The Insurance Council of British Columbia (ICoBC) has published a second order and intended decision in the case of SH, an 18-year-old client at the time he was sold several insurance policies which did not meet his needs, this time sanctioning Basel Haidar.
In the most recent case, Haidar is being sanctioned for the inappropriate policy selection and for failing to conduct his business under the supervision of a life agent supervisor, as required by the insurance council’s rules. During the course of the investigation, it was also found that Haidar was holding himself out as a financial advisor on social media – an area of practice where he was not an expert, either by experience or training.
First licensed as a life and accident and sickness insurance agent in May 2022, the agent was reported by another agent, identified only as JG, who complained to the council on behalf of their client, SH. The complaint raised concerns about inappropriate sales practices. At the time of the sale, SH was 18, had no dependents, property or registered accounts, but had been sold over $680,000 of insurance coverage, including a whole life policy which Haidar sold him and a universal life policy sold to him by another agent, the subject of a separate intended decision published earlier this month.
When the whole life policy was issued, with a monthly premium of $502.12 – one third of SH’s monthly cash flow at the time – Haidar was a new life agent required to run all of his business past a supervisor. Had this occurred, the council notes that a supervisor might’ve caught that documents remained unsigned in the case and that the products in question were likely unsuitable.
As in the previous case involving SH, Haidar noted that the client was interested in taking the Life License Qualification Program (LLQP) and provided messages demonstrating that SH was in the process of completing the program. Although Haidar claims he advised SH to open a Tax-Free Savings Account (TFSA), he says SH insisted on the whole life policy and knew the difference between TFSAs and various insurance products.
“Although a client may not always listen to a recommendation made, council believes it is still the licensee’s responsibility to conduct an appropriate needs analysis to demonstrate to clients why a product will specifically add value and explain the benefits associated with the product to that client,” the intended decision states. “It should be clear to a third party why a specific product is being recommended.”
As for his supervisory obligations, it was later found that Haidar had sold 164 policies during the time he was licensed, and that he was a split agent on eight others. He was ultimately only able to provide proof that he sought supervisory oversight on four cases. That he provided inconsistent statements about whether he submitted insurance applications to his supervisor was noted as an aggravating factor in the case. “Council was very concerned that the licensee processed such a high volume of policies without any supervision.”
In addition to a $2,500 fine, Haidar was ordered to complete five additional courses, including an ethics and social media course, the council’s rules course, compliance courses from Advocis and the Challenge of Documenting Nothing course, also available through Advocis. Haidar was also ordered to pay $1,593.75 in costs and must submit to supervision for an additional two years, beginning in April 2026.
