BrokerExam“Saving or forwarding a template could easily be done with client information redacted.” That sentence, from paragraph [16] of the reasons, addresses the explanation recorded for Scott Heltcher in the agreed facts. Mr. Heltcher, a broker registered since 1989, spent 20 years at Martin and Wright Insurance and Financial Services (“Martin & Wright”). Before he left in January 2024, he emailed certain documents to his own address to use as templates in his next practice. The documents carried confidential client information, though not up to date. He admitted that this breached the confidentiality paragraph of the Code of Conduct, and on September 4, 2025, a panel of RIBO’s Discipline Committee reprimanded him and ordered two hours of ethics education. RIBO withdrew two Code allegations, covering three of the four particulars in the same complaint, on insufficient evidence, and the panel accepted the withdrawal. The decision is published on CanLII as Scott Heltcher, 2025 CanLII 147383 (ON RIBODC), with RIBO’s own citation 2025 ONRIBODC 3.
The complaint
Martin & Wright complained to RIBO on March 13, 2024, after Mr. Heltcher had left. The complaint made four allegations: that he sent confidential information about the brokerage’s clients to his personal email; that he shared confidential information with another brokerage; that he misled an underwriter by disclosing a quote from another carrier that did not exist; and that he tried to sub-broker or transfer business to another broker without the consent of the brokerage or the clients (agreed facts, paragraphs 3 and 7). RIBO interviewed the complainant and Mr. Heltcher. It did not interview any of the clients concerned (agreed facts, paragraph 4).
During the investigation he admitted sending template documents to his own email, denied disclosing a non-existent quote, and acknowledged that on two occasions in 2019, while still at Martin & Wright, he had tried to sub-broker or transfer business for a particular client, with that client’s consent (agreed facts, paragraph 5). On September 19, 2024, the Complaints Committee referred three Code of Conduct allegations to the Discipline Committee, under Code paragraphs 1, 5 and 6: integrity, confidentiality and safekeeping of client property (agreed facts, paragraph 6).
Why two allegations were withdrawn
RIBO “bears the burden of proving the allegations against the Broker on a balance of probabilities based upon clear, cogent and convincing evidence,” and “It is not for the Broker to prove that alleged misconduct did not occur” (agreed facts, paragraphs 18 and 19). On the quote, he would testify that it did exist, and RIBO “does not have sufficient evidence to contradict the Broker’s position” (agreed facts, paragraphs 13 and 14). On the 2019 sub-brokering allegation, he would testify that he was helping the clients get coverage they had asked for, with their consent, and that certain coverage ended up bound by Martin & Wright and none through another brokerage (agreed facts, paragraphs 15 to 17). The third limb, sharing confidential information with another brokerage, gets no separate explanation in the agreed facts. RIBO withdrew the integrity and safekeeping allegations on all three limbs, and he consented to the withdrawal (agreed facts, paragraphs 20 and 21). The panel accepted the withdrawal on the footing that there was insufficient evidence to support findings on those charges (paragraph [5]).
The provision he breached
The allegation he pleaded to is Code paragraph 5 of s. 14 of O. Reg. 991: a member “shall hold in strict confidence all information acquired in the course of the professional relationship concerning the business and affairs of the member’s client,” and shall not divulge it unless the client authorizes it, the law requires it, or it is needed in negotiating with underwriters or insurers for the client. Failure to comply with the regulation is misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1).
He admitted emailing confidential client information to himself before his departure. If he testified he would say the information was outdated and his only intention was to use the documents as templates he had created. He admitted, nonetheless, that forwarding it to his own address was contrary to Code paragraph 5 (agreed facts, paragraphs 22 to 24). He pleaded guilty to that allegation alone, and the panel found him guilty of misconduct on it (paragraphs [6] and [9]).
The penalty
The joint submission was a reprimand and two hours of RIBO-accredited ethics education within six months, from a list that included Ethics Court for RIBO Licensees, Customer Centric Ethical Behaviours, Ethical Challenges in Digital Transformation and Ethical Consideration for Brokers, or equivalent courses. The panel accepted it and made the order effective September 4, 2025 (paragraphs [11] and [12]). It applied the bar in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, as extended to Ontario discipline bodies by Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (paragraph [15]). The misconduct was admitted, there was no evidence of public harm, and no discipline history was alleged (paragraph [17]).
The panel on client data
The reasons for penalty take up the template explanation recorded in the agreed facts. Personal data of clients “must be handled with the utmost care.” Emailing it to an account outside the brokerage, “regardless of the purpose, is a violation of the RIBO code of conduct and constitutes a breach of confidentiality.” Licensees are responsible for the preservation and safekeeping of client data and for complying with privacy legislation, and “ultimately the data belongs to the client” (paragraph [16]).