Paul Panton v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, 2018 CanLII 50252

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis

Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2018-05-03

Appeal from a Proposal of the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. C to Refuse Registration

Between:

Paul Panton

Appellant

and

Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Ian Daley, Counsel

Heard in Toronto: April 10, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER:

A. Overview

1Under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sch. C (“Act”) the Deputy Registrar (“respondent”) issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration dated September 18, 2017 (“NOP”) to refuse Paul Panton’s registration as a salesperson under the Act on the basis that his past conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. Specifically, the Deputy Registrar alleges that Mr. Panton’s past conduct includes a consistent pattern of non-compliance with the law resulting in numerous criminal convictions dating from 2002 to 2015 and a wide variety of non-compliant conduct resulting in convictions for drug-related offences, violent related offences and compliance related offences. Mr. Panton appealed to this Tribunal.

B. ISSUES TO BE DECIDED:

2The issues to be decided are as follows:

a. Does Mr. Panton’s past conduct afford reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, specifically that Mr. Panton’s past conduct includes a consistent pattern of non-compliance with the law resulting in numerous criminal convictions dating from 2002 to 2015 and a wide variety of non-compliant conduct, resulting in convictions for drug related offences, violent related offences and compliance related offences?

b. If so, is refusal to register Mr. Panton as a real estate salesperson appropriate?

C: CONCLUSION:

3The respondent has established that Mr. Panton’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty specifically that Mr. Panton’s past conduct includes a consistent pattern of noncompliance with the law resulting in numerous criminal convictions dating from 2002 to 2015 and a wide variety of noncompliant conduct, resulting in convictions for drug related offences, violent related offences and compliance related offences.

4I order the Registrar to carry out the NOP.

D. LAW:

5Section 4 of the Act prohibits a person from trading in real estate unless they are registered under the Act.

6Section 10(1)(a) of the Act provides that an applicant that meets the prescribed requirements is entitled to registration or renewal of registration by the registrar unless

(a) the applicant is not a corporation and,…

(ii) the past conduct of the applicant or of an interested person in respect of the applicant affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

7Section 10 (1) of the Act means that if the appellant meets the requirements, he is entitled to registration. However, if the Registrar can prove that the appellant’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, then the Registrar can refuse to register the appellant. In this case, the Registrar refused to register the appellant and he has appealed the refusal to this Tribunal. At this hearing the Registrar has to prove that the appellant should not be registered because of his past conduct.

8Pursuant to section 14 of the Act, following a hearing the Tribunal may by order direct the registrar to carry out the registrar’s proposal or substitute its opinion for that of the registrar and the Tribunal may attach conditions to its order or to a registration.

E: EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does Mr. Panton’s past conduct afford reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, specifically that Mr. Panton’s past conduct includes a consistent pattern of noncompliance with the law resulting in numerous criminal convictions dating from 2002 to 2015 and a wide variety of noncompliant conduct, resulting in convictions for drug related offences, violent related offences and compliance related offences?

9It is undisputed that Mr. Panton has criminal convictions spanning 13 years for the following offences committed in three different municipalities in Ontario:

a. Possession of a schedule 1 substance - March 2002

b. Possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking – March 2002

c. Fail to comply with Recognizance/Obstruct peace officer – March 2003

d. Fail to comply with Recognizance X 2 – September 2003

e. Possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking/Traffic in schedule 1 substance – February 2004

f. Mischief under $5000/Fail to comply with recognizance – November 2006

g. Assault/Mischief under $5000/Disobeying order of the court – April 2007

h. Possession of a schedule 1 substance for the purpose of trafficking/Possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition/Possession of property obtained by crime under $5000/Possession of firearm or ammunition contrary to prohibition order – June 2008

i. Criminal harassment/Uttering threats – November 2010

j. Statutory Release Violator – December 2012

k. Assault/Uttering Threats – January 2015

10The probation period from the most recent conviction ended approximately one year ago.

11Mr. Panton’s driver’s licence was suspended due to unpaid fines resulting from his incarceration. His licence was reinstated in 2014. A driver record search dated March 20, 2017 shows a conviction in 2015 for disobeying legal sign.

12Angela Volpe, manager of registration, testified that the Act is to be administered in the public interest because it is consumer protection legislation for the trading of real estate in Ontario. She said that the primary concern about Mr. Panton’s application for registration is the pattern of non-compliance with law resulting in convictions from 2002 to 2015. Another concern is that some of the convictions are for failing to comply with court Orders.

13Other concerns are that Mr. Panton’s failure to comply with the law continued into his thirties, that the most recent conviction was in 2015 and that his probation ended approximately one year ago. Ms. Volpe stated that he should wait more time before reapplying if his licence is refused by the Tribunal. He does not work in any other industry requiring licencing of the type required by the Act.

14Mr. Panton testified that he should be given a second chance. He stated that he has changed because of his incarceration and things he went through with his mother. He has been working in construction and has had no problems. Mr. Panton testified that in his construction job he is often given the keys to the homes of customers and is trusted to work there without the homeowner present although he had no additional witness and no written documents to prove this.

15He obtained his high school diploma in 2010 while incarcerated, has a master business licence for his sole proprietorship business and is registered with the Ontario College of Trades as an apprentice - drywall, acoustic and lathing applicator, has been a member in good standing with his union since 2002 and has been employed full time as a drywaller since August 15, 2017 with Oakdale Drywall & Acoustics Ltd.

16Mr. Panton has letters of recommendation from his parole officer, a priest in New York and his father. Mr. Panton testified that the most recent criminal conviction arose because of a failed personal relationship and in November, 2015 he successfully completed the Partner Abuse Response Program (“PARS”), Ministry of Community Safety & Correctional Services. The Court allowed him to serve his probation on weekends because he was employed.

17The respondent submits that Mr. Panton’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty because of the seriousness of the crimes committed, the fact that some of the convictions are for failing to comply with court orders and the 13-year time span during which the criminal activity was undertaken. In addition, the respondent submits that Mr. Panton’s probation for his most recent criminal conviction ended approximately one year ago.

18I find that Mr. Panton’s past conduct does afford reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. I have considered the whole of Mr. Panton’s conduct in finding that the respondent has proven its case.

19Although Mr. Panton has made progress with his conduct, his criminal convictions span 13 years and include conduct involving drugs, assault, firearms and ammunition, criminal harassment, assault and threats. The most recent conviction was in 2015 and his probation period ended in 2017. One of the purposes of the Act is protection and safety of the public. A real estate salesperson meets with clients and others in their homes, often alone and often outside of standard business hours, and is in a position of trust. Mr. Panton’s criminal record is extensive, over a period of many years and the convictions involve violence, drugs and weapons. Members of the public must be able to be safe and feel safe and to have trust and confidence in their real estate salesperson. The respondent has proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s conduct affords reasonable grounds for the belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. It has not been long enough since his last conviction and sentence for the appellant to prove that he has changed his conduct.

b. If so, is refusal to register Mr. Panton’s as a real estate salesperson appropriate?

20There can be cases when the imposition of conditions can adequately protect the public interest even if the respondent has proven one or more grounds of revocation. However, in this particular case I do not find that conditions are an appropriate alternative to revocation. Neither party made submissions on any conditions that might be attached to the licence, if granted. Nothing in the evidence led me to believe that any conditions would be appropriate or effective because the impediment to registration is the extent and nature of Mr. Panton’s criminal record.