The Insurance Council of British Columbia has sanctioned Eunirose Sabula Dator for failing in her supervisory role after the council determined that she was rubber-stamping her supervisee’s client recommendations, many of which turned out to be problematic.  

Dator’s sanctions follow those imposed on her supervisee, identified only as PG in the insurance council’s documents concerning Dator, who was disciplined in January 2026. That case identified significant compliance concerns in 42 insurance applications that Dator had overseen and approved without identifying any compliance issues.  

“(Dator) explained that the agency did not have a system in place at the time of PG’s sales to assess product suitability and that she accepted PG’s justification that the products sold reflected what the clients wanted, even though many of the policies lapsed after one or two years,” the intended decision in the case states. Dator was similarly unaware of PG’s miscalculations in the client’s insurance needs analysis. “She did not verify PG’s calculations and trusted that they were correct because the insurance needs analysis form automatically calculates the values and cannot be altered.” 

First registered as a life and accident and sickness insurance agent in July 2013 and a nominee of her own agency since December 2018, Dator acknowledged that in reviewing client files over the phone with supervisees, she did not document the reviews or make notes following the discussions. “She stated that she has since corrected this practice and now ensures that all communications are adequately documented via email and text messages,” the intended decision continues.  

Multiple inconsistencies  

During the investigation, the council also audited one of three more recent policies submitted, the only life insurance policy submitted by Dator, and found it contained multiple inconsistencies and inadequacies, including absent calculations, product justifications and coverage shortfalls.  

“Council was most troubled by the licensee’s competency as a supervisor,” they state. “Council concluded that the supervisees’ unsuitable product recommendations were readily apparent, despite the licensee’s signature on the supervision process review statements indicating her approval.” 

In addition to a $2,500 fine and costs in the amount of $2,125, the council also ordered Dator to complete four remedial courses and be subject to six months of supervision herself to “help ensure that she observes proper supervisory protocols firsthand. Direct exposure to an effective supervisor who models best practices will enable her to adopt and apply them in her own future supervisory role,” they write. “A supervisor’s obligation extends beyond mere administrative compliance and demonstrating competency requires more than just completing paperwork.”