Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17336/NHCLA
In the matter of an appeal of an Administrative Penalty Order under section 76 the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 33, Sched. 1.
Between:
Century 21 Best Sellers Ltd.
Appellant
and
Assessor, Home Construction Regulatory Authority
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Bernard Trottier
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Tomislav Marasovic, Representative
For the Respondent:
Madhavi Gupta, Counsel
Alex Alton, Counsel
Heard by videoconference: February 4, 2026
OVERVIEW
1Century 21 Best Sellers Ltd. (the “appellant”) appeals an Administrative Penalty Order (“APO”), issued by the Assessor, Home Construction Regulatory Authority (the “HCRA”) on July 2, 2025, under s. 76 of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 33, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).
2The APO alleges that the appellant failed to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant as required by section 61(10) of the Act. The HCRA orders the appellant to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,913.04 to ensure compliance with the Act.
3Tomislav Marasovic is an officer and the director of Century 21 Best Sellers Ltd.
4The appellant filed an appeal of the APO with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on July 8, 2025, pursuant to s. 77 of the Act.
ISSUES
5The issues in dispute are as follows:
Was the HCRA unreasonable in its determination that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act by failing to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant?
Is the amount of the APO imposed on the appellant by the HCRA, because of the alleged contravention, unreasonable under the circumstances?
RESULT
6I find that the HCRA was reasonable in its determination that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act by failing to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant.
7I find that the amount of the APO imposed on the appellant by the HCRA, $3,913.04, was unreasonable.
8Pursuant to s. 77(4) of the Act, I vary the amount of the APO to $978.26.
ANALYSIS
The relevant law and the onus
9Under s. 61(1) of the Act, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant to the HCRA if he or she is satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that there is information or evidence relating to a contravention of the Act that may be obtained through doing anything described in the warrant. Under s. 61(2)(c), the warrant authorizes the investigator to require a person to produce the information described in the warrant and to provide whatever assistance is reasonably necessary to produce, in any form, the requested information. Under s. 61(10), the person shall produce the information or provide the assistance.
10Section 76(1) of the Act gives the HCRA the authority to impose an APO, in stating that an assessor may, by order, impose an administrative penalty against a person if the assessor is satisfied that the person has contravened a prescribed provision of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017, the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, or the Protection for Owners and Purchasers of New Homes Act, 2017 (collectively, the “New Home Acts”) or the regulations or by-laws made under them. Under s. 76(1), the standard of review is reasonableness, meaning that the APO must be internally coherent and demonstrate a rational chain of analysis, failing which the APO will be rendered unreasonable.
11Section 76(4) of the Act states the purpose of an APO is to ensure compliance with the New Home Acts, regulations and by-laws, and to prevent a person from deriving, directly or indirectly, any economic benefit by contravening the New Home Acts, regulations or by-laws. Section 76(9) of the Act states that an APO is an absolute liability, and it applies even if the person took all reasonable steps to prevent the contravention, and even if the person had an honest and reasonable belief in a mistaken set of facts that, if true, would have rendered the contravention innocent.
12The procedures for making APOs and determining APO amounts under the Act are set out in O. Reg. 573/22: Administrative Penalties (the “Regulation”).
13Under s. 77 of the Act, a person may appeal an APO to the Tribunal. Because an APO is a decision of the assessor, following the appellant’s opportunity to present evidence, the form of this proceeding is that of an appeal. See: Euroworld Corporation v. Registrar of Private Investigators and Security Guards, 2025 CanLII 49182 (ON LAT). Therefore, the onus rests with the appellant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that the HCRA was unreasonable in its decision that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act, and that the HCRA was unreasonable in determining the amount of the APO.
14Under s. 77(4) of the Act, the Tribunal may, by order, confirm, revoke or vary the HCRA assessor’s order, and the Tribunal may attach conditions to its order.
Background
15The HCRA obtained a search warrant, dated September 26, 2024, (the “warrant”), under 61(1) of the Act, to obtain information or evidence from the appellant related to its investigation of contravention of the New Home Acts by Barone Consulting Inc. (“Barone”), the vendor of two new homes in Mississauga: 739 Ebony Avenue and 1032 West Avenue (the “homes”). The appellant was a real estate brokerage for the homes. The HCRA executed the warrant on October 7, 2024.
16On April 4, 2025, the HCRA issued a Notice of Intention to Issue an APO (the “Notice”), in which the HCRA alleges that the appellant failed to provide the for-sale Multiple Listing Service (“MLS”) listing for 1032 West Avenue.
17On April 9, 2025, the appellant sent the HCRA a request to consider additional information letter (the “Request to Consider” letter), in which the appellant argued that the APO was unwarranted and excessive.
18On July 2, 2025, the HCRA determined that the APO under s. 76 of the Act ought to be issued, and it ordered the APO.
Was the HCRA unreasonable in its decision that found that the appellant breached s. 61(10) of the Act?
19I find that the assessor was reasonable when it found, in its APO of July 2, 2025, that the appellant failed to produce information or evidence to an investigator as required by s. 61(10) of the Act.
20At the hearing, Marasovic testified that he had no prior relationship with the builder and that he had performed no showings of the homes. He testified that he had listing agreements with Barone, an investor in the homes who was attempting to sell the homes through a power of sale arrangement.
21Marasovic testified that he was in London, Ontario, when two HCRA investigators appeared with the warrant at his real estate brokerage office in Mississauga on October 7, 2024. He testified that Samira Toma, the office secretary, was alarmed by the investigators, and that she was unsure whether the HCRA investigators and the warrant were legitimate. Marasovic testified that Toma called him to ask for guidance, and that Toma faxed him the warrant. Marasovic testified that he then called Barone, and that he sent them a copy of the warrant, to confirm the nature of the investigation, and then directed Toma to provide the investigators the information they requested.
22Marasovic testified that the investigators asked the appellant to provide the entire “trade files” for the homes, which, under the Real Estate Council of Ontario rules, include realtor representation agreements, listing agreements, MLS listings, MLS data information forms, lists of showings to prospective buyers, purchase offers, agreements of purchase and sale (“APSs”) and post-APS financial documents. Marasovic testified that Toma cooperated with the investigators and provided all the information related to the homes that they had. Marasovic testified that the appellant produced the listing agreements, MLS data information forms and lists of showings for the homes and that there were no representation agreements, no purchase offers and no APSs for the homes.
23Toma testified that one of her job responsibilities is to keep track of trade files for the appellant. She testified that she provided the investigators everything the appellant had in the trade files for the homes on the day the warrant was executed. She testified that she was not able to provide electronic copies of the files on the universal service bus (“USB”) drive supplied by the investigators, so she emailed the documents to the investigators instead. She testified that she provided printouts of the MLS listings to the investigators. Toma testified that, on the day of the warrant, she asked the investigators if they had everything they requested, and she said that the investigators told her they did.
24The appellant argues that it did not intend to obstruct the investigation in any way. The appellant argues that the APO is unfair because Marasovic and Toma cooperated with the investigators.
25The appellant argues, further, that the issue of the APO is limited to whether the appellant provided the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue. It argues that it provided printouts of two for-sale and two four-lease MLS listings, and that the HCRA investigators may have misplaced them. The appellant argues, in any event, that MLS listings can be obtained from any brokerage with access to the MLS system, and therefore the HCRA need not obtain them via a warrant. It argues, therefore, that the APO was unreasonable, and the APO should be revoked by the Tribunal.
26Manveer Cheema, HCRA investigator, testified that he started an investigation after receiving a complaint that Barone was the vendor of both homes, and that Barone was not licensed as a vendor. Cheema testified that the HCRA had previously issued a warning to Barone, to give Barone the opportunity to comply with the requirements of the New Home Acts.
27Cheema testified that, on June 26, 2024, he conducted on-line searches of the two subject homes, available on public websites, that identified the appellant as the brokerage. At that time, the appellant’s website indicated that it was the for-sale brokerage for both homes, and that Marasovic was the broker. Other searches, on the HouseSigma and Zolo websites, indicated that the appellant was the brokerage, regarding for-sale and for-lease listings for both homes.
28On July 9, 2024, the HCRA obtained printouts of the for-sale and for-lease MLS listings for the two homes, provided voluntarily by Sam McDadi Real Estate Inc., an independent brokerage. In the hearing, the HCRA directed me to MLS listings for the homes with the following information:
Address
For Sale/Lease
Seller
Broker
739 Ebony Ave
For sale
Barone
The appellant
739 Ebony Ave
For sale
2728095 Ontario Inc.
Royal LePage
739 Ebony Ave
For sale
2728095 Ontario Inc.
Royal LePage
739 Ebony Ave
For lease
Barone
The appellant
1032 West Ave
For sale
Barone
The appellant
1032 West Ave
For sale
2728095 Ontario Inc.
Royal LePage
1032 West Ave
For sale
2728095 Ontario Inc.
Royal LePage
1032 West Ave
For lease
Barone
The appellant
29On September 26, 2024, Cheema requested and obtained the warrant. The HCRA directed me to the warrant, consisting of three pages as follows:
Page 1 identified Cheema as the investigator, and the appellant as the party who was required to provide evidence.
Page 2 identified Barone, and an officer of Barone, as the parties for whom there was reasonable ground to believe committed offences under the New Home Acts, and the specific alleged offences.
Page 3 identified the requested information as original or best copies of the complete trade files for the homes, with a detailed list of the documents that the trade files would contain.
30Cheema testified that he was one of two HCRA investigators who executed the warrant. Cheema testified that he arrived at the appellant’s office with his investigation partner on October 7, 2024, at 9:18 a.m. He testified that Toma had not yet arrived at the office, but another realtor (not an employee of the appellant) greeted them, and they waited for Toma to arrive. When Toma arrived, he served the warrant on Toma, who called Marasovic for guidance. With Marasovic on the phone, Cheema testified that he explained to both Toma and Marasovic that the warrant sought the complete trade files for the two homes, and there would be legal and financial consequences for not complying with the warrant. He provided a USB drive to Toma, but when the USB drive did not work for technical reasons, Toma emailed Cheema what, she claimed, were the requested documents.
31The HCRA directed me to the Notice of April 4, 2025, where it states that the appellant claimed initially, on the day the warrant was executed, that it did not have the documents identified in the warrant, except for the MLS listings. The Notice then states that, after speaking with Marasovic, the appellant provided the listing agreements and some MLS listings. The Notice states that the appellant did not provide, specifically, the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue, despite its representations that it had produced all the requested information.
32The Notice then details the factors for the proposed APO amount, with a proposed penalty amount of $3,913.04. Lastly, the Notice indicated that the appellant had a right to request the HCRA to consider any additional information that may impact the proposed APO, with an invitation to submit a request in writing, within 15 days, pursuant to s. 6 of the Regulation.
33The HCRA directed me to the appellant’s Request to Consider letter, dated April 9, 2025. The Request to Consider argued that the proposed APO was unwarranted and excessive, for the following reasons:
All documents requested in the warrant were provided to the best of the appellant’s knowledge and ability at the time. The Request states that, if any specific item was inadvertently not included, it was because the investigator did not request it explicitly or because there was a misunderstanding or error on the part of the investigators.
Marasovic was not present on the day the warrant was executed, and Toma was not informed or equipped to respond in the circumstances. It states that the investigators were aggressive, intimidating, demanding, unprofessional and unnecessarily disruptive.
The appellant had no prior relationship with the builder or developer, and it was simply acting as the listing agent for the vendor. It states that the appellant had no reason to believe that the transactions would be the subject of a regulatory investigation.
The appellant acted in good faith, with no intent to mislead the investigation or to withhold information. It states that the appellant had no history of non-compliance with the HCRA or any other regulatory body.
34On July 2, 2025, the HCRA issued the APO, stating that it remained satisfied that the appellant contravened the Act, and it provided the following information:
The evidence it considered in its assessment;
The particulars of the contraventions;
Its consideration of the appellant’s Request to Consider letter;
Its rationale for determining the APO amount under the Regulation;
The appellant’s right to appeal to the Tribunal, with the procedures for doing so.
35The HCRA directed me to the APO, and specifically its consideration of the appellant’s Request to Consider. The APO states, in its reasons, that the warrant explained clearly the documents the appellant was required to produce. The APO states further that, on the day the warrant was executed, Marasovic and Toma indicated that it would take several hours to retrieve the documents from an off-site location. The APO states further, that after the investigators explained, repeatedly, the consequences of non-compliance with the warrant, the appellant produced some, but not all, of the requested documents.
36The APO states that the appellant’s assertion, that it had no prior relationship with the builder or developer, was false, although irrelevant. It states that the HCRA had conducted a previous investigation of Barone, for an unrelated matter, where the appellant had acted as the listing brokerage. At the hearing, the HCRA argued that this false statement undermined Marasovic’s credibility as a witness.
37The APO states that the appellant’s failure to provide the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue had a moderate impact on the HCRA’s ability to investigate contraventions under the New Home Acts. At the hearing, the HCRA argued that, under the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.23 (the “Evidence Act”), if a witness such as an independent brokerage cannot acknowledge that the MLS listings are accurate, then the evidence would not pass the test of admissibility under the Evidence Act, and it would impede the HCRA’s investigation. Because the appellant did not provide the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue, the HCRA argues that the APO should be confirmed.
Conclusions on whether the appellant breached s. 61(10) of the Act
38I find that the APO was reasonable in the circumstances. I find that it followed a rational chain of analysis in relation to the facts and law that constrained its actions.
39I find that the Notice and subsequent APO were reasonable in requiring that a true copy of the MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue would be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the warrant.
40I make no finding on whether the appellant or Marasovic had a prior relationship with Barone, because, as the HCRA points out in the APO, it is irrelevant for this matter.
41I make no finding on the behaviour of the investigators or the feelings of Toma and Marasovic when the warrant was executed. While Toma and Marasovic may have been alarmed by the warrant, that would not diminish the appellant’s requirement to comply under the Act.
42I find that the evidence before me indicates that the warrant was clear and that the appellant knew, or should have known, what the investigators requested. I find that the appellant’s sending of a copy of the warrant to Barone was an unnecessary delay for the execution of the warrant. I find that the appellant eventually satisfied most, but not all, of the requirements of the warrant.
43I find that the Notice was reasonable and issued within the constraints of s. 76 of the Act and the Regulation. I find that the Notice indicated, specifically, that the appellant had not produced the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue, and that it invited the appellant to request the HCRA to consider any additional information that may impact the proposed APO.
44I find that the appellant’s Request to Consider contained misleading information, namely that the investigators were not explicit regarding the information required in the warrant. I find that the warrant was specific regarding the trade files information it wanted the appellant to produce.
45I find that, after the Notice, the appellant was given the opportunity to provide, specifically, the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue, yet it did not.
46I find that under s. 76(9) of the Act, the APO is an absolute liability to the appellant, even if it had an honest and reasonable belief that the HCRA could obtain the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue from another brokerage with access to the MLS system.
47I find that the HCRA’s actions were deliberate and internally consistent, and that they satisfy the test of reasonableness under the Act. For the reasons above, I find that the HCRA was reasonable in its decision that found that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act by failing to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant.
Is the amount of the APO unreasonable in the circumstances?
48I find that the appellant has demonstrated that the amount of the APO imposed on the appellant by the HCRA, $3,913.04, is unreasonable in the circumstances.
49As stated in s. 76(4) of the Act, a monetary penalty serves to achieve compliance with the New Home Acts and to signal to new home builders, vendors and other actors, that failing to abide by the evidentiary requirements of the New Home Acts carries meaningful consequences.
50In its APO, the HCRA states that it considered the following factors in determining the amount of the APO:
The contravention had a moderate impact on the HCRA’s ability to carry out is purposes;
There is little or no loss or damage to consumers;
The appellant had no history of non-compliance with the HCRA;
The appellant eventually produced most of the documents requested under the warrant;
The HCRA believes the contravention of s. 61(10) of the Act continued deliberately, and not inadvertently, because the production of the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue may have implicated the appellant in the contraventions that the HCRA was investigating;
It was a single instance of non-compliance, on October 7, 2024;
The maximum base penalty amount for a contravention of s. 61(10) of the Act is $30,000; and
The appellant obtained no monetary benefit associated with the contravention, and, therefore, only a base penalty amount was assessed, and no monetary benefit amount was assessed by the HCRA.
51At the hearing, the appellant did not refer to specific sections of the Act or the Regulation in challenging the amount of the APO. However, the appellant argued that the HCRA was not impeded in its ability to carry out its purpose, because the appellant provided, for 1032 West Avenue, the for-lease MLS listing, the listing agreement, the MLS data information form and the list of showings. The appellant argued, also, that it provided, for 739 Ebony Avenue, the for-sale MLS listing, the listing agreement, and MLS data information form and the list of showings.
52The HCRA argues, considering that the maximum base penalty amount under the Regulation is $30,000, that the assessed base penalty amount of $3,913.04 is nominal and reasonable. The HCRA argues, further, that the appellant has not presented evidence to refute whether the HCRA should deviate from the factors considered under the Regulation. The HCRA argues that the appellant has not met its onus of demonstrating that the amount of the APO is unreasonable.
53The HCRA did not provide details on how it calculated the amount of the APO, based on factors above. I summarize the factors considered by the HCRA as follows:
The contravention had a moderate impact on the HCRA’s ability to carry out its investigation of Barone, for the sale of both 739 Ebony Ave and 1032 West Avenue.
The HCRA believes the appellant withheld the MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue because it may have implicated the appellant in the contraventions by Barone being investigated, for the sale of both 739 Ebony Avenue and 1032 West Avenue.
Conclusions on the amount of the APO
54I find that the HCRA’s conclusion, that the contravention had a moderate impact on its ability to carry out its purpose, is unreasonable. I find that it obtained all the information it requested related to its investigation for 739 Ebony Avenue, therefore there was no impact related to the investigation for that home.
55I find that, although the HCRA did not obtain the for-sale MLS listing for 1034 West Avenue, it obtained the underlying listing agreement, the MLS data information form, the list of showings, and a for-sale MLS listing from an independent brokerage that indicated that the appellant was the listing brokerage. The HCRA argued that the for-sale MLS listing for 1034 West Avenue could be the subject of a motion to exclude, based on the Evidence Act, but it did not lead evidence that this occurred, or that this was likely to occur. For this reason, I find that the contravention had a low impact, not a moderate impact, on the HCRA’s ability to carry out its investigation for 1034 West Avenue.
56I find that the HCRA reached a speculative conclusion, that the appellant deliberately withheld the for-sale MLS listing for 1034 West Avenue to avoid being implicated in the alleged contraventions of the New Home Acts by Barone. The appellant provided the for-sale MLS listing for 739 Ebony Avenue, which would implicate the appellant already, if the allegations were true and the appellant was involved. Therefore, I find that this factor, for 739 Ebony Avenue, carries zero weight in calculating the amount of the APO.
57For 1034 West Avenue, the appellant provided the underlying listing agreement, the MLS data information form and a list of showings. I find that the HCRA was not fully reasonable when it stated that the appellant was avoiding being implicated by not providing, solely, the for-sale MLS listing for 1034 West Avenue. Therefore, I find that this factor carries low weight in calculating the amount of the APO.
58I find that the appellant has demonstrated that the HCRA’s analysis of the two main factors that the HCRA utilized to calculate the amount of the APO, namely (a) the impact on the HCRA’s ability to carry out its purpose, and (b) the alleged deliberate withholding of the for-sale MLS listing for 1034 West Avenue, was not fully reasonable in the circumstances.
59Under s. 77(4) of the Act, I may vary the HCRA assessor’s order. I found previously that the HCRA was reasonable when it determined that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act by failing to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant.
60I found, as well, that under s. 76(9) of the Act, the APO is an absolute liability to the appellant, even if the appellant had a reasonable belief that the HCRA could obtain the for-sale MLS listing for 1032 West Avenue from another brokerage with access to the MLS system, for evidentiary purposes.
61To balance the compliance purpose of s. 76(4) of the Act with my finding that the HCRA was unreasonable in its calculation of the amount of the APO, I find that I must vary the amount of the APO. I vary the amount of the APO as follows:
739 Ebony Avenue investigation impact: Vary from moderate to zero.
1034 West Avenue investigation impact: Vary from moderate to low (half).
739 Ebony Avenue withholding to avoid implication: Vary to zero.
1034 West Avenue withholding to avoid implication: Vary to half.
62In varying the amount of the APO, I weigh the four factors above equally, absent any information from the HCRA on how it calculated the amount. Therefore, I vary the amount of the APO to 25% of the amount previously calculated, namely $978.26.
ORDER
62I find that the HCRA was reasonable in its determination that the appellant contravened s. 61(10) of the Act by failing to produce information or evidence to an investigator under a warrant.
63I find that the amount of the APO imposed on the appellant by the HCRA, $3,913.04, was unreasonable.
64Pursuant to s. 77(4) of the Act, I vary the amount of the APO to $978.26.
Released: February 17, 2026
Bernard Trottier
Adjudicator