After pleading guilty to the sole count in the amended complaint, broker Tonino Di Corpo (certificate No. 110122) was fined $10,000 by the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de l’assurance.

The respondent is registered as a damage insurance broker and practises in the Montreal area. The events giving rise to the complaint occurred between June 2014 and July 2022.

When arranging a home insurance policy and during subsequent renewals, the respondent failed to act as a conscientious advisor by not providing the insureds with all relevant information. Such conduct is prohibited under section 37(6) of the Code of Ethics of Damage Insurance Representatives.

The respondent failed to provide his clients with the necessary information regarding the assessment of their property's replacement cost and the application of the co-insurance clause.

A loss subsequently occurred, causing extensive damage to their property. The loss was assessed at $1 million, but insurance coverage was limited to $500,000. The respondent had neglected to inform his clients of the importance of properly assessing the cost of rebuilding their property.

The insureds were forced to sell their property at a loss because they could not afford to rebuild it. The reconstruction cost was estimated at $989,000.

The penalty

The hearing before the committee took place on June 18, 2026. The original decision was dated September 15, but a corrected version was published, in French only, on September 30, 2026, to correct the respondent's certificate number.

The Chambre's ad hoc syndic, Claude Leduc, personally handled the case. The respondent was represented by Sonia Paradis.

The committee ordered a conditional stay of proceedings with respect to the other provision cited in support of the complaint. The committee authorized the filing of an amended complaint and the withdrawal of counts 2 and 3.

The penalty was jointly recommended by the parties and approved by the committee. Factors considered in determining the appropriate penalty included the respondent's experience and the harm suffered by the insureds. The respondent had taken steps to change his work practices and expressed a genuine willingness to improve his conduct.

Evidence was presented showing that the respondent had a prior disciplinary record unrelated to the present case. In May 2003, he had been found guilty of only one of the nine counts in a complaint before the disciplinary committee of the Chambre de l’assurance de dommages. The offence was of an entirely different nature. In August 2003, the disciplinary committee sanctioned him with a reprimand.