Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15480/TRESA
In the matter of an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration issued by the Registrar under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C.
Between:
Amarjot Lamba o/a AJ Lamba
Appellant
and
Registrar, Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002
Respondent
AMENDED DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Robert Maich
January 27, 2025
OVERVIEW
1Amarjot Lamba (the “appellant”) appeals the Notice of Proposal to refuse registration as a salesperson issued by the Registrar, (the “Registrar”) pursuant to the provisions of the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C and the Regulations, as amended (the “Act”).
2The Registrar proposes to refuse the appellant’s registration as a salesperson on the grounds that his past conduct affords reasonable grounds to believe he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty. The Registrar notes that the appellant’s registration was previously revoked by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) in its Decision and Order on March 3, 2022, and the appellant has not provided or made available any new information which demonstrates a material change in circumstances. The Registrar also alleges that the appellant made a false statement in his most recent application for registration. The appellant disagrees with the Registrar’s position.
ISSUES
3The issues at the hearing are:
a. May the appellant, whose registration was previously revoked, reapply for registration? Has the appellant met the precondition for reapplication of showing that new or other evidence is available, or that there has been a material change in circumstances?
b. If so, does the past and present conduct of the appellant afford reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity?
RESULT
4The appellant, whose registration was previously revoked, has not satisfied the preconditions to reapply for registration. The past and present conduct of the appellant continues to afford reasonable grounds for belief that he will not carry on business in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity. The Notice of Proposal to refuse registration as a salesperson issued by the Registrar is confirmed.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
5At the start of the hearing the appellant brought an oral motion request to adjourn the videoconference hearing scheduled to be heard over four days on January 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2025.
6This was not the appellant’s first adjournment request. A hearing in this matter was originally scheduled for October 1, 2, and 3, 2024. The self-represented appellant filed a motion to adjourn the hearing which was granted by the Tribunal, and a case conference was scheduled for October 3, 2024. Specifically, the appellant advised that he needed additional time to file his witness list and will say statements(s), and the documents he would be relying upon at the hearing. The appellant was provided with additional time to prepare and file his materials. A video conference hearing was scheduled for four (4) days of the following available dates: December 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, or 12, 2024.
7The appellant requested that the Tribunal issue a summons for Joseph Richer. The Tribunal denied the request in an order dated November 21, 2024. On November 29, 2024, the appellant filed a new appeal at the Tribunal (File No. 16518/TRESA). The subject matter of the appeal is the Tribunal’s November 21, 2024 Order denying the appellant’s request for a summons. On December 3, 2024, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss giving notice under Rule 3.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”) that it intends to dismiss appeal 16518/TRESA without a hearing under Rules 3.4(a) and (b). The Notice sets out a schedule for the parties’ written submissions. The final submission deadline was January 2, 2025. The Tribunal issued a decision dated January 13, 2025 dismissing the appeal 16518/TRESA after considering written submissions. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and as being frivolous, vexations, and commenced in bad faith.
8The respondent requested that the December 9, 2024 hearing as directed in the case conference report and order (“CCRO”) dated October 3, 2024 be adjourned to a date in January 2025 after the Tribunal decided whether to dismiss appeal 16518/TRESA. It argued that the substance of appeal 16518/TRESA is whether a witness may be summoned for the hearing of this appeal, and that it will be moot if the hearing goes forward. The December 9, 2024 hearing was adjourned to January 27, 2025 as a result of this second adjournment request. The adjournment was allowed to provide time for the Tribunal to decide whether to dismiss appeal 16518/TRESA before the hearing of this appeal goes forward.
9On January 27, 2025, the appellant brought an oral motion request to adjourn the videoconference hearing scheduled to be heard on January 27, 28, 29 and 30, 2025.
10The appellant submitted that was in the process of appealing the decision of the Tribunal, 16518/TRESA to the Divisional Court. The appellant submitted the subject matter of the appeal was a summons for a key witness to his case, and the matter should not move forward until his appeal to Divisional Court is complete.
11The appellant produced instructions he received from the Divisional Court for filing of materials, but agreed that no court documents have been issued and/or served on the respondent.
12The respondent confirmed it was not served with any materials by the appellant in respect to an appeal to Divisional Court of Tribunal decision 16518/TRESA.
13I am not satisfied based on the evidence before me that the appellant commenced an appeal to the Divisional Court of the Tribunal decision 16518/TRESA, or that there is a pending Divisional Court decision that could affect this proceeding. Even if there were evidence before me of a pending Divisional Court appeal of the Tribunal decision 16518/TRESA, I am satisfied that this would not be reason to grant the adjournment the appellant seeks. Although 16518/TRESA is a separate Tribunal file, it relates to the appellant's efforts to challenge an interlocutory decision made in this proceeding. There is no reason to delay the hearing of this matter in order to allow him to do so. Any concerns he may have about interlocutory decisions are properly dealt with after the Tribunal has reached a final decision on the merits of his appeal.
14I find the appellant may properly seek an adjournment orally before the Tribunal under the Rule 16.2 of the Rules as he could not have known of the circumstances in time to serve a notice of motion in writing as the decision he sought to appeal was dated January 13, 2025.
15When considering whether to grant an adjournment request the Tribunal may consider the factors in Rule 16.3.
16The respondent opposed the appellant’s adjournment request, submitting that this file is over one year old, the Tribunal has granted two previous adjournment requests, the request is not on consent, the request was not timely, the length of the adjournment required to dispose finally of a potential appeal would unduly delay the proceedings, there is in any case no pending matter filed before the Divisional Court and it is in the broader public interest that the matter not be delayed pending the outcome of a proceeding that is speculative.
17The appellant submitted that in addition to the pending court proceeding’s potential effect, any prejudice from the adjournment would be to the appellant as it would only affect his income and no other party’s interest.
18I find the respondent’s submissions to be persuasive. Previous adjournments had been granted for procedural issues. It would unduly delay this proceeding to grant a lengthy adjournment to accommodate another potential proceeding that appears not to even be before the court, would unduly delay this proceeding. Further, I find prejudice would occur to both parties should the adjournment be granted. The financial interest of the appellant is not the only form of prejudice, as the Registrar would be unduly delayed in determination of an aging matter and the undue delay would also be against the public interest. The respondent risks prejudice to its case as evidence ages. There is prejudice as well to the public interest in timely determination of appeals in matters such as these, which relate to public protection.
19The Tribunal denies the appellant’s request of an adjournment for the above reasons.
20Upon denial of the adjournment request, the appellant announced his intention to not further attend this proceeding. The Tribunal invited the appellant to participate in the proceeding and enter his evidence and testimony. The appellant declined and exited the hearing room of the proceeding.
21Rule 3.7.1 provides if a party has been given notice of a hearing and does not attend, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party; the Tribunal will also consider the reasons for the non-attendance of the party.
22I find that the appellant had notice of this hearing evidenced by his attendance at the start of this proceeding. Upon the denial of his oral motion for an adjournment at the start of this proceeding, the appellant chose to no longer attend the hearing despite repeated invitation by the Tribunal for the appellant to continue to participate in the proceeding.
23I found it was appropriate in the circumstances to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the appellant pursuant to Rule 3.7.1. I find given the appellant’s deliberate and informed choice to withdraw from this proceeding after the denial of his oral motion for an adjournment and the respondent’s readiness to proceed, it would be inappropriate to continue the hearing at another time. Doing so would effectively grant the adjournment the appellant had sought but been denied, rewarding his refusal to participate, and arguably enabling an abuse of process.
24Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the appellant’s absence, based on the submissions and evidence of the respondent.
ANALYSIS
25The respondent submitted that the onus is upon the appellant to demonstrate he has satisfied the conditions necessary to reapply for registration after revocation provided in s.17 of the Act, which states as follows:
17 A person whose registration is refused, revoked or refused renewal may reapply for registration only if,
(a) the time prescribed to reapply has passed since the refusal, revocation or refusal to renew; and
(b) new or other evidence is available or it is clear that material circumstances have changed. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C, s. 17.
26The respondent provided evidence that the appellant’s registration under the Act was revoked in 2022, in the decision Lamba and Whitehill Realty International Inc. v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002, 2022 CanLII 16925 (ON LAT).
27I find that the appellant’s registration under the Act was revoked in 2022 and s.17 of the Act therefore applies.
28The respondent took no issue that the appellant had satisfied the provision of s.17(a) of the Act as more than a year had elapsed since the appellant’s registration was revoked. I find therefore that the appellant has met his burden in respect to s.17(a) of the Act.
29The respondent submitted however that the appellant had not met his burden in respect to s.17(b) of the Act. The respondent further submitted that the appellant must meet both qualifications of s.17(a) and s.17(b) of the Act in order to reapply, failing which s.9.1(1) of the Act applies and the Registrar is prohibited from granting or renewing any application for registration. Section 9.1 of the Act provides as follows:
Registration prohibited
9.1 (1) If an applicant for registration or renewal of registration does not meet the prescribed requirements, the registrar shall refuse to grant or renew the registration.
30I find that the appellant, having chosen to leave this proceeding, has presented no evidence that he has satisfied the requirements of s.17(b) of the Act, namely he has shown no new or other evidence or made it clear that material circumstances have changed since his registration was revoked in 2022. I conclude the appellant has not met his burden required by s.17(b) of the Act.
31As described above, the appellant must satisfy both the requirements of s.17(a) and (b) of the Act in order to reapply for registration. Further I find that s.9.1(1) prohibits the Registrar from granting or renewing the appellant’s registration, although even in the absence of s. 9.1(1), s. 17 operating alone would prohibit the appellant from reapplying for registration.
32Having determined that the appellant may not reapply for registration, I need not adjudicate the other issues. However, and in any event, this Tribunal made findings in its 2022 decision that there are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Lamba will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty, and that he made a false statement in his application, and as noted above, there is no new or other evidence, or evidence of a change in material circumstances.
ORDER
33The Tribunal dismisses this appeal for the above stated reasons. The Notice of Proposal to refuse registration as a salesperson issued by the Registrar pursuant to the Act is confirmed by the Tribunal.
Released: March 21, 2025
___________________________
Robert Maich
Vice-Chair