ID
2023-012

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

Thank you for providing your feedback on FSRA’s proposed Statement of Priorities and budget. 

We appreciate the comments and questions received to date. Your feedback will help to inform our Annual Business Plan. 

The request for submissions is now closed and the consultation summary is below. Stay up to date on our newsroom, follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to our mailing list for quick updates. 

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) is launching a public consultation on its proposed 2024-25 Statement of Priorities and budget.

The focus is on principles-based regulation while delivering on outcomes that protect the public interest, foster competition, innovation and effectively address emerging risks in Ontario’s financial services sector.

Getting input from our committees and stakeholders is an essential part of FSRA’s commitment to transparency and accountability. The consultation will close on November 16, 2023.

The Statement of Priorities and budget will form the core of FSRA's Annual Business Plan which will then be submitted to the Minister of Finance for approval.

Learn more:

Consultation summary reports for each sector:

#

Before we begin, please make sure you do not include any personal or private financial information. If your inquiry does require this information be shared with us, please call us at 1-800-668-0128 or email us at [email protected] for instructions.

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.

Sector Comment Date posted
Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires
[2023-012] CCUA

Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Amanda Dean - Insurance Bureau of Canada
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Rhona DesRoches - FAIR Association of victims for Accident Insurance Reform
Please find attached FAIR Submission to: FSRA Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities ID 2023-012 for your consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to have our voice heard.

Rhona DesRoches
FAIR, Chair
Cross Sector
[2023-012] Jean-Paul Bureaud - FAIR Canada
Attached is a comment letter submitted on behalf of FAIR Canada.
Life and Health Insurance
[2023-012] Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association

Financial Planners and Advisors
[2023-012] Nancy Allan - IFB
Attached are the comments from IFB.
Pensions
[2023-012] Nicholas Sherwin - CAAT Pension Plan
Cross Sector
[2023-012] Giuseppina A. Marra - Desjardins Group
Hi,
Regarding the Public consultation on proposed 2024-25 Statement of Priorities and Budget. please find attached the Desjardins Group's comments.

For any question or precision, feel free to contact me at any time.

Best regards,

Pina Marra,
Senior Director
Regulatory Affairs
Life and Health Insurance
[2023-012] Shanay Smith - Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance
13 November, 2023

Mr. Mark White, CEO
Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario
25 Sheppard Avenue West, Suite 100
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6S6
[email protected]

RE: CAFII Feedback on Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities

Dear Mr. White:

The Canadian Association of Financial Institutions in Insurance (CAFII) thanks the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) for the opportunity to provide comments on FSRA’s Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities.

In this submission, we have restricted our comments to those sections of FSRA’s Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities which are germane to CAFII members, i.e., to the Environmental Scan, to the FSRA-Wide Strategic Priorities, to the Life and Health Insurance Sector-specific Priorities, and to FSRA’s Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 Budget.

We applaud FSRA for its efforts to ensure that the recommendations in the value-for-audit report from the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario are implemented in a timely manner.

We largely agree with FSRA’s observations in its environmental scan, in particular, its view of the ongoing impact of inflationary pressures, the cost-of-living struggles many in Ontario are facing, and the challenges around talent acquisition and retention. In 2023, CAFII conducted research with polling firm Pollara which found that Canadians were cutting back on purchases across the board, with one exception—consumers indicated a higher willingness to purchase life insurance than the year prior, possibly pointing to the changes in behaviour that have occurred due to the pandemic.
 
We agree completely with your assessment that there are unprecedented technological changes occurring within the Canadian economy that carry unclear implications for all sectors. In that regard, at a reception following a CAFII Board meeting on 4 April 2023, CAFII invited a keynote speaker to address these issues. Kartik Sakthivel, Vice President and Chief Information Officer at LIMRA and LOMA, indicated that artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other technological changes had the potential to create transformative change in the life and health insurance industries . While we agree with the need to monitor the technological environment to assess potential impacts to consumers, we also note that there is nothing inherent in technology to suggest that the changes we are observing will lead to harm. Technological change can enhance choice, improve products, and strengthen customized solutions for customers. We believe that FSRA’s emphasis on the fair treatment of customers is the best approach to ensuring that companies navigate these changes in a way that promotes customer interests.

CAFII is aligned with FSRA’s comments on the importance of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and we have initiatives to promote DEI objectives. Specifically, our Association has created a Working Group on DEI to explore ways in which CAFII can promote those important objectives. We also held a webinar on 26 October 2023, with expert consultant Elissa Gurman on “Words Matter” about inclusive language ; several FSRA staff executives attended.

We believe that FSRA’s comments on the significant risks that vulnerable persons face are important and need to be the subject of further attention. This is an area of great interest to CAFII members, including how to address the very high levels of Canadians who do not have life or health insurance or who have insufficient life or health insurance coverage. We note that research by LIMRA has shown that over half of Canadians fall into these categories, and the percentage increases at lower income levels.

We continue to feel that FSRA is a consultative, engaged regulator, and an example of this is the important discussions that have taken place through the Life & Health Insurance Sectoral Advisory Committee. We support your strategic framework, including the focus on operating effectively to be a high-performing regulator, the focus on evidence-based and risk-based decisions, the importance of protecting the public interest to enhance trust and confidence in the sectors FSRA regulates, and the emphasis placed on continuing to attract talent to your organization.

We are concerned however that the Ontario government is exploring lowering the minimum consultation period for new rules developed by FSRA to 60 days. CAFII has to consult internally with its members in the development of a submission on a regulatory initiative like the creation of a new rule, and this can be a time-consuming process. Our members are volunteers with the Association who have paid jobs in their organizations, which is another challenge. If the minimum consultation period is reduced to 60 days, this will make it all the more important for FSRA to advise as early as possible of consultations coming down the pipeline, and to possibly engage industry in pre-consultations.

In particular, we support the commitment to “strengthen the consumer focus.” We particularly encourage FSRA to engage in conducting research and analysis to respond to trends that impact consumers, as consumers are evolving rapidly in their expectations in response to societal and technological change. Since these are areas of particular focus for CAFII and other industry stakeholders, we are confident that industry can provide some insights and helpful ideas on how to structure such research and on the areas of emerging change. Additionally, we have previously communicated to FSRA our support of the following initiative: “Implement existing FSRA guidance by building processes to use revenues retained outside of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016 for educational, research and knowledge or information-enhancement initiatives” (page 12).

We note in that regard your announcement of October 12, 2023 that you are accepting applications for grant funding: “The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) is using the money it collects from enforcement actions to help consumers with financial literacy, financial awareness and the understanding of market trends in the province.” This has the potential to produce important initiatives around research and consumer financial literacy and we applaud the development of this program.

With respect to the “Enable Innovation” priority, we support FSRA’s continued efforts in this area. The needs of consumers and the industry are changing and challenging the regulatory system faster than current mechanisms can adapt. From CAFII’s view, the deliverables and outcomes specified by FSRA under this priority are appropriate. We continue to believe in the benefits of “regulatory sandboxes” that provide a safe, monitored space within which to test innovative products and services while ensuring consumer protection.

We support FSRA’s commitment to “modernize systems and processes,” and appreciate your statement: “Enabling data analytics for each of the regulated sectors to empower FSRA policy and supervisory activities” (page 14). We encourage FSRA to try to collect data through the CCIR Annual Statement of Market Conduct (ASMC) survey, to avoid duplicative and repetitive data collection by various regulators across the country. As part of the modernization process we encourage FSRA to seek a data collection process that makes the data collected comparable across institutions so that it can be analyzed effectively, and reported on and shared in a way that provides insights. We are concerned that the data collected by the ASMC may not be easily analyzed, may be subject to manual analysis, and has resulted in reports that are quite delayed.

We fully support FSRA’s commitment to enhance FSRA’s talent management framework and believe FSRA will face the similar challenges that industry is facing, with changing employee expectations, heightened retirements, a shrinking talent pool, and new societal expectations, including around working remotely. We are encouraged by the high quality of the FSRA executive team and believe that FSRA has, since its inception, recruited exceptionally well.

We are aligned with FSRA’s cross-sectoral priorities of advancing the consumer interest, enabling innovation, and modernizing systems and processes. On the issue of promoting the consumer interest, CAFII was very pleased to hold a webinar on 19 October, 2023, with FSRA EVP Glen Padassery and Chief Consumer Officer Stuart Wilkinson on the Authority’s Consumer Office .

With respect to the life and health insurance sector-specific priorities, CAFII supports all efforts to ensure that trust in the life and health insurance sector is protected and efforts are made to promote the consumer interest. We support the efforts by FSRA to ensure that the highest standards of consumer protection remain at the forefront of regulatory efforts. We are also pleased that FSRA’s emphasis on resolving issues with some MGA channel companies is specific about that channel and does not reference distribution channels generally. Credit Protection Insurance is distributed mostly through branches of banks and credit unions and it is CAFII’s perspective that the industry is performing well, and compliant with regulatory requirements and expectations around the Fair Treatment of Customers. This distribution channel, in our view, should not be caught up in the initiatives around MGAs.

We are pleased that FSRA is playing a leadership role in the International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). In that connection, Mark White as Chair of IAIS’ Market Conduct
Working Group recommended Nicholas Herbert-Young of the IAIS and the UK’s Financial
Conduct Authority (FCA) as a speaker for a CAFII webinar, and we were pleased to have
Mr. Herbert-Young as our panelist for a webinar held on 27 April, 2023 .

In the past, CAFII has extended kudos to FSRA for adopting CCIR/CISRO’s Guidance: Conduct of Insurance and Fair Treatment of Customers as the document which outlines FSRA’s expectations of industry with respect to FTC, without the need for a separate FSRA Guideline in this area. FSRA has set up a leadership example of supporting national co-ordination and harmonization by adopting the CCIR/CISRO Guidance. In that respect, we note and support FSRA’s many references to the fair treatment of consumers in the Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities; we encourage continued emphasis on such references being consistent with the CCIR/CISRO Guidance to make it clear that a harmonized approach continues to be prioritized.

We appreciate, in connection with the themes elaborated in the FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities, FSRA’s continued commitment to open and transparent communication with regulated entities. In that connection, we are very appreciative of FSRA’s offer to let CAFII make a 90-minute presentation at its offices in North York on 15 November, 2023 on our priorities and on the results of some recent research we have conducted. We look forward to that opportunity to continue to share information with FSRA staff executives and to engage in a dialogue with the Authority’s team.

With respect to the FSRA’s proposed 2024-2025 Budget, we note that it calls for a significant increase in FSRA’s revenue, and that the life & health conduct variable revenue line is up by 7.9%, after a prior year increase in 2023-2024 of 9.6%. The inflationary 2023 year has been another very challenging one for the life and health insurance sector, and the industry has made considerable efforts to respond to shifting and heightened consumer needs and expectations in these difficult times. We encourage FSRA to keep in mind those factors, along with the increased compliance costs which inevitably arise from a heightened level of conduct supervision, when considering the imposition of steep fee increases upon the life and health insurance sector.

In closing, we again express CAFII’s appreciation for FSRA’s continued commitment to open and transparent communication and consultation. We look forward to making further representations of our Association’s views on FSRA’s Proposed FY2024-2025 Statement of Priorities through the Life and Health Insurance Sectoral Advisory Committee’s meetings, which CAFII actively participates in.

Sincerely,

Rob Dobbins
Board Secretary and Chair, Executive Operations Committee


About CAFII

CAFII is a not-for-profit industry Association dedicated to the development of an open and flexible insurance marketplace. Our Association was established in 1997 to create a voice for financial institutions involved in selling insurance through a variety of distribution channels. Our members provide insurance through client contact centres, agents and brokers, travel agents, direct mail, branches of financial institutions, and the internet.

CAFII believes consumers are best served when they have meaningful choice in the purchase of insurance products and services. Our members offer credit protection, travel, life, health, and property and casualty insurance across Canada. In particular, credit protection insurance and travel insurance are the product lines of primary focus for CAFII as our members’ common ground.

CAFII's diverse membership enables our Association to take a broad view of the regulatory regime governing the insurance marketplace. We work with government and regulators (primarily provincial/territorial) to develop a legislative and regulatory framework for the insurance sector which helps ensure that Canadian consumers have access to insurance products that suit their needs. Our aim is to ensure that appropriate standards are in place for the distribution and marketing of all insurance products and services.

CAFII's 15 members include the insurance arms of Canada's major financial institutions--BMO Insurance, CIBC Insurance, Desjardins Insurance, National Bank Insurance, RBC Insurance, Scotia Insurance, and TD Insurance, along with major industry players Assurant Canada, The Canada Life Assurance Company, Canadian Tire Bank, Chubb Life Insurance Company of Canada, CUMIS Services Incorporated, Manulife (The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company), Securian Canada, and Valeyo.
Financial Planners and Advisors
[2023-012] Devin Mataseje - FP Canada
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Catherine Allman - Canadian Association of Direct Relationship Insurers
Please find attached CADRI's comments on FSRA's proposed 2024-2025 Statement of Priorities and Budget.
In sum, we welcome a focus by FSRA on its Auto Insurance Rate Review and Underwriting Reform Strategy; efforts to keep costs low for everyone in the insurance system, and the adoption of its undertaking on temporary adjusters as a permanent rule.
Cross Sector
[2023-012] John Taylor - Ontario Mutual Insurance Association
The Ontario Mutual Insurance Association's response to FSRA's Statement of Priorities for 2024-2025 is attached.
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Matt Caron - Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA)
Please find our submission attached.
Cross Sector
[2023-012] Consumer Advisory Panel to The Financial Services Regulatory Authority 0f Ontario (FSRA)
The Consumer Advisory Panel had the opportunity to participate in this consultation. The Panels official submission provided in the attached document.
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Audrey Cline - ICM
According to Statistics Canada, inflationary pressures remain a significant issue, and the cost of living continues to be an issue facing all Ontarians, yet Health Services Providers rates in the auto sector have not had a rate adjustment from the regulator for over 10 years while steadily increasing insurance premiums have been approved. Autobody shops are permitted to charge updated, higher rates; why not the health care professionals who repair injured people? No other health care sector in Canada has been held to such outdated rates, unable to recover the costs of the pandemic, keep pace with inflation and attract and retain staff. Some of FSRA’s regulated entities have flagged challenges around talent acquisition and retention, and it's no wonder, as it doesn't pay to work in this industry as a health care provider. Minimum wage continues to regularly increase to high levels, bridging the gap between highly educated health professionals and those working minimum wage jobs; this cannot continue.
An immediate, fair rate increase is long overdue and desperately needed.
Life and Health Insurance
[2023-012] Joel Bennett - World Financial Group
Thank you for reading and considering this message:

1) I would like to ask FSRAO to specifically address concerns with technology usage by providing specific and measurable rules for client data storage by all FSRAO licensed professionals at a firm & agent level in accordance with a Consultation with the office of the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. I do believe a stricter focus on PIPEDA requirements and principles is overdue - and specifically when it comes to cloud storage providers - whom mine user data for advertising analytics. It may be important to specifically name which providers can and cannot be used - and that advisors are liable - not just cloud providers for data leakage.

2) While there is merit in continued focus on compliance amongst many MGA's that have an entire or partial network marketing structure - Request FSRA address the whole marketplace thoroughly - each MGA. Not just the high growth MGA's. Many offer skewed advice based on what products they can and cannot offer - which can be misleading to the consumer by way of bias. It's more than just Selling Universal if as per the latest FSRAO updates - Others force clients into other products too including term; or only Participating whole life. Others openly downplay Canadian Government programs Such as RRSP and TFSA - to sell real estate developments - and still others promote Be your own banker or infinite banking - misleading ways to market Whole Life Products as clients assume they have more free accessing to their money held in insurance contracts than they actually do. FSRAO has openly commented on MGA's that focus solely on incredibly complex Insured retirement concepts that aren't truly responsible either. While Corporate Bias has always existed towards organizations own products - Ensuring MGA's and other insurer's can adequately represent the consumer interest with a breath of solutions versus just 1 or 2 is critically important.

FSRAO's consumer protection rules do make sense - but they also come at a time when now more than ever consumers don't want to engage in the due diligence required under all the new regulations and best practices. People don't like to read ! We as advisors frequently have clients glazing their eyes while we ensure they understand their options and concerns. Ask FSRAO to be astutely concerned with how to incorporate consumer protection - in ways that consumers can handle and process. Compliance should not be more complex than the products per se - and a tipping point is nigh.

Recommend in addition to Audits of Case paperwork - that oral audits of the selling process be conducted. Far too often across Ontario business is being contracted in languages other than English or French - and with somewhat little regard to accuracy - and consumers can have their trust abused because a person looks like or speaks the same language as "home" FSRAO must do more to address business conducted in languages other than Canada's official two languages. As this is where a massive amount of misinformation is occurring - and where I see when I meet with clients that they get misled when I review with them why they purchased a plan that may not be congruent with their current needs. Far too often consumers choose to do business like they have in a foreign country - with little knowledge of rules and regulations in Canada. Our divided socio political environment of recent years has consumers looking for themselves in the faces of their advisors. Better care must be taken to regulate business being conducted in Punjabi; Tagalog; Hindi; Farsi; Cantonese; Yoruba, and Mandarin - and develop enforcement in these markets and languages to ensure consumer protection is adequate to Canadian Standards vs Canadian Financial instruments and policies being reiterated to consumers by inaccurate ways that more closely resemble financial instruments in the foreign countries that the languages originate in. This is difficult for certain - - but something that must be addressed with care..

Lastly where MGA's are concerned FSRAO by now must realize that these organizations have eclipsed conventional distribution by licensed agent count each year and soon by volume. That trend is expected to continue. It's not inherently a bad thing - it's just different market dynamic than FSRAO was built upon to govern this industry. Strongly recommend that FSRAO - seek better engagement with these MGA's and seek to where possible include these agents and/or MGA's in the various processes that FSRA conducts from a policy making and information gathering perspective. If desired I will volunteer to serve FSRAO process as well. It's important to the health of the industry that FSRAO is both firm but also inclusive to these companies.




Health Service Providers
[2023-012] Simon Oomen-Hurst - Neenah Navasero Neurorehabilitation
Our company provides rehabilitation for severe neurological injuries; this requires Physiotherapists with niche experience, education, and training - there are not that many companies like ours in Canada. These types of injuries are common in severe MVA accidents. We provide our services to MVA clients through the HCAI system under the Insurance act and SABS. We have two main comments: rates paid to Health Service Providers by Insurance companies (Professional Services Guideline 2014), and the imbalance of power in disputes between our licensed medical professionals and adjusters. As of now, the lack of action on either of these has resulted in our business making the strategic decision to move away from serving MVA clients. Serving clients within the FSRA/HCAI system is no longer a viable long-term option for our business.

Regarding rates - I'm aware the FSRA's official stance on the rates Health Services Providers are paid by Insurers is that the FSRA is not responsible for regulating these. However, the FSRA is either ignoring or simply unaware that Insurers take the opposite stance, and use the Professional Services Guideline (PSG), issued by the FSCO in 2014 (Guidance number AU0027ORG/Superintendent's Guideline No. 03/14) as the de-facto standard for maximums they are willing to pay when reviewing and approving treatment plans, and reference this guidance in almost every denial we encounter with Insurers. This means rates we are able to charge have not increased in 10 years. There are two solutions. The first is to inform Insurers the FSRA does not take responsibility for setting rates, and issue public guidance that the PSG is officially retired and can no longer be used by adjusters for justifying denials. This will allow us to charge market rates, and insurers will have to come up with a legitimate reason to deny our rates other than simply referencing the PSG with no further justification. The second solution is for the FSRA to take ownership of setting rates, and increase the maximums in-line with inflation/rising costs (the same justification used by insurers when seeking FSRA approved rates increases) with an updated PSG. FSCO set rates in 2014 via the PSF, insurers hold these up as gold standard, and FSRA now refuses to deal with this problem, this issue was never resolved in a final way and will continue to grow as an issue until FSRA deals with it one way or the other. With the rates the private market will now support vs. rates paid by insurers, combined with the extreme difficulty in finding qualified practitioners, serving MVA clients is a losing business model.

Regarding Insurers - our bad experiences are limited to interactions with adjusters. The majority of our issues are with two insurers, Aviva and Intact, but the core of the issue is the power of adjusters to override medical professionals based on nothing more than the adjuster's opinion. In this system, a licensed Physiotherapist consults with an injured client to understand their needs for rehabilitation. The Physiotherapist then prepares a treatment plan (with costs set by PSG - see above), which is reviewed and approved by the client and is then submitted to the client's MVA insurance and reviewed by an adjuster. Adjusters are then able to deny parts of the treatment plan (for example, reducing treatment session length or frequency) without the input of a medical professional. We've received countless denials from adjusters stating "Physiotherapy can be done in an hour session or less", willfully ignoring the client has severe, life-changing mental and physical issues, and the adjuster is woefully lacking in the experience and education necessary to assess treatment needs of such clients. Why do adjusters have so much power in these interactions? Physiotherapists are licensed and held to a code of ethics, and recommending treatment time in excess of what is reasonable and necessary would be a violation of a Physiotherapist’s code of ethics and grounds for a complaint to their governing college. Adjusters should not have the power to override the authority of licensed, experienced medical professionals without justification that carries equal weight - in short, an adjuster's personal or professional opinion on suitability of treatment plans should be given any weight in disputes because it's not an area they have any experience or training. After all, if the client agrees to the treatment and cost, the money comes out of their entitlement (maximums set by SABS) which has been recommended by a licensed professional, why would the opinion of an insurance adjuster have weight in how long a session should be? The solution in my eyes is straight-forward; adjusters must seek and obtain the input of an equal medical professional before they can deny treatment plans that were prepared, reviewed and approved by the same. A physio must be consulted if an adjuster wishes to deny or reduce a treatment plan prepared by a physio. The adjuster must make a decision that the medical service being offered is either reasonable and necessary, or not at all (approve in full or deny outright), and if they agree it is necessary they by default must support the medical professional's judgement on frequency, duration and auxiliary time (documentation) with no power to dispute based on the adjuster's input alone. If an insurer believes and agrees a service like Physiotherapy is necessary, but disagrees on the duration, frequency of service, or auxiliary costs an adjuster's opinion alone is not sufficient to dispute or deny. Any dispute on the details of treatment should be made on the basis of a equal professional medical opinion, sought by the adjuster. When we submit plans, they are the basic standard of care we offer, meaning anything less falls below what our Physiotherapists feels is the minimum to provide quality care. We do not compromise on this standard, so in the past when adjusters denied parts of plans, we paid our Physiotherapists out of pocket for the difference between the time they spent delivering service and what was approved by adjusters. Given the economic climate, we're no longer able to bridge this gap. As of this year we've implemented a policy where we can no longer provide service to clients where adjusters won't approve our normal standard of care. We have discharged two clients in the past month for this reason, after adjusters refused to fund our treatment plans in full. Both of these plans and costs were reviewed and approved by two licensed physiotherapists, and reviewed and approved by the injured clients. In both cases no justification was offered for the denial other than in the opinion of the adjuster (who was not a physio, had no physio experience, or any medical training, and as far as we know, had never met the client in person), the plan was not suitable. We are currently engaged in a dispute on a third client for this same reason. We have countless examples of this from the past as well.

In short, serving MVA clients through the FSRA/HCAI system is no longer a direction our business will pursue long term. We are growing our marketing and business focus to provide care under our private fee schedule. If the above issues are not addressed by FSRA, the future I see is where providers like us will no longer be willing to work in the FSRA/HCAI MVA system as frankly, there is no real reason we have to, and the advantages of engaging with the system are now outweighed strongly by the disadvantages. Providers will ignore the MVA system entirely, they will offer services to MVA victims on a private out-of-pocket basis at market rates, and won't concern themselves with what adjusters or insurers think. MVA victims will be left to then get reimbursed for those services by their insurer, leaving the burden of disputing costs, durations frequency etc. to the victim. Given our poor overall experience in the FSRA/HCAI system as Health Care Providers, combined with the fact that health care services are in short supply and high demand, I'm doubtful any change will be enough to convince us to reinvest in pursuing serving MVA clients as pursuing 100% private services is by far the stronger opportunity for Health Care Providers in Ontario.
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Chana Klein - Innovative Case Management
Health Services Providers rates in the auto sector have not had a rate adjustment from the regulator for 10 years while steadily increasing insurance premiums have been approved. Auto body shops are able to charge at updated rates; why not the health care professionals who repair injured people? No other health care sector in Canada has been held to such outdated rates, unable to recover the costs of the pandemic and keep pace with inflation. A fair rate increase is long overdue and desperately needed.
Health Service Providers
[2023-012] Ell - Innovative Case Management Inc.
To whom it may concern,

According to Statistics Canada, inflationary pressures remain a significant issue. The cost of living continues to be an issue facing many Ontarians
Some of FSRA’s regulated entities have flagged challenges around talent acquisition and retention.

Health Services Providers rates in the auto sector have not had a rate adjustment from the regulator for 10 years while steadily increasing insurance premiums have been approved. Auto body shops are able to charge at updated rates; why not the health care professionals who repair injured people? No other health care sector in Canada has been held to such outdated rates, unable to recover the costs of the pandemic, keep pace with inflation and attract and retain staff. A fair rate increase is long overdue and desperately needed.

Sincerely,
Ellie Lapowich
Health Service Providers
[2023-012] John Barry - Pursuit Health Management
The following are quotes from FRSA’s 2024-2025 Statement of Priorities:

• “According to Statistics Canada, inflationary pressures remain a significant issue
• The cost of living continues to be an issue facing many Ontarians
• Some of FSRA’s regulated entities have flagged challenges around talent acquisition and retention.”

The Health Services Providers (HSP’s – physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses, chiropractors, etc.) in the auto sector have not had a rate adjustment for 10 years.

I know of no other health care sector in Canada that has not had their professional fees adjusted over that time frame. It’s about time that our sector receives an appropriate adjustment so that we can compete on a level playing field with talent acquisition and retention. Auto accident victims have complex physical and psycho-social impairments that require a high level of healthcare expertise.

Even FSRA is projecting an 8.3% increase in next year’s budget!
Life and Health Insurance
[2023-012] David Allan MacDougall - Hub/Bridgeforce/Sentinel/National Best
Your stated objective "The focus is on principles-based regulation while delivering on outcomes that protect the public interest, foster competition, innovation and effectively address emerging risks in Ontario’s financial services sector" may have adverse unintended consequences for the future. For example, it sounded great to remove DSC for clients. While this suits established Life Insurance Agents, it may undermine those with smaller books of business and those new entrants to the industry who are trying to establish themselves. To me this favors established agents, discourages new entrants (including competition and innovation.) In fact, this well meaning change may signal the demise of independent agents as the older, more established agents retire from the industry in my opinion.
Auto Insurance
[2023-012] Ryan Guthrie - Guthrie Insurance
Greetings. First, I would like to commend you on your initiatives to help make Ontario auto insurance fair and balanced for all drivers. However, I believe the system is broken. I think there are some major issues to address which would help make things easier for consumers from a premium perspective and also to address current issues with availability or accessibility.
One of the major problems we run into on a daily basis is when a consumer gets “dropped” aka non-renewed or a quote not provided from any of the direct writing auto insurers/agents (Desjardins, RBC, TD, Belair) because they no longer qualify for their “exclusive selection” aka profitably “creaming” and offering only to insure the best drivers i.e. no spread of risk. They only insure those who are the lowest risk (to obviously maximize their profit).
When this happens, they force the consumer out into the market to find another insurer who is probably in the same position. They have to start over often via phone or internet providing all of their information over and over again as each direct writer declines. They are then forced to find a broker to insure them usually with Facility/FARM (and at a monetary loss due to the outdated fee structure).
This is even worse for commercial auto consumers. Even though FSRA states that all “insurers, agents and brokers” must provide (all) auto insurance, this is not true as these direct writers refuse to provide Facility/FARM rates or coverage to anyone except their very preferred customer, including couriers, driving schools, dump trucks, etc (about 25% of the auto insurance market!!).
Why are direct writers permitted to decline anything but the best risks and without having to offer Facility/FARM? Extremely upsetting to consumers and unfair to other auto insurance providers.
The easy and simple solution here is to require all direct writing insurers and agents to also provide Facility/FARM rates. They have this capability and so too should be required to provide. This would then become an easy matter for these direct insurers to preserve their preferred rating for their model but “flip the switch” to transfer the consumers data, over to the (only) facility carrier we have in Ontario. Presently, they are not required to so which means throwing the consumer out to the market in the hope of finding another agent or direct insurer who may have lower eligibility requirements or find a broker who is willing to assist (and lose money arranging with Facility. This because direct insurers are not required to offer Facility so it ends up with a broker.
This needs to be fixed and ALL auto insurers, agents and brokers MUST provide an alternative FA quote at the time of non-renewal and even when the new inquiry does not meet their “preferred” rates.
This imbalance really needs to get fixed. One other way of achieving this would be to increase FA/Facility commission and fees to what is standard in the auto insurance market.


Cross Sector
[2023-012] John Hamilton
In these trying times, more than ever, it should be a priority to keep expenses for your association low.
No questions have been asked about this consultation yet.