In the Matter of The FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT (RSBC 1996, c.141) (the "Act")
and The INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ("Council")
and KAMALllTKAURPANDHER (the "Licensee")
ORDER As Council made an intended decision on March 12, 2013, pursuant to sections 231 and 236 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 April 3, 2013; and
As the Licensee has not requested a hearing of Council's intended decision within the time period provided by the Act;
Under authority of sections 231 and 236 of the Act, Council orders: 1. The Licensee is fined $500.00. 2. A condition is imposed on the Licensee's life and accident and sickness insurance licence requiring that she pay the above-ordered fine no later than July 23, 2013. If the Licensee does not pay the ordered fine in full by this date, the Licensee's life and accident and sickness insurance licence is suspended as of July 24, 2013, without further action from Council and the Licensee will not be permitted to complete any annual filing until such time as the ordered fine is paid in full.
This order takes effect on the 23rd day of April, 2013.
Chairperson, Insurance Council of British Columbia
. David Porter, LL.B., FCIP, CRM
INTENDED DECISION of the INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ("Council")
respecting KAMALJIT KAUR P AND HER (the "Licensee")
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to section 232 of the Financial Institutions Act (the "Act"), Council conducted an investigation to determine whether the Licensee acted in compliance with the requirements of the Act.
As part of Council's investigation, on February 18, 2013, an Investigative Review Committee (the "Committee") met with the Licensee to discuss an allegation that the Licensee failed to complete the minimum continuing education ("CE") credits.
The Committee was comprised of one voting member and three non-voting members of Council. Prior to the Committee meeting with the Licensee, an investigation report was distributed to the Committee and the Licensee for review. A discussion of this report took place at the meeting and the Licensee was provided an opportunity to clarify the information contained therein and make further submissions.
A report setting out the Committee's findings and recommended disposition, along with the aforementioned investigation report, was reviewed by Council at its March 12, 2013 meeting. At the conclusion of its meeting, Council accepted the Committee's recommended disposition and determined the matter should be disposed of in the manner set out below.
PROCESS Pursuant to section 237 of the Act, Council must provide written notice to the Licensee of the action it intends to take under sections 231 and 23 6 of the Act before taking any such action. The Licensee may then accept Council's decision or request a formal hearing. This intended decision represents written notice of the action Council intends to take against the Licensee .
. . ./2
Intended Decision Kamaljit Kaur Pandher 174958 April3, 2013 Page 2 of3
FACTS The Licensee advised that it was her understanding she did not need to complete her CE requirements while she was not engaged in any insurance activity. For the year leading up to the Licensee's 2011 annual filing, the Licensee explained that she did not conduct any insurance business due to health issues. In the year prior to her 2012 annual filing, the Licensee's licence was placed into an inactive status, and the Licensee advised that she did not conduct any insurance business.
The Licensee stated her understanding was that she was only required to make up her CE credits when she returned to work, but she thought she was required to maintain her errors and omissions insurance while her licence was inactive and while she was not engaged in any insurance activity.
ANALYSIS Council noted the Licensee's remorse for her misunderstanding of Council's CE requirements, and accepted that the Licensee's breach of CE requirements during two licence years was unintentional.
Council was ofthe view that a fine of$500.00 was appropriate to address the unintentional breach of CE requirements in both filing years.
INTENDED DECISION Pursuant to sections 231 and 236 of the Act, Council made an intended decision to fine the Licensee $500.00.
The Licensee is advised that should the intended decision become final, the fine will be due and payable in full within 90 days ofthe date of the order.
The intended decision will take effect on April23, 2013, subject to the Licensee's right to request a hearing before Council pursuant to section 23 7 of the Act.
Intended Decision Kamaljit Kaur Pandher 174958 April3, 2013 Page 3 of3
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)ofthe 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 by April22, 2013. 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 by April22, 2013, 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 www.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.bc.ca
Dated in Vancouver, British Columbia, on the 3rd day of April, 2013.
GM/cp