Hinkkala v Alberta Life Insurance Council, 2021 ABQB 675

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Citation: Hinkkala v Alberta Life Insurance Council, 2021 ABQB 675 Date: 20210824 Docket: 2101 00298 Registry: Calgary Between: Andreas Hinkkala Appellant - and - Alberta Life Insurance Council and Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta Respondents _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice O.P. Malik _______________________________________________________ I. Introduction [ 1 ] The Appellant appeals a decision of the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta (the “Appeal Board”) which found that: i. The Appellant was convicted of an offence pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Agents and Adjusters Regulation , Alta Reg 122/2991 (the “ Regulation ”) the nature of which rendered him unfit to receive a certificate of authority to operate as an insurance agent in Alberta; and that

ii. Consequently, there was no statutory authority to allow the Appellant to practise under a certificate of authority subject to supervisory conditions pursuant to

section 7 of the Regulation . [ 2 ] For the reasons that follow, I allow the Appellant’s appeal. I interpret the meaning of “offence” in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation to mean a criminal offence, including a

summary conviction offence. Since the Appellant has not been found guilty of a criminal or

summary conviction offence in Alberta, the Council’s decision that the Appellant not be permitted to retain his certificates of authority is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Life Insurance Council of Alberta (the “Council”) for a re-consideration of the Appellant’s application. II. Facts and Procedural History [ 3 ] The Appellant resides in British Columbia. He specializes in life insurance and accident & sickness insurance advice.

He provides these services through his business, Hinkkala & Associates. [ 4 ] The Appellant has been licensed as an agent in British Columbia since 2003 and has held various licenses to practise in several Canadian provinces including Alberta. From 2013 until July 13, 2020, the Appellant held both life and accident & sickness insurance certificates of authority in the Province of Alberta. i.

The Complaint and The ICBC Proceedings [ 5 ] In the fall of 2015, a complaint was made to the Insurance Council of British Columbia (“ICBC”) regarding recommendations the Appellant had made to a client regarding the purchase of insurance coverage. The nature of the complaint was that the Appellant had recommended that his client purchase insurance products that she could not reasonably afford and that he had been financially self-motivated in doing so. [ 6 ] In July 2019, the ICBC issued an Intended Decision (“Intended Decision”) regarding the complaint.

The ICBC concluded that the Appellant had acted contrary to the ICBC’s Rules 7(8) and 7(9) and Sections 4.2, 5.2 and 7.2 of its Code of Conduct which requires a license holder to carry on the business of insurance in good faith, conduct all insurance activities in a competent manner, and act in the usual practise of dealing with clients, specifically by protecting clients’ interests, evaluating clients’ needs and acting with integrity, competence and the upmost good faith. [ 7 ] In August 2019, the ICBC issued an order requiring the Appellant to pay a $2,500.00 fine and the ICBC’s investigative costs.

Further, the order subjected the Appellant’s right to practise in B.C. to several conditions which provided that he: i. complete an ethics course; ii. be supervised by a qualified Life Agent for a period of 24 months of active licensing; and iii. pay the fine and the ICBC’s costs and complete the ethics course within 90 days of the order, failing which the Appellant would not be permitted to complete his annual filing. [ 8 ] The Appellant declined to initiate any further review or appeal in respect of the Intended Decision. [ 9 ] The Appellant complied with the Order. ii.

The Appellant’s Application to Retain His Certificate of Authority to Practise as an Insurance Agent in Alberta and the Decision of the Life Insurance Council of Alberta [ 10 ] In the fall of 2019, the Appellant notified the regulatory licensing authorities in Alberta about the outcome of the ICBC proceedings.

In 2020, the Council reviewed the Appellant’s request to retain his life and accident & sickness certificates of authority permitting him to practise in Alberta subject to the supervisory conditions which the ICBC had placed on his ability to practice in B.C. [ 11 ] In its decision which it rendered on May 19, 2020, the Council cited extensively from the Intended Decision and, with respect to the evidence before the ICBC, concluded at page 5 of its decision as follows: [t]he Council was satisfied that the actions of [the Appellant] were commissions-based.

For example, the Council observed that no need- analysis was conducted by [the Appellant] or, if there was such an assessment conducted, [the Appellant] willingly or negligently disregarded the client’s best interests. The Council was satisfied this demonstrated a real and apparent risk to Albertan consumers, if [the Appellant] were permitted to continue practising within Alberta. [ 12 ] The Council considered the application of section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation which provides the following: 5(2) In addition to the requirements of the Act, the requirements to be met by an individual to retain an insurance agent’s certificate of authority or for a certificate of authority that is being renewed or reinstated are as follows: ... (

e) the individual must not have been convicted of any offence the nature of which, in the opinion of the Minister, would render the individual unfit to receive a certificate of authority.

[ 13 ] The Council acknowledged at page 5 of its decision that while the term “offence” in section 5(2)(

e) is not defined in the Regulation or in the Insurance Act , RSA c. I-3 (the “ Act ”): The Council interprets this term to include disciplinary actions taken by other professional bodies, such as the ICBC.

Given that this provision of the Regulations is a public protection mechanism, the Council feels that it should be read broadly in this context. [ 14 ] Consequently, the Council found at page 6 of its decision that in upholding its “primary mandate of consumer protection”: ...it is the Council’s decision that the nature of [the Appellant’s] convictions under the ICBC render [the Appellant] unsuitable to retain his certificates of authority in the Province of Alberta.

The Council directs that the retention of the certificates of authority be denied to [the Appellant]. [ 15 ] The Council further held that as the Appellant failed to satisfy the requirement in Section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation, there was no statutory power in the Act or Regulation that would allow him to practise in Alberta subject to supervisory conditions (as had occurred in B.C.). [ 16 ] The Appellant appealed The Council’s Decision. iii.

The Appellant Appeals the Council’s Decision to the Appeal Board [ 17 ] The appeal was heard by the Appeal Board in October 2020, which rendered its decision on January 8, 2021 (the “Appeal Board’s Decision”). [ 18 ] The Appeal Board reviewed the background facts giving rise to the complaint (which were undisputed) and noted the Appellant’s concerns with various aspects of the Intended Decision.

The Appeal Board heard from four additional witnesses proffered by the Appellant who spoke positively about his character and the high quality of his practice standards. [ 19 ] On behalf of the Council, it was argued that the Act and Regulation should be given a broad and liberal

interpretation consonant with the approach for interpreting public welfare legislation and that the Appellant’s breaches of the ICBC’s Rules and Code of Conduct were “offences” pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation . In the result, the Appellant had not satisfied a necessary pre- condition for retaining his certificate of authority in Alberta and there was no statutory authority that would allow the Council to permit the Appellant to retain his certificate of authority subject to supervisory conditions. [ 20 ] The Appellant argued that the Council’s decision should be set aside on the following grounds: i. The term “offence” used in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation should be interpreted in accordance with section 28(1)(mm) of the

Interpretation Act as “an offence punishable on

summary conviction”; ii. Consequently, the Council erred in interpreting the term “offence” to include a regulatory breach of the ICBC’s Code or Rules which are not punishable as

summary conviction offences in either British Columbia or in Alberta; and iii. The Council erred in finding that it did not have the jurisdiction pursuant to

section 7 of the Regulation to duplicate the ICBC’s supervisory conditions on the Appellant’s certificates of authority in Alberta.

Section 7 of the Regulation provides the following: 7 License from outside Alberta If an individual or business from another jurisdiction obtains an insurance agent’s certificate of authority in Alberta, and the license issued by the appropriate licensing authority in that jurisdiction is subject to terms and conditions, the Minister may impose the same terms and conditions on the certificate of authority issued in Alberta. [ 21 ] The Appeal Board upheld the Council’s Decision, finding as follows: i. A plain reading of the Act and a consideration of its purpose indicate that the meaning of the term “offence” pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation was not intended by the legislature to be limited to a

summary conviction offence:

a) The Act indicates a “contrary intention” to restricting offences to

summary conviction offences as the Act creates offences that are not

summary conviction offences (para 48(

a) of the Appeal Board’s Decision);

b) Placing the word “any” before “offence” indicates the legislature’s intention to broadly construe the meaning of “offence” beyond strictly

summary conviction offences (para 48(

b) of the Appeal Board’s Decision); and

c) The principles of statutory

interpretation applicable to public welfare legislation justify a broad and liberal

interpretation of the term “offence” to protect the public from practice that is incompetent, unethical, deceptive or self-serving” (para 48(

c) of the Appeal Board’s Decision). ii. Consequently, in light of the Act ’s regulatory mandate to ensure public protection, the term “offence” includes “offences under other regulatory statutes” and “breaches of rules adopted by the regulator to regulate the conduct of insurance

agents and ensure protection of the public from incompetent, unethical, deceptive and self-serving practice” (para 51 of the Appeal Board’s Decision) and that “findings of serious breaches of the rules by which the ICBC regulates insurance agents and impositions of significant license restrictions come within the meaning of “convicted of any offense” particularly where those violations speak directly to public protection concerns” (para 50(

d) of the Appeal Board’s Decision). iii. A consideration of the facts underlying the ICBC’s uncontested findings with respect to the Appellant’s conduct coupled with the serious penalties imposed in the Order justify a finding that the Appellant is “unfit to retain certificate of authority to operate as an insurance agent in Alberta” (para 71 of the Appeal Board’s Decision). iv. Once a finding is made that an insurance agent is unfit to retain a certificate of authority to practise in Alberta pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation , there is no further statutory authority that would allow a conditional granting of a certificate of authority subject to supervisory conditions (para 69 of the Appeal Board’s Decision). v. In any event, the Minister’s authority to impose terms and conditions on a certificate of authority pursuant to Section 470(1) of the Act as provided for in the Regulations do not include the imposition of supervisory requirements (para 68 of the Appeal Board’s Decision). III. Standard of Review [ 22 ] The Appellant’s appeal to this court is a statutory appeal on a question of law or jurisdiction brought pursuant to

section 26 of the Insurance Councils Regulation AR 126/2001 . I concur with the parties’ shared understanding that the standard of review in a statutory appeal such as this is correctness ( Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov , 2019 SCC 65 at para 37 ). IV. Analysis [ 23 ] The main question I must answer is whether the Appeal Board erred in concluding that the Appellant was “convicted of any offence” pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation . For the reasons that follow, find that it did. i. Did the Appeal Board Err in Concluding That the Appellant Was Convicted of an “Offence” Pursuant to Section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation ? A. The Parties’ Arguments [ 24 ] The Appellant argues that interpreting the word “offence” in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation to include breaches of the ICBC’s Code of Conduct and Rules is unjustifiably expansive. Since the term offence is not explicitly defined in the Act , the Appellant asserts that it must be interpreted in accordance with its definition pursuant to section 28(1)(mm) of the

Interpretation Act to mean “an offence punishable on

summary conviction”. He further argues that being “convicted” of an offence requires a finding of guilt made by a court of law, rather than through an internal regulatory process. [ 25 ] The Appellant asserts that in any event, as provisions of the ICBC Rules and the Conduct of Conduct do not constitute

summary conviction offences in Alberta (nor in B.C.), section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation does not apply to the Appellant’s case. [ 26 ] Finally, the Appellant argues that the Act and Regulation set out various mechanisms to give the Minister broad powers to regulate the granting of certificates of authority where the conduct of a certificate holder requires additional oversight or sanction to ensure the protection of the public. [ 27 ] In such circumstances, section 480(1) of the Act allows the Minister to revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew or reinstate a certificate of authority or to impose terms and conditions on a certificate of authority, and to impose a penalty on any one of the various grounds enumerated in section 480(1)(a) – (e).

Alternatively, Council may, pursuant to

section 7 of the Regulation , impose the same supervisory requirements upon the Appellant as those in B.C. and this would allow for the harmonization of provincial regulatory schemes. [ 28 ] The Council argues that it does not have inherent jurisdiction or autonomous rule-making authority. It can only exercise those powers that have been expressly delegated to it by the Minister of Finance pursuant to the Act . However, the Council acknowledges that it has been delegated the authority to hold hearings to decide whether to grant certificates of authority and to exercise the regulatory oversight powers pursuant to

section 480 of the Act . [ 29 ] The Council further asserts that the Act must be considered in context, as a form of public welfare legislation designed to protect the public.

Accordingly, the objective of public protection is enhanced if regulatory standards of another provincial regulator such as the ICBC’s Code of Conduct and Rules, criminal convictions of any kind, offences of a regulatory nature, breaches of regulatory legislation in Canada and internationally fall within the meaning of an “offence” in respect of which a breach a finding of guilt or conviction justifies the revocation of a certificate of authority. [ 30 ] The Council asserts that the word “offence” needs to be read broadly to ensure that insurance agents who are found guilty of regulatory breaches in one jurisdiction can effectively be regulated for the same breach in another jurisdiction.

As the Council states, “to allow a practitioner to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, unchecked, and commit the same offences against the public interest would be an egregious public regulatory failure”. [ 31 ] The Appeal Board makes limited submissions in this appeal in a non-adversarial capacity, guided by the court’s

pronouncements on the participation of appeal tribunals in statutory appeals, restricted to submissions on the standard of review andstatutory

interpretation (Ontario (Energy Board) v Ontario Power Generation Inc., 2015 SCC 44 at para 53; Alberta Liquor StoreAssociations v Alberta (Gaming and Liquor Commission), 2006 ABQB 904 at para 30; Alberta Health Services v Farkas, 2020 ABQB281 at para 13; University of Calgary v Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2019 ABQB 950 at para 11). [32] The Appeal Board claims that there is simply no jurisdiction pursuant to the regulatory framework that would allow theCouncil to issue a certificate of authority pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation subject to conditions. Either an applicant whowishes to obtain or renew a certificate of authority satisfies the requirement set out in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation or not.

Section 7of the Regulation, which allows the Council to impose similar conditions on a certificate of authority as those imposed by the holder ofthe certificate’s home province, only applies where the certificate holder who is already practising in another province seeks a newcertificate of authority to practice in Alberta and does not apply here, where the application is for the retention of an existing certificateof authority. ii. The Meaning of “Offence” [33] For the reasons that follow, I interpret the word “offence” used in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation to be a criminal offenceincluding a

summary conviction offence. [34] The modern approach to statutory

interpretation requires me to “read the words of

an Act in their entire context and in theirgrammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act and the intention of Parliament” (Rizzo& Rizzo Shoes Ltd (Re), [1988] 2 SCR 27 at para 21). This approach equally applies to the

interpretation of a Regulation (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes 6th ed., 2014 (Canada: Lexis Nexis) at pages 412-413). [35] I agree with the parties’ submissions that the Act’s regulatory scheme as it pertains to the licensing of insurance agents is aform of public welfare legislation intended to promote public safety and consumer protection. Public welfare legislation is vital to thehealthy functioning of society and protection of a vulnerable public (R v Wholesale Travel Group Inc, (SCC), 1991 3SCR 154 at pages 220-222; R v China BBQ Specialty, 1999 ABPC 116 at para 5).

Consequently, the Act and Regulation must beinterpreted broadly and purposively to ensure that its public protection mandate is upheld. [36] This approach conforms with

section 10 of the

Interpretation Act, which requires me to construe legislation “as beingremedial” and by giving it a “fair, large and liberal construction and

interpretation that best ensures the attainment of its objectives”. I amtherefore in full agreement with the parties that the Act and Regulation require a fully remedial and purposive

interpretation. [37] Applying a broad, purposive approach to a reading of the Act and Regulation clearly accords with the intention of thelegislature, which was to restrict the issuance of certificates of authority to suitably qualified individuals.

These restrictions included aprohibition on issuing a certificate of authority to anyone having been convicted of a criminal offence: ...the bill puts forward a need for and supports the principle that there has to be a licensing framework for insurance agents and adjustersand that that framework will result in the certification of individuals...No business or individual will be able to act as an insurance agentunless they hold a valid insurance agent certificate or authority...I think that that’s in the best interests of the consumer and the industry.

To gain those certificates – they just won’t be available to anyone that wants one – they’re going to have to meet prescribed criteriathrough the passing of insurance examinations, and they’re going to have to have certain personal characteristics that make them eligiblefor a certificate. They won’t be eligible for a certificate if they’ve been convicted of a criminal offence, and those who are undischargedbankrupts will not be eligible for a certificate of authority.

Again, this is trying to ensure that those agents and people who are offeringfinancial products are qualified to do so and gives some assurance to purchasers that they are dealing with reputable individuals andwith agents that have the confidence of the industry they represent. (emphasis added) (Alberta Hansard, May 4, 1999 at p 1451) [38] It is therefore entirely consistent with the legislature’s objective in regulating insurance agents for the public’s protection thatsection 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation excludes those “having been found convicted of any offence the nature of which, in the opinion of theMinister, would render the individual unfit to receive a certificate of authority” from practising as an insurance agent in Alberta. [39] However, the legislature’s intent in this respect is only preserved if the meaning of “offence” includes the definition of“criminal offence” referred to in the passage from Alberta Hansard rather than limiting “offence” to a

summary conviction offence inaccordance with its definition in the

Interpretation Act. To restrict the

interpretation of “offence” as per its definition in the

InterpretationAct would yield a perverse result as only those convicted of the least serious

summary conviction offences would be prohibited frompractising under a certificate of authority whereas no such prohibition would apply to those convicted of the more serious criminaloffences. I find that the legislature cannot have intended such a result. [40] However, I do not find that the legislature intended “offence” to be defined so expansively such as to include a finding of guiltmade by a provincial insurance regulator pursuant to its disciplinary rules or Code of Conduct.

I arrive at this conclusion for two reasons. [41] First, I do not find that the word “offence” has generally been interpreted so broadly such as to mean the contravention of anadministrative or disciplinary rule.

And I find that I must also consider the meaning of “conviction”. [42] The word ‘offence” is variously defined as: “an illegal act; a transgression or misdemeanour” (Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2nd ed. 2004 (USA: OUP) at page 1077); “a violation of the law; a crime, often a minor one” (Bryan Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th ed. 2019 (U.S.A: Thomson Reuters) at page 1300); “an illegal act or a crime; a public wrongdoing involving punitive sanctions; the contravention of an enactment, regulation, by-law, rule, code, etc.” (Nancy McCormack, The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 5th ed. 2020(Canada: Thomson Reuters) at page 736).

In John Gardner and Karen Gardner, Sanagan’s Encyclopedia of Words & Phrases, Legal Maxims Canada, 5th ed. 2019 (Canada: Thomson Reuters) at page O-33, the authors refer to the decision of Turpin v Canada, theImmigration Board referred to Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law which defines ‘offence’ as follows: the word ‘offence’ has no

technical meaning in English law, but it is commonly used to signify any public wrong, including, therefore not only crimes or indictable offences, but also offences punishable on

summary conviction (( Turpin v Canada (Minister of Manpower & Immigration ), 1968 CarswellNat 1 at para 25 ). [ 43 ] The word “conviction” is defined to mean: “the act or process of judicially finding someone guilty of a crime; the state of having been proved guilty or the judgment...that a person is guilty of a crime ( Black’s Law Dictionary at page 422); “a final judgment of the court by which a finding of guilt is entered” ( The Dictionary of Canadian Law at page 245 relying on the judgment in R v Berube , 2012 BCCA 345 at para 49 ); or, although its meaning varies depending on its statutory context, “conveys the idea of finding a person guilty of an offence” ( Sanagan’s Encyclopedia of Words & Phrases, Legal Maxims Canada at page C-274). [ 44 ] Taken together, I read “convicted” and “offence” in section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation to mean a judicial finding of guilt by a court of a criminal offence including a

summary conviction offence.

I agree with the Council and Appeal Board that (as it relates to the Appellant’s second ground of appeal) if the Council considers that the applicant has been convicted of an offence the nature of which would render them unfit to receive a certificate of authority, then the application must be denied and I cannot discern any statutory authority the Council might exercise to grant the certificate of authority in these circumstances subject to terms and conditions. [ 45 ] This brings me to my second reason, which has to do with the structure of the Act itself. [ 46 ] In its written submissions, the Council argues that “the most serious egregious breach an individual can commit” and for which the Appellant was found guilty pursuant to the ICBC’s Code of Conduct and Rules (this argument similarly applies in Alberta which has similar Rules for insurance agents) is misconduct that constitutes fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty. [ 47 ] But section 480(1) of the Act expressly confers upon the Council broad discretion to regulate the issuance of certificate(

s) of authority in precisely these circumstances: 480(1) Sanctions affecting certificates If the Minister is satisfied that the holder or a former holder of a certificate of authority (

a) has been guilty of misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, untrustworthiness or dishonesty , (

b) has contravened any provisions of this Act or the regulations or similar limitation in another jurisdiction or legislation... ... (

e) has demonstrated incompetence to act as an insurance agent in the case of an insurance agent’s certificate of authority or to act as an adjuster... the Minister may revoke, suspend or refuse to renew or reinstate one or more of the certificates of authority held by the holder, impose terms and conditions provided for in the regulations on one or more of the certificates of authority held by the holder and impose a penalty on the holder or former holder. [ 48 ] The legislature expressly considered that this misconduct should be addressed administratively by granting the Minister (whose power in this respect is exercised by the Council) the wide discretion pursuant to

section 480 of the Act to decide whether and under what terms and conditions it may renew certificates of authority in Alberta where a holder or former holder has been found guilty of the misconduct referenced in section 480(1)(a), has contravened a provision of the Act or similar legislation in another province or has demonstrated incompetence. [ 49 ] I agree with the Council that the misconduct identified in section 480(1)(

a) is antithetical to a properly functioning insurance industry that is supposed to provides services to the public in a competent and professional manner. In my view, the Act seeks to ensure compliance with standards of professional conduct by conferring upon the Council broad administrative discretion pursuant to

section 480 to regulate the issuance of certificates of authority in cases of misconduct and gives the Council the flexibility to impose appropriately targeted terms and conditions that would ensure public protection. [ 50 ] While both section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation and

section 480 of the Act serve the Act ’s public protection mandate, they do so differently. Section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation provides an all-or-nothing regulatory response in the case of someone who has been convicted of a criminal or

summary conviction offence.

Section 480 of the Act addresses a range of administrative responses to remedy misconduct and incompetence. In this respect, I find that Act ’s regulatory scheme as it pertains to the licensing of insurance agents fulfills the important public protection mandate that the legislature intended it to have and that the Council and Appeal Board argue I must uphold. [ 51 ] In my view, the Council should have addressed the Appellant’s application pursuant to

section 480 of the Act . I see nothing that would preclude the Council (if it chose to do so) from allowing the Applicant to retain his certificate of authority subject to those terms and conditions it considers necessary to address concerns regarding the Appellant’s practise standards. V. Conclusions [ 52 ] Consequently, I find that the Appeal Board erred in concluding that the ICBC’s findings of guilt regarding the Appellant’s conduct in respect of its Rules and Code of Conduct constitute an “offence” pursuant to section 5(2)(

e) of the Regulation and I allow the Appellant’s first ground of appeal. In the result, I find it unnecessary to address the Appellant’s second ground of appeal in any detail beyond my very brief conclusion set out at paragraph 44, above.

VI. Disposition [ 53 ] The Appellant’s application to retain his certificates of authority to practise as an insurance agent in Alberta is referred back to the Council for a new determination. The Council shall carry out its determination on an expedited basis. [ 54 ] The parties shall, unless they can agree on costs of this hearing, provide me with submissions not exceeding five pages, within 25 days. Heard on June 18, 2021 with additional written submissions received on July 23, 2021. Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta on August 24, 2021. O.P. Malik J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Cameron J.A. Rempel and Jacob J.

Gehlen for the Appellant, Andreas Hinkkala Zabeda Yaqoob for the Life Insurance Council of Alberta James T. Casey, Q.C. For the Insurance Councils Appeal Board of Alberta