BrokerExamThe college transcript that Jaspreet Kaur Uppal gave Intact Insurance carried the client’s name, a student identification number, grades and dates of enrolment. She had made it herself, to satisfy the insurer’s audit of the student discount on the client’s auto premium. She pleaded guilty, and a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Registered Insurance Brokers of Ontario (RIBO) heard the case on June 19, 2025. It accepted a joint submission for a reprimand, a three-month suspension and three ethics courses. The decision’s heading gives its citation as 2024-ONRIBODC-0002, RIBO’s list of published decisions dates it July 11, 2025, and RIBO publishes it as a PDF, Discipline Committee Decision and Reasons, Jaspreet Kaur Uppal.
The audit
Ms. Uppal was registered with RIBO in or around June 2017, and the agreed facts gave her licence status then as Level 1 (agreed facts, paragraphs 1 and 2). She placed automobile insurance for a client with Intact and sought to reduce his premium through a student discount. In or around January 2023, as part of an audit, Intact asked her for a copy of the client’s transcript. She had never obtained one from him and could not get one at the time of the audit (agreed facts, paragraphs 4 to 7).
She fabricated a transcript from a college, dated September 2022, in the client’s name, and gave it to Intact. She did not tell the client that she had submitted a falsified transcript on his behalf (agreed facts, paragraphs 8 to 10). Her employer at the time complained to RIBO on July 12, 2023 (agreed facts, paragraph 3). She cooperated fully with RIBO’s investigation and acknowledged her wrongdoing early (agreed facts, paragraph 11).
Two duties in the Code
The notice of hearing, dated May 26, 2025, alleged misconduct under paragraph 9 of s. 15 (1) of O. Reg. 991, failure to comply with the Act, the Regulation and the by-laws, by providing Intact with an academic transcript “that was not truthful or genuine” (paragraph [4]). The breaches named were Code paragraphs 1 and 4 of s. 14. Paragraph 1 is the duty of integrity owed to clients, the public, fellow members and insurers. Paragraph 4 reads: “A member shall be both candid and honest when advising the member’s client.”
She admitted both. Submitting a falsified transcript to an insurer was a failure of integrity, and she was not candid or honest with her client about the student discount or about the false transcript sent in his name (agreed facts, paragraphs 13 and 15). After an oral plea inquiry the panel was satisfied that her plea was free and voluntary, and it found her guilty of breaching both paragraphs, misconduct as alleged (paragraphs [6] and [9]).
Her account of the pressure
The agreed facts record what she would say if she testified: that she was under significant psychological strain when she fabricated the transcript and was afraid of losing her job, and that she knows neither excuses what she did (agreed facts, paragraph 17). Her counsel told the panel that she had been under great pressure in her job, has been embarrassed in her business and social community as a result of the incident, and is deeply sorry (paragraph [12]). The panel noted the indication of strain in the agreed facts and said it “is not justification for fabricating documents,” which she had acknowledged (paragraph [19]).
The order
The panel accepted the joint submission (paragraph [13]):
- a reprimand;
- a suspension of three months from the date of the order;
- within six months, three courses: Ethics of the Insurance Professional Parts 1, 2 and 3.
The reprimand and the suspension come from the list in s. 18 (5) of the Registered Insurance Brokers Act, which lets the Discipline Committee suspend a certificate for a stated period and reprimand a member. The panel recited the test from R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, under which a joint submission is rejected only where accepting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or the penalty is otherwise contrary to the public interest (paragraph [15]). It accepted this one with a caution: falsifying documents “is a serious ethical breach that could reasonably attract higher penalties than in this particular case” (paragraph [16]).
What the panel weighed
The panel called falsifying a record to satisfy an insurance audit on eligibility for a pricing discount a serious ethical breach (paragraph [18]). On her side it counted her remorse, her full cooperation and an early admission that saved RIBO the time and expense of proving the allegations (paragraph [20]). Her clean record did not count in her favour: the panel treated the absence of any prior history with RIBO as “a neutral factor” (paragraph [22]). It also observed that false or misleading information given to an insurer, or a discount applied improperly, carries a potential for public harm, while noting that no evidence was led on those issues in this case (paragraph [21]).