BrokerExam

Case note

The Lavoie decision: seven files, a $25,000 fine

Heard in her absence, Brenda Lavoie was reprimanded and fined $25,000 after clients were told they had coverage that was never placed.

Published
2026-10-01

Brenda Lavoie did not take part in her discipline case, and her hearing went ahead without her. A plea of not guilty was entered on her behalf, the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) called three witnesses from her former brokerage, Ontario West Insurance Brokers, and the panel of RIBO’s Discipline Committee accepted their evidence (paragraphs [10] and [11]). It found her guilty of misconduct on seven client files, reprimanded her, fined her $25,000 and ordered that any future application for registration go to the Qualification and Registration Committee. The hearing was on February 25, 2026 and the decision is dated September 24, 2026. It is published on CanLII as Brenda Lavoie, 2026 ONRIBODC 3 (CanLII).

Why the hearing went ahead

RIBO’s counsel filed correspondence about scheduling the hearing and serving her with the notice of hearing. The panel was satisfied that she had been properly served and it proceeded in her absence under Rule 12 of the Discipline Committee’s Rules of Procedure (paragraphs [3] to [6]). The decision records that she was “currently unlicensed”, and the panel was advised that she had obtained employment as an insurance broker at another brokerage and was also terminated from that position (paragraph [7]). A former member remains subject to RIBO’s continuing jurisdiction for a disciplinary proceeding about conduct while a member, under s. 5.1 (1) of the Registered Insurance Brokers Act (paragraph [8]).

What the brokerage found

On the evidence the panel accepted, she began at Ontario West as a customer service representative in 2019, became a producer on February 1, 2020, and sold mainly personal lines: home, auto, condominium and tenant coverage (paragraph [14]). The brokerage gave her written warnings, required reviews of her applications, restricted her use of personal contact details and assigned staff to upload her work to insurer portals, and complaints from clients kept coming (paragraphs [16] and [17]). A client with an uninsured sewer backup loss called months after the loss because she had stopped responding; the tenant policy had never been issued (paragraph [18]). She was terminated with cause on June 7, 2023, and the brokerage reported to RIBO on June 14, 2023 (paragraphs [12] and [13]). A full audit of her book followed, and RIBO put seven files before the panel (paragraphs [19] and [20]).

The seven files

  • Client 1. A property application she generated on February 7, 2023 was never signed or completed. After an uninsured sewer backup in March 2023, she repeatedly told the clients they had coverage, discouraged mitigation and said she would pay for the damage herself. A later application she printed for another insurer left out both prior losses, that one included (paragraphs [21] to [26]).
  • Client 2. She quoted and bound five boats with Pacific Marine on May 19, 2023 but sent no signed application and no serial numbers. When a boat was damaged in June 2023 she confirmed it was insured; the brokerage found no boat insured for this client (paragraphs [30] to [32]).
  • Client 3. A June 2022 motorcycle application said the client had three years of experience and an M2 licence. He held a G licence, and the insurer would otherwise have declined the risk (paragraphs [35] to [38]).
  • Clients 4. After her termination she asked the clients to pay their premium to her directly, and they sent e-transfers to her personal email account. The brokerage had already paid $1,435 toward that agency-billed premium (paragraphs [41] and [42]).
  • Client 5. Liability slips were issued for a 2023 GMC and a 2011 motorhome, and no policy was ever written on either. She also uploaded fictitious Wawanesa auto policy numbers two years in a row so that the client would receive a 40 percent multi-vehicle discount on his motorcycle premium (paragraphs [47] and [49]).
  • Client 6. She gave a temporary liability slip for a new 2023 Lexus RX 350 but never completed the change with the insurer, and never added the client’s cottage despite his instructions and follow-up emails (paragraphs [52] and [53]).
  • Client 7, a close relative. She sent a binder to the lawyer or mortgagee and the client on June 9, 2020, and the coverage was not placed. An application prepared on December 8, 2020 was backdated to November 27, 2020, leaving a gap from June 9 to November 27, 2020. Later, although the brokerage had stopped her uploading policies herself, she uploaded a CAA policy with a prior water claim left off the application, and the client received a claims-free discount (paragraphs [58] to [66]).

What the panel found

The panel found misconduct under paragraph 8 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991, business not carried on consistently with the code of conduct, for breaches of Code paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 13 of s. 14: integrity, competence, quality of service, candour and honesty, confidentiality, the integrity of the vocation, and courtesy and good faith. It also found misconduct under paragraph 4 of s. 15 (1), which covers a rebate or an agreement on premium other than the policy sets out, for the discounts on Clients 5 and 7 (paragraphs [50], [68] and [80]).

The confidentiality finding also rests on how she worked. She used her personal email and phone for client business, including forwarding photos of two clients’ driver’s licences, so the information sat outside the brokerage’s systems (paragraphs [69] to [73]). On paragraph 11, RIBO’s counsel argued that a broker must report her own misconduct and that she had not. The panel agreed that she had to self-report at least from the time the brokerage told her in writing that her conduct breached her professional obligations (paragraphs [75] to [77]).

The fee allegation under Code paragraph 8 was dismissed, because nothing in the seven files showed an undisclosed or unconscionable fee (paragraph [81]). The panel also said its findings rest only on those seven files, although the audit had turned up other affected clients (paragraph [79]).

The penalty

The order is a reprimand, a $25,000 fine payable to the Minister of Finance within 90 days of the decision, and a referral of any future application for registration to the Qualification and Registration Committee under s. 13 of the Act (paragraph [87]). The panel found no mitigating factors (paragraph [95]). Of the sanction it could not impose, it wrote: “Had the Licensee continued to hold registration at the time of the hearing, the Panel is satisfied that revocation would have been the appropriate penalty” (paragraph [99]).

Because she no longer holds a registration that could be revoked, the panel sent any future application of hers to that committee, to decide her suitability, integrity, trustworthiness and fitness before any return to the profession (paragraphs [100] and [101]). Under s. 13 (2), the committee determines whether an applicant is eligible for a certificate, and it may require the applicant to pass further examinations or take further training.