In the Matter of The FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT (RSBC 1996, c.141) (the “Act”)
and The INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (“Council”)
and KULJIT KAUR PANNU (the “Licensee”)
ORDER As Council made an intended decision on August 15, 2017, pursuant to section 231 of the Act; and
As Council, in accordance with section 237 of the Act, provided the Licensee with written reasons and notice of the intended decision dated September 18, 2017; and
As the Licensee requested a hearing of Council’s intended decision in accordance with the Act, but no longer wishes to proceed with the hearing;
Under authority of section 231 of the Act, Council orders that the Licensee’s life and accident and sickness insurance licence is cancelled.
This order takes effect on the 29 th day of March, 2018. _________________________________________ Michael Connors, CIP, CRM Chairperson, Insurance Council of British Columbia
INTENDED DECISION of the INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ("Council")
respecting KULJIT KAUR PANNU (the "Licensee")
Pursuant to section 232 of the Financial Institutions Act (the "Act"), Council conducted an investigation into allegations the Licensee cheated and/or colluded with others to cheat on Council's pre-licensing exams for obtaining a life and accident and sickness insurance agent ("life agent") licence.
An investigation report was considered by Council at its August 15, 2017 meeting, where it was determined the matter should be disposed of in the manner set out below.
PROCESS Pursuant to section 23 7 of the Act, Council must provide written notice to the Licensee of the action it intends to take under sections 231 and 236 of the Act before taking any such action. The Licensee may then accept Council's decision or request a formal hearing. This intended decision operates as written notice of the action Council intends to take against the Licensee.
FACTS The Licensee obtained a life agent licence in British Columbia in May 2017 and is authorized to represent an agency (the "Agency") that is licensed in British Columbia to engage in life insurance activity.
The Agency is actively involved in recruiting individuals to become life agents. Its recruitment process relies primarily on existing life agents, with the authority to represent the Agency, doing the recruiting. Once an individual is recruited and subsequently obtains a life agent licence, the new life agent becomes part of the recruiting life agent's "team."
.. ./2
Intended Decision Kuljit Kaur Pannu LIC-2017-0004740-ROl I COM-2017-00380 September 18, 2017 Page 2of4
An individual seeking to obtain a life agent licence must first successfully complete the four study modules that make up the Life Licence Qualification Program ("LLQP"). The LLQP is divided into four specific areas: Life Insurance, Accident and Sickness Insurance, Segregated Funds, and Ethics. Once an individual has completed the LLQP, the individual is required to write Council's pre-licensing exam ("LLQP Exam"), which consists of four exam modules. The LLQP Exam is multiple choice, with each question having four possible answers. Each exam module consists of a number of exam versions.
In early 2017, a collusion detection analysis was performed on the LLQP Exam results from across Canada (the "Collusion Report"). The Collusion Report analyzed LLQP Exam answers and identified a number of examinees who wrote in British Columbia with similar answer sequences. Based on the Collusion Report, Council commenced an investigation and found that all the individuals in British Columbia identified as having similar answer sequences are linked to the same branch office of the Agency.
Council identified the Licensee as one of the individuals who used an answer pattern similar to that used by a number of examinees and licensees identified in the Collusion Report ("Collusion Sequence") who are from the same branch office of the Agency. Council identified the Licensee as using a Collusion Sequence on her Segregated Funds LLQP Exam in December 2016.
Further investigation found that the Collusion Sequence used by the Licensee when she wrote her qfe Insurance LLQP Exam in December 2016, was similar to the answer pattern used by one of her family members on a Life Insurance LLQP Exam several months earlier. The Licensee and her family member are part of the same team at the Agency.
As there are different versions of each LLQP Exam, using the Collusion Sequence can result in different scores for examinees, depending on which exam version is written. For example, a different recruit from the Agency used the Collusion Sequence used by the Licensee on a version of the Segregated Funds LLQP Exam and scored 0%, while the Licensee passed because she wrote a different version of the Segregated Funds LLQP Exam.
In total, over 5,500 LLQP Exam results in British Columbia were reviewed and the only examinees/licensees identified as having used the Collusion Sequences are linked to the same branch office of the Agency, which includes the Licensee and recruits belonging to her team.
The Licensee was interviewed on August 16, 201 7, at which time she denied being provided or obtaining a Collusion Sequence when completing her LLQP Exam. When advised that she and a number of other recruits/licensees from the same branch office had used the Collusion Sequence, the Licensee could provide no explanation as to how this could have occurred.
Intended Decision Kuljit Kaur Pannu LIC-2017-0004740-ROI / COM-2017-00380 September 18, 2017 Page 3of4
ANALYSIS Council found that the Licensee's use of the Collusion Sequence brought into question her LLQP Exam results. Council acknowledged that the use of the Collusion Sequence, by itself, is not sufficient evidence to suggest that the Licensee cheated. However, when factors such as the probability of multiple people using the same Collusion Sequence are considered, along with the fact that all the persons using the Collusion Sequence are from the same branch office of the Agency, Council found that on balance of probability, the Licensee cheated on the LLQP Exam.
Council noted that the probability of multiple affiliated individuals having identical answers (both right and wrong), without colluding or cheating, while statistically possible, is extremely low. However, when considering the fact that individuals used the Collusion Sequence on other versions of the same exams, resulting in no correct answers, the logical conclusion is that cheating and/or collusion occurred.
Another contributing factor is that no other examinees in British Columbia, except those affiliated to the same Agency's branch office, used the same or similar Collusion Sequence.
Pre-licensing examinations are designed to enable licence applicants to demonstrate that they have the minimum competency required to obtain an insurance licence. Any attempt to collude or cheat on a pre-licensing exam brings into question an individual's competency, trustworthiness, and their ability to act in good faith.
Council concluded, based on the information before it, that the Licensee's use of the Collusion Sequence demonstrated that she cheated on the LLQP Exam. By cheating, she failed to demonstrate that she has the required knowledge to hold a life agent licence.
Council concluded that the Licensee has failed to demonstrate that she has the minimum knowledge to hold a life agent licence. Council found that cheating on the LLQP Exam brings into question her suitability to hold an insurance licence. Council determined that the Licensee's life agent licence should be cancelled.
INTENDED DECISION Pursuant to sections 231 and 236 of the Act, Council made an intended decision to cancel the Licensee's life and accident and sickness insurance licence.
Subject to the Licensee's right to request a hearing before Council pursuant to section 237 of the Act, the intended decision will take effect after the expiry of the hearing period.
Intended Decision Kuljit Kaur Pannu LIC-2017-0004740-ROI / COM-2017-00380 September 18, 2017 Page 4of4
RIGHT TO A HEARING If the Licensee wishes to dispute Council's findings or its intended decision, the Licensee may have legal representation and present a case at a hearing before Council. Pursuant to section 237(3) of the Act, to require Council to hold a hearing, the Licensee must give notice to Council by delivering to its office written notice of this intention within fourteen (14) days of receiving this intended decision. A hearing will then be scheduled for a date within a reasonable period of time from receipt of the notice. Please direct written notice to the attention of the Executive Director.
If the Licensee does not request a hearing within fourteen (14) days of receiving this intended decision, the intended decision of Council will take effect.
Even if this decision is accepted by the Licensee, pursuant to section 242(3) of the Act, the Financial Institutions Commission still has a right to appeal this decision of Council to the Financial Services Tribunal ("FST"). The Financial Institutions Commission has 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal, once Council's decision takes effect. For more information respecting appeals to the FST, please visit their website at fst.gov.bc.ca or contact them directly at:
Financial Services Tribunal PO Box 9425 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, British Columbia V8W9Vl
Reception: 250-387-3464 Fax: 250-356-9923 Email: FinancialServicesTribunal@gov.be.ca
Dated in Vancouver, British Columbia, on the 18th day of September, 2017. For the Insurance Council of British Columbia
atier Ex c ive Director 604-695-2001 gmatier@insurancecouncilofbc.com
GM/ig