Efficiency Added to RECA’s Investigation Processes

Non-cooperation during an investigation has been a serious issue facing Real Estate Council of Alberta investigators over the past number of years. When an industry member fails to cooperate with a RECA investigation, it takes additional time, money and resources in order to investigate the allegations in question.

Up until now, when an industry member fails to cooperate with an investigation, a second investigation file is opened for the non-cooperation allegation. Upon completion of that investigation, the non-cooperation matter is referred to a Hearing Panel for consideration and should the Hearing Panel make a finding of conduct deserving of sanction on the issue of non-cooperation, it may suspend the industry member’s authorization until the time at which the industry member cooperates with the original investigation. The entire process is costly both in terms of time and money.

Individuals who would be subject to a failure to cooperation investigation would be those who have failed to cooperate on numerous occasions. Additionally, the original investigation typically involves serious allegations against the industry member.

Section 38(4.2) of the Real Estate Act now gives the executive director, by notice in writing, the power to suspend the authorization of an industry member who refuses to co-operate with a person conducting an investigation, until the executive director is satisfied that the industry member has cooperated. The inclusion of this new section of the Act brings about a greater measure of efficiency in the RECA investigation process.

While investigators will take into account serious personal issues when scheduling interviews and setting deadlines for the submission of documents and responses, industry members are required to cooperate with the investigation. Cooperation means providing truthful, complete responses in a prompt and constructive manner. Cooperating with the investigation also means making yourself available to the investigator, returning phone calls, attending interviews, recalling information to the best of your ability and producing documents or other information that the investigator requests.

As stated earlier, there would be multiple instances of non-cooperation by an industry member to order the suspension of an industry member for failure to cooperate. RECA investigators report that in most cases when they encounter an industry member who is not cooperating, it’s a pattern of non-cooperation, where the industry member consistently avoids phone calls, will not provide documents, fails to show up at appointments et cetera. These instances of non-cooperation take up more of RECA’s valuable resources and cost additional money. Those additional costs are then, indirectly, passed on to the industry through licensing fees.

The addition of section 38(4.2) of the Act is a positive step forward in the industry’s self-regulation. It can save time and money in the investigation process, and can lead to greater consumer protection. When industry members do not cooperate with a RECA investigator, the entire system of self-regulation is placed in jeopardy – as is the notion of consumer protection.

Checks and balances

An industry member that is subject to a suspension by the executive director for failure to cooperate may appeal that decision to a Hearing Panel, pursuant to section 40.1 of the Act. Should an industry member wish to appeal such a suspension, they are to, within 30 days of the suspension notice, write to the executive director to appeal the executive director’s decision. The matter will then be referred to a Hearing Panel.

When RECA’s investigation and hearing process is working effectively, the industry as a whole is made stronger and consumers feel protected. That can only be made possible with cooperation from industry members.

 

home