After pleading guilty to both counts in the complaint, former mutual fund dealer representative Massimo Corica (certificate no. 231716) was handed a five-year temporary suspension by the discipline committee of the Chambre de l’assurance.

The actions giving rise to the complaint took place in Montreal between June and August 2023. The respondent failed to act with integrity, honesty and loyalty when he asked one of his employer’s suppliers to increase the amount of an invoice so that he could later receive a credit from the supplier for a personal activity (count 1). This conduct resulted in a first five-year temporary suspension.

He subsequently breached his obligations again by carrying out four transactions in his personal account from a colleague’s workstation, without the colleague’s knowledge, to allow a friend to benefit from the preferential exchange rate offered to employees (count 2). He was handed a six-month temporary suspension.

The misconduct cited in both counts is prohibited under section 14 of the Regulation respecting the rules of ethics in the securities sector. The committee ordered a conditional stay of proceedings with respect to the other provision alleged in support of both counts of the complaint.

The suspensions will be served concurrently and will take effect when the respondent regains his right to practise.

The respondent was ordered to pay disbursements and the cost of publishing the disciplinary notice. The notice will only be published if the respondent applies for a certificate to be issued in his name.

The hearing before the committee took place on June 25 and September 22, 2025. The decision is dated September 2, 2026, and was published, in French only, on September 9. The guilty plea was entered on the second day of the hearing. The third member of the committee was unable to act, and the decision was rendered by the other two members.

The context

At the time of the events, the respondent was the manager of a bank branch in the Montreal area. His duties included organizing promotional events. It was in this context that he ordered two customized 36-inch balloons, costing nearly $750, at the bank’s expense.

The supplier subsequently contacted the bank and informed it that the respondent had asked for the invoice to be inflated by $500. The supplier reimbursed that amount to the bank.

With respect to the second count, the money given to him by a friend who was also a client of the bank was in U.S. dollars. Once the money was converted into Canadian dollars, the respondent transferred the funds into his friend’s account. The transactions were carried out to allow the client to benefit from the preferential exchange rate offered to employees of the financial institution.

When the bank conducted its investigation, the respondent did not admit to the facts frankly and spontaneously. He was subsequently dismissed. The committee also found that the respondent’s participation in his employer’s investigation did not constitute a mitigating factor in the circumstances.

In assessing the seriousness of the misconduct, the committee noted that the respondent no longer practises in the field and does not intend to return to the profession. He is employed in another field.

The sanction

The complainant obtained the sanction sought for the first count but had proposed a two-year temporary suspension for the second count. According to counsel for the syndic, the respondent’s actions amounted to misappropriation.

For his part, counsel for the respondent disagreed with the complainant’s comparison that the misconduct was akin to misappropriation. He instead proposed a one-year temporary suspension for each offence.

According to the committee, the offence admitted under the first count was akin to misappropriation. Even though the supplier reimbursed the bank before the respondent obtained the benefit he was seeking, this did not alter the nature of his actions, the committee added, before proceeding to analyze the case law submitted by counsel.

“Mr. Corica was not seeking to recover an amount that was owed or reimbursable to him, nor did he simply contravene an internal policy: his actions were premeditated and dishonest. Moreover, he held a position of authority as a branch manager,” the committee stated.

Counsel for the respondent also requested an exemption from publication of the decision because of health issues affecting Mr. Corica. The committee denied the request for an exemption but ordered the secretary of the discipline committee to defer publication of the notice if the respondent applies to have his certificate reinstated, which is unlikely to occur.