BrokerExamA broker took a call on December 6, 2022, from a man whose daughter had just been in a car accident and who wanted a policy set up for her. The broker told him, correctly, that nothing could cover an accident that had already happened. Then she issued a temporary liability slip effective 6:00 p.m. that day, after the accident, without taking a signed application. On May 28, 2026, a panel of RIBO’s Discipline Committee found Fatemah Nourian guilty of misconduct for that missing application and for the backdated one she obtained a year and a half later, and ordered a reprimand, a three-month suspension and three hours of RIBO-accredited ethics education. The decision is published on CanLII as Fatemah Nourian, 2026 ONRIBODC 9 (CanLII). The CanLII title spells the first name Fatemah; the agreed statement of facts spells it Fatemeh.
What happened
Ms. Nourian was registered with RIBO in or around October 2018 and worked at Primeservice Insurance Inc. The agreed statement of facts, filed at the May 2026 hearing, records her registration status as Level 1. After the December 6, 2022 call, she issued the slip and did not obtain a signed application (paragraph 5 of the agreed facts). She confirmed the premium the next day. The client found it too expensive and said they would rather sell the vehicle, so she took a signed cancellation instead of a signed application and void cheque. No coverage was ever bound (paragraph 6).
About a year and a half later, Primeservice’s deputy principal broker asked her about the file. She reviewed it, saw the signed cancellation, and realized the signed application and void cheque were missing. On June 13, 2024, she obtained both from the client and backdated them to December 6, 2022. She did not at first tell the deputy principal broker that they had not been taken when the slip was issued (paragraphs 7 and 8). The complaint reached RIBO on June 19, 2024.
The hearing proceeded on an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty. Ms. Nourian pleaded guilty (paragraph [6]). The agreed facts record that she cooperated fully with the investigation and acknowledged the wrongdoing early (paragraph 9 of the agreed facts), and that she had no prior complaint or discipline record (paragraph 17).
The provisions she breached
The finding rests on the Code of Conduct in s. 14 of O. Reg. 991. Paragraph 1 requires a member to discharge the member’s duties to clients, members of the public, fellow members and insurers with integrity. Paragraph 3 requires 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.” She admitted that both failing to obtain a signed application when she issued the slip and backdating one later fell short of each standard (paragraphs 11 and 13 of the agreed facts). The notice of hearing charged this under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1), which makes failure to comply with the Act, the regulation and RIBO’s by-laws a form of misconduct, and the panel found her guilty on that basis (paragraphs [9] and [10]).
What the panel made of it
The panel’s reasons give her credit for part of the file. It accepted that she “took the appropriate steps with the client not to backdate coverage knowing that an accident had already occurred” (paragraph [15]), and that she properly took a signed cancellation when the client walked away from the quote (paragraph [16]). It noted there was no evidence either way on whether she asked for the liability slip back, “which the Panel notes would have been a best practice” (paragraph [16]).
The reasons then turn to what she did when the gap surfaced. Rather than raise the missing paperwork with her manager, she went back to the customer and produced a backdated application, and she did not at first tell her manager that the documents had not been taken when the slip was issued (paragraph [17]). The panel described the misconduct as “on the minor end of the spectrum” with no public harm, “however there was an element of dishonesty” (paragraph [20]).
The penalty
The joint submission asked for a reprimand, a three-month suspension, and three hours of RIBO-accredited ethics education within six months, on top of the annual continuing education requirement. The panel accepted it and made the order effective May 28, 2026 (paragraph [13]).
The panel “was concerned that the penalty may have been too severe for the conduct” (paragraph [18]) and accepted the joint submission anyway. It cited the high bar for rejecting a joint submission set by R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. The Divisional Court applied that bar to Ontario discipline bodies in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303, and the panel treated itself as bound by it.