanctions appropries. DeuxiPmement, M. Rendall pouvait subir des torts irrparables si la demande de sursis tait refuse, faute de pouvoir mener ses activits d’assureur-vie pendant la dure de la suspension de son permis. TroisiPmement, le tort que le public risquait de subir ne contrebalancerait pas le tort que M. Rendall risquait de subir si le sursis tait accord, parce que dans la prsente cause, la conduite de M. Rendall ne contestait pas directement et immdiatement sa comptence en tant qu’assureur-vie. Les trois lments du test ayant t satisfaits, le Tribunal a ordonn que l’ordonnance du directeur soit suspendue pendant la dcision de l’appel.

Dcision du 8 janvier 2000

M. Rendall a interjet appel au Tribunal de l’ordonnance du directeur, invoquant le dfaut de celui-ci d’avoir pris en compte certains facteurs, notamment des difficults personnelles et une incapacit temporaire, les rpercussions de la dcision sur sa capacit de gagner sa vie et son dossier exemplaire.

M. Rendall a demand l’autorisation de prsenter des nouvelles preuves durant l’appel mais sa requLte a t refuse parce qu’une audience au cours de laquelle il avait eu la possibilit de prsenter des preuves avait djB eu lieu. De plus, M. Rendall n’a pas tabli que ces preuves n’taient pas raisonnablement B la disposition de la partie au moment de la dcision originale ni qu’elles avaient un apport sur les questions souleves en appel.

La dure de la suspension a t rduite B 50 jours, un crdit tant accord pour les dix jours djB servis entre la date de dbut de la suspension et la date de sursis B la dcision. M. Rendall a galement t autoris B commencer la suspension aprPs la saison des REER. Ces variations avaient pour but d’viter de causer un prjudice indu B sa clientPle et de lui imposer une sanction indue.

Jurisprudence :

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 (1987), 38 D.L.R. (4th) 321
RJR-Macdonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney-General) (1994), 111 D.L.R. (4th) 385
Compagnie d'Assurance-Vie Transamerica du Canada c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers) (dossier du TSF no 10028/98)


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.