BrokerExamJordan Switzer was disciplined for what he told a RIBO investigator, not for the conduct the investigator was looking into. A former broker at Oracle Risk Management Insurance Services Inc. had complained that, after his employment ended on or about May 2, 2023, the brokerage kept sending emails to clients under his name. When RIBO’s investigator asked Mr. Switzer, the brokerage’s director of insurance operations, about the emails still going out in November 2023, he answered that “this continues to be an issue” with Pathway, the email vendor, and that the brokerage had “re-engaged” Pathway to remove the name. He had not yet contacted Pathway. He did so only after that exchange, and Pathway confirmed his instruction the next day. On June 19, 2025, a panel accepted his guilty plea to failing to cooperate in the investigation and to providing misleading information to RIBO, and ordered a reprimand and three ethics courses. The decision is published on CanLII as Jordan Switzer, 2025 CanLII 147380 (ON RIBODC), and RIBO’s own citation for it is 2024-ONRIBODC-0001.
The underlying complaint
The former broker’s complaint was that Oracle continued to send email communications to his clients about renewals and available coverages well after his termination, under his name as broker of record and from an Oracle email address that had been assigned to him after July 31, 2023. Oracle had told him at termination that it would pay him commission on his book until July 31, 2023 if it had not been transferred, and would manage whatever remained after that (agreed facts, paragraphs 5 to 7). Those allegations “are not at issue in this matter”; the only issue was how Mr. Switzer responded to the investigation of them (agreed facts, paragraphs 8 and 9).
Oracle used Pathway, a third-party provider, to send automated emails to clients in the name of the broker with carriage of the business. Automated communications went out in the former broker’s name on June 14, September 7, October 9, October 19 and November 10, 2023 (agreed facts, paragraphs 15 and 16). The June and September emails were mass mailings to all of Oracle’s clients about the brokerage’s general offerings. The October and November ones were sent after RIBO had begun its investigation and had been in contact with Mr. Switzer (agreed facts, paragraphs 17 and 18; paragraph 18 also lists an October 7, 2023 communication that paragraph 16 does not).
What he told the investigator
Mr. Switzer answered RIBO’s external investigator on September 22, 2023, about the June and September emails: the June one went out while the former broker was still being paid commission on the untransferred book, and the September one was “purely an oversight when the emails were sent out” (agreed facts, paragraphs 19 to 21).
The problem came with the investigator’s questions of November 16 and 17, 2023, about the emails still going out. He said “this continues to be an issue” with Pathway and that Oracle had “re-engaged” Pathway and asked it to remove the former broker’s name. He acknowledged that this implied steps had already been taken. In fact it was only after RIBO’s November 16 communication that he contacted Pathway, and Pathway confirmed his instruction to stop using the name on November 17, 2023 (agreed facts, paragraphs 22 to 25).
The provisions
The notice of hearing alleged misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991 for failing to act with integrity, failing to cooperate in an investigation, and providing false and misleading information, citing Code paragraph 1, Code paragraph 14 and paragraph 14 of s. 15 (1) (paragraph [4]). RIBO withdrew the integrity allegation under Code paragraph 1 on agreement of the parties (paragraph [6]).
Code paragraph 14 of s. 14 reads: “A member shall cooperate in an investigation conducted by the Corporation.” Paragraph 14 of s. 15 (1) makes “Providing false or misleading information to the Corporation” a form of misconduct. His admissions track both: he did not provide accurate information when he described a continued issue and a re-engagement, and he did provide misleading information in the same answers, though if he testified he would say he did not intend to (agreed facts, paragraphs 29 to 35). He was a member in good standing with no prior complaint or discipline record (agreed facts, paragraph 36).
The decision’s plea and finding paragraphs read “sections 14(4) and 15(1)(14)” (paragraphs [7], [11] and [12]). Code paragraph 4 is candour and honesty when advising a client, which was never charged; the notice, the withdrawal and the admissions all point to Code paragraph 14, cooperation in an investigation. Read as a slip for 14(14), the plea and the finding match the notice and the admissions, and that is the reading used here.
The penalty
The parties jointly proposed a reprimand and three courses within six months: Ethics of the Insurance Professional, Parts 1, 2 and 3. The panel made the order on those terms (paragraphs [14] and [15]). Counsel on both sides agreed the conduct was minor and caused no public harm, and the panel treated both points as mitigating; it also recorded that no discipline history was alleged (paragraphs [10] and [18]).
The decision as published on CanLII is unsigned and undated below the reasons. It was heard on June 19, 2025, and RIBO’s list of published decisions dates it July 11, 2025.