Good character and the RIBO licence: two decisions

An applicant for a RIBO licence has to be “of good character” and to have “demonstrated reasonable grounds for belief that he or she will carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty”. That is O. Reg. 991, s. 5 (1) (a) (ii), and it is the ground in the two Qualification and Registration Committee decisions below, both published by the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO). In one, the Committee ordered that an applicant dismissed from RBC Insurance be licensed on seven conditions. In the other, an applicant who breached the exam rules was told she could re-apply 18 months after the proposal to refuse, once she had rewritten the Level 1 exam in person and taken an ethics course. Neither decision turns on a criminal record.

The qualifications that can stop an application

Section 5 (1) (a) of the regulation lists what the individual must be. Three of the conditions go to character and history:

• (ii) “is of good character and has demonstrated reasonable grounds for belief that he or she will carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty”;
• (iii) “has not been convicted of any offence the nature of which renders him or her unfit to act as a broker”;
• (iv) “has not been refused a licence under the Insurance Act or had a licence suspended or revoked for a reason that renders him or her unfit to act as an insurance broker”.

A conviction is dealt with in (iii), and only one whose nature renders the person unfit to act as a broker. Section 5 (3) then qualifies it: subclauses (iii) and (iv) do not disqualify an individual “who the Qualification and Registration Committee is satisfied will carry on business in accordance with law, integrity and honesty”, after the Committee has had regard to the circumstances of the offence or the licence decision and the time elapsed since it. Section 5 (3) names (iii) and (iv) only. It does not mention (ii).

RIBO’s Level 1 licensing page asks for a criminal record check “less than 60 days old” with the application, and warns that “additional background checks (including, but not limited to, criminal records and conflicts of interest with other licensing bodies) will be conducted during the formal licensing application process.” The rest of the application, from the brokerage job to the fee, is set out in Passed RIBO Level 1: the steps to your licence.

How a proposed refusal reaches a hearing

The Registered Insurance Brokers Act, s. 13 (1), requires the Manager to refer to the Committee every application the Manager proposes to refuse. If the Committee proposes to refuse, s. 14 (1) requires the Manager to serve notice of the proposal “together with written reasons therefor” on the applicant. Under s. 14 (3) the applicant is entitled to a hearing by giving the Committee written notice within fifteen days of being served; without one, s. 14 (4) lets the Committee refuse the application.

After the hearing, s. 14 (7) gives the Committee three options: confirm the proposed decision; require qualifying examinations or additional training, or both, as a condition for registration; or direct the Manager to register the applicant subject to conditions, where it finds the applicant meets the requirements. Either party may appeal a decision of the Committee to the Divisional Court under s. 21.

Azad: a dismissal, and a licence on conditions

The decision in File No. 01-2024 concerns ABM Mahboob (Asan) Azad, who applied for a Level One licence. At its meeting on February 20, 2024 the Committee proposed to refuse the application under s. 5 (1) (a) (ii), and the notice gave the reason in one sentence: it “has been issued due to the matters surrounding your dismissal from RBC Insurance.” The decision does not set out what those matters were. Mr. Azad asked for a hearing under s. 14 (3) of the Act.

The panel sat on April 23, 2024. RIBO and Mr. Azad put in an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Proposal regarding the Refusal of Registration, and the decision records that “no findings were made at the hearing”. The panel adjourned for further evidence on whether he met the good character requirement and resumed on July 29, 2024, when he filed reference letters and a letter of support and employment.

What Mr. Azad told the panel, as the decision records it: that he had learned from his past mistakes, that he had no past or ongoing charges, convictions or bankruptcies, that he was remorseful, and that he would accept any requirements the panel placed on him.

What the panel decided is separate. It says it “found itself split on how to proceed”. It held that his “past conduct represented a risk of significant harm to the public” and that “ethical and procedural lapses” had brought his suitability into question. It also said s. 5 (1) (a) (ii) “speaks to the CURRENT good character of an Applicant”, and it weighed the reference letters, “his otherwise past unblemished history in the insurance industry” and his evidence. It found that he “meets the requirements for licensing under Section 5(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation 991, subject to conditions.” The panel noted that he had passed an equivalency exam and still ordered the Level One course and exam, saying they would give him “a strong foundation in the duties and obligations of an insurance broker”. The order, issued August 13, 2024, directs that he be licensed on seven conditions:

1. take a Level One licensing course offered by either the Insurance Institute of Canada or the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario;
2. pass the RIBO Level One brokers exam;
3. take a course on Errors & Omissions and Ethics as approved by RIBO;
4. not apply for, or be granted, a Level Three licence for 4 years from the date of licensing;
5. for a period of 4 years, notify any new employer of the order and give RIBO a letter of support from his principal broker acknowledging disclosure of the RBC termination letter and the order;
6. have his supervising Principal Broker report on his conduct to RIBO at 6 and 12 months of employment;
7. if he breaches any of the requirements, the Committee will review his qualifications further to s. 14 (3) of the Act.

Arpan Kaur Singh: exam rule breaches, and a later re-application

The decision on Arpan Kaur Singh, heard November 29, 2023, is about the exam itself. Its background records that she wrote the Level 1 exam by virtual proctoring on December 19, 2022 and did not pass; that on March 22, 2023 her exam service provider, the Insurance Brokers Association of Ontario (IBAO), notified her the results were nullified for a breach of the examination rules and that her next attempt had to be in person; that on March 24, 2023 she attempted a virtually proctored exam with the Insurance Institute of Canada, which was terminated “as it was identified someone else was in the room”; and that she wrote in person with the Institute on April 12, 2023 and received a passing mark of 85.54%.

Her position, as the decision states it: she admits breaching the examination rules in December 2022, denies breaching them in March 2023, says she was having technical difficulties that day, and has expressed remorse for the first breach.

On June 20, 2023 the Committee accepted the RIBO Manager’s recommendation and proposed to refuse registration under s. 5 (1) (a) (ii). It also ordered that she would not be eligible to apply for two years from the date of the notice, and that any future application would go automatically to the Committee.

The matter then proceeded on a joint submission by RIBO and Ms. Singh, each with counsel. The Committee accepted the joint submission and the Agreed Statement of Facts, and directed that, to be licensed, she:

1. may apply for registration 18 months from June 20, 2023, the date of the notice of proposal to refuse;
2. must, before re-applying, retake and pass a RIBO Level 1 exam in person, at her own cost;
3. must, before re-applying, take an ethics course agreed between her and RIBO, at her own cost;
4. must provide two letters attesting to her character with her next application.

The panel’s reasons are short. It said “the integrity of the examination process is vital to protecting the public” and that the exam rules “exist to ensure examinations are free from any disrepute”, and it accepted her expression of remorse.

The two side by side

The reasons in both decisions state the same starting point, RIBO’s primary focus, “the protection of the public, insurance purchasing consumer, in Ontario”. Both decisions are listed under Qualifications and Registration Committee Decisions on RIBO’s published decisions page.