Roy v. Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta et al., (2008) 455 A.R. 318 (QB)

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: September 10, 2008
• Citations: (2008), 455 A.R. 318 (QB);2008 ABQB 572

Roy v. Alta. (2008), 455 A.R. 318 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. OC.010

In The Matter Of the Appeal of Marc Alan Roy from the Decision of the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta Dated April 1, 2008;

And In The Matter Of the Insurance Councils Regulation, Alta. Reg. 126/2001

Marc Alan Roy (applicant) v. The Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta and the Alberta Life Insurance Council (respondents)

(0803 05901; 2008 ABQB 572)

Indexed As: Roy v. Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

September 23, 2008.

Summary:

Roy had a licence to sell life insurance in Alberta. In the application for a renewal of his Certificate of Authority for life insurance for 2007, he indicated that he had completed the required 15 hours of continuing education work. Roy was incorrect and of the 15 hours of credits he required he was only allowed 1.75 hours. The Alberta Life Insurance Council found Roy guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty under s. 480(1)(a) of the Insurance Act. Roy appealed that finding to the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta. The Appeal Board set aside the conviction for misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and dishonesty, but upheld the conviction for untrustworthiness. Roy sought judicial review of the Appeal Board's decision.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 2493

Natural justice - Procedure - At hearing - Right to make submissions - The Alberta Life Insurance Council found Roy guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty under s. 480(1)(a) of the Insurance Act - Roy appealed to the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta - The Appeal Board set aside the conviction for misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and dishonesty, but upheld the conviction for untrustworthiness - Roy sought judicial review - Roy argued that neither he nor the Life Insurance Council had argued that there ought to be multiple mens rea for the unlawful acts of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty and that the first time that this argument appeared was in the Appeal Board's decision - Roy submitted that he was therefore deprived of the opportunity to be heard on this issue - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - Both counsel and the panel were well aware of the fact that the words "misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, dishonesty or untrustworthiness" were used disjunctively and each should be interpreted separately - To suggest that a finding of guilt of one of these elements but not the others was not clearly understood by the parties was farfetched - Roy had every opportunity if he wished to argue that "untrustworthy" had no different meaning from the other four words and that one could not be found guilty of one and not the other - See paragraphs 17 to 22.

Insurance - Topic 445

Agents - Discipline - Untrustworthiness - Roy had a licence to sell life insurance in Alberta - In the application for a renewal of his Certificate of Authority for life insurance, he was asked whether he had completed the required 15 hours of continuing education work - His response was that he had completed the work - Roy was incorrect and of the 15 hours of credits he required he was only allowed 1.75 hours - The Alberta Life Insurance Council found Roy guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty under s. 480(1)(a) of the Insurance Act - Roy appealed to the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta - The Appeal Board set aside the conviction for misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and dishonesty, but upheld the conviction for untrustworthiness - Roy sought judicial review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the application - The Appeal Board's conclusion that Roy's false answer together with his recklessness justified a finding of "untrustworthiness" was reasonable - The false answer was one which the Life Insurance Council could not trust as a basis for renewing Roy's Certificate of Authority - That satisfied the objective element - The Appeal Board's finding that "the best that can be said of the appellant's approach to the required statements is that he did not know if he had the required credits or not and likely gave the form little or no thought" was a finding of wilful blindness, or recklessness, and that was sufficient to prove intent - See paragraphs 23 to 28.

Insurance - Topic 458

Agents - Discipline - Judicial review (incl. standard of review) - After Roy gave a false answer in the application for a renewal of his Certificate of Authority for life insurance, the Alberta Life Insurance Council found him guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty under s. 480(1)(a) of the Insurance Act - Roy appealed to the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta - The Appeal Board set aside the conviction for misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, and dishonesty, but upheld the conviction for untrustworthiness - Roy sought judicial review of the Appeal Board's decision - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the correctness standard of review applied to procedural fairness issues and that the reasonableness standard applied to the review of the Appeal Board's interpretation of its legislation and application to the facts - See paragraphs 10 to 15.

Cases Noticed:

Tenorlas v. Superintendent of Insurance (Ont.) (1989), 32 O.A.C. 245 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

General Insurance Council v. Howatt (2000), 264 A.R. 33; 2000 ABQB 259, refd to. [para. 7].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir (2008), 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 10].

Johnston et al. v. Director of Vital Statistics (Alta.) et al. (2008), 433 A.R. 147; 429 W.A.C. 147; 2008 ABCA 188, refd to. [para. 11].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 11].

Deloitte & Touche LLP v. Institute of Chartered Accountants (Alta.) (2008), 433 A.R. 41; 429 W.A.C. 41; 2008 ABCA 162, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Long (1990), 51 B.C.L.R.(2d) 42; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 156 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

Statutes Noticed:

Insurance Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. I-3, sect. 480(1) [para. 6].

Counsel:

Jonathan Hillson (Fraser Milner Casgrain LLP), for the applicant, Marc Alan Roy;

Timothy J. Boyle (Spier Harben), for the respondents.

This application was heard on September 10, 2008, before Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on September 23, 2008.