The Tribunal administratif des marchés financiers (TMF), Quebec's Financial Markets Administrative Tribunal, will have to hold another case management conference to hear an appeal filed by the syndic of the Chambre de l'assurance in his disciplinary complaint against claims adjuster Olivier Hamel.
This is the first appeal of a disciplinary decision to be heard by the TMF. Previously, such proceedings were heard by the Administrative and Appeal Division of the Court of Québec.
With the passage of Bill 92, which became Chapter 16 of the Statutes of 2025, the Quebec government transferred this responsibility to the TMF. The change was set out in section 8 of the bill, which introduced the new section 85.1 into the Act respecting the regulation of the financial sector.
Dissatisfied syndic
Syndic Sébastien Tisserand, who himself testified during the disciplinary committee's hearing of the complaint, is appealing the decision on guilt issued in late January 2026. The committee acquitted the respondent on count 1 of the complaint, in which the syndic alleged that he had received excessive compensation.
The respondent was found guilty on count 2 for negligently maintaining his client's file. Subsequently, in April 2026, the committee imposed a reprimand.
Within the required 30-day period, Tisserand filed his appeal with the TMF. He is challenging both the acquittal on count 1 of the complaint and the sanction imposed on count 2.
A rare proceeding
The Chambre de l'assurance confirmed to Insurance Portal that such appeals are rare. As we reported in this article, available only in French, about the appeal filed by the syndic concerning the decisions in Hamel's case, there was only one other instance during the 2015–2024 decade in which the syndic of the Chambre de l'assurance de dommages (ChAD) appealed a disciplinary decision.
In that case, the respondent, a property and casualty insurance broker, was not represented by a lawyer. The disciplinary committee had declined to endorse the parties' joint recommendation on the sanction to be imposed. On November 1, 2019, the syndic's appeal was allowed, and the court referred the case back to the disciplinary committee. A newly constituted panel of the committee subsequently reinstated the sanction sought by the syndic.
The syndic of the Chambre de la sécurité financière (CSF) resorted to this appeal procedure somewhat more frequently during the same period (see the final section of this article).
The business model
In the appeal involving Hamel, the syndic took issue with the percentage charged in the case that gave rise to the complaint, considering it disproportionate to the time Hamel spent settling the claim.
The request for an investigation submitted to the syndic had come from Caisse Desjardins de Trois-Rivières. The claims adjuster's client had gone there to cash a cheque for the additional compensation Hamel had obtained for him. The cheque was issued by Desjardins General Insurance.
Police intervened at the request of the financial institution, which said it feared fraud targeting elderly people. The respondent was arrested and detained for several hours before being released without any charges being laid against him.
Before the disciplinary committee, the respondent's client testified and expressed complete satisfaction with the services provided by the claims adjuster.
Olivier Hamel has more than 20 years of experience and has been working as an independent claims adjuster for several years. He has developed a particular niche: reviewing claim settlements awarded by insurers following major losses, such as fires resulting in the total loss of a building. He works on a contingency-fee basis, receiving a predetermined percentage. If he does not obtain additional compensation for the insured, the latter owes him nothing.
A new hearing?
Insurance Portal decided to attend the TMF's initial hearings in this appeal, as this is the first such proceeding before the tribunal. TMF hearings are public, but recording them is not permitted. The following account is based on the author's handwritten notes.
At an initial hearing held on July 29 before administrative judge Jean-Nicolas Boutin-Wilkins, counsel for the syndic, Jean-Simon Britten and Ariane Matte, raised the possibility of a de novo hearing, which would involve a complete and independent rehearing of the case.
The complainant bringing the appeal would then have to present its evidence as though the original proceedings before the disciplinary committee had never taken place. The parties may introduce new relevant evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the TMF could uphold the disciplinary decisions, set aside the rulings and substitute its own, or modify the finding of guilt or the sanction imposed.
Counsel for the syndic indicated that transcripts of certain testimony could be filed with the TMF, sparing some witnesses from having to repeat before the tribunal what they had already said to the committee.
This first hearing lasted barely 15 minutes. Judge Boutin-Wilkins proposed holding a pre-hearing conference in early September. The hearing scheduled for September 8, 2026, was subsequently postponed.
Second hearing
Another hearing was finally held on October 6. On that occasion, Olivier Hamel chose to represent himself, without the assistance of a lawyer.
Judge Boutin-Wilkins explained to the respondent that a guide was available to help people representing themselves without a lawyer better prepare for proceedings. The respondent said he was already using it.
The administrative judge noted that he had still not received the complete record submitted to the disciplinary committee. Matte promised to take care of it. The judge also pointed out that, to hold a pre-hearing conference, a form signed by both parties had to be filed, which had not yet been done.
Counsel for the syndic requested a postponement. During the exchanges, Matte explained that syndic Sébastien Tisserand had only just returned to work following a health-related leave of absence.
Additional evidence
Matte reiterated that a list of facts agreed upon by both parties and transcripts of testimony would be filed, reducing the time required for the de novo proceedings. Counsel for the syndic specified that she might call new witnesses to re-establish certain facts.
Judge Boutin-Wilkins said he was not convinced that de novo proceedings and a retrial were necessary. Before admitting new evidence, he required that a motion to that effect be filed and reiterated that he would not be able to determine the relevance of the new evidence until he had the complete record before him.
For his part, Hamel indicated that he did not oppose reopening the proceedings but wanted to be allowed to introduce new evidence himself, if necessary.
The parties have been summoned to another pre-hearing conference, scheduled for November 11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. The judge insisted that the hearing proceed expeditiously and be completed in a single morning.
Appeals involving the CSF
The Chambre de l'assurance provided us with four examples of appeal proceedings initiated by the syndic of the Chambre de la sécurité financière between 2015 and 2024.
In the oldest case, the syndic had appealed the sanction imposed by the disciplinary committee because it had not endorsed the parties' joint recommendation. Fines totalling $20,000 had been sought for the first two counts, but the committee had reduced the amount to $7,000. On March 13, 2015, the Court of Québec rendered this decision in French in which it allowed the syndic's appeal and ordered the respondent to pay fines totalling $20,000.
In another case, the respondent had been acquitted on one of the two counts in the complaint. On January 5, 2017, the Court of Québec overturned that decision and found the respondent guilty. On December 1, 2017, the disciplinary committee fined the respondent $2,500, as mentioned in this decision only available in French.
In the two other decisions appealed by the CSF's syndic, the respondents had been acquitted by the disciplinary committee. The Court of Québec dismissed the syndic's appeals in both cases and upheld the respondents' acquittals. Insurance Portal did not publish any articles about these two cases because the disciplinary committee had acquitted the respondents.
