In Alberta, a relatively new life and accident & sickness insurance agent has been fined $1,000 for failing to respond to the provincial regulator’s request for information – despite the fact that her sponsoring insurer, identified only as S.L.F. in the Alberta Insurance Council (AIC) decision, instructed the agent to not respond to the demand.
Beverly Sullivan, first licensed and licensed periodically since March 2022, incurred the sanction for failing or refusing to provide information requested by way of a formal demand for information from the AIC, in relation to another compliance matter.
The regulator emailed Sullivan three times over the course of three months in 2024 and sent a final copy of the demand to the agent via regular mail in August 2025. Sullivan says in all instances she forwarded the demands to her compliance officer, as required.
In her October 2025 response to the AIC, Sullivan says she was asked to hold off on responding to the AIC request, and was not subsequently advised as to how she should respond to the AIC’s investigator – a position that the insurer verified in an email sent the same day to the council, and verified again in a conference call with Sullivan and the insurer’s legal council.
The council’s decision indicates that the regulator is of the opinion that Sullivan could have taken a more proactive approach by contacting the investigator for clarification, “particularly after receiving multiple communications from the AIC and no further guidance from their sponsor,” the decision states.
“Although the agent indicated that she refrained from responding because her sponsoring insurance company advised her not to engage with the regulator, that instruction does not relieve her of her independent professional responsibilities,” it continues.
“Despite receiving several pieces of correspondence clearly directing her to provide information, the agent took no steps to respond or seek clarification. This disregard for repeated communications from the agent’s regulator represents a significant breach of her responsibilities and is of serious concern to the council.”
The AIC levied the maximum allowable penalty in the case. “Given the facts in their entirety, the council is of the view that a significant penalty is warranted in the circumstances, and the council orders that a civil penalty in the amount of $1,000 be levied against the agent.”
