The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) has refused to renew the life insurance and accident and sickness insurance agent’s license issued to Leszek Dziadecki. It has also revoked the corporate insurance agent license issued to Advantage Group of Finance Inc., following the conclusion of a Financial Services Tribunal (FST) contested hearing.
At the hearing, Dziadecki’s extensive regulatory history was reviewed, with different episodes being given different weights by the tribunal in its assessment of the former agent’s suitability.
“The tribunal found that the weight of Dziadecki’s regulatory record compelled the conclusion that he could not be trusted to serve as an insurance agent and that his rejection of regulatory findings prevented him from demonstrating rehabilitation,” a FSRA statement announcing the sanction states.
First licensed in September 1993, while his firm, Advantage, was first licensed in 1994, Dziadecki was also registered in Ontario as a dealing representative with the Mutual Fund Dealers Association (MFDA), the predecessor organization to the Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization (CIRO), between May 2004 and October 2018.
His regulatory history includes a March 2006 settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) for selling approximately $200,000 of convertible debentures without the knowledge of his sponsoring dealer. He agreed to a sanction of $28,200, two years of close supervision and the payment of costs in the amount of $5,000.
In January 2021, he also entered into an agreement with the MFDA over the use of pre-signed forms. He accepted a fine in the amount of $7,000, a six-month prohibition from acting in a supervisory role, remedial coursework and costs in the amount of $2,500. During the investigation, it came out that a colleague Dziadecki was reportedly covering for paid the fine.
“Admitting formally to regulatory misconduct that one only partially committed, and having the penalty paid by a third party without the regulator's knowledge, is not an appropriate way to engage with the regulatory process, whatever the motive,” the FST’s reasons state.
In August 2022, the MFDA also alleged misconduct that Dziadecki disputed at a four-day hearing in 2023. It was found that he engaged in outside business activities when he promoted syndicated mortgage investments. For his misconduct that cost investors nearly $1.4 million, a 2024 hearing panel issued its penalty decision barring the representative from conducting any securities-related business in any capacity for any CIRO member dealer going forward. He was also ordered to pay $300,000 and costs in the amount of $30,000. The Capital Markets Tribunal (CMT) dismissed his appeal in October 2024.
Also a certified financial planner (CFP) for more than 20 years, FP Canada additionally found in 2025 that he failed to disclose conflicts of interest, made misrepresentations to clients and other investors regarding risk, again related to the same syndicated mortgage investments. FP Canada revoked his CFP designation and ordered him to pay costs in the amount of $13,000.
The agent has also received a letter of warning from FSRA for failing to disclose insurers’ names in writing and for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. Although the tribunal gave it little weight, evidence also emerged during the hearing that Dziadecki borrowed from clients, including a $150,000 loan which has not been repaid.
As of the date of the FST’s hearing, the $300,000 CIRO fine, the $30,000 in CIRO costs and the $13,000 in FP Canada costs also remain unpaid. Dziadecki disputes the CIRO findings in their entirety, maintaining that he did nothing wrong when he discussed the syndicated mortgages with friends, clients and on his radio show, and that the proceedings regarding his conduct were unfair.
The reasons for decision also discuss the principles of law which prevent re-litigation of settled cases.
“A party who wishes to challenge a regulatory finding must do so vertically, through the appeal or judicial review process provided for that purpose. Coming to a different tribunal and asking it to reach a different conclusion on the same facts is a lateral challenge, and it is precisely what the abuse of process doctrine is designed to prevent,” the document explains.
“Mr. Dziadecki exercised his right to a vertical review of the findings,” they continue. “That appeal was dismissed.”
The reasons later add: “A licensee who continues to reject the conclusions of a fair process that has been reviewed on appeal, and who treats this tribunal as another opportunity to re-litigate those conclusions, has not demonstrated the kind of respect for regulatory obligations that licensing requires.”
Interestingly, the tribunal then turned its attention to the possibility that a lesser sanction might be appropriate in the case. The reasons say courts have made it clear in past cases that a tribunal must turn its mind to whether lesser measures could sufficiently protect the public before imposing the most serious consequences. “We have done so, and we have concluded that no such alternative measures would suffice here.”
Although Dziadecki proposed that his new managing general agent (MGA) could provide supervision, the tribunal points out that there has never been an absence of oversight structures during the representative’s career. “The difficulty is that Mr. Dziadecki operated outside of them,” they write. “Adding conditions to a license held by a person whose compliance difficulties have consistently involved activity below the sight line of his regulator would not create any substantive protection for the public.”
It was also noted that Dziadecki does not accept that his conduct related to the syndicated mortgage investments was wrong. “Conditions presuppose a licensee who understands the nature of the regulatory concern and intended to address it.”
The tribunal ultimately agreed FSRA should impose the orders sought.
“The record of regulatory misconduct that led to the notice of proposal spans nearly twenty years,” the reasons for decision in the most recent FST case state. “Having reviewed that record carefully, we are satisfied that there are compelling and well-founded grounds to believe that Mr. Dziadecki is not currently suitable to be licensed. His history of misconduct involves a variety of incidents, over many years, and it is directly relevant to the activities he would carry out as an insurance agent.”
