Case summaries are published in accordance with section 55 of the Real Estate Act. For full versions of the disciplinary decisions summarized below, visit www.reca.ca and click Complaints & Outcomes > Disciplinary Outcomes > Decisions, are publicized to enhance the transparency of RECA’s disciplinary process and to assure consumers that there is an effective framework in place to deal with breaches of the Real Estate Act. To obtain further information about RECA’s policies and procedures, please call 1-888-425-2754.
Audit administrative penalties
June 2009 – July 2009
Alberta 2500 Group Corp (June 2009)
The brokerage failed to submit to the Real Estate Council of Alberta the required accounting documents not later than three months after the end of the brokerage’s fiscal year. Breach of s.91(4) of the Real Estate Act Rules.
$1,000
Mortgages Are Marvelous o/a Mortgage Alliance “Mortgages are Marvellous” (July 2009)
The brokerage failed to submit to the Real Estate Council of Alberta the required accounting documents not later than three months after the end of the brokerage’s fiscal year. Breach of s.92(1) of the Real Estate Act Rules.
$1,500
administrative penalties
June 2009
Shawn Keys, Former Associate
Exit Realty Results and Re/Max Real Estate
- Failure to trade in real estate only in the name that appears on the individual’s licence and in the name of the brokerage with which that individual is registered [s.54(1)(a) of the Real Estate Act Rules]
- Mr. Keys tendered his resignation with Exit Realty Results on February 28, 2007, and applied to be registered with Re/Max Real Estate on March 2, 2007. However the Re/Max application did not get processed with the Real Estate Council of Alberta until March 16, 2007. Between February 28, 2007 and March 16, 2007, Mr. Keys remained registered with Exit Realty Results. On March 11, 2007, Mr. Keys listed a property through the Re/Max Real Estate brokerage. Although the Re/Max broker informed Mr. Keys that he was not able to trade in real estate under the Re/Max name until the registration had been transferred, Mr. Keys advertised and showed the property under the Re/Max name while still registered with Exit Realty Results.
- $1,500 Administrative Penalty
Shawn Keys, Former associate
Exit Realty Results and Re/Max Real Estate
- Failed to immediately notify the executive director, in writing, of a conviction of any criminal offence or any other offence under any law of any country, province or state [s.40(1)(h) of the Real Estate Act Rules]
- Mr. Keys was convicted of an impaired driving offence in October 2006. He failed to immediately notify the executive director of this Criminal Code charge, and did not inform the executive director until March 2007 when he was changing brokerages and filling in applications for registration.
- $1,000 Administrative Penalty
Consent Agreements
July 2009
Cherie Ann Birch
Formerly registered as a real estate associate with 416212 Alberta Ltd. o/a Re/Max Real Estate Lethbridge
Most recently registered as a mortgage broker with Centum Professional Mortgage Group
Issues:
- Failed to act in her client’s best interests [s.2(a) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to disclose all relevant information to her client [s.2(e) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Used confidential information obtained from a client for personal gain [s.2(f) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to disclose a conflict of interest in a trade [s.2(m) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to obtain informed consent in writing to acting in dual agency prior to entering into a real estate transaction [s.3(b) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Made a representation that misled or deceived a person or was likely to do so [s.4(d) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Created a contract that she ought to have known was confusing [s.6(c) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Participated in fraudulent activities in connection with real estate transactions [s.7(c) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to keep her broker informed of the activities being performed by her on behalf of the brokerage [Real Estate Act Rules, s.23(f), as it was then]
- Traded in real estate on behalf of herself or another person without first disclosing in writing to the parties to the trade her interest as buyer and/or seller, and that she was employed or associated with a licensed brokerage[Real Estate Act Rules, s.28(a), as it was then]
Facts:
- Cherie Ann Birch (“Birch”) associate broker, was at all relevant times registered with Re/Max Real Estate Lethbridge until July 7, 2003 when she terminated her registration. Birch was not active in the industry again until she registered as a mortgage associate with Centum Professional Mortgage Group on October 30, 2007, and as a candidate appraiser on April 22, 2008.
- This Consent Agreement concerns Birch’s activities in 2002 with respect to two properties, the “N” Property and the “M” Property.
The “N” Property
- Mr. N wished to sell a piece of property of which he was sole owner on title.
- The property was listed with a brokerage in 2001. It was listed for $117,500 in September 2001, which was reduced to $108,500 in January 2002.
- Mr. R conducted an appraisal of the property on June 17, 2002, indicating a market value of $110,000.
- At all material times, Birch was acting as agent for Mr. N to whom Birch owed fiduciary duties.
- On June 21, 2002, Birch prepared and obtained execution of a Real Estate Purchase Contract for the sale of the “N” property from Mr. N to Birch. The purchase price was $86,000. The initial deposit was $3,500, with assumption of mortgage of $55,109.41 and balance owing of $27,391. The closing date was June 30, 2002.
- Birch did not obtain any written consent to her role as both agent and purchaser nor did she advise Mr. N fully on the conflict of interest.
- Birch did not refer Mr. N to obtain independent advice whether industry member or legal counsel concerning the sale of his property to Birch.
- As a result of her agency relationship with Mr. N, Birch knew Mr. N urgently needed to sell the property due to outstanding bills from the renovations he performed on the house. Birch used this knowledge to purchase the property at a price that was favourable to her and less than fair value for Mr. N.
- On July 5, 2002, Birch prepared Real Estate Purchase Contract for the sale of the “N” Property from herself to Ms K. The purchase price on the initial draft of this contract was $117,000 based on a $100.00 deposit, new financing of $110,000 and balance of $6,900. The closing date was July 15, 2002.
- Birch did not complete the full names of the parties to the transaction, identifying seller and buyer as “Birch” and “K” respectively.
- Birch did not provide Ms K with written disclosure of her position as an industry member.
- Birch did not provide a copy of either contract to her broker, nor did she inform her broker of her activities, which were on behalf of the brokerage in this transaction.
- Birch did not advise Mr. N of the property’s sale to Ms K, which was planned by Birch prior to the closing date of the contract between Birch and Mr. N. This was information that was relevant to the decision of Mr. N to proceed with the sale of his property to Birch.
- After July 5, 2002, but prior to the closing of her contract with Ms K, Birch made amendments to the purchase contract with Ms K, reducing the new financing from $110,000 to $104,500, the balance from $6,900 to $5,500 and the purchase price from $117,000 to $110,000.
- Birch did not obtain initials confirming these amendments.
- Birch conspired with Ms K to have the amended purchase contract delivered to Ms K’s lawyer for the purpose of conveyancing and to have the former un-amended contract communicated to the mortgage lender who, relying on the $117,000 purchase price, would provide new financing at the higher amount.
- When the lawyer for Ms K, who also was acting for the mortgage lender, questioned Ms K about the higher new financing amount, she represented to him that the additional funds were for the purposes of anticipated renovations to the property. No renovations were contemplated nor in fact done.
- On July 18, 2002, Birch obtained Mr. N’s signature on a listing contract she prepared with an asking price of $99,500 for the “N” Property. Further, the term of the listing was stated to be to July 17, 2002, a past date from the date of execution. Birch did not at this time, nor at any time before or subsequent, advise Mr. N of the transaction she was pursuing with Ms K.
- Birch did not provide a copy of this listing contract to her broker. The listing contract was confusing and not binding due to the extant and unconditional purchase contract previously executed between Mr. N and Birch.
- Ms K provided her lawyer with a statutory declaration stating she would reside in the property, which was a condition of the new financing. Ms K did not reside in the “N” Property. On March 30, 2003, the property was transferred by Ms K to Mr. S.
- Birch organized the purchase of the “N” Property by Ms K for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage that exceeded the purchase price paid to Mr. N, thereby obtaining a personal gain upon further transfer of the property. Birch was aware that Ms K would lead the lender to believe Ms K would reside in the property in order to obtain the mortgage, when this was not true. Birch obtained a financial benefit from this transaction, a benefit that was shared with Ms K, but not with Mr. N.
The “M” Property
- Mr. and Mrs. M, the “Sellers,” were separating and wished to sell their house.
- On July 7, 2002, Birch obtained the signature of the Sellers on a listing contract with an asking price of $99,000 and termination date of October 9, 2002. Birch prepared and signed this Listing Contract on behalf of her brokerage.
- On August 1, 2002, Birch prepared and obtained the signature of prospective buyers, Mr. and Mrs. H, the “Buyers,” on a real estate purchase contract. The purchase price was $86,000 based on a $100 deposit, assumption of a $74,600 mortgage and balance owing of $11,300.
- Birch was acting as agent for the Sellers and the Buyers in this transaction.
- Birch did not obtain written consent to her acting as dual agent for both the Sellers and the Buyers.
- Birch did not obtain the $100 deposit from the Buyers in accordance with the contract.
- Birch did not submit a copy of this contract to her broker.
- The Buyers did not qualify to assume the mortgage and were not able to waive their condition under the contract, so the contract was terminated by condition.
- On September 28, 2002, Birch prepared and obtained the Sellers’ agreement to the sale of their property to 831938 Alberta Ltd., a company of which Birch was shareholder and officer. The purchase contract for this sale, prepared by Birch, provided a purchase price of $83,000 based on the assumption of the $74,600 mortgage and balance owing of $8,400. Closing was on November 1, 2002. The buyer was incompletely identified as “831938 Ltd.”
- Birch did not provide for a deposit to secure the interests of the Sellers.
- Birch prepared a form entitled “Realtor Disclosure” wherein she identified herself personally as the buyer, when the contract showed the buyer as “831938 Ltd.” The relation between the buyer and Birch was not identified or explained in this document.
- Birch obtained only the signature of Mrs. M on the Realtor Disclosure and not of the other seller.
- At the bottom of the “Realtor Disclosure,” Birch handwrote “I am purchasing the property for resale.” At the same time, Birch advised the Sellers she was going to “fix up the home and find a buyer.”
- On October 3, 2002, Birch prepared and signed a real estate purchase contract identifying “831838 Alta Ltd.” as seller and Mr. W as buyer, with a price of $107,000 based on no deposit, new financing of $101,650, balance owing of $5,350 and closing on October 1, 2002 (prior to the closing of the first sale from the Sellers to 831838 Alberta Ltd.).
- Birch obtained W’s signature on this second purchase contract prior to completing it. Birch filled in the contract after its execution and no initials were applied to the amendments.
- Birch did not submit a copy of this contract to her brokerage.
- On October 24, 2002, Mr. W obtained approval for a new mortgage and on October 31, 2002, signed a statutory declaration that it was his “intention to occupy this property as [his] principal residence.”
- On November 7, 2002, the Transfer of Title from the Sellers to 831838 Alberta Ltd. for $83,000 consideration and the Transfer of Title from 831838 Alberta Ltd. to Mr. W for $107,000 consideration were both executed.
- Birch did not renovate the house.
- Birch did not disclose to Mr. and Mrs. M the amount of the second sale.
- Birch did not disclose to the buyer, Mr. W, her interest in the selling company.
- Mr. W never resided in the property, a Ms P stayed in it as a tenant. On January 16, 2003, the property was transferred to Ms P for consideration of $108,000.
- At or near the time Mr. W agreed to execute his purchase contract, Birch represented to him that the house would be purchased by Mr. W solely for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage where upon it would be transferred to a handicapped person who otherwise would be unable to qualify for a new mortgage. Mr. W relied on this representation and further believed he would not remain on title of the property for any significant length of time. Birch’s representation was false and made only to induce cooperation by Mr. W as a buyer.
- Birch organized Mr. W’s purchase of the property for the purpose of obtaining a mortgage that exceeded the purchase price paid to the Sellers, thereby obtaining a personal gain upon further transfer of the property. Birch was aware that Mr. W would lead the lender to believe he would reside in the property in order to obtain the mortgage when this was not true.
- Mr. W was subjected to foreclosure notices and paid his own funds for arrears at a time when he believed he was not the owner of the property.
Results: By way of a Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Birch’s authorization to trade in real estate and deal as a mortgage broker was suspended for a period of four months; Birch was ordered to pay a fine of $44,625 and costs of $2,000. If Birch returns to the industry following her suspension, she will be subject to weekly supervisory meetings with her broker or designated broker and must submit to her brokerage all trade documents and records for a period of 24 months.
Allan Lee, Associate
Formerly registered with Dog Leg Right Realty Inc. o/a Maxwell Norwest Real Estate and Currently Registered with Discover Real Estate Ltd.
Issues:
- Participating in the creation of a document he ought to have known was not legally binding [s.6(c) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
Facts:
- Mr. Lee was contacted by Mr. B about purchasing a home for himself and his girlfriend, Ms C.
- Mr. B advised Mr. Lee that Mr. B or Ms C would obtain financing.
- As a result of this, Mr. Lee drafted the offer with ‘Mr. B or nominee’ listed as the buyer.
- The seller objected to the use of ‘or nominee’ and as a result it was struck out by agreement, leaving only Mr. B identified as the buyer on the contract.
- Section 8.4 of the contract stated that the buyer may unilaterally waive or satisfy their conditions by giving a notice to the other party on or before the stated condition day.
- The contract was accepted.
- Ms C obtained financing for the property.
- Mr. Lee prepared a Notice to the Seller that Ms C alone signed stating the mortgage financing condition was waived or satisfied.
- The transaction proceeded without amendment of the purchase contract or any additional waiver provided by Mr. B.
- The property was transferred to Ms C.
Results: By way of a Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Mr. Lee was ordered to pay a fine of $500 and costs of $200, and was ordered to complete education within six months.
Colleen AnnE Walsh, Associate
Challenge Realty Ltd. o/a Realty Executives Challenge
Issues:
- Failed to provide competent service [s.6 of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
Facts:
- Ms S was the owner of a house in Edmonton. She entered into a purchase contract with a numbered company in Alberta on or about September 20, 2005 in order to sell the property.
- The total purchase price was $68,500, a price that was not based on any advice or information on market value of the property.
- Mr. K was the sole director of the numbered company.
- At some date after September 1, 2005, Ms S surrendered possession of the property to Mr. K and Mr. K started doing renovations.
- Mr. K contacted Colleen Ann Walsh, a real estate associate, on or about September 27, 2005 about listing the property.
- Ms Walsh completed the Risk Reduction and Mortgage Fraud Awareness course just days before being contacted by Mr. K by phone.
- Mr. K wanted to list his property and provided all of the listing information, including the list price of $132,000, to Ms Walsh by phone.
- Mr. K was not yet on title at this point.
- Ms Walsh had her assistant enter information provided by Mr. K onto a listing contract to send to Mr. K for signing.
- Ms Walsh understood Mr. K to be an investor in property.
- The contract was sent by fax to Mr. K and returned by fax with a signature on it.
- On the same day, Mr. K signed a document entitled “C/O Listing Broker” authorizing the brokerage to list the property ‘in care of the brokerage’.
- This document was received by fax by Ms Walsh and identified the seller as Mr. K.
- Ms Walsh did not perform a comparative market value assessment for this property nor did she undertake any other assessment to determine appropriate value for marketing purposes.
- Ms Walsh did not inspect the property to confirm the condition of the property, measurements or the presence of upgrades or renovations.
- Information about the dimensions of the property were obtained by the assistant from a source unknown to Ms Walsh.
- Ms Walsh requested an assistant perform a title search on the property though Ms Walsh did not wait for the title search to be obtained before entering the information received from Mr. K on the MLS® system for the purpose of marketing the property.
- On or about October 4, 2005, the assistant obtained a copy of the title search that showed Ms S as the owner on title.
- Ms Walsh terminated the listing agreement without obtaining further information from Mr. K regarding his interest in the property or possession, nor did she contact Ms S to obtain her consent to marketing the property.
- Ms Walsh did not communicate with Mr. K during this period concerning the marketing of the property.
- On or about October 17, 2005, Ms S signed a Transfer of Land for the property to Mr. and Mrs. B.
- Also on October 17, 2005, Ms S’s counsel, Mr. H, signed a caveat on her behalf claiming “an unpaid vendor’s lien.”
- On or about October 24, 2005, Ms Walsh’s broker signed a Listing Contract Termination Agreement regarding the MLS® listing.
- On or about October 24, 2005, Ms S filed a vendor’s caveat on title, to protect her interests arising from the purchase contract executed on September 20, 2005.
- On or about November 17, 2005, the Listing Contract Termination Agreement regarding the MLS® listing was returned to Ms Walsh by fax with signatures, purportedly those of Mr. K and a witness.
- This ended both Ms Walsh’s and her brokerage’s involvement in the property.
- The MLS® listing with the price shown as $132,000 was online and active from approximately October 3, 2005 through to November 17, 2005, when it was removed.
- On November 29, 2005, Mr. and Mrs. B signed a mortgage agreement in the amount of $106,000.
- On December 7, 2005, the Transfer of Title from Ms S to Mr. and Mrs. B was registered on title for the property. Consideration for the transfer was stated as $70,000. The mortgage was registered on the subject property in the amount of $106,000.
- On April 24, 2006, Capital Health deemed the property “Unfit for Human Habitation” and Mr. and Mrs. B were ordered to vacate the property.
Results: By way of a Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Ms Walsh was ordered to pay a fine of $2,500 and costs of $1,000, and was required to complete education within six months.
August 2009
Jay Feddema, Associate
Lampas Holdings Ltd. o/a Re/Max River City at All material Times and Currently Registered with Elite Ownership Group Ltd. o/a Re/Max Elite
Issues:
- Failed to act in a client’s best interest [s.2(a) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to verify that there was full disclosure of dual agency and failed to ensure there was dual agency consent in writing [s.3(b) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Participated in the creation of a contract, document or form of communication that he knew or ought to have known was false or misleading [s.4(d) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Participated in fraudulent or unlawful activities in connection with real estate [s.7(c) of the Code of Conduct, as it was then]
- Failed to provide all documentation or trade records to the broker [Real Estate Act Rules s.23(3), as it was then]
Facts:
- In the fall of 2003 Jay Feddema, a real estate associate, verbally evaluated some units in a condo conversion in Edmonton.
- The project manager for the conversion was Mr. K.
- Mr. K had a professional appraisal done for the properties.
- This appraisal was about $10,000 more per unit than Mr. Feddema’s evaluation.
- Mr. Feddema listed four of the units on MLS®, using the higher appraisals.
- Mr. K brought four buyers for the units and Mr. Feddema wrote contracts for the units.
- There were no dual agency consent forms signed for the units although Mr. Feddema was listed as representative for both buyer and seller.
- After the Offers to Purchase were written, the units were not taken off the MLS® listing for more than two weeks.
- The transactions did not go through Mr. Feddema’s brokerage as Mr. K’s lawyer did not accept an addendum the brokerage requested. The sales did not proceed through Mr. Feddema’s brokerage and the listings expired on April 30, 2004.
- Mr. Feddema listed two more units in the complex in July 2004. Mr. K brought buyers to Mr. Feddema for the units and Mr. Feddema wrote Offers to Purchase for the units. There was no dual agency disclosure with the purchase documents.
- The closing date on the purchases was July 25, 2004.
- On July 26, 2004, the MLS® status on the two units was active.
- In early 2004, Mr. K requested a sample purchase contract and a sample highlight sheet from Mr. Feddema.
- Mr. Feddema instructed his assistant to give some old samples, from his prior brokerage, to Mr. K.
- Mr. K used these samples to create contracts for about 20 other properties at this and two other locations.
- Mr. K used the name of Mr. Feddema’s prior brokerage on the contracts.
- Documents indicate the properties were part of a mortgage fraud scheme, with gift letters and straw buyers.
- Mr. Feddema stated he was not aware of these contracts and a witness who was also a straw buyer indicated he did not know Mr. Feddema.
- These sales were not processed through a brokerage and the buyers did not meet with Mr. Feddema.
- Mr. Feddema subsequently listed six units at two other properties of which Mr. K was manager.
- On one property, Mr. Feddema wrote an offer to purchase, and witnessed the buyer’s initials.
- The buyer stated that the initials on parts of the contract were not hers, although she does acknowledge signing a contract amendment.
- Mr. K and the buyer’s common-law spouse handled the transaction.
- The common-law spouse died suddenly and the transaction was cancelled without the buyer’s consent.
- The buyer does not have a clear recollection of Mr. Feddema’s role in that particular transaction.
- The mortgages for the various sales did not close when one of the banks involved noticed some irregularities and notified the mortgage broker.
- Mr. Feddema received $2,000, which was processed through the brokerage as a referral.
Results: By way of a Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Mr. Feddema was suspended for a period of one month, ordered to pay a fine of $3,500 and costs of $2,000, and is required to complete education within six months.
Gary Chambers, Associate
Century 21 Power Realty Ltd.
Issues:
- Carried on conduct that was reckless or intentional and that misleads or deceives any person or is likely to do so [s.42(a) of the Real Estate Act Rules]
- Engaged in conduct that undermines public confidence in the industry, harms the integrity of the industry, or brings the industry into disrepute [s.42(g) of the Real Estate Act Rules]
Facts:
- Mr. Chambers uses the internet as part of his advertising strategy and has registered a web domain page that advertises his real estate practice.
- On or about September 1, 2007, a company (Company C) registered two website domain pages with the name of a competing real estate associate, Mr. B; www.mrb.ca and www.mrb.com.
- Mr. Chambers is one of two sole directors of Company C.
- During the investigation, Mr. Chambers acknowledged he had registered the two domain names through his company.
- Mr. B was unaware of Company C’s registration of these website domain names.
- The laws of Canada and Alberta dealing with trade-marks and trade names prohibit persons from advertising their services in such a way so that confusion is or may be caused to the public confusing the services of one person or entity with that of another.
- On or about March 2, 2008, Mr. Chambers forwarded www.mrb.ca and www.mrb.com to his own website.
- As such, if someone typed-in either www.mrb.ca or www.mrb.com, he or she would automatically be re-directed or transferred to Mr. Chambers’ own website.
- Mr. B was unaware of Mr. Chambers’ forwarding.
- On or about March 7, 2008, a friend of Mr. B’s was searching for Mr. B’s real estate website and typed www.mrb.ca and www.mrb.com into a Web browser and was redirected to Mr. Chambers’ website.
- On or about March 8, 2008, Mr. B was made aware of the forwarding and redirecting of these websites to Mr. Chambers’ site.
- On or about March 11, 2008, Mr. Chambers ceased the redirecting of www.mrb.ca and www.mrb.com to his website.
Results: By way of a Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Mr. Chambers was ordered to pay a fine of $3,000 and costs of $500, and complete an educational course dealing with ethics within six months.
Ali Mehri, Associate
Century 21 The Professionals Ltd.
Issues:
- Failure to provide true copies of the Offers to Purchase to the parties in a trade in real estate [s.27 of the Real Estate Act Rules, in force from October 1, 1999 to September 30, 2006]
Facts:
- Mr. Mehri was contacted by Mr. D about two properties listed for sale by another brokerage
- Mr. D contacted Mr. Mehri on behalf of Mr. C who was interested in purchasing the properties.
- Mr. Mehri met with Mr. D and Mr. C and during this meeting, Mr. C advised Mr. Mehri that he wanted to submit offers on both properties.
- Mr. Mehri wrote up an Offer to Purchase on Mr. C’s behalf for each property.
- When this meeting concluded, Mr. Mehri did not provide copies of the Offers to Purchase to Mr. C.
- On the same day as the meeting, Mr. Mehri called Mr. L, the listing real estate associate, in order to see if the properties were still available for purchase.
- Mr. L advised Mr. Mehri that he had an offer that had been accepted by his clients and that they were waiting for the conditions to be removed and that there was also a back up offer that had been accepted in the event the first offer collapsed.
- Mr. Mehri advised Mr. L that he should call him in the event the offer collapsed as he (Mr. Mehri) had somebody who was interested in purchasing the properties and Mr. L. agreed he would
- Mr. L maintains that Mr. Mehri never told him he had offers from clients, just that he had someone who was interested in the properties.
- Mr. Mehri maintains he did tell Mr. L he had offers but that Mr. L advised him his clients were no longer interested in looking at anymore offers.
- Copies of the Offers to Purchase prepared by Mr. Mehri on behalf of Mr. C were never submitted to Mr. L or to Mr. L’s clients.
Results: : By way of Consent Agreement, which was ratified by a RECA Hearing Panel, Mr. Mehri was ordered to a fine of $500 and costs of $200, and was ordered to complete an education course within six months.
Appeals
July 2009
Vishwa Naidu, Associate
921325 Alberta Ltd. o/a C-21 Platinum Realty and North Star Realty Corporation o/a Sutton Group-North Star Realty
Facts: As a result of a RECA investigation into Mr. Naidu’s conduct as a real estate associate, Mr. Naidu had a disciplinary hearing before a RECA Hearing Panel with respect to 18 allegations of conduct deserving of sanction. By way of decision dated October 27, 2006, the Hearing Panel found Mr. Naidu’s conduct to be deserving of sanction with respect to 14 of the 18 allegations.
The sanction ordered by the Hearing Panel was:
- That Mr. Naidu pay a fine in the amount of $20 000;
- That Mr. Naidu’s authorization to trade in real estate be suspended for four years. Taking into consideration that Mr. Naidu had been unlicensed for one year at the time the Hearing Panel’s decision was rendered, the suspension was reduced to three years with Mr. Naidu being able to re-apply for licensing on October 1, 2009;
- That Mr. Naidu pay costs of $55,787.67 (these costs included the costs of the investigation, costs of legal services’ time on the file, and costs of the hearing);
- That Mr. Naidu re-complete AREA’s Real Estate Associates’ Program in its entirety and that he retake and pass the provincial qualifying exam prior to becoming licensed to trade in real estate; and,
- That Mr. Naidu complete the Mortgage Fraud Awareness course prior to becoming licensed to trade in real estate.
Mr. Naidu appealed the Hearing Panel’s findings of conduct deserving of sanction on the 14 allegations and appealed the Hearing Panel’s decision on sanction to a RECA Appeal Panel.
Results: The Appeal Panel heard Mr. Naidu’s appeal and it dismissed it on all grounds. The Appeal Panel determined that the initial Hearing Panel decision on conduct and sanction was reasonable. The Appeal Panel determined that no evidence was presented to support Mr. Naidu’s belief that errors in law were made by the original Hearing Panel. The Appeal Panel determined the sanction imposed by the Hearing Panel was reasonable and upheld the original Hearing Panel orders. Additionally, the Appeal Panel ordered Mr. Naidu to pay $10,000 in appeal costs.
home
|
