ID
2019-007

Type
Priorities/Budget
Sector
All Sectors
Status
Public comment closed
Date
Comment Due Date

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) is launching a consultation period for its draft statement of priorities and budget.

The draft 2020-2021 priorities build upon the targets in the 2019-22 Business Plan where we focused on burden reduction, regulatory effectiveness and protecting the public interest.

Some of our notable results from the 2019-22 business plan include the development of a plan to reduce syndicated mortgage investment harm, streamlining administration of rate regulation in auto insurance, strengthening prudential supervision for our pension sector, and supporting the development of industry led codes of conduct in our credit union and mortgage brokering sectors.

FSRA’s proposed cross-sector F20-21 priorities will continue to deliver a positive impact in reducing burden and improving regulatory effectiveness, improving the regulatory experience and improving safety, fairness and choice for consumers of financial services in Ontario.

FSRA will finalize its priorities and budget in its Annual Business Plan (ABP) and then submit it to the Minister of Finance for approval. It will then serve as the basis for detailed F2020-21 operational plans, accountabilities and performance measurements.

Useful Links

Financial Services Regulatory Authority Ontario Act
Draft F2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget

#By submitting your content, you agree to have your materials posted on our engagement portal, used in reports and other materials prepared by Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) that may be shared with the public. Content is moderated so that all posts are respectful and professional. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.F.31, applies to all online content.

Use left and right arrows to navigate between tabs.
Sector Comment Date posted Sort ascending
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Brendan Wycks - Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII)
November 18, 2019

Mr. Mark White, CEO; and
Mr. Bryan Davies, Board Chair
Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario
5160 Yonge St., 16th Floor
Toronto, ON M2N 6L9
https://www.fsrao.ca/engagement-and-consultations/draft-2020-21-fsra-priorities-and-budget#comment

RE: CAFII Feedback on Draft Fiscal Year 2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget

Dear Sirs:

The Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII) thanks the Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) of Ontario for the opportunity to provide comments on FSRA’s Draft Fiscal Year 2020-21 Priorities and Budget.

In this submission, we have restricted our comments to those sections of FSRA’s Draft Fiscal Year 2020-21 Priorities and Budget which are germane to CAFII members, i.e. to the consultation document’s sections on Cross-Sectoral Priorities, the Life and Health Insurance Sector-specific Priorities, and FSRA’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget.

General Observations
CAFII congratulates FSRA’s management team and Board on a relatively seamless and successful launch as Ontario’s new financial services regulator, and on already achieving a number of the key milestones related to 2019-20 Priorities. We applaud the fact that a highly competent and experienced FSRA executive team has been appointed and is tackling the operational and strategic challenges of a start-up regulator with an ambitious transformation mandate. FSRA and its leaders are indeed “walking the talk” in doing the right things and doing things right -- by planning and acting in accordance with principles-based and outcomes-focused regulation which benefits industry and consumers alike, and by having a prominent initial focus on burden reduction and regulatory effectiveness.

Draft 2020-21 Cross-Sectoral Priorities
CAFII strongly agrees that a regulatory framework that imposes unnecessary costs (e.g. by not being risk-based and evidence-based), or has unclear or unnecessary guidance and requirements, can negatively impact Ontario’s economy, regulated businesses, and individual Ontarians. Hence, cross-sectoral priorities related to burden reduction and regulatory effectiveness make complete and good sense as FSRA’s early focus.

4.1 Burden Reduction
Priority 1.1 Review Inherited Guidance
CAFII agrees that a well-designed, consistent and unambiguous guidance framework with relevant guidance documentation for regulated entities contributes to operational efficiency and reduced burden. We concur that regulated entities and the public are best-served when guidance is necessary (e.g. provides consumer protection; produces more benefit than the costs it imposes), consistent, accessible, actionable, and when its intended effect is well-understood.
Therefore, our Association is pleased that FSRA has developed a cohesive, principles-based regulatory guidance framework and is pilot-testing it at this time. In keeping with FSRA’s commitment to open, transparent communication and meaningful consultation with stakeholders, we are also pleased that the Agency has set up a consultation opportunity around the New FSRA Guidance Framework and we intend to provide comments to you on it by the January 31, 2020 deadline.

Priority 1.2 Establish Meaningful Service Standards
CAFII agrees that stakeholders, both industry and consumers, are adversely affected if timely, reasonable, predictable, and well-understood delivery of regulatory activities does not consistently occur. Therefore, we support this FSRA priority which calls for the Agency to work with stakeholders to develop and implement service standards that will measure its effectiveness in meeting objectives, including responsive processing of regulatory matters in a timeframe that supports the cost-effective delivery of financial services to consumers.

Priority 2.1 Protecting the Public Interest
CAFII agrees with and supports this FSRA priority around engaging with consumers to tap into their perspectives and insights, which will be critically important to the Agency’s success.

Our Association is very encouraged by FSRA’s clear recognition that consumers’ expectations for choices and services are high and continuing to elevate, which is driving new technologies, business models, products, and services; and we are also pleased with the Agency’s commitment to embracing consumer perspectives to support innovation, investment and growth, and ensure competition and continued new product availability.

With respect to the Refreshed Milestone of “Develop and publish consumer profiles on sector-specific issues,” we strongly encourage FSRA to consult with the relevant industry stakeholders – and to use them as feedback/vetting sounding boards, for accuracy and context -- whenever such about-to-be-posted consumer profiles focus on a particular product or service being offered in the marketplace (e.g. term life insurance, universal life insurance, whole life insurance, credit protection insurance, travel medical insurance).

Priority 2.2 Enable Innovation
CAFII strongly agrees with FSRA’s observations that older, inflexible regulatory frameworks hold back innovators and limit consumer choice and the economic benefits of industry competition and innovation. FSRA’s stakeholders are indeed concerned about future disruption and falling behind in a rapidly changing business environment, and about the extent of available support for technological advances that enable new business models and products.

Therefore, we are pleased to see that the three articulated objectives for FSRA’s Innovation Office relate to imbuing FSRA with an “open for business” approach and supporting opportunities to foster innovation and business transformation.

More specifically, we are encouraged by the Innovation Office’s commitment to facilitating the process for regulated entities which are seeking to bring innovative products and services to market (i.e. help navigate regulatory requirements; and, where FSRA has the authority, develop and implement customized trials and new product/service offerings using available waiver grants and exemptions).

We are pleased, in particular, by the latter Innovation Office commitment around direct facilitation and support for innovation, as we view that as somewhat akin to a regulatory sandbox.



CAFII is strongly of the view that FSRA should indeed have a concrete and specific mechanism in place which gives innovators and disruptors an initial “lighter regulatory touch” to allow them to test their new product/service offering or business model and confirm its viability before launching to market. Similarly, lighter touch regulatory relief for the new products, services, distribution channels, etc. of established industry players would also promote innovation and be beneficial to consumers.

With respect to this priority, we were also pleased to see the strength and determination behind FSRA’s commitments in this area, as evidenced by the inclusion of a milestone which speaks to securing new rule-making and exemptive relief powers as part of implementing an overall Innovation Framework.

Priority 2.3 Modernize Systems and Processes
CAFII supports this priority and concurs that having modernized IM/IT systems and processes in place is key to the Agency’s overall success and, in particular, to delivering on the burden reduction priority.

In that connection, our Association strongly encourages FSRA to take advantage of this priority and the resources that will be dedicated to it in order to “leapfrog” to the achievement of a grander vision which will deliver greater benefits to the industry and consumers. One example of the bigger picture thinking we advocate for FSRA is in the area of licensing. While we applaud the related Life & Health Insurance Sector-specific priority of “improve licensing effectiveness and efficiency” (addressed in more detail under Priority 6.2 below), we also believe that that is something that can be most effectively accomplished at an inter-jurisdictional, national level.

Nearly all CAFII members’ products and services are offered nationally, even if they are regulated provincially/territorially, and the same is true of the vast majority of the life and health insurance industry. A national insurance licensing system would be a tremendous efficiency boost for the industry. In our view, FSRA’s current opportunity to invest in new IM/IT systems – now that it has left the Ontario government’s shared services model and is investing in its own technology infrastructure, software, and processes – is the ideal moment to push for such a national licensing system.

4.3 Burden Reduction & Regulatory Effectiveness
Priority 3.1 Transition to Principles-Based Regulation (PBR)
CAFII strongly agrees that to be more efficient and effective, FSRA must transition to a principles-based regulatory approach to facilitate innovation and modernize its processes and systems. We congratulate FSRA on the commitment to a PBR approach which it has consistently articulated and demonstrated in the Agency’s first year of operations.

We also strongly concur with FSRA’s view that meaningful consultation is central to any PBR approach. In that connection, CAFII looks forward to participating in the Agency’s planned Consultation with Stakeholders around Proposed PBR Principles in 2020-21 (Milestone B).

Priority 2.7 Improve Information-Sharing with Regulators
CAFII supports this FSRA priority, particularly as we believe that addressing existing impediments and roadblocks in this area will enable FSRA, as the financial services regulator in Canada’s most populous province and the economic engine of the country, to play a strong national leadership role at CCIR and CISRO. In that connection, we were encouraged to see that Huston Loke, FSRA’s Executive Vice-President, Market Conduct, has become a Vice-Chair of CCIR; and we strongly advocate continued senior-level FSRA engagement in the two national co-ordinating bodies of insurance regulators in the future.

Similarly, we encourage FSRA to pursue, as a near-term priority, senior leadership participation on the international stage, through bodies such as the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS).
5.3.2 2020-21 Draft Life and Health (L&H) Insurance Priorities
Priority 6.1 Enhanced Market Conduct Oversight to Protect Consumers
CAFII agrees with and supports this FSRA priority, including the initial predominant focus on the MGA distribution channel and working closely with the industry-regulatory G4 task force to consider issues and solutions in that channel.

We are pleased by FSRA’s commitment to lead in the exploration and potential implementation, at the CISRO table, of a nationally harmonized industry Code of Conduct For Intermediaries, recognizing that there will be meaningful stakeholder consultation on the possible Code of Conduct under FSRA’s leadership at CISRO.

We also encourage FSRA to maintain ongoing engagement with the industry around the implementation/application of CCIR/CISRO’s Guidance: Conduct of Insurance Business and Fair Treatment of Customers. As FSRA already appreciates, the industry strongly supports Fair Treatment of Customers, in principle and in practice, but FTC precepts are focused largely on aspects of “business culture” which are difficult to measure and demonstrate.

Priority 6.2 Improve Licensing Effectiveness and Efficiency
CAFII strongly supports this FSRA priority and, in particular, we acknowledge the critical nature of developing a common process for capturing and consolidating licensing statistics and of ensuring that effective licensing processes are in place and framed around market conduct risk.

However, we again stress that having to participate in and comply with 13 different licensing processes at the provincial/territorial level for insurance products and services that are offered to a national consumer marketplace is inherently inefficient. As a start-up regulator with enhanced powers and resources, FSRA is ideally positioned to provide national leadership towards a Canada-wide insurance licensing system.

Our Association has also long-advocated the position that, if all provincial/territorial licensing bodies agree, a licensee who meets the requirements and standards to be licensed in one Canadian jurisdiction should be able to become automatically licensed in all other Canadian jurisdictions, without further cost or requirements, through a system of mutual, reciprocal recognition.

As a contingency consideration in this area, if mechanisms cannot be put in place in the near future to allow for a harmonized, national insurance licensing system, CAFII strongly encourages FSRA to build its licensing portal with that bigger picture goal in mind, by making it scalable and capable of supporting a harmonized, national licensing system in the future.

2019-20 Priority 5.3 Harmonize Treating Consumers Fairly Guidance
CAFII was very encouraged by, and fully supports, the recent indication by FSRA CEO Mark White that FSRA will shortly issue an official communication to advise that the CCIR/CISRO Guidance: Conduct of Insurance Business and Fair Treatment of Customers will become FSRA’s own and official Guidance for the life and health insurance sector, thereby eliminating the duplication and confusion caused by having FSCO’s Guideline also at play in this sector.

That move on FSRA’s part will allow the industry to focus on meeting CCIR/CISRO/FSRA’s FTC expectations rather than having to devote considerable time to “exception management,” driven by competing Guidance documents. We believe that this is another example of FSRA’s leadership “walking the talk” and we applaud the Agency for making this reasonable and prudent decision.



Fiscal Year 2020-21 FSRA Budget
With respect to FSRA’s proposed 2020-21 budget, CAFII members are comforted by the fact that the year-over-year overall percentage increase is a reasonable 2%. We recognize that for the Life & Health Insurance sector, the year-over-year percentage increase is somewhat above 5%, as a one-time provision to fund the hiring of additional market conduct staff expertise.

In our view, the proposed budget demonstrates prudent and responsible fiscal management and suggests that FSRA has reasonable cost controls in place and has its fiscal house in order.

Our Association was pleased by the indication that technology investments will now be recovered from the sectors over a five-year period, as that approach better matches the costs and benefits for fee rule purposes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, we note that while FSRA has certain rule-making authority, the extent of that authority in the life and health insurance sector is limited. CAFII believes that FSRA’s securing of greater rule-making authority for life and health insurance will give the Authority the nimbleness and flexibility required to respond to industry developments more quickly. We therefore encourage FSRA to work on obtaining additional rule-making authority for life and health insurance through the appropriate government channels.

By way of a constructive suggestion related to FSRA’s much-appreciated commitment to open, transparent communication and consultation, CAFII encourages the Authority to send all regulatory consultation documents directly to industry and consumer stakeholder groups – or, at the very least, send email notification to stakeholder groups of such -- rather than just post them on the FSRA website.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide input and feedback on Draft Fiscal Year 2020-21 Priorities and Budget. Should you require further information from CAFII or wish to meet with representatives from our Association at any time, please contact Brendan Wycks, CAFII Co-Executive Director, at brendan.wycks@cafii.com or 647-218-8243.

CAFII and its members remain committed to supporting FSRA in its critically important mission and mandate; and we look forward to continuing our involvement as key stakeholder contributors to the Authority’s ongoing success.

Sincerely,


Martin Boyle
Board Secretary and Chair, Executive Operations Committee


November 18, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Rosie Orlando - Primerica Life Insurance Company of Canada
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on FSRA's 2020-21 Priorities and Budget. Attached please find our comment letter.

Best Regards,
Rosie
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] C. Allman - Canadian Association of Direct Relationship Insurers
Please find attached CADRI's comments on FSRA's 2020-2021 Draft Priorities.
November 18, 2019
Health Care Service Sector
[2019-007] Maria Scaringi - KIDSPEECH ™
Thank you for the opportunity to assist FRSA
November 18, 2019
Pension Sector
[2019-007] Duayne Siewah - HOOPP
Please find attached a letter extending HOOPP's statement of support for FSRA's 2020-21 priorities.
November 18, 2019
Pension Sector
[2019-007] Simon Laxon - Willis Towers Watson
see attached
November 18, 2019
Pension Sector
[2019-007] Rossana Di Lieto - Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan

November 18, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Susan Allemang - Independent Financial Brokers of Canada
Attached is IFB's comments on FSRA's draft 2010-21 Priorities
November 18, 2019
Mortgage Brokering Sector
[2019-007] Evan Cooperman - Foremost Financial Corporation
Thank you for this opportunity to provide feedback on the 2020-2021 priorities. We would like to commend FSRA for setting a tone that is both collaborative and goals focused.
The priorities appear well considered and make sense to us. We are particularly supportive of a transition to Principles Based Regulation and regulatory burden reduction.
We encourage the goals of reducing inherited guidance by 40% and burden reduction on disclosures for lower risk SMIs.
We agree with the focus on supporting policy direction on the MBLAA and reiterate our request to FSRA to do its part to ensure that we do not end up with dual regulation which is prohibitively expensive and will impair capital flow to borrower markets. Dual regulation runs counter to the stated government objective of a reduction in regulatory burden. WE CANNOT STRESS ENOUGH THE NEED TO AVOID DUAL REGULATION.
We have no comments on the budget as proposed.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue with FSRA in the hopes of helping shape effective and practical regulation.


November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Erica Kelsey - Aviva Canada
Please see attached submission.
Thank you.
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Rhona DesRoches - FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform
579A Lakeshore Rd. E. PO Box 39522
Mississauga, ON, L5G 4S6
http://www.fairassociation.ca/
fairautoinsurance@gmail.com

November 18, 2019

FAIR Submission to: Draft 2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget ID 2019-007

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the auto insurance issues facing Ontario consumers.

FAIR is a grassroots not-for-profit organization of Ontario car accident survivors who have been injured and who have struggled with the current auto insurance system in Ontario.

Our comments will be brief and in respect to auto insurance issues only.

• 2.1 Protect the public interest
• 4.1 Empower and protect auto insurance consumers
• 4.2 Support and Implement Transformative Auto Insurance Reforms

These statements imply that the FSRA recognizes that auto insurance customers and claimant interests should be of heightened concern in today’s marketplace.

Unfortunately that has not translated into real inclusion at the regulator. Consumers are 50% of the equation and yet have 0% representation at FSRA.

We note the Ad hoc Industry Advisory Groups in place since June of 2019 are all insurer oriented or include only those whose incomes are dependent on the insurers. Respectfully, if the industry is made up of buyers and sellers of auto insurance products why are there no consumers on these committees? Further, why are there no consumers on the auto insurance Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) recently formed with an open invitation to consumers to participate?

The message received by the public is that the FSRA is so fully stacked with insurers that there will be a singular message coming only from insurers and only in their interests to the Regulator. This does not ‘empower’ consumers who have effectively been silenced by an utter lack of inclusion.

Unlike other financial sectors, Ontario consumers are legislated to spend their dollars on premiums for a promise of coverage if needed. Indeed they enter into this agreement in the hopes they do not ever have to use the product. These are consumers with expectations that are radically different than the investor who expects to have a return of dollars flow their way. Consumer interest in this instance is about ensuring the private companies who promise Ontario citizens coverage when they need it are not taking advantage of their vulnerable customers or the taxpayers and are carrying their load and living up to their contracts. In order for regulatory oversight to work it’s going to take more than mere ‘guidance’; it’s going to take regulatory follow through and a much broader interest in consumer experiences and outcomes.

Continued focus on fraud without including the information about insurer fraud (medical file manipulation is a considerable driver of costs) is a concern for the public who picks up the pieces when this fraud allows insurers to skate away from their obligations. The taxpayers, whose dollars are used to fund the LAT hearings system and the Courts, are really paying for latent and ineffective quality control performed by the courts. The over 50,000 auto insurance cases on the civil court docket for many years and the steady stream of injured victims at LAT is concerning and expensive and it will continue without any consumer protection or safeguards in the system. There are currently no corrective measures, no disincentives for insurers who are incompetent file managers or who abuse their own customers. When there is a structural or systemic problem, such as tens of thousands of individuals unable to collect on the promise of coverage every year, the costs to taxpayers for social supports is enormous but the individual costs to those injured and without adequate resources is immense.

Transformative auto insurance reform implies a shift. The Treating Financial Services Consumers Fairly Guideline speaks to elevating the discussions and direction to empower the consumer. This can only be achieved when consumer interests are treated as equal to that of Ontario’s insurers. That is only possible when their complaints about insurer fraud and market conduct are addressed with an equal level of concern as the insurers have enjoyed.

We appreciate the enormous work that goes into reforming the oversight for financial products and that there are many challenges ahead. We appreciate that FSRA participated in discussions about this at stakeholder meetings earlier this year. If there is a meaningful intent on “fulfilling FSRA’s mandate to protect the public interest in financial services in Ontario by ensuring that consumer input and perspectives inform our regulatory direction and decisions” it does mean that consumers must be included.

We hope to participate in finding a better direction and improved oversight for consumers in the future.

FAIR Association of Victims for Accident Insurance Reform

November 18, 2019
Pension Sector
[2019-007] Gareth Gibbins - OMERS
Please find attached OMERS submission on FSRA's Draft 2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget.
November 18, 2019
Health Care Service Sector
[2019-007] Dr. Harold Becker

November 18, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Brent Mizzen - Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association
On behalf of Stephen Frank, President and CEO, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA), please find attached the industry's comments on FSRA's draft 2020-21 Priorities and Budget.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide the industry's input and would be pleased to provide additional information, if that would be helpful.
November 18, 2019
Mortgage Brokering Sector
[2019-007] Rober Trager - Vault Capital Inc.

November 18, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Earleen Moulton - CAILBA
CAILBA is pleased to provide our comments on the draft 2020-21 priorities and budget, ID 2019-007
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Andrei Belik - Intact Insurance
Intact submission to the 2020-2021 Priorities and Budget Consultation
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Sofia Balanovsky
As a Consumer and as a Canadian Citizen, who is paying taxes, I am extremely concerned where my insurance premium dollars are going, and what is going on in the motor vehicle insurance sector in Ontario.

I strongly believe that Consumers deserve and should have an input and a voice on the matter, because we are paying a lot of money for the car insurance year after year, so we should have the rights to make decisions.

We are hoping that new organization FSRA is going to make positive changes to aid the insurance industry through the regulations and make it easier for consumers to maneuver the insurance process without it causing more trauma to accident victims.

Consumers are definitely not being served in a manner that they deserve to. All the system is one-sided and supports the insurers only, which frequently leads to absurd results, it “leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the Page: 16 legislative enactment" AND "This is an absurd result…”

The system is unjust for some of Ontario's most vulnerable persons, who are the victims of MVAs, and who are the consumers. The existing system is not serving consumers exactly where the attention is most needed.

Unfortunately, no consumers have been included on the SAC, it is showing that a fair system is now far more unlikely to happen and there will be little improvement over the previous FSCO regulatory system. Consumers are not being represented when the Committee is welcoming only insurers to comment and influence policy.

I have a lot of supporting materials about systemic issues in the MVA sector that were reported to FSCO, the Ministry of Finance, MPs, MPPs, FAIR and media.
Systemic issues were mentioned in my letters of complaint to Insurance Ombudsman, have been reported to a Ministry of Finance Representative and a local MPP, in out meeting in person, that took place in the Ministry of Finance on September 24,2019. I am still hoping for positive changes to happen in the car insurance sector in the near future.


One of the examples of systemic issues in the insurer’s wrong-doing, constantly acting in a bad faith and mistreating the victims can be an example of a young Catastrophically brain-injured patient, (picture and documents attached), who is staying in a vegetative state in a hospital for more than 2 years, who was threatened to submit to an Examination Under Oath pursuant to Section 33 of SABS, and apparently his AB were stopped by the Insurer, because he is having no voice literally and figuratively and cannot be Examined Under Oath.

The insurance would spend a lot of money to “defraud” this poor brain-injured guy and other victims like him, to find any single excuse to suspend their benefits and deny treatments and services. The insurance adjusters and lawyers are very “creative” in finding the ways to deny benefits, and they are working really hard to advance the patients’ deterioration.
The insurers have direct interest in these CAT patients’ deterioration and death: the sooner these CAT victims die, the better for the insurers, as they do not have to pay anymore and all their money would perfectly stay in their pockets. It is VERY SAD, but THIS IS THE TRUTH, that has to be admitted by the insurers and recognized by the regulator as the current reality in the field of MVAs.

This egregious act with the vegetative patient described above, was perpetrated by the same Crawford insurer, who paid to a privileged and “BEST INSURANCE LAWYER” that I previously reported to FSRA and Ontario Law Society, an amount of $380,000 as a donation in a one-night fundraising event for her personal needs! DOES IT SOUND NORMAL TO YOU ALL? It is INSANE, and it just proves that SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM...Something is BROKEN THERE, CORRUPTED AND HAS TO BE FIXED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

I asked FSRA to take my complaint seriously and investigate it in the most thorough way possible, but nothing has been done since. I strongly believe that these systemic issues should be thoroughly investigated, while using all resources available in the community in such a democratic and lawful country like Canada, since we all should make efforts to stop this absurd described above.

I want to pursue justice and ensure that the public and consumers are protected, whereas the final position of the FSRA Regulator appears to be very important in this fight.

We all should care and never forget that we all here are public and consumers, whose rights should be protected equally. We should never forget that all human beings’ lives are equally vulnerable and fragile, when it comes to Motor Vehicle Accidents that may jeopardize and take people’s lives and health in less than a second.

Nobody knows when and if the moment comes to them or their loved ones, but when it does, then it can be too late to fight...So, we have to ensure NOW, WHEN IT’S NOT TOO LATE, that the policies and regulations are written FOR PEOPLE, rather than against people, and that the laws work and protect people, and not just the insurers. Currently it is one-sided and protects the insurers only, which is unfair and unjust towards the public and the consumers.

We are paying high premiums for the insurance product year after year, NON-STOP, making the insurers richer and wealthier every year, to find out one day that when we need it, the purchased product DOES NOT WORK, it’s just TOTALLY USELESS... There is no protection there at all!

The public should become aware why the premiums increase every year and where the money is going. The COLLUSION IS VERY SUMPLE WITH THE INSURERS: the money is going in the forms of different incentives, such as bonuses, referrals, donations etc, paid in addition to salaries to the army of insurance lawyers, adjusters and investigators for their “good job” in their efforts to hinder and thwart victims’ claims, so all the “money stays in the family”, in the insurers’ pockets!
The victims of MVA are “rotting alive” and die from their injuries, because they are denied treatments and services they need, while the powerful insurers celebrating and getting wealthier and richer from keeping their profits money and constantly increasing the premium rates.

The insurers are definitely very proud of themselves and extremely happy that there are no disincentives for them for their wrong-doing and “screwing” the claims, and for “fooling” the entire province of Ontario, including the public, the regulator and the government.

How did it happen that apparently everybody became “blind and deaf,” and does not see, does not hear and does not talk or does not want to talk about what is really going on here in Ontario?! No interest? Don’t care? Scared of the insurers for some reason? What is wrong with people?! What “secret buttons and strings” the insurers managed to pull or press on, to zombi and turn into marionettes everyone and control everything in the entire province of Ontario and Canada in general?...Are they the biggest taxpayers in Canada? It’s a MYTH... WE are the biggest taxpayers, the people from the public, the consumers!

The consumers continue being abused and mistreated by their own insurers for their own money they pay in premiums! This is NOT RIGHT! This is UNFAIR! This HAS TO STOP! And it won’t stop UNTIL WE STOP IT!

I trust that the new regulator FSRA’s Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs) that will serve as the primary consultation bodies to the FSRA Board, will play an important part of FSRA's stakeholder engagement process of making changes and reforms in the MVA policies and regulations within a commitment to an open, transparent and collaborative approach that involves all stakeholders, including first and foremost us, the consumers. We are well-deserved that our Human and Consumer’s Rights be protected in such a great, Democratic and Lawful country, like Canada!



November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Kim Donaldson - Insurance Bureau of Canada
Please find attached, IBC's Submission to FSRA: Progress Update and Outlook for 2020 -2021 Priorities
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Julie Entwistle - Solutions for Living / Function-Ability

November 18, 2019
Health Care Service Sector
[2019-007] Dr. Moez Rajwani - Coalition of Health Professional Association in Ontario Automobile Services
Please see attached response and feedback on the priorities. Thank you for the opportunity to provide a submission.
November 18, 2019
Pension Sector
[2019-007] Kristina Croce McCartney - CAAT Pension Plan
Hello,

Please find attached the CAAT Pension Plan's feedback to FSRA's Draft 2020-21 Priorities and Budget on behalf of Evan Howard, General Counsel and Vice-President, Pension Management.

Should you have any questions or comments on this submission please do not hesitate to contact Evan Howard or myself.

Thank you,

Kristina Croce McCartney
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Christian Jobidon - Desjardins General Insurance Group
Please find attached the comments of Desjardins General Insurance Group (DGIG) related to FSRA's FY 2020-21 Priorities & Budget.
We would be happy to clarify or expand upon our comments at your request.. Thank you.
November 18, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Laurie Davis - Ontario Rehab Alliance

November 18, 2019
Health Care Service Sector
[2019-007] Mark Wigle - Association of Independent Assessment Centres
Please find attached the Association of Independent Assessment Centres (AIAC) submission as part of the Health Service Providers SAC.
November 18, 2019
[2019-007] Marissa Lennox - CARP

November 15, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] John Taylor - Ontario Mutual Insurance Association
Please find attached the Ontario Mutual Insurance Association's submission.
November 14, 2019
Auto Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Tammy Kirkwood
I was pleased to see the FRSA was creating committees like SAC, Stakeholder Advisory Committee for Property & Casualty (P&C) Insurance, and CAP, Consumer Advisory Panel.
I applied for the SAC and looking forward to being an Advocate and consumer participant.  It is unfortunate that the SAC committee's only participants are from within the insurance industry.  It seems odd and unfair that FAIR, Fair association of victims for Accident  Insurance Reform, participated in the Working Groups with the other stakeholders for the Drivers Card and Assessment Form and yet isn't included on this Committee.
There was a lot of information and ideas shared in the meetings over the summer months. Consumers had a voice and we thought that positive changes were going to be made to aid the insurance industry through the regulations and make it easier for consumers to maneuver the insurance process without it causing more trauma to accident victims.
I have reviewed the Draft F2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget and find that it is difficult to read and understand.  It's written in terms and wording that leaves many questions.  
"• Develop new reporting and analytical tools to enable proactive regulatory monitoring and evidence-based policy decisions. FSRA will: • Report on the health of Ontario’s auto insurance system" How can you have a report on the health of the auto insurance scheme if you haven't asked consumers whether it is working for them? Otherwise it is just a statement on how profitable or how happy insurers are isn't it?
Consumers are definitely not being served and it shows in decisions like Tomec (see below) where it's apparent insurers are not standing behind their product and contract of coverage or following the intent of the SABs. Comments like:"effectively penalize the appellant for accessing benefits she is statutorily entitled to"  OR "Statutes are to be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to absurd results. An interpretation is considered absurd if it “leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the Page: 16 legislative enactment"  AND "This is an absurd result. To choose it, as the LAT did, is unreasonable." 
This is not what you want to hear in reference to the hearings system for some of Ontario's most vulnerable persons. Those statements and how the existing system is not serving consumers is exactly where the attention is most needed.
Now that there are no consumers included on the SAC, it is showing that a fair system is now far more unlikely to happen and there will be little improvement over the previous FSCO regulatory system. Consumers are not being represented when the Committee is welcoming only insurers to comment and influence policy.

   Tomec v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 882 DATE: 20191108 DOCKET: C66763  
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2019/2019ONCA0882.pdf  

Absurd Result [46] Statutes are to be interpreted in a manner that does not lead to absurd results. An interpretation is absurd if it “leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the Page: 16 legislative enactment”: Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, 36 O.R. (3d) 418, at para. 27. 
[47] Here, the decisions below thrust the appellant into a Kafkaesque regulatory regime. A hard limitation period would bar the appellant from claiming enhanced benefits, before she was even eligible for those benefits. However, if the appellant had not claimed any benefits until she obtained CAT status in 2015, she would not be caught by the limitation period: Machaj v. RBC General Insurance Company, 2016 ONCA 257, at para. 6. Alternatively, if the appellant had coincidentally obtained CAT status before 2012, the hard limitation period would not bar her claim for enhanced benefits. 
[48] This outcome is absurd. There is no principled reason for barring the appellant’s claim for enhanced benefits in the first scenario but allowing the claim in the second and third scenario. To do so would effectively penalize the appellant for accessing benefits she is statutorily entitled to, or for developing CAT status too late. 
[49] The impossible position a hard limitation places the appellant is best illustrated by having regard to Economical’s counsel’s oral submissions. Counsel denied that the appellant was put in a lose-lose situation. She argued that the appellant could have applied to the LAT before the expiry of the limitation period for a declaration that, in the future, she would be entitled to extended benefits if she were subsequently found to be CAT. Page: 17 
[50] I start by noting that courts must be cognizant of the significant disparity in resources between large insurance companies and their insureds, who do not have unlimited resources to bring multiple proceedings, including prophylactic claims based on a future contingency: see MacDonald v. Chicago Title Insurance Company of Canada, 2015 ONCA 842, 127 O.R. (3d) 663, at para. 88, leave to appeal refused, [2016] S.C.C.A. No. 39. 
[51] In any event, if such a proceeding were commenced for a declaration, it is difficult to imagine how it could succeed. At best, the appellant could only lead speculative evidence that she might be CAT at some unknown point in the future. Faced with that evidentiary record, the LAT would likely decline to make the requested declaration.  

[52] In my view, the hard limitation period puts the appellant in an impossible situation, where the time for claiming a benefit commences when she is ineligible to make such a claim. This is an absurd result. To choose it, as the LAT did, is unreasonable.   

Tammy Kirkwood
FAIR, Vice Chair
November 14, 2019
[2019-007] Ernie Dellostritto
Attached is our submission letter dated November 8, 2019
November 8, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Salvatore (Sal) Bagazzoli - Acumen Insurance Group Inc.
Insurance Intermediaries such as Managing General Agents (MGA's) have played a vital role in helping Brokers place specialized business and especially helping Brokers with capacity and with hard market cycles. As stated in a Canadian Underwriter magazine on Nov.1st, 2019, they are lacking in regulatory status and self governance.. Although it is prudent of FSRA CEO Mark White, to review the complete sales process, he should not rule out recommending some regulation of this significant intermediary.As stated their business represents 12 - 15 % of all Insurance business in Canada. The need for efficiency, should not stand in the way of necessary regulation for this important industry significant segment.. The ultimate insurance consumer would be better served and the resulting MGA regulation would ensure a fully protected Insurance sales process.
November 6, 2019
[2019-007] Patricia Porretta - Rush Mortgages Inc
I have recently had to get mortgage clients out of horrible private mortgages. The lack of transparency is at the heart of the issue plus lawyers not taking the time to fully explain what the clients were getting into. On one mortgage over $1,000 worth of lender bonuses showing on the funds summary but not on the Disclosure. As an Agent who is very particular about my clients and who I work hard to protect, I would like to see this issue of transparency on private mortgages fixed as soon as possible.

October 31, 2019
[2019-007] Wendy Sarsons - Action Potential Rehabilitation
As a provider of physiotherapy services to clients with MVA insurance, I have 2 significant concerns with the present system:
1. Currently, there are 2 rates for providers (NON-cat and CAT) which causes unnecessary problems for both clients and providers. When clients are designated CAT, they have more funds available but these funds are used more quickly because the provider rate is higher. An hour of a provider's time should be the same regardless of the extent of the injury, but of course more funds are needed to provide the extensive treatment required to help people with catastrophic injuries.

2. Currently, primary or extended medical insurance must be exhausted before the MVA insurance will pay for invoices submitted against an approved treatment plan. Providers are held ransom trying to get claim statements from clients, often over paltry sums, holding up payment from the MVA insurer for weeks and often months. Clients with catastrophic injuries have had their lives ruined in automobile accidents. They are struggling on so many levels. They get behind in paperwork and don't send in their claims. Providers treating in good faith with approved treatment plans should not be held responsible for doing the work for the MVA insurers of ensuring that primary insurance has been exhausted. This is a case of huge corporations downloading onto small businesses in order to delay payment, and is condoned by the rules established by FSCO and now FRSA.
October 27, 2019
[2019-007] Susanne Gorka - Ottawa South Chiropractic Clinic
There hasn't been a raise to HCAI MVA treatment fees in over 5 years. Perhaps they can be indexed yearly to make it fair for treatment providers?
October 25, 2019
[2019-007] Monica White - The Edge Benefits Inc
I would like to see the ability to complete the Corporate licensing requirements online.
Currently it takes over a month to get approved and updated on the website, after submitting the documents.
Most other provinces updating Corporate licensing is done online.
I am in charge of updating our Corporate licensing across Canada, and Ontario has the most inefficient system of all.
Hoping this is one of your priorities in 2020?

thanks
Monica White
Director Advisor Services & Compliance Officer
October 25, 2019
[2019-007] Surjit Mundi - Mundi Accounting & Tax Services
There is lots of frauds happening in mortgasge industry. Documents are being forefieted and all the misleading information is submitted to financial institutions. Financial institution officials are accepting cash bribes to get illegitimate mortgages approved. A genuine agent cannot do any business. It is a shame what is happening
October 24, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Dave Patriarche - Canadian Group Insurance Brokers Inc
I really think Ontario has to implement an Employee Benefits insurance License. There needs to be better specialization in both the education and licensing requirements as the Life training (as well as A&S license) covers almost nothing on benefits and as a result, too many consumers 9employees of benefit plan policy holders/employers) are put at risk. Quebec is the only province to have gone this route and it would be a great start for the industry to shape up.

October 24, 2019
[2019-007] Ben Therrien - Zoobla Financial
I am concern that as we had more compliance documents on advisors, make it harder to get licence we are moving clients away from advisor who can help them. A new generation of client who want to do business without signing all the disclosure form etc are at the same time allow to buy directly online, without any assistance from an advisor, from carriers.

I had to replace a policy from a client who bough online. They didn't know it was a deferred product, they didn't know that the permanent insurance they bough had increasing premium.

If we feel clients need FNA, Reason why letters, disclosure letter etc., why are we allowing these clients to buy online direct from the carriers, with no human interaction products they do not understand. More and more of these web site are appearing and at the detriments of consumers.
October 24, 2019
[2019-007] Charles Nash - MortgageGuys.com
As a broker I would like to see the ability for brokers to offer a client cash back on a mortgage eliminated. It makes no sense how a commitment and disclosure have 2 different rates based on the brokerage doing this.

Thanks for your consideration,

Charles Nash
October 24, 2019
Home, Life and Health Insurance Sector
[2019-007] Yafa Sakkejha - Beneplan
As a group benefits third party administrator (TPA), we would welcome a plan to strengthen the code of conduct and regulation around group health and life insurance intermediaries. I would be in favour of stronger rules and oversight over data, funds, contracts, and behaviour in our slice of the industry. I believe the current regulation does not go far enough to address the risks that exist with Canadians. Thank you for listening.
October 24, 2019
Date posted Sector Question and response
Auto Insurance Sector

Question: The auto insurance rate in Brampton is too high. Though I have a clean driving records,my auto rates are high. I am penalized for the postal code and region. My suggestion is to charge the auto insurance based on driving habits ,history,types of vehicle and other parameters and not on POSTAL CODE.

FSRA response:

Consumers come first in FSRA’s approach to auto insurance. Our proposed future priorities related to auto insurance include empowering and protecting consumers, and to deliver on that priority we will be transforming auto insurance rate regulation in Ontario to support innovative and consumer-focused business models, pricing structures and technologies (including telematics used to measure driving habits).
 
Hearing and understanding consumer views on auto insurance pricing will be important to our success in this area. We look forward to your continued engagement as we finalize our priorities and begin working to deliver results that protect the rights and interests of consumers. 

Auto Insurance Sector

Question: RE: Auto insurance and Healthcare Provision

FSCO has been responsible for regulating rates payable for the services provided by Regulated Healthcare Providers by Auto Insurers. The fee guideline has been last updated in 2014, and even then, compared to the 2011 guideline, provided only an incremental increase.(https://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/auto/autobulletins/2014/Documents/a-08-14-1.pdf)
Furthermore, when compared to market rates, as well as the fee schedules developed by the various regulatory colleges, rates payable are 1/2-1/3 of recommended hourly rates. This sub-market rate system is used as a tool by insurers to limit financial obligation and access to care. Other than the insurer's, neither the insured persons seeking care nor the health providers stand to benefit from this.

Does FSRAO have any intention to review the fee schedules beyond another incremental and essentially meaningless increase such as the 2014 schedule update?

This is just one of many systemic issues in the Auto Insurance sector, and I would be happy to elaborate in greater detail from the standpoint of consumer and healthcare provider.

I also hope that others will pitch in because I know for a fact that insurance companies' official AND unofficial policies are negatively effecting many thousands of Ontarians.

FSRA response:

Thank you for your input. All inherited guidance, including the Professional Services Guideline issued by FSCO, are being reviewed as part of the inherited guidance review started in 2019-20 and continuing into 2020-21 based on the proposed priorities in our consultation document.

Question: I have held a Life and A&S licence since 1982. Most of 2018 I was sick or in Hospital.. When I c renewed my licence I had 10CEs. and had to do 20hrs. Would it not be fairer to reduce weight of education on Veterans ?

FSRA response:

We are sorry to hear about the health struggles you have had and understand the impact this would have on your ability to complete the CE requirements. However, as a regulator, FSRA is mandated to enforce compliance with the standards outlined in the Insurance Act that require all life insurance agents to complete 30 hours of Continuing Education (CE) credits within each two-year licensing period.

 

Improving licensing effectiveness and efficiency is one of FSRA’s priorities. To support this priority, FSRA will be reviewing its licensing renewal requirements for Life and A&S, and will be consulting with the Life & Health Insurance sector on potential changes to licensing requirements.

Question: Hi,

I read a lot of commentary around changes to "Non-eligible" SMI products / suitability. I understand and support the need for increased suitability requirements for these higher risk products.

Sometimes the content I am reading distinguishes non-eligible SMI, but sometimes it just references 'Syndicated Mortgages' in general. Can I assume that all reference to syndicated mortgages are referring to the higher risk - non-eligible SMIs specifically?

I want to understand if I should anticipate any change to our requirements as a mortgage broker / mortgage admin, with regards to the lower risk, typical residential private mortgages we are managing for our clients. (sometimes they are syndicated between multiple lenders to enhance diversification) will this activity, although technically "syndication" experience any change?

These mortgages by every definition will continue to be eligible SMIs.

Second question, how can I get more involved to be on a FSRA/Mortgage sector review board, or give my feedback to regulators directly? Hosper is highly focused on Broker compliance and lending compliance, and I would like to provide my insights to help improve regulatory oversight without increased burned to regulatory participants.



FSRA response:

FSRA uses the terms qualified and non-qualified to distinguish between the types of syndicated mortgage investments (SMIs), as defined in Ontario Regulation 188/08 s. 1.

 

References to “Syndicated Mortgages” do not always refer to high-risk syndicated mortgage transactions, such as in the Draft 2020-21 FSRA Priorities and Budget. FSRA’s website content aims to be as clear as possible when discussing syndicated mortgages in general versus high-risk syndicated mortgages.

 

FSRA has identified the three risk factors below which make a SMI high-risk when presented to retail investors:

  1. High Loan-to-value Ratio – In transactions where the loan-to-value ratio is greater than 100%.
  2. Subordination – If the priority or order of repayment of the syndicated mortgage may be lowered (‘subordinated’) behind other debt.
  3. Conflicts of Interest – In transactions where the borrower or developer is related to the mortgage administrator.

In September 2019, FSRA issued an open call for membership in new sector Stakeholder Advisory Committees (SACs). A list of the Mortgage Brokering SAC members was published on FSRA’s website on October 31, 2019.

 

At any time, stakeholders and consumers who wish to provide comments and/or recommendations to FSRA are welcome to do so via our Contact Centre at contactcentre@fsrao.ca.