BrokerExamChristopher Coons wanted a client to get the certificates of insurance her business needed, and he wanted her renewal to move faster. On January 19, 2024 he signed her name on the 2024 renewal application himself, without her knowing he meant to (agreed facts, paragraphs 5, 7 and 8). On June 25, 2026, on his guilty plea and an agreed statement of facts, a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) found him guilty of misconduct and ordered a reprimand, a two-month suspension and three hours of ethics education. The decision is 2026 ONRIBODC 10, and RIBO publishes it as a PDF, Discipline Committee Decision and Reasons, Christopher Coons.
How it came out
Mr. Coons was registered with RIBO in or around April 1996, and the agreed facts gave his licence status then as Level 3 (agreed facts, paragraphs 1 and 2). On February 7, 2024, the client emailed another former broker of Westland Insurance Group to say that the signature on the 2024 renewal application was not hers. That broker complained to RIBO on February 10, 2024, alleging the forged signature and slow replies to the client’s calls and emails. The complainant and Mr. Coons are both former Westland employees (agreed facts, paragraphs 3 and 4).
He told RIBO’s investigator on April 4, 2024 that he had forged the signature, and admitted it again in a written statement on June 13, 2024. He also confirmed that he was slow to answer the client. His explanation was that he did not yet have the certificates she was asking for, and that he was not deliberately avoiding her (agreed facts, paragraphs 5, 6 and 9). Westland ran its own investigation and concluded that he had breached RIBO’s Code of Conduct and Westland’s expectations. His employment there ended effective March 21, 2024 (agreed facts, paragraphs 10 and 11).
The allegation and the plea
The joint notice of hearing, dated June 23, 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. The conduct named was forging a client’s signature on a renewal application and not answering the client’s calls and emails in a timely manner, in breach of Code paragraphs 1 and 3 of s. 14 (paragraph [4]). Paragraph 1 requires a broker to discharge duties to clients, the public, fellow members and insurers “with integrity.” Paragraph 3 requires service to the client “in a conscientious, diligent and efficient manner.”
He admitted that the forgery breached the integrity duty, and that the forgery and the slow replies together fell short of the service standard (agreed facts, paragraphs 14 and 16). The panel was satisfied after a plea inquiry that his plea was voluntary, informed and understood, and found him guilty (paragraphs [7] and [10]). The agreed facts also record what he would say if he testified: that he intended no malice or deceit, that he signed only to speed up the renewal, and that he is remorseful and has learned from it (agreed facts, paragraphs 18 and 19).
The order
The matter reached the panel on a referral from the Complaints Committee (paragraph [1]). Under s. 18 (1) of the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, the Discipline Committee hears and determines allegations of misconduct when a Complaints Committee directs it to. The parties made a joint submission on penalty, and the panel accepted it, with the order effective on the day of the hearing (paragraphs [11] to [13]):
- a reprimand;
- a suspension of two months from the date of the order;
- three hours of RIBO-accredited education on ethics and ethical practice within twelve months, in addition to his annual continuing education, with completion reported to RIBO’s Compliance Administrator.
The panel called forging a client’s signature on a renewal application, “even if well intentioned,” serious professional misconduct: “a deliberate act of dishonesty that undermines the trust placed in brokers” (paragraph [18]). In mitigation it weighed his early admission and full cooperation with the investigation, even though the client did not wish to be involved in it, along with his guilty plea and remorse, and it accepted that he has learned from the incident. The panel noted that he had no prior discipline history and remained a member in good standing (paragraphs [19] and [20]).
Even with verbal permission
Signing another person’s name on an insurance renewal, the panel wrote, exposes the broker and the customer to potentially serious consequences “even with a person’s verbal permission,” including the possibility that the insurance contract is treated as void (paragraph [17]). It ended its reasons by reminding licensees that a policy is a binding legal contract between the insurer and the insured, and that the process for making sure one has been entered into must be strictly followed (paragraph [23]).