Unsuitable policies, a lack of notetaking and record keeping and failure to have his insurance work overseen by a supervisor has resulted in the Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICoBC) sanctioning Pargat Singh Brar, fining him $2,500. The council also ordered Brar to complete eight remedial courses and be subject to supervision for two years if he decides to become licensed again in the future.

During the course of the insurance council’s investigation, Brar blamed a large number of lapsed policies – many of which were later determined to be notably unsuitable for the client’s needs – on the payout reputation of the insurers he was dealing with.

Stated that clients lost their jobs due COVID-19 

Prior to that, he submitted that his clients who ultimately terminated or lapsed their policies, had done so because they’d lost their jobs due to COVID-19.

“When the committee asked whether it was truly the case that all of his clients had lost their jobs or if some of the policies had not been suitable or affordable for the clients in the first place, the former licensee acknowledged that not every client had lost their job,” the intended decision in the case states. “He stated that some of the clients terminated their insurance because they had heard that the insurer had a reputation for not paying out.” 

During the course of the council’s investigation, five random policies were audited – all were found to be unsuitable in some way.

Needs analyses appeared incongruent 

Needs analysis, for example, appeared incongruent with the policies he sold to clients. “Notably, these indicated that his clients had $5,000 or less in savings, yet would like to retire by age 30 – 35, with a monthly income of $15,000 until age 80,” the decision continues. In another case the client’s policies generated a premium-to-income ratio of 13 per cent.

“In sections of the reasons why letters that prompt licensees to record client-provided information with the statement ‘During our meeting you told me that…’, the former licensee simply wrote comments such as ‘Universal Life Protection is Good for you’.” 

The former life and accident and sickness agent, first licensed in August 2020, said clients came to him with predetermined amounts that they wished to purchase, based on what they’d heard on the radio and in social media posts.

“I also thought that if a client has already decided how much coverage they want, I do not need to do a separate analysis by myself,” he told investigators. “They had already done their homework, so they insisted me to not discuss them in detail.” 

Of the five policies audited, three were terminated by the clients and a fourth was in force, but with billing suspended. Of the 50 policies written through one insurance company, 10 were still in force as of January 2025. Of the 17 policies sold through another company, nine remained in force.

Did not show all his work to supervisor 

Brar is also being sanctioned for not showing his work to his supervisor, who disclosed to investigators that she had records of having reviewed 14 policies from Brar. “When council’s investigator informed her that the former licensee had actually submitted a total of 70 applications during the supervision period, the supervisor was surprised and stated that she was unaware of the additional applications.” 

In addition to the coursework, supervision and fine, Brar was also ordered to pay the council’s investigation costs in the amount of $3,187.50. Due to Brar’s financial situation, the council doubled the standard amount of time that the former agent has to pay.