Gary Caplan

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a real estate brokerage and broker under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar issued the notice after discovering a $341,772.81 shortfall in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to maintain proper trust accounts, misappropriated trust funds for personal and business expenses, and breached an immediate suspension order.

Concluding that the appellants lacked financial responsibility and could not be expected to carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration as a real estate broker due to professional misconduct, including accepting cash gifts and mobile phones from a client and making misrepresentations to the Real Estate Council of Ontario.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Registrar to suspend the appellant's registration for 28 weeks instead of revoking it, subject to conditions including a five-year prohibition on acting as a broker of record, restrictions on accepting gifts or entering lending arrangements with clients, and an order to pay $17,000 in restitution to the client.

The appellant, a registered real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar.

The Registrar alleged the appellant took advantage of a vulnerable client for personal gain.

The appellant requested the suspension be lifted pending the hearing and sought a sealing order due to allegations of sexual harassment by the client.

The Tribunal found the Registrar established a prima facie case but failed to prove the public interest required the suspension to continue, as there was no evidence of a pattern of conduct or risk to other consumers.

The Tribunal also denied the sealing order, finding the allegations did not outweigh the open court principle.

The Immediate Suspension Order was set aside.