Tribunals Ontario
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario
Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17799/TRESA
In the matter of an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration by the Registrar under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C
Between:
Chandpreet Singh
and
Registrar, Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002
Appellant
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dagmara Szczudlo, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Chandpreet Singh, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Shane Smith, Counsel
Held by videoconference: October 16, 2025
BACKGROUND
1Chandpreet Singh (the “appellant”) is registered under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, now the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, as a salesperson.
2On September 11, 2025, the Registrar, Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 (“Registrar” or “respondent”) issued a Notice of Proposal (“NOP”) to revoke the appellant’s registration pursuant to s. 14 of the Act. The Registrar also issued an Immediate Suspension Order (“ISO”) pursuant to s. 15 of the Act on this date.
3The appellant applied to the Tribunal for a hearing of the NOP by a Notice of Appeal dated September 30, 2025 (“NOA”). As per Rule 6.2 (e) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“the Rules”), since the NOP was received by email after 5:00 pm, service of the NOA was deemed to have occurred the next day, October 1, 2025.
4The hearing commenced on October 16, 2025. As per Rule 5.1 of the Rules, “where an action is to be done within a specified number of days, the days are counted by excluding the first day and including the last day”. As a result, the service date of October 1, 2025 was excluded and the hearing commenced within a 15-day period after the appeal was received.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND ORDERS
Extension of the ISO
5I find that the ISO should be extended pursuant to section 15(3) of the Act until the conclusion of the NOP hearing.
6According to s. 15(3) of the Act, if a hearing is requested in respect of an NOP, the ISO expires 15 days after the written request for a hearing is received by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal may extend the time of expiration until the hearing is concluded if a hearing is commenced with a 15-day period.
7The respondent bears the onus to establish that it is in the public interest that the ISO be extended pending the outcome of the hearing of the appeal of the NOP. To satisfy its onus, the respondent must establish that the conduct on which it relies occurred and forms a reasonable basis for the NOP and that the nature of the conduct and the circumstances are such that it is a matter of public interest that the registration remain suspended pending the outcome of the NOP hearing.
8The respondent submitted that the October 16, 2025 hearing was scheduled to address the appeal of the ISO and requested that the Tribunal vacate the hearing on this date because the parties reached a Suspension Agreement on October 15, 2025, 1 day before the hearing. The respondent provided a copy of an agreement between the appellant and the respondent (the “Suspension Agreement), stating that:
(a) the appellant “indicated he is agreeable to the suspension of his registration continuing pending the disposition of” this appeal,
(b) the appellant “agrees to the continuing suspension of his registration with [the Real Estate Council of Ontario (“RECO”)] going forward”, and
(c) the parties agreed that “the suspension will continue until:
(1) the disposition of the outstanding appeal of the NOP that is currently before the Licence Appeal Tribunal; or
(2) until the parties mutually agree to end the suspension (including as part of any resolution agreement between them to resolve the Appeal.”
9The Suspension Agreement also stated that the appellant’s consent to the continuation of the suspension is provided “without prejudice to his rights and positions in the ongoing Appeal”.
10The respondent argued that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over voluntary agreements reached between registrants and the Registrar in relation to conditions and submitted that it is not seeking, nor is it required to seek a decision by the Tribunal to extend the ISO because the Tribunal decision has been superseded by the Suspension Agreement made by the parties and was provided to the Tribunal in advance of the hearing. In the alternative, the respondent requested an extension of the ISO on the basis that a Suspension Agreement has already been reached.
11The appellant submitted that he does not wish to challenge the suspension, is adopting a co-operative approach to both RECO and the Tribunal and will focus on proving his innocence at the hearing. I note that the appellant signed the Suspension Agreement and I accept that the continued suspension as set out in the Suspension Agreement is uncontested.
12The Act does not provide for an appeal of an ISO and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct such an appeal. The Act only provides for an appeal from a NOP. Although the respondent argues that the NOP and the ISO are closely linked, the NOA did not appeal the ISO, and the hearing that commenced before the Tribunal on October 16, 2025 was from the NOP only, not the ISO.
13I acknowledge that the parties entered into a Suspension Agreement, which they say was in an effort to expedite the process. The parties view this suspension as similar to an extension of the ISO by the Tribunal.
14The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to opine on the merits or contents of the Suspension Agreement made between the parties. However, the Tribunal finds that the existence of the Suspension Agreement does not oust the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider whether the ISO should be extended.
15Subsection 15(1) of the Act allows the registrar to immediately and temporarily suspend a registration if the registrar considers it in the public interest to do so. Subsection 15(3) sets out that the ISO expires 15 days after the written request for a hearing is received by the Tribunal, but the Tribunal has the ability to extend the time of expiration of the hearing until the hearing is concluded. This authority to extend the ISO is set out in statute. The respondent confirmed in his submissions that the ISO under subsection 15(1) was not lifted or otherwise ended by the registrar. The parties appear to have agreed to another suspension, which the Suspension Agreement states is pursuant to s. 13(2) of the Act.
16I was not directed to legislation nor case law which grants me the authority to order that the ISO extension does not need to be, or cannot be, adjudicated because it has been “superseded” by the Suspension Agreement reached independently of the Tribunal. It is not clear how the presence of a s. 13(2) suspension affects the ISO issued under s. 15(1). However, given that the respondent confirmed that the ISO is still in place, then I am of the view that I still have the powers granted to me by s. 15(3) to decide whether the ISO should be extended. The appellant has also not withdrawn his appeal of the NOP, which further compels the Tribunal to consider the question of whether the ISO should be extended.
17The respondent submitted that there are multiple grounds for the NOP and that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct in the completion of online examinations for several courses required to become licensed as a salesperson. The appellant made false statements and proceeded to accept and hold registration under false pretenses and in breach of the Act. The respondent argued and the parties agreed, that it is in the public interest that the registration remains suspended pending the outcome of the NOP hearing.
18Since the initial ISO has not been withdrawn by the respondent, I find that it is in the public interest to extend the ISO to the conclusion of the hearing. Acting with integrity and honesty is a requirement for licensed professionals under the Act and if proven, academic integrity violations form a reasonable basis for the NOP, particularly if the registered salesperson lacks the requisite knowledge to perform their duties due to academic misconduct. I also find that the separate Suspension Agreement is a factor which lends additional support to extend the ISO pending the outcome of the NOP hearing.
Adjournment
19The respondent submitted that the October 16, 2025 hearing was scheduled to only address the appeal of the ISO and requested that the Tribunal vacate the hearing on this date because the parties were not prepared to proceed on the merits. The respondent was incorrect that the hearing was scheduled to only address the appeal of the ISO, as the Act does not provide for an appeal of an ISO and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to conduct such an appeal. The Act only provides for an appeal from an NOP.
20Although today’s hearing was meant to be the hearing on the issue of the NOP, both parties agreed that they were not ready to proceed with the substantive issues raised in the NOP and wished to proceed with the matter during a case conference which has already been scheduled for November 10, 2025. The parties sought an adjournment to prepare the appeal.
21In the circumstances, I granted an adjournment of the NOP hearing.
22Rule 16.2 of the Rules states that a request for an adjournment may be made orally at an adjudicative event, and the request will only be allowed in “compelling circumstances where the party did not and could not have known of the circumstances giving rise to the adjournment request prior to the event”.
23I was satisfied that the request meets the requirement of Rule 16.2 because the NOA was served on October 1, 2025 and the parties have not had sufficient time to prepare for a hearing on the substantive issues.
24Rule 16.3 sets out the factors to consider in granting an adjournment request. I considered the factors and granted the adjournment request because:
(a) The file is approximately 15 days old;
(b) A separate request for an adjournment prior to today would not have been efficient in the circumstances;
(c) The request is on consent; and
(d) The adjournment will facilitate the further exchange of documents and settlement discussions prior to a subsequent case conference.
25The parties will attend a case conference on November 10, 2025 and dates for the continuation of the hearing will be canvassed at that time.
Conclusion
26Given the circumstances, the ISO will remain in effect until the conclusion of the NOP appeal.
ORDERS
27The ISO issued by the Registrar to the appellant on September 11, 2025 is extended to the conclusion of the hearing pursuant to section 15(3) of the Act.
28The hearing with respect to the NOP is adjourned. A case conference for the hearing will take place on November 10, 2025 as per the Amended Notice of Case Conference issued by the Tribunal.
29If the matter resolves prior to the upcoming case conference or the continuation of the hearing, the parties are required to notify the Tribunal in writing. If the appellant wishes not to continue with the appeal, the appellant must file a Notice of Withdrawal, available at https://tribunalsontario.ca/lat/general-service/forms/ and serve a copy of that Notice on the Registrar and file a copy with the Tribunal.
30Nothing in this Order affects any requirement under the Act.
31I am not seized of this matter.
Dated: November 10, 2025