BrokerExam
Mark Norris Lau and his brokerage, Overseas Insurance Brokers Corporation, were disciplined together, on one allegation covering two courses of conduct. A client’s request to delete coverage on a Facility Association fleet policy went undelivered from November 2019 until August 2020, and the brokerage had been charging Facility Association clients a $200 service fee on top of commission, which the Facility Association’s rules do not allow. The panel reprimanded both licensees and fined them $350. Three paragraphs of its reasons explain what the Facility Association is, which is why this decision is worth a candidate’s time. The hearing was on March 26, 2026, and the decision is published on CanLII as Mark Norris Lau, 2026 ONRIBODC 7 (CanLII).
The missed cancellation
The client ran a fleet of tour buses insured through a Facility Association fleet policy with Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, on a term from July 29, 2019 to January 29, 2020. On November 18, 2019, the client delivered a signed request to delete coverage effective the next day. The licensees “inadvertently failed to deliver the request to delete coverage to the Insurer in November 2019.” They found the error when the insurer sent a renewal notice for July 29, 2020, and submitted the cancellation on August 12, 2020 (agreed facts, paragraphs 6 and 7).
They asked the insurer to cancel back to November 2019. The insurer refused, and refused again on appeal. It deleted coverage for the July 29, 2020 to January 29, 2021 term only. The client stayed on the policy, and on the hook for premium, for the November 19, 2019 to January 29, 2020 term and for the January 29, 2020 to July 29, 2020 term (agreed facts, paragraph 8). The client complained to RIBO on May 17, 2022, and the Complaints Committee referred the matter to the Discipline Committee on April 14, 2025 (agreed facts, paragraphs 3 and 5).
The service fees
The licensees had believed they could charge Facility Association clients a $200 service fee in two situations, on renewal of any vehicle with liability coverage and on the addition of coverage to any vehicle during a term, provided the fee was disclosed before it was charged. They charged the complainant that fee each time he asked to deactivate or reactivate his commercial auto coverage. When they learned that fees over and above commission are not permitted on Facility Association policies, they stopped (agreed facts, paragraphs 9 to 11).
The provisions they breached
The notice of hearing alleged misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991 “by failing to process policy change requests in a timely manner, and by charging impermissible service fees in respect of Facility Association policies,” contrary to three paragraphs of the Code of Conduct in s. 14: integrity (Code paragraph 1), conscientious, diligent and efficient service (Code paragraph 3), and candour and honesty when advising a client (Code paragraph 4) (paragraph [4]). Both licensees pleaded guilty, and the panel found them guilty of misconduct on all three (paragraphs [5] and [8]). Mr. Lau appeared for himself and for the brokerage without counsel (paragraph [3]).
What the panel said about the Facility Association
The Facility Association “is a nonprofit association of insurers that operate in various provinces and territories in Canada.” It is not an insurance company; it works with specific insurers that issue the policies, collect the premiums and handle the claims on its behalf (paragraph [16]). In Ontario every automobile used on a highway must be insured, a rule that sits in s. 2 of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act, and the Facility Association “provides insurance coverage to consumers who cannot obtain insurance in the voluntary market.” The panel calls it “the insurer of last resort” and “a residual market mechanism designed to ensure that all customers have access to automobile insurance,” with premiums “generally much higher than the voluntary market given the risk profile” (paragraph [17]).
The Facility Association also “maintains strict control over costs to prevent further financial burden on consumers,” and “Charging more than the published commission, or charging additional service fees to clients, is prohibited by the Facility Association’s Manual of Rules and Rates” (paragraph [18]). A broker issuing automobile liability policies through the Facility Association “should be well aware of the limitations on commission and service charges for those types of policies” (paragraph [20]).
The penalty
The joint submission was a reprimand for both licensees and a $350 fine payable to the Minister of Finance. The panel accepted it, effective immediately (paragraphs [10] and [11]). Its members “were not of the same mind regarding the appropriate value of a fine in this case,” but the panel applied the bar for rejecting a joint submission set in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, citing Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 and its own prior decisions (paragraph [14]).
On the cancellation, the licensees “acted appropriately when they identified the error and attempted to rectify the situation for the customer” (paragraph [15]). On the fees, the panel accepted that they stopped once they learned the fees were in breach of the Facility Association rules (paragraph [21]). Mr. Lau admitted the errors, worked to fix them, cooperated with the investigation and stopped the charges, and the guilty plea saved RIBO the cost of a contested hearing (paragraphs [22] and [23]). No discipline history was alleged, and the panel accepted the licensees’ belief that the fees were permissible (paragraph [19]).