BrokerExamCairine Bruce admitted that she took the documents of an insurance policy that had been cancelled more than two years earlier, changed them to show current coverage, and sent them to the property’s lender. She pleaded guilty, and on July 23, 2026 a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) ordered a reprimand, a four-month suspension, a $1,000 fine and three hours of ethics education. The decision is 2026 ONRIBODC 12, and RIBO publishes it as a PDF, Discipline Committee Decision and Reasons, Cairine Bruce.
The cancelled policy
The agreed facts record that Ms. Bruce was registered with RIBO in or around 1976 and that her licence status was Level 3 (agreed facts, paragraphs 1 and 2). She had helped a long-time client insure a property with Economical Mutual Insurance Company in earlier years, including the 2016 to 2017 policy period. Economical cancelled that insurance for a lapse in payment, by a letter dated July 28, 2017 sent to the client by registered mail, effective August 14, 2017. The property was left uninsured (agreed facts, paragraphs 5 and 6).
What she sent the lender
On or around December 18, 2019, the property’s lender asked her about its insurance status (agreed facts, paragraph 7). She admitted to RIBO’s external investigator that she then altered the expired Economical policy documents and sent them to the lender, representing coverage on a property she knew was uninsured (agreed facts, paragraph 8). She admitted changing the mortgagee named on the documents from Royal Bank of Canada to the lender, and altering the policy period and the policy number. She also signed a letter to the lender on December 18, 2019 stating that Economical insured the property under a policy effective November 28, 2019 and expiring November 28, 2020. The altered documents went to the lender on January 9, 2020 (agreed facts, paragraphs 9 and 10).
An Economical underwriting manager complained to RIBO on June 15, 2020 that she had altered policy documentation without authorization and had not placed insurance on the property. RIBO investigated internally before appointing an external investigator in or around March 2024 (agreed facts, paragraphs 3 and 4).
The provisions she breached
The notice of hearing, dated July 8, 2026, alleged misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991, failure to comply with the Act, the Regulation and the by-laws, “for falsifying client information,” in breach of Code paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 13 of s. 14: integrity, competence, quality of service, candour and honesty, and courtesy and good faith (paragraph [4]). She admitted that by “intentionally altering information on insurance documents to mislead a third-party mortgagee” she breached all five (agreed facts, paragraph 13). After a plea inquiry, the panel found her guilty on all of them (paragraphs [6], [7] and [11]).
The penalty
The panel accepted the joint submission on penalty, with the order effective on the day of the hearing (paragraphs [13] and [14]):
- a reprimand;
- a suspension of four months from the date of the order;
- a $1,000 fine within 30 days, by a cheque to RIBO payable to the Minister of Finance;
- three hours of RIBO-accredited education on ethics and ethical practice within six months, in addition to her annual continuing education, with completion reported to RIBO.
Under s. 18 (5) of the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, suspending a certificate for a stated period is one of the orders the Discipline Committee may make; revocation, restrictions, a reprimand and a fine are others. The panel named intentional dishonesty as the main aggravating factor. On the other side it weighed her early admission, her agreement to plead guilty and negotiate a resolution, her remorse, what appeared to be an isolated incident, and no prior discipline history in a long career (paragraphs [20] to [22]).
The panel’s reasons
Altering insurance documents to show that a property is insured when it is not “undermines the trust placed in insurance brokers,” the panel wrote, and breaches the obligations of integrity, honesty, competence and good faith owed to clients, third parties, insurers and the public (paragraph [19]). It added a reminder to licensees that altering documentation is not acceptable for any reason, convenience included, however easy technology makes it to alter digital documents (paragraph [26]). The panel said it was left wondering why she did this after a long and unblemished career, but that the reasons were irrelevant given her admissions (paragraph [18]).