Real Estate Council
Of Ontario
Regulatory Digest
Issue 14: October-December 2016
The Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO)
administers and enforces the Real Estate and
Business Brokers Act, 2002 (REBBA 2002) and
its regulations on behalf of the Ontario
government.
RECO’s legal library
REBBA 2002 requires registered real estate
professionals to conduct themselves and their
businesses in a manner that protects consumers
in real estate transactions. Failure to do so could
lead to regulatory action. Further, with few
exceptions, anyone who trades in real estate
must be registered under REBBA 2002. Trading
in real estate without the benefit of registration or
an exemption could lead to prosecution under
REBBA 2002.
RECO’s mission is excellence in
the delivery of regulatory services
that protect the public interest and
enhance consumer confidence in
the real estate profession.
RECO’s enforcement of REBBA 2002 helps to
ensure public trust and confidence in Ontario’s
real estate profession.
RECO’s vision is public trust and
confidence in Ontario’s real estate
profession.
The Regulatory Digest is an online resource that
summarizes RECO’s regulatory actions involving:
Contact us at:
3300 Bloor Street West
West Tower, Suite 1200
Toronto, ON M8X 2X2
Tel: 416-207-4800
Toll Free: 1-800-245-6910
Fax: 416-207-4820
www.reco.on.ca
[email protected]
Twitter: @RECOhelps
YouTube: RECOhelps
 the Registrar issuing a Notice of Proposal to
revoke, suspend, refuse to renew, or apply
conditions to a registration;
 offences related to REBBA 2002 and its
regulations resulting in prosecution in the
Provincial Offences Courts;
 breaches of the Code of Ethics that are
referred to a hearing in front of the
Discipline Committee or Appeals
Committee; and
 dispute resolution with an outcome
agreeable to all parties.
Decisions are not published until the appeal
period has expired or the appeal has been heard
or abandoned. For the latest decisions, visit
RECO’s website (www.reco.on.ca).
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 2 of 16
Licence Appeal Tribunal
A registrant may appeal a Registrar’s proposal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT). LAT
handles appeals under several statutes that deal with both licences and registrations. A
registrant seeking an appeal must provide written notice within 15 days of the proposal.
NAME
LOCATION
DATE
KEYWORDS
TYPE
Carl Joseph
Gilbert
Flesherton,
ON
November
11, 2016
-Financial
position
-Past conduct
-False
Statements
Revoke Revoked
Peak Lifestyle
Realty Ltd.
Flesherton,
ON
November
11, 2016
-Financial
position
-Past Conduct
-No Broker of
Record
Revoke Revoked
Syed Aftab Rizvi, Aurora, ON
also known as
Aftab Rizvi
November
11, 2016
-Past Conduct
Revoke Suspension
Stoney Creek, December
ON
13, 2016
-Financial
position
-Past conduct
-False
Statements
Revoke Revoked
Ranjay Kumar
Singh, also
known as Roger
Singh
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
RESULT
Page 3 of 16
Provincial Offences Act
Offences under REBBA 2002, other than violations of the Code of Ethics, may be
prosecuted in the Ontario Provincial Offences Court. Individuals convicted of offences
are subject to fines of up to $50,000 and/or prison terms of up to two years less a day.
Corporations are subject to fines of up to $250,000. These fines are collected by the
government. Convicted parties are also subject to a victim surcharge. The surcharge is
collected by the Court for the Victims’ Justice Fund.
NAME
REG.
STATUS
LOCATION
CHARGE
DATE
RESULT
Gurdeep Not
Brampton, ON Trading in real estate
Singh
Registered
while unregistered.
Virk, also
known as
Gurdeep
Virk
Convicted: Guilty.
July 21,
Fined
2016.
$1,000.
Sentenced:
October 4,
2016
Mokshi
Virk
Convicted:
July 21,
2016.
Sentenced:
October 4,
2016
Registered Brampton, ON Being party to the
offence of trading
without registration
Guilty.
Fined
$500 and
given a
restitution
order of
$1,000.
Jamshid Terminated Richmond
Hussaini,
Hill, ON
also
known as
James
Hussaini
Furnishing false
information on an
application for
registration
Convicted Guilty.
and
Fined
sentenced: $2,500.
October 12,
2016
Janine
Registered Toronto, ON
Helen
Casey,
also
known as
Janine
Casey
Trading in real estate
while unregistered
Convicted Guilty.
and
Fined
sentenced: $1,800.
November
14, 2016
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 4 of 16
Michael Terminated Barrie, ON
Robert
Keegan,
also
known as
Mike
Keegan
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Furnishing false
information in an
application for
registration
Failing to notify the
Registrar within five
days of a change of
information previously
included on his
application.
Convicted
and
sentenced:
November
14, 2016
Guilty.
Given one
year
probation
and a
suspended
sentence.
Page 5 of 16
Discipline Committee & Appeals Committee
Matters that involve alleged breaches of the Code of Ethics may be referred to the
Discipline Committee for a hearing. Individuals found in violation may be ordered to take
educational courses, pay a fine of up to $25,000, and may be required to pay fixed or
imposed costs.
Keywords are provided for each summary to help readers locate similar Discipline and
Appeals decisions using the search feature available on RECO’s website under
“Complaints & Enforcement.”
NAME
LOCATION
DATE
RESULT
KEYWORDS
Doris Ender, Toronto, ON November
also known
9, 2016
as Dora
Ender
Fined $6,000.
Conscientious and
Competent Service,
Fiduciary Duty,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence), Unprofessional
Conduct
Ladan
Siahpoosh
Aurora, ON
November
10, 2016
Fined $4,500.
Conscientious and
Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence), Unprofessional
Conduct
Daniel
Andrew
Corcoran,
also known
as Dan
Corcoran
Toronto, ON November
10, 2016
Fined $2,500
Duty to Client, Written and
Legible Agreements
Manpreet
Singh
Mangat
Burlington,
ON
November
30, 2016
Fined $2,500
Conscientious and
Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence), Unprofessional
Conduct
Ian Hassell
Ottawa, ON
November
30, 2016
Fined $5,000 Financial Responsibility
and ordered to
complete one
course
Elaine Maria Ottawa, ON
Simard
December
6, 2016
Fined $3,500
and ordered to
complete two
courses.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Duty to Client, Conscientious
and Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence)
Page 6 of 16
Mimma
Volpentesta
Toronto, ON December
6, 2016
Fined $2,000
and ordered to
complete two
courses.
Duty to Client, Conscientious
and Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence)
Mario
Volpentesta
Toronto, ON December
6, 2016
Fined $2,000
and ordered to
complete two
courses.
Duty to Client, Conscientious
and Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence)
Gordon
Joseph
Noble, also
known as
Gordon
Noble
Hamilton,
ON
Fined $5,000.
Duty to Client, Conscientious
and Competent Service,
Misrepresentation
(Negligence), Discovery of
Facts
December
15, 2016
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 7 of 16
Resolved Complaints
Under certain circumstances, the Registrar may attempt to resolve a complaint between
the parties. RECO does not have the authority to impose a resolution to monetary or
contractual disputes, or to assess or award damages. Any exchange of money
mentioned in the following summaries was agreed upon voluntarily by the complainant
and respondent.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Buyer’s Representative
October 3, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer believed that a previously executed Buyer Representation Agreement
had expired and wanted confirmation as they didn’t have a copy of the form.
• The buyer also said that the buyer’s representative had original documents that
needed to be returned to the buyer.
• The buyer’s representative said that these items had been returned previously and
multiple copies were given to the buyer.
Agreement:
• The salesperson gave the buyer a copy of the Buyer Representation Agreement
and confirmed that it had expired.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Consumer
Salesperson
October 4, 2016
Summary:
• The consumer had been receiving unsolicited emails from the salesperson for some
time.
• The consumers received assurance from the salesperson that the emails would
stop, yet they continued.
• The salesperson said that one email was sent in error, and acknowledged that the
consumer had asked to be unsubscribed from any future communication.
Agreement:
• The salesperson, with assistance from the Broker of Record, removed the
consumer from the database. No further emails have been sent.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 8 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Salesperson
October 4, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer discovered that their home, which was purchased the previous year, was
still being displayed on the salesperson’s website along with a virtual tour.
Agreement:
• The salesperson removed the listing and disabled the virtual tour.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Consumer
Seller’s Brokerage
October 20, 2016
Summary:
• The consumer made several requests for copies of the signed agreements with the
seller’s brokerage.
• The Broker of Record said copies had been provided to the consumer when the
documents were signed.
Agreement:
• The seller’s brokerage agreed to provide new copies of the signed agreements to
the consumer.
•
Complainant:
Buyer
Respondent:
Buyer’s Representative
Date of Release:
October 30, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer’s representative advertised the sale as “record breaking”, with photos of
the property displayed on their Facebook page, YouTube and personal website.
• The buyer had not given permission for the advertisements to be shown.
• The buyers asked their representative to remove the advertisements on a number
of occasions without success.
Agreement:
• The buyer’s representative removed all unauthorized advertising.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 9 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Representative
October 31, 2016
Summary:
• The seller’s representative advertised incorrect property tax information.
• The buyer discovered the discrepancy after they had purchased the property.
Agreement:
• The seller’s representative agreed to pay the buyer the difference between the
advertised property taxes and the actual property taxes.
• The seller’s representative issued an apology to the buyer.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Sales Representative
Broker of Record
November 1, 2016
Summary:
• The Broker of Record had videos on their websites that listed properties that had
been sold or taken off the market.
• These videos also featured the sales representative who is no longer registered
with that brokerage.
Agreement:
• The Broker of Record removed the videos from their websites.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Representative
November 3, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer relied on the information in the listing about the age of an air conditioner
unit.
• The buyer learned that the air conditioner was older than stated, and had to
purchase a newer unit.
Agreement:
• The seller’s representative agreed that an error was made in the listing, and the
buyer was compensated for the mistake.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 10 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Representative
November 4, 2016
Summary:
• The property was advertised as having a shared driveway and legal parking pad.
• The buyer determined from the municipality that there was no legal parking pad.
Agreement:
• The seller’s representative removed the reference to a legal parking pad in the
listing.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Salesperson
November 11, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer discovered that their home was being displayed on the salesperson’s
website after the sale had closed.
• The salesperson did not have the buyer’s consent.
Agreement:
• The salesperson removed the listing from their website.
•
Complainant:
Seller
Respondent:
Seller’s Representative
Date of Release:
November 11, 2016
Summary:
• The seller’s representative promised to cancel the listing if, for any reason, the
seller was unhappy with the services provided.
• The seller’s representative refused to cancel the listing unless the seller paid for all
marketing to date.
• The seller’s representative failed to advise the seller that there would be a cost for
marketing services if the listing was cancelled.
Agreement:
• The seller’s representative withdrew the invoice for marketing services, and the
listing was cancelled.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 11 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Homeowner B
Sales Representative
November 11, 2016
Summary:
• The sales representative took a listing from homeowner A, who was involved in a
divorce dispute with homeowner B.
• Homeowner B, objected to the listing, and provided RECO with a copy of a court
order prohibiting the listing of the property for sale.
Agreement:
• The listing agreement was cancelled.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Seller
Salesperson
November 15, 2016
Summary:
• The seller was expecting a showing at their property to occur at an agreed upon
time, but the salesperson failed to show up.
• The salesperson said they were running late, and subsequently the client changed
their mind about viewing the property.
Agreement:
• The salesperson apologized to the seller,
• The salesperson agreed to contact listing brokerages in the future if an appointment
is amended or cancelled.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Tenant
Salesperson
November 16, 2016
Summary:
• The tenant was having difficulty accommodating showings as they have young
children.
• The tenant wanted to have the lockbox removed and showings to take place at
specific times.
• The salesperson said this is a challenge to strike a balance between the tenant’s
rights and the seller’s interest in getting the home sold.
Agreement:
• The salesperson agreed to remove the lockbox and will accommodate the tenant’s
preferred time schedule for showings.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 12 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Brokerage
Salesperson
November 23, 2016
Summary:
• The brokerage discovered that some of their listings were being advertised on the
salesperson’s websites without permission.
Agreement:
• The salesperson removed the listings from the website.
• The salesperson said they will obtain proper permissions before advertising other
brokerage properties in the future.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Seller
Seller’s Representative
November 29, 2016
Summary:
• The seller’s representative promised a rebate of $335.50 to the seller upon
successful completion of the sale.
• The seller’s representative failed to fulfil the promise.
Agreement:
• The seller received the rebate of $335.50 as promised.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Seller
Seller’s Representative
November 29, 2016
Summary:
• The seller’s representative promised a rebate of $300.00 to the seller upon
successful completion of the sale.
• The seller’s cheque was delivered to the brokerage’s branch office and never
picked up.
Agreement:
• The seller picked up the cheque from the brokerage.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 13 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Brokerage
December 1, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer submitted a release signed by the buyer and seller to have their deposit
returned to them.
• The seller’s brokerage refused to release the deposit, and requested a legal opinion
on the basis that there may be commission obligations not accounted for.
Agreement:
• The seller’s brokerage agreed to release the deposit as directed in the release.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Brokerage
December 8, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer submitted a release signed by the buyer and seller to have the deposit
returned to them.
• The seller’s brokerage refused to release the deposit. They said the release was
atypical since the two parties signed separate documents.
Agreement:
• The seller’s brokerage released the deposit after the parties combined their consent
into one document.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Seller’s Brokerage
December 8, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer said they have been waiting an excessive amount of time for a deposit
cheque to be returned to them.
• The seller’s brokerage indicated that the first cheque had been lost in the mail.
Agreement:
• The seller’s brokerage re-issued the cheque and had it couriered to the buyer.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 14 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Salesperson A
Salesperson B
December 14, 2016
Summary:
• Salesperson A noticed that Salesperson B was reporting a listing as sold on MLS®
with incorrect information.
• Salesperson B acknowledged the mistake, and indicated an administrative error
had occurred.
Agreement:
• Salesperson B removed the listing.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Buyer’s Representative
December 15, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer’s representative promised a 1 per cent rebate on a purchase.
• The representative had not paid the rebate.
• The representative said they hadn’t released the funds because the buyer was not
willing to sign a release of future claims and liability.
Agreement:
• The manager of the brokerage drafted a release that was satisfactory to both
parties.
• The rebate was paid in full to the buyer.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Consumer
Salesperson
December 16, 2016
Summary:
• The consumer was upset that the salesperson made a solicitation call after their
listing had expired.
• The consumer had indicated on the MLS® listing that they did not wish to receive
solicitation calls.
• They are also on the national ‘do not call’ list.
• The salesperson acknowledged the mistake, and admitted they had not seen the
note on the MLS® listing.
Agreement:
• The salesperson apologized to the consumer.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 15 of 16
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Buyer
Salesperson
December 16, 2016
Summary:
• The buyer claimed she was being harassed by the salesperson, who was
contacting her by phone and email about properties for sale in her community.
• The buyer forgot that she had specifically requested the information from the
salesperson, and had previously provided her telephone and email information.
Agreement:
• The salesperson stopped contacting the buyer and removed her personal
information from his database.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Seller
Seller’s Representative
December 16, 2016
Summary:
• The seller’s representative failed to deliver the seller’s keys to the seller or their
lawyer in time for the sale of the property to close.
• The seller’s representative was away on vacation.
Agreement:
• Another member of the brokerage provided the keys.
Complainant:
Respondent:
Date of Release:
Consumer
Salesperson
December 22, 2016
Summary:
• The consumer noticed the salesperson had posted a listing that was misleading
regarding the legality of the rental units.
• The listing said that the subject property contained three legal units, when the
zoning by-law only permits two units.
• The salesperson acknowledged the mistake, and said they previously believed all
three units were legal.
Agreement:
• The salesperson modified the listing to reflect the correct number of legal rental
units.
RECO Regulatory Digest – Issue 14: October-December 2016
Page 16 of 16