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:Barot v. Superintendent of Financial Services


Decision Date/Date de la décision:2015-06-18






The Applicant was a life insurance agent licensed under the Insurance Act (the “Act”) since March 21, 2007. On June 22, 2013 she applied to renew her licence. At that time, the Superintendent discovered that the Applicant had not had errors and omissions insurance coverage (“E&O”) since December 28, 2011. A Notice of Proposal was issued requiring the Applicant to pay an administrative monetary penalty (“AMP”) in the amount of $1,500.00.

The Applicant requested a hearing. The Applicant testified that she assumed that her former employer had provided her with E&O. However, the Applicant was only employed with that employer for 3 months and never took steps to verify that E&O was in place. The Applicant also testified that she did not work during the period while she had no E&O.

The FST agreed that the AMP in the Notice of Proposal was appropriate. The FST held that the Applicant’s failure to have E&O was intentional. There was potential harm to the public while she did not have E&O and she took no action to mitigate or to surrender her licence. She derived an economic benefit of roughly $300 for the 6 month period in 2013 when she had no E&O. Finally, there was no evidence of prior contraventions.

The FST also noted that the AMP should reflect a deterrent element beyond any saved premium or other economic benefit such as commission income. An AMP was appropriate in cases of first offences with no exceptional circumstances even if the agent was not working.

The Applicant requested a review of the FST decision on May 14, 2015. The FST dismissed the application, noting that the Applicant had not presented any new evidence or arguments that were not available to her at the time of the hearing, but rather had simply requested the FST’s “sympathetic consideration”. A request for review should not be an attempt to reargue a case.

The FST also noted that it was not appropriate for the FST to give an applicant an extended time to pay an AMP unless that extended time was set out in the Notice of Proposal to Impose an AMP.

Cases cited: Olszewska v. Ontario (Superintendent Financial Services), 2013 ONFST 7 (CanLii), Decision No. P0500-2012-3

Gaylea Foods Co-operative Limited, 2010 ONFST 12 (CanLii)

Susan McGrath v. Superintendent of Financial Services, OMERS Administration Corporation and OMERS Sponsors Corporation, FST Decision No. P0335-2008-3 (May 7, 2010)

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.