Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 17918/TRESA

In the matter of an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to Refuse Registration by the Registrar under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. C (the “Act”).

Between:

Guna Muthukrishnan

Appellant

and

Registrar, Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Caley Howard

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Harinder Gahir, Counsel

For the Respondent: Shane Smith, Counsel

Heard by Videoconference: February 17 and 18, 2026

OVERVIEW

1Guna Muthukrishnan (the “appellant”) appeals a Notice of Proposal to refuse registration issued by the Registrar, Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 (the “respondent”) on October 16, 2025 (the “NOP”), proposing to refuse the appellant’s application for registration pursuant to s. 13 of the Act.

2The appellant was first registered in 2021. His registration lapsed on August 2, 2025 as he did not submit a renewal application by the deadline. He then submitted a reinstatement application on August 14, 2025, which is the subject of the NOP.

3While the NOP sets out five grounds, the basis for all five grounds in the respondent’s NOP is the allegation that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct during five online-exams that he took in 2021 to qualify for registration under the Act.

ISSUES

4The issues in dispute are:

i. 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 law and with integrity and honesty, pursuant to s. 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Act;

ii. Has the appellant made a false statement in an application for registration, pursuant to s. 10(1)(a)(iii) of the Act;

iii. Has the appellant carried on, or is the appellant carrying on, activities that are or will be in contravention of the Act and the regulations, pursuant to s. 10(1)(c) of the Act;

iv. Has the appellant not met the educational requirements for registration as specified under the regulations pursuant to s. 10(1)(e) of the Act; and

v. Is the registration of the appellant contrary to the public interest, pursuant to s. 10(1)(g) of the Act?

RESULT

5I find that the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct while taking the five exams in question. As a result, I find that the appellant has not met the educational requirements for registration and is not eligible for registration under the Act. I direct the respondent to carry out the NOP.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Requests to audio record the hearing

6The appellant and the respondent each made written requests prior to the hearing to audio record the hearing for the purpose of supplementing their notes.

7At the hearing, the parties both confirmed that the recordings would be used only for the purpose of supplementing their notes and that they understood the recordings would not form part of the Tribunal’s record. They each consented to the other party self-recording the hearing.

8I ordered that the parties could each audio record the hearing in accordance with Rule 13.3 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”), provided they each retain the recording and provide a copy to the other party and provide a copy to the Tribunal upon request. I further ordered that the recordings were not to be distributed or published or used for anything other than a supplement to the parties’ notes.

ANALYSIS

Did the appellant engage in academic misconduct?

9I find that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct while taking the exams for five of the courses required for registration under the Act.

10The respondent submits that the applicant engaged in academic misconduct during the exams for five of the required education courses for registration under the Act. It submits that the appellant paid a group of individuals who provided cheating services for online exams using screen mirroring technology. It submits that the appellant’s exams were completed by a third party exam-taker in another room, while the appellant pretended to take the exam for the benefit of the electronic proctoring system. In support of its position, it relies on the testimony and report of Sandy Boucher, forensic principal with Doane Grant Thornton, who was retained to investigate reports of cheating on Ontario Real Estate Association (“OREA”) online exams, the testimony and reports of Ruben Thanaruban, a vice-president at OREA, which was in charge of the educational requirements for the respondent at the time, the testimony of Akilan Kanagaratnam and Anes Rehman, lay witnesses who acknowledged engaging in academic misconduct, sworn statements from a series of lay witnesses who were involved in academic misconduct during the period in question and documents setting out the appellant’s registration history, educational requirements and exam history.

11The appellant submits that he did not engage in academic misconduct, that the respondent has no direct evidence that he did so and the NOP is based entirely on speculation. In support of his submissions, he relies on his own testimony.

12The appellant testified that he started taking the real estate certification courses in 2019. He passed the first course and then failed the second course twice. He then was put in touch with the Real Estate Guru Tutoring Centre. He attended tutoring classes, did practice exams and then used their computer at their office (at 255 Duncan Mills Road) to complete his exams because it was a quiet place, more conducive to studying. He testified that he completed the exams on his own without help from anyone. He attributed his high tests scores and fast completion times to being well prepared for the exams.

13There was no dispute that in or about the spring of 2020, OREA, which, at that time, was responsible for providing the educational courses required for registration under the Act, replaced an existing system where candidates took exams at one of 16 locations across the province with an online exam system. This was done due to pandemic stay-at-home orders that were in place at the time. The online exams used a third party proctoring application called ProctorTrack.

14Mr. Thanaruban testified that in late 2022, ProctorTrack notified OREA that it had identified 20 instances of cheating on online exams using two different screen mirroring technologies. Mr. Boucher testified that these 20 instances of cheating identified by ProctorTrack related to exams taken from two different IP addresses, one of which was the IP address used by the appellant to take his five suspect exams. Mr. Boucher identified the other IP address as one associated with the same individuals who ran the tutoring centre, although at another location.

15Mr. Thanaruban testified that as the head of IT at the time, he had conducted an investigation of the exam log data from the online exams and put together a report of candidates whose exam data contained certain indicators of potential cheating. He testified that the appellant was part of this list of candidates because of the following indicators: he completed five online exams in less than 30 minutes, while obtaining grades over 85%; previous exams took the appellant significantly longer and he achieved lower grades, failing two of the exams; and the appellant took the exams using an IP address that was also associated with other students.

16Mr. Thanaruban acknowledged that he would not consider a candidate completing an exam quickly an indicator of cheating in the absence of other indicators.

17Mr. Boucher also completed an independent investigation at the request of OREA. Mr. Boucher testified that he investigated the exam log data for all online exams during the period of July 4, 2020 to June 17, 2021. He identified the following indicators of potential cheating that applied to the appellant’s five exams: exam completion times significantly shorter than the average of approximately two hours, in conjunction with a passing mark; exams completed using an IP address that was associated with multiple students; the similar short completion time/high mark results for nearly every other exam taken from the IP address used by the appellant; and the sworn statements and testimony from several candidates who described participating in academic misconduct at 255 Duncan Mills Road, using the cheating services provided through the Real Estate Guru Tutoring Centre.

18The appellant’s exam history showed that he completed two exams in 2019 in person, one of which he failed, and which took him 56 and 62 minutes to complete. He also completed one exam in 2020, which he failed and which took him 77 minutes to complete. This failed exam was completed using a different IP address than the five exams in question. Then, between March 22, 2021 and May 24, 2021, the appellant completed five exams, obtained marks between 88% and 100% and took between 14 minutes and 27 minutes to complete each exam. I find that the appellant completed the five exams taken at the tutoring centre much quicker than the exams he took in 2019 and 2020, and obtained much higher marks. I find that this data alone, while not determinative, is an indicator of potential cheating.

19I further find that the other candidates who took their exams from the same IP address, including the ones who later acknowledged engaging in academic misconduct at the tutoring centre, also completed their exams unusually quickly (23 minutes on average) when compared to average completion times of two hours and obtained high marks (92% on average). I find that the statistics of the group of candidates who completed their exams from the tutoring centre IP address (72 exams in total) is a further indicator that all of the students who took their exams through that IP address were engaging in academic misconduct.

20Mr. Thanaruban testified that each exam contained 50 multiple choice questions, many of which were long or complex questions or required the candidates to do mathematical calculations. Mr. Boucher’s report indicated that for the exams that the appellant took, the average completion time ranged from 96 minutes to 133 minutes. The average pass rate, or percentage of candidates who passed, for the courses offered by OREA was 68%. The pass rate for the exams taken from the IP address associated with the tutoring centre was 100%.

21Mr. Kanagaratnam testified that he engaged in academic misconduct after inquiring about tutoring services through Real Estate Guru Tutoring Centre. He described attending at the office at 255 Duncan Mills, meeting a man named Krishna and being instructed to book his exam and then attend the tutoring centre office just prior to his exam time. When he attended for his exam, he was shown to a computer and instructed to complete the ProctorTrack security measures and sign into the exam, after which he was to sit at the computer and pretend to be taking an exam. He testified that he did not answer the exam questions himself. The cursor on the computer in front of him was being controlled by someone in another room. That person completed the exam. I find the testimony of Mr. Kanagaratnam credible because it was supported by the written sworn statements of Baskaran Kanniah and Kazim Zaidi, who both acknowledged engaging in academic misconduct in similar ways at the tutoring centre located at 255 Duncan Mills. In addition, the exam histories of Mr. Kanagaratnam, Mr. Kanniah and Mr. Zaidi confirm that they took exams from the same IP address used by the appellant.

22I find the IP address used by the appellant to take his exams was frequently used for academic misconduct, because it was used by candidates who were identified by ProctorTrack as having engaged in academic misconduct and it was used by candidates who acknowledged cheating.

23I give less weight to the appellant’s testimony that he did not engage in academic misconduct because his testimony did not account for the numerous cheating indicators that existed. I find that many of the exam questions in the exams taken by the appellant required him to read and comprehend long paragraphs and/or solve mathematical word problems. The appellant’s testimony did not explain how the tutoring improved his speed and accuracy at answering this type of question. While tutoring may improve a student’s familiarity with the subject matter that is being taught, I find it is unlikely that the tutoring classes and practice questions described by the appellant would enable the him to improve his speed at answering this type of question, to the extent that he testified to. I further find that the consistency of the exam results taken using the IP address associated with the tutoring centre, both with respect to results and completion time, makes it unlikely that some candidates who took their tests at the tutoring centre were cheating and others were not. While I acknowledge it is possible that an individual candidate could complete one or more exams in the 20 minute range, I find that this result would be anomalous and unlikely to be replicated by every candidate who took the exam at the tutoring centre. Rather, I find that the length of the test, the number of questions, the complexity of the questions, the average completion times and the consistency of the results obtained by the candidates who took their exam at the tutoring centre when compared to the results of the total exam-taking population make it more likely that all of the candidates who completed their exams at the tutoring centre, including the appellant, were involved in academic misconduct. While one anomalous candidate may be more likely, a number of candidates displaying similar anomalous results, while taking their exams in the same tutoring centre, is far less likely.

24The respondent acknowledged that its evidence is circumstantial. Despite this, I find that the cumulative effect of the above-mentioned indicators and evidence makes it more likely than not that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct as alleged.

Has the appellant not met the educational requirements for registration as specified under the regulations pursuant to [s. 10(1)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-30-sch-c/latest/so-2002-c-30-sch-c.html#sec10subsec1_smooth)(e) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/so-2002-c-30-sch-c/latest/so-2002-c-30-sch-c.html)?

25I find that the appellant has not met the educational requirements for registration as set out in the regulations and is therefore not eligible for registration under the Act.

26Section 10(1)(e) of the Act provides that an applicant is not entitled to registration if the applicant has not met or does not meet the educational requirements for registration as specified under the regulations.

27Section 2(1) and (2) of O.Reg. 579/05 (the “regulation”) provides that an applicant for renewal of registration as a salesperson shall, before making the application, successfully complete all the educational courses that are designated by the registrar for applicants of that type. This applies to an applicant for registration as a salesperson who has previously been registered as a salesperson. Section 2(3) provides that (1) and (2) do not apply to an applicant who successfully completed all the educational courses before making a previous application for registration or renewal if the previous application was approved.

28While the appellant’s 2021 application for registration was approved, the respondent submits that the appellant did not legitimately complete all the educational courses before making that initial application for registration in 2021, and therefore the exception in section 2(3) of the regulation does not apply to the appellant. The appellant acknowledged in his testimony that he has not completed the educational courses that are currently required for registration as a salesperson. The respondent submits that the appellant is therefore is not eligible for registration under the Act. The respondent submits that the applicable sections of the Act and the regulation should be interpreted and applied in recognition that the purpose of professional regulation is to advance and protect the public interest. The respondent relied on the testimony of Eric Muetz, a registration officer with RECO and documents setting out the educational courses required for registration as a salesperson in 2021 and those that apply currently.

29The appellant’s submissions relied heavily on his position that he did not engage in academic misconduct. He did acknowledge that he did not complete the educational courses that are currently required for registration.

30Mr. Muetz testified that the five courses in dispute, which I have found the applicant did not complete legitimately, were five of the six courses required for registration in 2021. The appellant did not dispute that these courses were required for his registration.

31Therefore, I find that the respondent has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the applicant has not met the educational requirements set out in the regulation.

Is refusal to grant the appellant’s application for registration the appropriate outcome?

32Having found that the applicant has not met the educational requirements for registration, I must now consider whether it is appropriate for the respondent to refuse to grant the appellant’s application for registration, or whether the public interest can be adequately protected by granting the registration with conditions.

33Neither party made submissions with respect to conditions that may be appropriate in this situation. The respondent submits it is not in the public interest to register an applicant who has not met the educational requirements for registration.

34The appellant testified that he has been involved in about 17 real estate transactions since becoming registered in 2021 and has had no complaints or allegations of wrongdoing advanced against him.

35The appellant testified that he was a hard worker, who worked primarily in the construction field and has worked his way up the ranks in that profession. The real estate transactions he has been involved in since becoming registered in 2021 have been conducted in his spare time, on evenings and weekends, primarily for family and friends.

36I find that the Act clearly states that an applicant who does not meet the educational requirements is not entitled to registration. I find that the educational requirements have been put in place to protect the public by ensuring that registrants under the Act have a minimum level of knowledge in key areas. The appellant’s testimony respecting his involvement in 17 real estate transactions during his part-time work as a real estate salesperson between 2021 and 2025 does not convince me that it would be in the public interest to exempt the appellant from the educational requirements. I find that the appellant has not established what experience he has gained during the four years he was registered or explained how that experience might protect the public despite the appellant not having legitimately taken the required exams. Therefore, I find that the appropriate outcome in this situation is the refusal of the appellant’s application, as set out in the NOP.

37Given my findings under this ground, I find it unnecessary to address the remaining grounds in the NOP. The respondent is not required to prove all of the grounds on which it relies in order to prove that the NOP should be carried out.

Conclusion

38I find that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct during five of the six exams required for registration under the Act. The appellant is not eligible for registration because he does not meet the educational requirements. The appropriate outcome in this situation is the refusal to register the appellant, as set out in the NOP.

ORDER

39I direct the respondent to carry out the NOP.