BrokerExam
Joseph Ronald Lehman inherited a client’s file at Switch Broker Network in March 2021. At the January 2023 renewal, Aviva dropped the client’s OPCF 43, the endorsement that removes the insurer’s right to deduct depreciation when it settles a claim for loss or damage. Aviva announced the removal in the renewal package it sent the client. The client did not read it, and Mr. Lehman did not tell him. In October 2023 the client’s 2021 Land Rover was stolen, and the claim was settled with depreciation deducted. RIBO’s Discipline Committee found Mr. Lehman guilty of misconduct on October 30, 2025, on his guilty plea, and ordered a reprimand and three hours of education on client communication. The decision is published on CanLII as Joseph Ronald Lehman, 2025 CanLII 147384 (ON RIBODC). RIBO’s own citation for it is 2025 ONRIBODC 6.
What the endorsement does
Without the endorsement, s. 7.7 of the standard automobile policy, OAP 1, caps what the insurer pays at the automobile’s “actual cash value” at the time it was damaged or stolen, a value that takes depreciation into account. The OPCF 43 is an Ontario Policy Change Form. In its own words, it “removes our right to deduct depreciation from the value of your automobile when settling a claim for loss or damage,” and the most the insurer will then pay is the lowest of the actual purchase price, the manufacturer’s suggested list price on the original purchase date, or the cost of replacing the automobile with a new one of the same make and model, similarly equipped. The panel described how the endorsement runs in practice. It covers a specified period, typically 24 to 48 months. The period is counted from the date the vehicle was delivered, not from the policy’s renewal date, so the endorsement does not always expire in step with the policy (paragraphs [12] and [14]). A 60-month term is possible but rare (paragraph [13]).
What happened on this file
The client may have asked for a 60-month OPCF 43. The first broker bound coverage without specifying a term for it, and the application and the new business documents did not specify one either (agreed facts, paragraphs 4 (a), 7 and 10). The policy took effect on January 22, 2021 (agreed facts, paragraph 4 (d)). The first broker left Switch Broker Network on or around March 31, 2021, and Mr. Lehman took carriage of the file without any knowledge of the 60-month request (agreed facts, paragraphs 8 and 9).
In November 2022, Aviva sent the client the January 2023 renewal documents. They included a summary of changes headed “These coverage options are no longer offered and have been removed from your policy,” listing “OPCF 43 or 43A - removes depreciation deduction for owned or leased automobiles” (agreed facts, paragraph 11). The client acknowledged receiving the package and acknowledged not reading it (agreed facts, paragraph 12). Mr. Lehman did not point out the removal at any time, including in his emails to the client of December 21, 2022 and December 22, 2023 about the renewal (agreed facts, paragraph 13). He could not have extended the endorsement in any case, because Aviva no longer offered it (agreed facts, paragraph 14).
The vehicle was stolen in October 2023 and the claim was settled for an amount that took depreciation into account (agreed facts, paragraph 4 (f) and (g)). The client had been unaware of the coverage change for nine months (paragraph [16]).
The provision he breached
The notice of hearing alleged misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991 “for failing to notify of the removal of the OPCF 43 endorsement,” in breach of Code paragraph 3 of s. 14: service that is conscientious, diligent and efficient, at a quality “at least equal to that which members would generally expect of a member in a like situation” (paragraph [4]). He admitted that by not advising the client of the change he did not meet that obligation (paragraph [8]), and the panel found him guilty on that basis (paragraph [10]).
The insurer gave notice directly, and the client received it. That did not discharge the broker. “While the notice to the client from the insurer was provided, it is incumbent on insurance brokers to review and communicate policy changes with their clients, which was not done in this case” (paragraph [17]). On handovers: “In cases where the responsible brokers have changed, the renewal period is an opportune time to ensure that the client’s needs are being met” (paragraph [26]).
The penalty
He had no prior discipline history (agreed facts, paragraph 3). The order, effective October 30, 2025, is a reprimand plus three hours of RIBO-accredited education on client communication within six months, in addition to his annual continuing education (paragraphs [19] to [21]). The panel accepted it as jointly proposed, citing the bar in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 as applied by Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (paragraph [24]). The order names the courses that satisfy it (paragraph [19]):
- Communication with Clients on Their Terms;
- Communication for Insurance Professionals;
- Culture of Growth: Communication Skills; or
- any other course the broker proposes and RIBO agrees to through its counsel.