Insurance Council of British Columbia

III the Matter of The FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT (the "Act") (RSBC 1996, c.141)

and The INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ("Council")

and SUKHBIR KAUR DARSHANSINGH SIDHU (the "Licensee")

ORDER Whereas Couneil made an intended decision on March 18.2008, under sections 231,236 and 241. I of the Act; and

Whereas Council, in accordance with section 237 of the Act, provided the Licensee with written reasons and notice of the intended decision dated March 31, 2008; and

Whereas the Licensee requested a hearing on April 24, 2008, but subsequent attempts by Council to set a hearing date, both by written correspondence with letters dated June 3, 2009 and August 20, 2009, and telephone calls, went unanswered, Council has concluded the Licensee has abandoned her request for a hearing; and,

Whereas by determining the Licensee has abandoned her right to a hearing, Council's intended decision is now deemed to be final.

Under authority of sections 231, 236 and 241. I of the Act, Council orders that: I. the Licensee's general insurance licence is cancelled effective July 31,2009, for a period of one year;

2. should the Licensee seek to reapply for an insurance licence in the future, she must first demonstrate to Council she is qualified for the insurance licence applied for;

3. the Licensee pay half the costs of Council's investigation into this matter assessed at $656.25; and,

4. the Licensee is required to pay the investigation costs by December 4, 2009. .. ./2

O RDER SUKHll lR KAUR DARSIIANSINGII SW IIU Page 2 01' 2

Thi, order takes effect o the 4'" da of September, 2009. ? L~ z.5"" Graham Calder, CFP CLU ChFC RIIU Chairperson, Insurance Council of British Columbia

INTENDED J)J~CISION olthe INSURANCE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ("Council")

respecting SUK!lBlR KAUR DARSHANSINGII SIDHU (the "Licensee")

INTRODucnON Pursuant to section 232 of the Financial Institutions Act (the "Act"), Council conducted an investigation to determine whether there had been compliance by the Licensee with the requirements of the Aet.

As part of Council's investigation, on February 1], 2008, an Investigative Review Committce (the "Committee") met with [he Licensee to discuss allegations that shc had cheated or assisted another licensed agent, Manindcr Kaur Bcnipal ("BcnipaJ"), to cheat on a Canadian Accredited Insurance Broker (CAlB) 2 examination.

An Investigative Review Committee is generally comprised of one voting and two non-voting members of Council, all of whom havc significant experience in the insurance business. In this case, one of the non-voting members scheduled to attend was unable to do so, thus the Committee was comprised of only two members. Prior to the Committee's meeting with the Licensee, an investigation report had been distributed to the Committee and the Licensee [ill' review. A discussion of this report took placc at the meeting and the Licensee was provided an opportunity to clarify the information contained therein and make further submissions. Having reviewed the investigation materials and after discussing this matter with the Licensee, the Committee was of the view that the Liccnsccs actions could reflect on her suitability to hold an insurance licence. Because of the potential severity of the consequences involved in making such a determination as to suitability and as the Committee consisted of only two members at this meeting, it decided not to make a recommended disposition but rather, felt it prudent to defer adjudication to Council.

Accordingly, the matter was presented to Council de novo at its March 18, 2008 meeting. A new investigation report was prepared and reviewed by Council. This report was also sent to the Licensee prior to Council's meeting. While she was invited to provide additional written submissions in response to the report, she did not do so. At the conclusion of its meeting, Council determined that the matter should be disposed of in the manner set out below.

INTENDED DECISION Sukhhir Kau r Darshansingh Suihu File Number: 167651-3 Page 2

INTENDED DECISION PROCESS Pursuant to section 237 of the Act, Counei I must provide written notice to the Licensee of the action it intends to take under sections 23], 236 and/or 24].] 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 ofthe action Council intends to take against the Licensee.

FACTS Based on the information contained in the investigation report, Council made the following findings of fact:

I. the Licensee was first licensed as a ].cvcl I General Insurance Salesperson on September 25, 2006:.

2. tbe I.iccnscc is currently employed full-time at A & T Insurance Broker Ltd. ("/\&T") where she handles Autoplan insurance:

4. Bcnipal. who is the Licensee's older sister, is also a Level I Generallnsurancc Salesperson and was first licensed on July 3,2003; Benipal also works full-time at ;\&:.'1":

5. the Licensee and Bcnipal both wrote the CAm 2 examination, as provided by the Insurance Brokers :\ssociation of British Columbia (InABe), on July 11, 200?;

6. the examination was three hours in length, closed-book and comprised primarily ofnnrrative questions: out of 100 marks, 90 of those require narrative answers and the remaining ten were from multiple choice questions:

7. the examination was held at SF! J Harbour Centre at 9:30 a.m.; the examination room held approximately 100 examinees and tables were set up with two examinees sitting at each table;

8. the Licensee sat at the same table as Bcnipal in the middle ofthe room: the Licensee sat to the right of Bcnipal;

9. there were two proctors in attendance and neither observed anyone cheating or attempting to cheat on the examination;

Ii\TENDED DECISiOi\' Sukhbir Kaur Darshansingf Srclhu File Number: 167651-3 Pilge J

]O. when the examinations were marked, IBABC observed similarities in the answers provided by the Licensee and Benipal, as both examination booklets were handed in at the same time and marked one after the other:

11. the Licensee's and Benipal's answers were almost identical with respect to content sentence structure, grammar and spelling; the Licensee obtained a mark of71 percent on the examination and Benipal scored 70 percent;

]2. lBABC took the position that the similarity of the Licensee's and Benipal's respective answers demonstrated "irrefutable evidence" of cheating; IBABC disqualified both their CAIB 2 examinations due to academic dishonesty and neither arc permitted to write any Insurance Brokers Association of Canada examinations for a period of one year hom the time of disqualification;

SU!21J1i./icl/QL1,lji:QIJ1 {he Licensee and lJeniptt! 13. the Licensee had previously written the CAm 2 examination in July 200C" again with BenipaL and both had failed: she denied cheating on this examination:

]4. the Licensee stated that. after failing the examination in Ju]y 200C" she and 13cnipal began studying together for the July 2007 examination: they studied three to four hours per day. either at home or al the library, on a regular basis:

15. it took both the Licensee arid Benipal approximately 2.5 hours to write the examination in July 2007: she len the examination room shortly before Bcnipal did:

16. the Licensee admitted to cheating on the CAIB 2 examination by copymg Benipal's answers: she had been experiencing personal family problems weeks before the examination and when it came time to write it. she eouldnot remember any 0 f the answers;

]7. Benipal denied cheating on the CAIB 2 examination and submitted that her examination booklet contained her own answers: spccificallv. she stated that she did not share information with, or copy answers from, the Licensee at any time during the examination;

]8. Bcnipal stated that the Licensee managed to copy her answers without her knowledge; she was not aware that the Licensee had been copying her answers for the 2.5 hours of the examination as she was focused on her work and paid no attention to her surrounding environment;

]9. the Licensee stated that, a few days following the examination, she advised Bcnipal that she had copied her answers; according to the Licensee, I3cnipal

INTENDED DECISION Sukhbir Kaur Darshausingh Sidhu File Number: 167651-3 Page 4

responded by saying that the Licensee should not have written the examination in the first place;

20. Benipal stated that it was not until she received a letter from !BABC advising her of the disqualification that she was aware that the Licensee had cheated by copying her answers,

ISSliES Council identified the following issues: I. Docs the evidence show that the Licensee failed to act in a trustworthy manner and in good faith in this matter by:

(a) cheating on thc CAlB 2 examination by copying answers hom Bcnipal? (b) assisting Bcnipal to cheat on the CAIB 2 examination by allowing her answers to be copied')

(c) in any other manner'! 2. Do any ofthe circumstances relating [0 this matter reflect 00 the Licensee's ability to curry on the business of insurance in a trust worthy and competent manner, in good faith and in accordance with the usual practice. as required under Rule 3(2) of the Council Rules and section 231 (1 )(a) ofthe /\e(1

3. Is disciplinary or other action warranted in the circumstances? I,EGI.SLHION Rule 3 of the Connett Rules Licence Applications

Applicants to Satisfy Council (2) Iran applicant satisfies Council that the applicant: (a) has met all ofthe requirements set out in the Act and Council Rules: (b) is trustworthy, competent and financially reliable; (c) intends to publicly carryon business as an insurance agent, salesperson or adjuster in good faith <Inc! in accordance with the usual practice of the business of insurance;

(d) has n01 in any jurisdiction: (i) been refused, or had suspended or cancelled, an insurance licence or registration;

':'!TENDED DECISION Sukhbir Kaur Darshansiugb Sidhu File Number: 167651-3 Page 5

(ii) been convicted of an offence; or (iii) been refused or had suspended or cancelled a licence or registration in any other financial services sector or professional field for a reason that reveals the applicant unfit 10 be an insurance agent, salesperson or adjuster: and (c) docs not hold other business interests or activities which would be in conflict to the duties and responsibilities of a licensee, or give rise to the reasonable possibility of' undue influence.

then the Council may consent to issuing a licence.

Section 231 of thc Act Part 7 - Administration of the Regulation of Financial Institutions Division 2 ~ insurance Council of British Columbia

Council may suspend, cancel or restrict licences and impose fines (I) If, after due investigation, the council determines that the licensee or former licensee or any officer. director, employee, controlling shareholder, partner or nominee of the licensee or former licensee (a) no longer meets a licensing requirement established by a rule made by the council or did not meet that requirement at the lime the licence was issued, or at a later time. (b) has breached or is in breach ofa term. condition or restriction or-the licence ofthe licensee, (c) has made a material misstatement in the application for the licence of the licensee or ill reply 10 an inquiry addressed under fhis ;\clto the licensee. (d) has refused or neglected 10 make <1 prompt reply to ill) inquiry addressed [0 the licensee under this Act. (c) has contravened section 79, 94 or 177, or (e.l) has contravened a prescribed provision ofth« regulations, [hen the council by order may do one or more of the following: (f) reprimand the licensee or former licensee; (g) suspend or cancel the licence of the licensee: (h) attach conditions to the licence ofthe licensee or ,1I11CIHI any conditions attached 10 the licence: (i) in appropriate circumstances, amend the licence ofthe licensee by deleting the name ora nominee: (j) require the licensee or former licensee 10 cease any specified activity related to the conduct 01" insurance business or to carry out any specified activity related 10 the conduct of insurance business: (k) in respect of conduct described In paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d). (c), or (c. 1), nne [he licensee or former licensee <Ill amount (i) not more than $20 000 in the case ora corporation, or (ii) not more than $ I0000 in the case of an individual,

(2) A person whose licence is suspended or cancelled under this section must surrender the licence to the council immediately.

(3) If the council makes an order under subsection (1'l(g) to suspend or cancel the licence of an insurance agent, or insurance adjuster, then the licences of any insurance salesperson employed by the insurance agent, and or any employees of the insurance adjuster arc suspended without the necessity or the council laking any action.

(3.1) On application ofthe person whose licence is suspended under subsection (I leg), the council may reinstate the licence if the deficiency that resulted in the suspension is remedied.

INTENDED DECISION Sukhbtr Kaur Darsbansingh Sidhu File Number: 167651-3 Page 6

(4) If an insurance agent's licence or an insurance adjuster's licence is reinstated, the licences ofnny insurance salespersons or employees of tile insurance adjuster who (a) were employed by that agent or adjuster at the time of the suspension, and (b) remain employees ofthat agent or adjuster at the time of reinstatement, arc also reinstated without the necessity of the council taking any action

Section 236 of the Act Part 7 - Administration of the Regulation of Financial Institutions Division 2 -- Insurance Council of British Columbia

Power to impose conditions (1) The commission, superintendent or council, depending on which of them has the power to make the order, give tile consent or issue the business authorization permit Dr licence may (a) impose conditions that the person considers necessary or desirable in respect of (i) an order referred to in section 235(1), (ii) a consent referred to in section 235(2), (iii) ,1 business authorization. (iv) a penn it issued under section 187( I), or (v) a licence issued under Division 2 of Part 6, and (b) remove or vary the conditions by own motion or on the application of a person affected by the order or consent, or of the holder of tile business authorization, permit or licence.

(2) ;\ condition imposed under subsection (1) is conclusively deemed to be part «Ithe order, consent. business authorization. permit or licence in respect ofwhich it is imposed, whether contained in or attached to it or contained in a separate document.

0) Except (a) on the written application or with the written permission or the holder, or (b) in the circumstances described in section 164,23 I or 249( I). a power of the commission, superintendent or council under this Act to impose or vary conditions ill respect or (c) a business authorization is exercisable only on or before its issue date, or (d) a permit under section 187(1) or a licence under Division ? of Part 6 is exercisable on!v 011 or before its issue dille with effect on and after thai date,

Section 241.1 of tile Act Part '7~, Administration of the Regulation of Financial Institutions Division 2·- Insurance Council of British Columbia

Assessment of Costs (I) If an order results from 1111 investigation or hearing, the commission, the superintendent or the council may by order require the financial institution, licensee, former licensee or other person subject to the order to pay the costs, or part of the costs. or either or both of the following in accordance with the regulations: (,1) an investigation: (b) a hearing.

(2) Costs assessed under subscct ion ( I)

INTENDED DECISION Sukhhir Kaur Darshansingh Sidhu File Number: 167651-3 (a) must no exceed the actual costs incurred by the commission, superintendent or council for the investigation and hearing, and (b) may include the costs ofremuneration for employees, officers or agents of the commission. superintendent or council who arc engaged in the investigation or hearing.

(3) lf a person fails to pay costs as ordered by the date specified in the order or by the date specified in the order made on appeal, if any, whichever is later, the commission, superintendent or council. as the case may be, may file with the court a certified cOP;' or tile order assessing the costs and, on being filed, the order has the same force and effect and all proceedings may be taken 011 the order as if it were a judgment of the court.

ANALYSIS Council found the above-mentioned facts constituted a breach or section 231 (1)(,J) of tbe Act in that the Licensee failed to act in a trustworthy manner and in good faith by cheating or assisting Benipal to cheat on the CAlB 2 examination.

Council did not accept that Benipal was not aware that tbc Licensee was copying bel' answers from her examination booklet. Not only were the Licensee's and Bcnipal's answers identical. word for word, but even the grammar, sentence structure and spelling were the same. As well, on one question, where Bcnipal had crossed out and rewritten an answer, the Licensee had done the same. Council did not find it plausible that the Licensee could copy answers from 13cnipal so thoroughly and meticulously for the duration ofthe entire examination without any collusion on Bcnipals part.

Counci I questioned why the Licensee, if she had been experiencing persona I problems at the time, did not opt to write the examination at another sitting. It would not have been imperative to her employment that she writc the examination in July 2007, as she could continue working as a Level I General Insurance Salesperson. Council also found it suspect that the Licensee had purportedly drawn a blank on every question. Had she been studying an entire year for the examination as she claimed, she would likely have been able to answer at least some ofthe examination questions on her own. This signalled to Council that every answer had been copied. and that this had been a premeditated attempt on the part of the Licensee and Bcnipal to cheat on the examination. There were also discrepancies between the Licensee's and BenipaJ's evidence with respect to how and when Benipal learned that the Licensee bad copied her answers. This demonstrated to Council that the Licensee and Benipal were both being untruth ful in response to inquiries from Council.

Council concluded that the Licensee and Bcnipal had both engaged in academic dishonesty. Council did not find it necessary to make a finding as 10 who actually cheated and who allowed her answers 10 be copied. II was possible that both the Licensee and Benipal had cheated off one another by copying each other's answers on different parts of the examination. Ultimately, in any of the aforementioned circumstances, as the cheater or the one who facilitated the cheating or both, the Licensee's and Bcnipal's conduct amounted to bad faith and untrustworthy behaviour.

I:\TE:\DED DVCI;;IO:\ Sukh liir Kaur Darsbansiugh Smhu File Number: 167651-3 Page 8

Council also determined that Bcnipal's failure to admit to being cornplicit in her own attempts to cheat or in assisting the Licensee to cheat on the CAIB 2 examination demonstrated her untrustworthiness. Even after having their examinations disqualified for academic dishonesty and bcing subject to investigation by Council, Bcnipal continued to deny any involvement in cheating on the examination. However, Council did not find the Licensee' s conduct to be any more mitigating than Bcnipals. Although the Licensee had made an "admission" to Council that she had copied Bcnipals answers without her knowledge, Council did not accept that this admission was wholly truthful. Council found that the Licensee and Benipal were attempting to conceal Benipals participation in this collusion by having the Licensee act as the scapegoat. Their lack of truthfulness to Council in this regard only further established their lack of integrity and capacity for deception.

In considering the appropriate parameters for discipline, Council reviewed two recent cases in which licensees were found to have facilitated others to cheat. In the case ofSwee Hcng Tell, Council found that Tch had completed online examinations for another licensed agcnt in order to assist him in obtaining thc continuing education (CE) credits required for the renewal of his insurance licence. This agcnt had been accredited with 23 hours ofCE credits. The licensee submitted that it was her l z-ycar-old son who had completed the examinations for the agent and that she was not privy to their arrangement. Council found that the licensee had facilitated the arrangement between the agent and her son and had, either directly or indirectly through her son. completed the examinations for the agent. She had also accepted compensation from the agent. Ultimately. Council determined that thc licensee had assisted the agent to cheat on his CF examinations for a fcc. Council found that Teh failed to act in a trustworthy manner, in good faith and in accordance with the usual practice of the business of insurance. Council ordered that Tch be suspended for two months and fined $2,000.00.

Council also considered the! Ice DOJ17, HOJ17, decision. At issue in that case was whether I long. who had submitted an application to Council. was suitable to be licensed as an insurance agent. While licensed as a Iii" insurance agent, [long had provided three individuals. all of whom he was recruiting to work at his agency, with study sheets for the Life Licence Qualification Program ("LLQP") course and Council's qualifying examination. The study sheets included questions from a previous LLQP examination administered by Council. One of the individuals was found to have the study sheets in his possession during the examination. Hong understood that his sister, also a licensed Iii" agent was in possession of information and questions that had been obtained from previous LLQP examinations and requested that she provide him with the same in order to assist the three individuals. Hong then created the study sheets from the information his sister had provided to him. In an email written by I!ong, he suggested that these study sheets, known as the "Secret Genealogical Table", were well known, and possibly widely available to examinees. Hong also attempted to mislead Council about the sonrce of the questions in order to protect his sister from potentially losing her insurance licence. In particular, ] long implicated his former girlfriend by asking her to lie to Council and say that shc was the one who had provided him with the LLQP questions. Hong's sister, who was licensed in Ontario. entered into a settlement agreement with the Financial Services Commissions of Ontario wherein she consented to the revocation of her licence and agreed not to apply for a licence for a

INTENDED DECISION Sukhbir Kaur Darshansingh Surh u File Number: 167651-3 Page 9

period of five years. Hong failed to satisfy Council that he was trustworthy and intended to carry on the business of insurance in good faith. Council determined that Hong was not suitable to bold an insurance licence for a period of two years. Thc t\VO year period ineluded the ten months that had passed since Hong had submitted his application for a licence, awaiting Council's detennination ofthe matter.