The General Insurance Council of Saskatchewan (GICS) has sanctioned Alexandria (Zandra) Slater, a crop hail insurance license holder since June 1996, fining Slater $580 plus investigation costs for not carrying errors and omissions (E&O) insurance coverage consistently. She is also being sanctioned for making a material misstatement on her renewal application in 2025.

In Saskatchewan, businesses and agents who hold a crop hail insurance license must maintain and provide proof of having an E&O policy which provides a minimum of $250,000 for any one occurrence and a minimum aggregate limit of $500,000 for all occurrences within one year. The policy must cover the licensee’s insurance activities and be underwritten by an insurance company licensed to do business in Canada.

Although the General Insurance Council instituted a minimum fine of $2,000 for E&O lapses in the province, the Hail Insurance Council, which was active in 2016 when the minimum was introduced, chose not to implement the level dollar fine amount.

In Slater’s case, the agent was issued a cautionary letter in July 2018 for failing to maintain E&O coverage for 62 days between April and June 2017. Despite receiving two automatically generated email reminders in March and April 2025 from the insurance council reminding Slater of her obligation to provide annual proof of her E&O coverage, it wasn’t until May that the licensing department received a valid certificate, resulting in another 36-day lapse.

A review of Slater’s annual return also revealed that she claimed to have a valid E&O policy in place when she renewed her licence for the 2025 reporting period.

Serious public protection concerns

“The failure to maintain continuous E&O coverage presents a significant risk and raises serious public protection concerns. E&O policies are claims-made policies, and cover claims that are made during the policy term,” the consensual agreement and undertaking between Slater and the insurance council explains. “The loss may have occurred in the past, but as long as it is reported during the current policy term, it can trigger coverage. In order to maintain coverage, the policy must stay in force. If the policy is not kept in force and there is a lapse, the licensee may not have coverage for losses which occurred during and/or prior to the lapse.”

To assess the appropriate penalty, the agreement further indicates that the council looks at whether the misconduct represents a first offence and the number of times the offence was proven to have occurred.

“Although the concerns identified do not rise to a level requiring license revocation or suspension, a penalty is considered the appropriate recourse to address the misconduct and reinforce the importance of accurate and complete regulatory reporting,” they write.

In addition to the $580 penalty, Slater must also pay investigation costs in the amount of $330.