Ocean West Financial Group and its president, Gordon Kimberly Hinkson, will keep their insurance agent licences under a settlement with Ontario's regulator. This comes a year after the regulator moved to refuse their renewals.
The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) said on October 5 that it had imposed an administrative penalty of $40,000 on Hinkson and $50,000 on Ocean West, along with conditions on both licences.
Under the settlement, FSRA found that Hinkson and Ocean West contravened the Insurance Act in two ways. Hinkson acted as an agent without being licensed under the Act. Both Hinkson and Ocean West directly or indirectly gave false, misleading or incomplete information to the regulator.
FSRA has not published the licence conditions in its announcement.
The outcome is lighter than the sanctions FSRA first sought. In September 2025, the regulator proposed refusing to renew both licences and imposing $110,000 in penalties: $60,000 on Hinkson and $50,000 on Ocean West. At the time, FSRA identified Hinkson as Ocean West's president and designated agent.
Both parties requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal. The settlement resolves the case without one. The total penalty has fallen by $20,000, all of it from Hinkson's share, and the licence conditions replace the refusal to renew.
The case was one of several FSRA brought last year against insurance agents over licensing and honesty with the regulator. These included a $100,000 penalty on Kostyantyn Poshtarenko for acting as an agent without a licence, and more than $280,000 in combined penalties against Daniel George Gordon and Gordon Wealth Management, which included findings of a failure to maintain errors and omissions coverage.
FSRA has said in related cases that its suitability assessments cover honesty, integrity and compliance history as well as technical qualifications.
The settlement shows how FSRA often closes contested agent cases. It secures findings and penalties through agreement, and in some cases trades refused renewal for conditions that let licensees keep working under supervision.
For agencies and managing general agents, the case is a reminder that unlicensed activity and inaccurate statements to the regulator are treated as findings in their own right, even where licences survive.
