In two nearly identical disciplinary decisions, the Insurance Council of British Columbia has sanctioned two representatives for the same behaviour, serving the same client. 

The insurance council says discipline cases consider licensees on an individual basis and would not disclose any further information, citing privacy concerns.

In the most recent case, Anita Yin Ling Ip was sanctioned for signing as a witness when she did not witness the signatures in question, did not recognize who the legal policyowner was, and was not aware of the tax implications of the policies she helped to transfer.

The case is nearly identical to another where Ka Fai (Patrick) Cheng was sanctioned for the same. 

In Ip’s case, the life accident and sickness agent, licensed since 1993, was approached by a client who asked her to transfer the ownership of two life policies to his daughter, JT. Ip did not meet with JT prior to the change of ownership, which took place in 2012. 

Five years later, the client (but now no longer the legal owner of the policy), ST, asked Ip to change ownership of the policies back to himself. “As ST was the original owner of the policies, the licensee did not question this request and did not contact JT for consent,” the council’s intended decision states.

Although she asked to meet with JT, excuses were made, and the appointment never took place. When forms were returned, they were missing a witness signature. Ip signed the forms, trusting ST’s assertions that JT had signed the forms. JT did not become aware of the transfer of ownership until her taxes were reassessed by the Canada Revenue Agency. At this point it was noted that the address on JT’s policy was not her address but was instead ST’s postal box address.

Unlike Cheng who downplayed the severity of his conduct, Ip accepted full responsibility and assisted JT with a complaint filed to the Civil Resolution Tribunal. As a result, JT received money from ST for the tax assessment that was incurred from the change in ownership. (In Cheng’s case, JT protested the transfer and the insurance company transferred ownership back and reversed the capital gain.)

In its analysis, the insurance council said although Ip was not acting with ill intent, she failed to recognize that ST was no longer the owner of the policy. They also state that she should have been aware of the potential tax consequences and communicated these to the owner of the policy and further refrained from witnessing a form when she had not been present when the client purportedly signed the form. “Council notes that obtaining client instruction and properly executing insurance forms are part of the basic fundamentals of the usual practice of the business of insurance,” they write.

Like Cheng, Ip was fined $2,000 by the Insurance Council of British Columbia and ordered to pay investigation costs of $1,500. She was also ordered to complete the Council Rules Course through Advocis and Advocis’ Knowing the Code of Professional Conduct co