IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 29, as amended (the “Act”), in particular sections 38 and 39;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Andrew White.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES

TO: Andrew White

TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to sections 38 and 39 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (the “Chief Executive Officer”), the Director, Litigation and Enforcement (the “Director”) is proposing to impose two administrative penalties totaling $25,000 on Andrew White (“White”), as follows:

1. an administrative penalty of $15,000 for dealing in mortgages without a licence, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act; and
2. an administrative penalty of $10,000 for carrying on the business of lending in mortgages without a brokerage licence or exemption, or holding himself out as doing so, contrary to section 4(2) of the Act.

Details of these contraventions and reasons for this proposal are described below. This Notice of Proposal includes allegations that may be considered at a hearing.

SI VOUS DÉSIREZ RECEVOIR CET AVIS EN FRANÇAIS, veuillez nous envoyer votre demande par courriel immédiatement à: contactcentre@fsrao.ca

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL (THE “TRIBUNAL”) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 39(2) AND 39(5) OF THE ACT. A hearing by the Tribunal about this Notice of Proposal may be requested by completing the enclosed Request for Hearing Form (Form 1) and delivering it to the Tribunal within fifteen (15) days after this Notice of Proposal is received by you. The Request for Hearing Form (Form 1) must be mailed, delivered, faxed or emailed to:

Address:
Financial Services Tribunal
25 Sheppard Avenue W, Suite 100
Toronto, ON M2N 6S6
Attention: Registrar

Fax: 416-226-7750

Email: contact@fstontario.ca

TAKE NOTICE THAT if you do not deliver a written request for a hearing to the Tribunal within fifteen (15) days after this Notice of Proposal is received by you, orders will be issued as described in this Notice of Proposal. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE of the payment requirements in section 4 of Ontario Regulation 192/08, which states that the penalized person or entity shall pay the penalty no later than thirty (30) days after the person or entity is given notice of the order imposing the penalty, after the matter is finally determined if a hearing is requested or such longer time as may be specified in the order.

For additional copies of the Request for Hearing Form (Form 1), visit the Tribunal's website at www.fstontario.ca

The hearing before the Tribunal will proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal ("Rules") made under the authority of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended. The Rules are available at the website of the Tribunal: www.fstontario.ca. Alternatively, a copy can be obtained by telephoning the Registrar of the Tribunal at 416-590-7294, or toll free at 1-800-668-0128 extension 7294.

At a hearing, your character, conduct and/or competence may be in issue. You may be furnished with further and/or other particulars, including further or other grounds, to support this proposal.

REASONS FOR PROPOSAL

I. INTRODUCTION

1. These are the reasons for the proposal by the Director to impose administrative penalties on White.
2. White was formerly licensed as a mortgage agent. After his licence expired, he dealt in mortgages without a licence by arranging private mortgages for a consumer. White also carried on the business of lending in mortgages despite not having a licence or exemption to do so.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

3. White was first licensed as a mortgage agent on October 25, 2017. His licence expired on March 31, 2020, and was never renewed. Although White initially tried to renew his licence, his brokerage withdrew its sponsorship.
4. White is currently licensed as a life insurance and accident & sickness insurance agent.
5. Great White Wealth Management 2017 Inc. (“Great White”) is a company incorporated in Ontario. White owns Great White. He is also the sole director and officer of the company.
6. 2789987 Ontario Inc. is a company incorporated in Ontario. White is the only director, officer, and owner of the company.

B. Unlicensed Dealing in Mortgages

7. A consumer, AC, was seeking mortgage financing on his home in 2022. He was connected to White by a friend, E, who had worked with White to get a mortgage on his own home.
8. White introduced himself to AC as a mortgage broker. AC understood that White had access to private lenders who could help him in getting mortgages on his home.
9. White discussed the terms of first and second mortgages for AC through E, including confirming the monthly payment amount and the interest deferral.

First Mortgage

10. White spoke to a director of a private lender (the “Private Lender”) about loaning money on AC’s property. White presented the Private Lender with the terms of the mortgage for the property, and the company loaned the money for a first mortgage to AC. The mortgage closed. The director of the Private Lender understood White to be a mortgage broker.

Second Mortgage

11. White also assisted AC with a second mortgage on the property. The mortgage was held by a trust company as trustee.
12. The second mortgage was interest-only with a 12.95% interest rate and a one-year term. There was also the listing of large “fees” that would be payable on various events. For instance, a fee of $1,975 for a request for a mortgage statement; $4,950 for a dishonored payment; or $950 for using a lawyer not on Great White’s “approved lawyers list.” Some of the interest was taken up-front, with 7% interest payable monthly.
13. White sent AC a “Mortgage Commitment” on Great White letterhead for a mortgage from 2789987 Ontario Inc.
14. White advanced $10,000 of the $190,000 second mortgage. The balance was advanced by another private lender through the trust company.
15. A “Lender fee” of $9,200 was paid to Great White. White ultimately received the money himself.
16. Before the expiry of the second mortgage, AC reached out to White about renewing the mortgage. White agreed to extend the mortgage. White also told AC that the cost for a mortgage statement would be $1,975.
17. White sent a “Renewal Letter” to AC that included terms to renew the mortgage. The “Renewal Letter” was from Great White. When AC did not respond to the email, White followed up to confirm whether AC would be renewing.
18. AC ultimately defaulted on his mortgages. The property went into a power of sale.

C. Mortgage Lending

19. Great White maintained a publicly accessible website as recently as September 2024. As of May 2022, the website contained a “Mortgages” page with the following text (punctuation original):

    Why is our approach more effective? Our firm has relationships with traditional lending institutions like banks, B-Tier lenders who will accept more risk in their deals, and private lenders. Managing Advisor drew white has over 20 years of commercial and personal lending experience, and he leverages these relationships to seek your approval.

20. The website included an “Online Mortgage Application.” The Application page specified that non-private mortgages will be “referred to our licensed mortgage broker partner, but Drew will continue to be your relationship manager.”
21. In an interview with FSRA, White said that the Online Mortgage Application was for private lending of his own money and that Great White did not loan funds. White said that he described himself as a private lender to those seeking mortgages.

III. CONTRAVENTIONS OR FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT

A. Dealing in Mortgages without a Licence

22. Section 2(3) of the Act provides that no individual shall deal in mortgages for direct or indirect remuneration without a mortgage agent or broker licence, or without a valid exemption.
23. Section 2(1) of the Act defines dealing in mortgages to include soliciting another person to borrow money on real property, providing information about a prospective borrower to a prospective mortgage lender, assessing a prospective borrower on behalf of a prospective mortgage lender, and negotiating or arranging mortgages on behalf of another person or entity.
24. White negotiated or arranged for AC’s first and second mortgages, including identifying the private lenders and providing the terms. White provided AC with the terms of the mortgage, such as the monthly payment, and the mortgage paperwork to sign. When the second mortgage was nearing renewal, he solicited AC to renew the mortgage, including specifying the terms of the renewal and the outstanding balance.
25. White did not have a mortgage agent or broker licence at the time, nor was he covered by an exemption. As a former agent, White knew about the requirement to be licensed under the Act.
26. The Director is satisfied that White dealt in mortgages without a licence or exemption, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act.

B. Lending in Mortgages without a Licence

27. Section 4(1) of the Act defines a mortgage lender as a person or entity who lends money on the security of real property, or who holds themself out as doing so. Section 4(2) prohibits carrying on business as a mortgage lender unless licensed to do so or exempt from the requirement to be licensed.
28. White held himself out as carrying on the business of mortgage lending, including by posting the “Online Mortgage Application” on the Great White website.
29. In the case of AC’s second mortgage, White was secured as a lender on the property through his trustee. White received the “lender fee” through Great White and pre-paid interest for the second mortgage. The Renewal Letter to AC suggested that Great White was the lender on the second mortgage and would be on renewal, but White confirmed in his interview that he was personally a lender on AC’s second mortgage.
30. The Director is satisfied that White contravened section 4 of the Act by carrying on the business of mortgage lending, or holding himself out as doing so, without the required licence or exemption.

IV. GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES

31. Section 39 of the Act allows for the imposition of general administrative penalties where a person is or was contravening the Act, or where the person is not or was not complying with a requirement established under the Act.
32. As described above, White contravened section 2(3) of the Act by dealing in mortgages without a licence. He also carried on business as an unlicensed mortgage lender, or held himself out as doing so, contrary to section 4(2) of the Act.
33. The Director is satisfied that imposing administrative penalties on White under section 39(1) of the Act will satisfy both of the following purposes under section 38(1) of the Act:
    1. To promote compliance with the requirements established under the Act.
    2. To prevent a person from deriving, directly or indirectly, any economic benefit as a result of contravening or failing to comply with a requirement established under the Act.
34. Administrative penalties will encourage all non-licensees, particularly former licensees, to comply with the prohibition against dealing in mortgages or carrying on business as a mortgage lender without a licence.
35. Further, the imposition of administrative penalties will also prevent White from benefiting economically from his unlicensed activities.
36. In determining the amount of the administrative penalties, the Director has considered the following criteria as required by section 3(1) of Ontario Regulation 192/08:
    1. The degree to which the contravention or failure was intentional, reckless, or negligent.
    2. The extent of the harm or potential harm to others resulting from the contravention or failure.
    3. The extent to which the person or entity tried to mitigate any loss or take other remedial action.
    4. The extent to which the person or entity derived or reasonably might have expected to derive, directly or indirectly, any economic benefit from the contravention or failure.
    5. Any other contraventions or failures to comply with a requirement established under the Act or with any other financial services legislation of Ontario or of any jurisdiction during the preceding five years by the person or entity.
37. In respect of the first criterion, the Director is satisfied that White’s contraventions were, at minimum, reckless. White had previously been licensed as a mortgage agent and knew or ought to have known about the requirements to be licensed to deal in mortgages and to be licensed to carry on business as a mortgage lender.
38. In respect of the second criterion, the Director is satisfied that White’s actions caused harm to AC. AC was put in mortgages that he did not fully understand. A licensed mortgage agent or broker would have been required to take reasonable steps to ensure that the mortgages presented to AC were suitable for his needs and circumstances and met disclosure requirements, including the cost of borrowing.
39. In addition, White’s actions harm the sector and licensing regime. Confidence in the licensing system was undermined by a non-licensee working as an agent arranging mortgages and by a non-licensee carrying on business as a mortgage lender without a licence, or holding himself out as doing so. Consumers need to be able to trust that those dealing and lending in mortgages in Ontario are licensed and meet the accompanying requirements, like suitability, and continuing education.
40. In respect of the third criterion, the Director is not aware of any steps taken by White to remedy or mitigate his unlicensed mortgage dealing. The Director is aware that White appears to have taken down the Great White website and independently removed the Online Mortgage Application sometime after May 2022.
41. In respect of the fourth criterion, the Director is satisfied that White derived direct economic or expected benefit from his unlicensed mortgage dealing and from carrying on business as an unlicensed mortgage lender. After engaging the first mortgage lender and the co-lender on the second mortgage, White collected a $9,200 “lender fee.” He also collected other fees and interest on the second mortgage.
42. In respect of the fifth criterion, the Director is unaware of any further contraventions or failures to comply in the preceding five years by White.
43. The Director is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances, that the proposed amount of the penalties against White is not punitive in nature, and the amounts are consistent with the purposes of section 38 of the Act.
44. Such further and other reasons as may come to the attention of the Director.

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, July 2, 2025.

Original signed by

Elissa Sinha
Director, Litigation and Enforcement

By delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer

Si vous desirez recevoir cet avis en français, veuillez nous envoyer votre demande par courriel immediatement a : contactcentre@fsrao.ca.