COURT FILE NO.: 83/07
DATE: 20071211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
cunningham a.c.j.s.c., jennings and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
ALEXANDER AMEER BAKSH
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
REGISTAR, REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS BROKERS ACT
Respondent
Anthony J.B. Powell, for the Appellant (Applicant)
Freya Kristjanson, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: December 11, 2007
swinton J.: (Orally)
[1] Ameer Alexander Baksh, the appellant, appeals from the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, dated January 10, 2007, directing the Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act to carry out his proposal to revoke the appellant’s registration as a real estate salesperson.
[2] In our view, the Licence Appeal Tribunal applied s.10 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, S.O. 2002, c.30, which provides that a person is entitled on application to be registered as a real estate salesperson except where:
the past conduct of the applicant … affords reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not carry on business in accordance with law and with integrity and honesty …
[3] In its Reasons, the Tribunal quoted the section and then concluded that the appellant’s conduct fell short of the standards expected under that provision in three respects:
(i) In conducting his business of purchasing property for renovation and resale he did not disclose to vendors that he was the beneficial purchaser or that he was a registered salesperson under the Act. Nor did he disclose his status or interest in the property on subsequent resale. Concealment of his interest was a grave matter.
(ii) On two occasions he acted for the vendor in a transaction where he was also the the beneficial purchaser, and he did not disclose his interest, contrary to s.32 of the Act.
(iii) On a particular sale he violated the standards of honesty and integrity in deceiving his own client about his personal involvement in a sale, attempting to profit personally at his client’s expense, giving his client possession of a property without the knowledge or consent of the owner and failing to disclose the transaction to his broker.
[4] Given the admissions by the appellant, the findings of fact made by the Tribunal and the pattern of conduct, the Tribunal’s conclusion with respect to s.10 was reasonable.
[5] The Tribunal did err in referring to s.32 of the Act, which was enacted in 2002, rather than s.31 of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, S.O. 1990, c.R.4, which was in force at the time of the appellant’s conduct. However, the facts show that the conduct of the appellant violated s.31, as he did not reveal to two vendors that he was purchasing the property for resale, albeit after renovation.
[6] In our view, the decision of the Tribunal was reasonable. It properly considered all matters before it and determined that the appellant’s registration under the Act should be revoked. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.
CUNNINGHAM A.C.J.S.C.
[7] Costs fixed at $3,000, all inclusive.
SWINTON J.
cunningham a.c.j.s.c.
jennings J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 11, 2007
Date of Release: January 10, 2008
COURT FILE NO.: 83/07
DATE: 20071211
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
cunningham a.c.j.s.c., jennings and swinton jj.
B E T W E E N:
ALEXANDER AMEER BAKSH
Appellant
(Applicant)
- and -
REGISTAR, REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS BROKERS ACT
Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SWINTON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: December 11, 2007
Date of Release: January 10, 2008