Citation: 2025 ONRIBODC 6
File No: 168503
REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE
Between:
THE REGISTERED INSURANCE BROKERS OF ONTARIO
and
JOSEPH RONALD LEHMAN, LICENSEE NO. R31000
Heard: October 30, 2025
PANEL MEMBERS:
• Rose Cavaliere, Chair
• Paul Armstrong, Broker
• Barry Hogan, Broker
• Mario Laraia, Broker
• Josephine Atri, Public Member
IN ATTENDANCE:
• Alex Smith, Counsel for RIBO
• Joseph Ronald Lehman, Licensee
• Heather Vaughan, Independent Legal Counsel to the Panel
DECISION AND REASONS
INTRODUCTION:
[1] This matter was referred to the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) by the Complaints Committee in accordance with the Registered Insurance Brokers Act section 18.
[2] This matter was convened and heard virtually on October 30, 2025 pursuant to the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.19, (RIBA) and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 and regulations thereunder and was governed by the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO).
[3] The hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) proposed by counsel for the parties.
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT:
[4] The allegations of misconduct as stated in the Notice of Hearing dated the 18th day of August, 2025, were as follows:
That Joseph Ronald Lehman may be guilty of misconduct pursuant to the Registered Insurance Brokers Act ("the Act"), Regulation 991 ("RRO 991") section 15 (1) paragraph 9 for failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, this Regulation, and the By-Laws of the Corporation for failing to notify of the removal of the OPCF 43 endorsement in breach of section 14.3 of the Code of Conduct in RRO 991 which states as follows:
s. 14.3 A member shall serve the members client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and shall provide a quality of service at least equal to that which members would generally expect of a member and a like situation.
[5] The Notice of Hearing August 18, 2025 was marked as Exhibit 1. The Panel confirmed proper service of these documents in accordance with the RIBA and Rules of Procedure.
THE LICENSEE’S PLEA:
[6] The Licensee pleaded guilty to the allegation and the Panel conducted an oral plea inquiry and was satisfied that this guilty plea was free and voluntary.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS:
[7] RIBO and the Licensee advised the Panel that an agreement had been reached on the facts and filed an ASF which was accepted by the panel and filed as Exhibit 2. The relevant facts in the ASF provide as follows:
1. Joseph Ronald Lehman was registered with Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) in or around March/April 2008.
2. The Broker’s registration number with RIBO is R31000. His current license status with RIBO is as an active Level 1 broker.
3. The Broker does not have any previous discipline history with RIBO.
4. The particulars of the complaint (the “Complaint”), against Mr. Lehman, made by Alban Kozhani (“the Complainant”) are as follows:
a. That the Complainant, a client of Switch Broker Network, requested an OPCF 43 endorsement valid for 60 months on the automobile policy for his newly purchased 2021 Land Rover;
b. An OPCF 43 endorsement removes any depreciation deduction for owned or leased automobiles;
c. The Switch Broker Network employee who initially bound coverage for the Complainant with Aviva was a different broker (“First Broker”) at Switch Broker Network and not Mr. Lehman;
d. The Aviva policy was effective January 22, 2021;
e. The OPCF 43 endorsement was removed after 24 months, on January 22, 2023;
f. The Land Rover was stolen in October 2023;
g. The Complainant’s insurance claim was settled for an amount that took depreciation into account;
h. Mr. Lehman did not inform the Complainant that the OPCF 43 endorsement was removed effective January 22, 2023.
5. Mr. Lehman is a broker at Switch Broker Network.
6. Mr. Lehman was not the broker who bound automobile coverage (the “Policy”) for the Complainant with Aviva.
7. Although the Complainant may have requested a 60 month OPCF 43 endorsement, the First Broker bound coverage without a specified term for the OPCF 43 endorsement.
8. The First Broker left Switch Broker Network on or around March 31, 2021. At that time, Mr. Lehman took carriage of the Complainant’s File.
9. Mr. Lehman did not have any knowledge of the Complainant’s request for a 60 month OPCF 43 endorsement.
10. The duration of the coverage period of the OPCF 43 endorsement was not specified in the automobile insurance application or the new business automobile policy documents.
11. The January 2023 renewal documents for the Policy, sent to the Complainant by Aviva in November 2022, included a varied terms notice/summary of changes which stated as follows:
This summary outlines the key changes to your policy that will be effective on January 22, 2023. Please read your policy documents to ensure you understand your insurance coverage.
These coverage options are no longer offered and have been removed from your policy:
• OPCF 43 or 43A - removes depreciation deduction for owned or leased automobiles
12. The Complainant acknowledged receiving the renewal documents from Aviva. The Complainant also acknowledged that he did not read the renewal documents.
13. The Broker did not point out the removal of the OPCF 43 endorsement to the Complainant at any time, including in his email communications with the Complainant of December 21, 2022 or December 22, 2023, regarding the Policy renewal.
14. Mr. Lehman could not have secured an extension of the OPCF 43 endorsement on behalf of the Complainant because, as noted at paragraph 12 above, the option was no longer offered by Aviva.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
[8] The Licensee admitted that by not advising the Complainant of the change in the Policy to remove the OPCF 43 endorsement, he did not meet his obligation to serve his client in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner and, accordingly, breached Section 14.3 of the Code of Conduct.
[9] RIBO counsel and the Licensee submitted that there was sufficient evidence in the ASF to make findings of misconduct under Regulation 991 section 15(1)(9) breach of section 14(3) and of RIBA General Regulation 991.
FINDINGS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
[10] The panel agrees with the submissions of the parties that there is sufficient evidence in the ASF to support the finding of guilt and finds the licensee guilty of misconduct under section 15(1)(9) of the RIBA General Regulation for the breach of section 14 (3) of the Code of Conduct.
[11] In this case, the complainant’s original policy was bound by another insurance broker who left the brokerage and the file was taken over by this Licensee.
[12] The OPCF 43 endorsement, also known as the waiver of depreciation, is an endorsement that can purchased and added to an automobile insurance policy in Ontario which removes depreciation on new vehicles under specific conditions for a specified policy period typically between 24 – 48 months.
[13] The complainant and the original broker discussed an OPCF 43 endorsement of 60 months on the policy of automobile insurance. While an endorsement term of 60 months (5 years) is possible, it is rare.
[14] The OPCF 43 endorsement runs for an agreed upon number of months from the date a vehicle was delivered to the policy holder and does not always coincide with the renewal of the automobile policy.
[15] In this case, the insurer advised the client after 24 months that the endorsement was being removed from the policy at renewal and provided notice to the client directly. The Licensee did not review this policy change with the client.
[16] Despite receiving the documents from the insurer, the client was unaware of his coverage change until nine months later when his vehicle was stolen and the claim was settled with depreciation applied.
[17] While the notice to the client from the insurer was provided, it is incumbent on insurance brokers to review and communicate policy changes with their clients, which was not done in this case.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON ORDER:
[18] The Panel was advised that the parties had agreed on the appropriate Order in this case and the parties filed a Joint Submission on Order (JSO) which was marked as Exhibit 3.
[19] The Registered Insurance Brokers (“RIBO”) and Joseph Ronald Lehman (the “Broker”) jointly request that the Panel of the Discipline Committee impose the following penalty:
1. The Broker will be reprimanded;
2. Within 6 months of the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order the Broker shall take the three (3) hours of RIBO accredited education on the topic of client communication. This requirement is in addition to any annual CPD requirements of the Broker. The following are acceptable course for the purpose of completion of this requirement:
a) Communication with Clients on Their Terms
b) Communication for Insurance Professionals
c) Culture of Growth: Communication Skills; and/or
d) Any other course(s) proposed by the Broker and as agreed to by RIBO through its legal counsel.
PENALTY ORDER MADE:
[20] The panel accepted the JSO of the parties and accordingly makes an Order effective October 30, 2025 that the Licensee will be reprimanded and within 6 months of the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order the Broker shall take the three (3) hours of RIBO accredited education on the topic of client communication as outlined above.
[21] This requirement is in addition to any annual CPD requirements of the Broker.
REASONS FOR PENALTY:
[22] The Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) is a self-governing organization that regulates the licensing, professional competence, ethical conduct and insurance related financial obligations of all independent general insurance brokers in the province of Ontario to ensure the public is served and protected accordingly.
[23] In accepting the proposed penalty, the Panel considered the severity and nature of the misconduct alleged, the mitigating and aggravating factures, rehabilitation of the licensee and specific and general deterrence.
[24] The Panel is also mindful of the a high bar set by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 which applies to disciplinary bodies in Ontario, including this one, pursuant to the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
[25] No discipline history was alleged in this case.
[26] Insurance brokers are trusted advisors on matters of insurance and clients rely on them to explain coverages and policy changes. In cases where the responsible brokers have changed, the renewal period is an opportune time to ensure that the client’s needs are being met.
[27] In this case, the reprimand and requiring educational courses meet the goals of specific deterrence and rehabilitation of the Licensee as it will assist him in improving his business practices moving forward.
[28] The goal of general deterrence and public protection is met by this public decision which is a reminder to the broker community of the importance of communicating policy changes to their clients.
Signed:
Rose Cavaliere December 1, 2025
__________________________ __________________
Discipline Committee Chair Date