Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2018-05-25

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/Refuse to Renew Registration

Morrissa Amsel Appellant

-and-

Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002 Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

John Kromkamp, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Lou Ciotoli, Counsel

For the Respondent:

Shane Smith, Counsel

Heard by Teleconference:

April 12, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

1This is a motion brought by counsel for the appellant seeking to adjourn the hearing of this appeal currently scheduled for hearing for four days commencing April 17, 2018. The appeal is from a decision of the registrar refusing to grant registration to the appellant. The appellant was previously registered, but her registration was revoked a number of years ago. She has reapplied apparently on the basis of changed circumstances or new evidence. The hearing of the appeal in this matter has been adjourned several times at this point on consent but counsel for the Registrar now opposes the adjournment

2The previous adjournments were based, at least in part on the appellant’s difficulty in obtaining a clinical report, presumably touching on her health and fitness to engage in real estate sales. Counsel for the appellant advised that it has only now become available to him and his client. He asserted he needed time to digest the information, and disclose its contents to counsel for the respondent. Although time to respond to this information would be useful to the respondent, counsel indicated he was ready to proceed, but was in the Tribunal’s “hands” on the issue of adjournment.

3Additionally, counsel for the appellant indicated that the Registrar relied on 2 FSCO reports, one of which appears to have been recently made available and one of which he has not seen. He indicated that he required an opportunity to review these documents in order to be able to participate in a hearing that is fair to his client. Similarly, he received further particulars to the Notice of Proposal to Refuse on April 5. He argued that he needs time to consider this information and consult with his client. These arguments have merit, at this stage. There is a potential for prejudice and unfairness if the appellant cannot adequately prepare for the hearing. That is not to say what weight the evidence may or may not have after a full hearing at the appeal. The Appellant is not engaged in any real estate dealings. Consequently, there is no prejudice to the respondent or risk to the public if the matter is adjourned for a few weeks. On balancing the interests of the appellant and respondent, the Tribunal finds that the motion should be granted.

ORDER

4The request for an adjournment is granted. The hearing of the appeal is now scheduled for four days commencing October 23, 2018 and continuing on October 24, 25 & 26, 2018.