Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 8527/REBBA
CASE NAME: 8527 v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002
Appeal from a Proposal of the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. C - to Revoke Registration
Kelly Da Costa Applicant
-and-
Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002 Respondent
ADJUDICATOR: Elizabeth Sproule, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: James Marentette, Counsel
For the Respondent: Robert Maxwell, Counsel
Heard in Kitchener: February 18, 19, and 20, 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
BACKGROUND
This is a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) arising out of a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 (the “Registrar” and the “Act” respectively). The Notice of Proposal dated September 19, 2012 (the “Proposal”), proposed to revoke the registration of Kelly Da Costa as a salesperson under the Act. A hearing proceeded before the Licence Appeal Tribunal and a decision was issued August 15, 2013. This decision was appealed to Divisional Court. By Order issued November 14, 2013, on consent of both parties, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for re-hearing before a different Panel of the Tribunal.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
The reason stated for the Proposal was that in the Registrar’s opinion, the Registrant was not entitled to registration under section 10(1)(a) of the Act because the past conduct of the Registrant affords reasonable grounds for belief that the Registrant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty. The actual section for this ground is 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Act.
On January 20, 2014, the Registrar issued a Supplemental Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration setting out two reasons for this proposal: the first being that set out in the original September 19, 2012 Proposal relating to the Applicant’s conduct, and the second being that the Applicant had provided false statements in applications for renewal or registration. This latter ground for disentitlement is set out in s.10(1)(a)(iii) of the Act. Further particulars were also included in the Supplemental Notice in support of both grounds for revocation. The Supplemental Notice was issued after the pre-hearing of this matter held on December 11, 2013.
It was argued by the Applicant that there was no provision in the Act for a Supplemental Notice of Proposal, that it was a new proposal and the hearing of it could not be combined with the original Proposal without the consent of the Appellant which was not being given, and to proceed with both would be prejudicial. It was however acknowledged by Counsel for the Applicant that not all the allegations in the Supplemental Notice were unknown to the Applicant, in particular that those allegations relating to the Applicant’s role in the preparation of Statutory Declarations provided to the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) had been raised in the previous proceeding, and that having to address this allegations did not cause the same concern as addressing the allegations regarding false statements on applications for registration or renewal. The latter allegations would, in Counsel’s opinion, require the amassing of information regarding the industry member’s interpretation of the form questions, as an example, in order to properly address the allegation.
It was the Registrar’s position that there was no prejudice in allowing all the allegations to be heard as the Applicant had sufficient time to prepare and could easily address the allegations relating to the statutory declarations and applications solely on his own knowledge of the events.
Section 9.1 of the [Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. S.22](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-s22/latest/rso-1990-c-