The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) has imposed an administrative penalty of $1,750 on insurance agent Hardeep Minhas for engaging in an unfair or deceptive act or practice.
The sanction follows a settlement between FSRA and Minhas.
FSRA found that Minhas's conduct breached the Ontario's Insurance Act, as well as the Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices rule, which prohibits payments, rebates or other things of value offered as an incentive or inducement to purchase, renew or retain life or accident and sickness insurance.
According to FSRA’s published reasons in an earlier notice of proposal, Minhas, a licensed life and accident and sickness insurance agent, rebated premiums to a married couple in connection with several policies after agreeing he would reimburse them if they bought additional coverage. Some of the policies were ultimately terminated or rejected, and the clients may have been left with coverage they could not afford.
The regulator concluded that this conduct met the definition of an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the law.
The regulator had initially proposed a $3,000 penalty but ultimately issued an order imposing a $1,750 administrative penalty following a settlement with Minhas.
The case is a clear reminder that premium rebating and similar inducements remain offside in Ontario’s regulatory framework, particularly in the life and accident and sickness space. The UDAP rule expressly captures payments, rebates and gifts used as incentives to buy, renew or retain life or accident and sickness coverage, and it applies to agents, brokers and insurers.
FSRA has consistently framed UDAP enforcement as central to its consumer protection mandate and has signalled it will act where incentives, mis-selling or other practices could lead customers to purchase coverage that is unsuitable or unaffordable. Although the monetary penalty in this case is relatively modest, the public nature of the order and the finding of unfair or deceptive conduct highlight the regulator’s expectation that licensed intermediaries understand and comply with the UDAP regime.
The decision reinforces the need to review compensation structures, sales campaigns and referral or “cash back” offers for consistency with the UDAP rule, and to ensure advisors are trained on prohibitions around rebating and other inducements in life and health lines.
In an environment where regulators are increasingly focused on fair treatment of customers and outcome-based supervision, smaller enforcement actions like this one can serve as useful indicators of where FSRA is drawing the line on acceptable sales practices.
