Shane Smith

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct by using a third-party exam-taker and screen mirroring technology during five online exams.

The Tribunal found that the circumstantial evidence, including unusually short completion times, high marks, and the use of an IP address associated with a known cheating ring, established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant engaged in academic misconduct.

Consequently, the appellant failed to meet the educational requirements for registration, and the Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The appellant brought a motion seeking an extension of time to file an appeal from a Notice of Proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The statutory 15-day appeal period expired on November 3, 2025, and the appeal was filed 74 days late on January 16, 2026.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found that despite the significant delay caused by the appellant's former counsel, the appellant had a bona fide intention to appeal, there was minimal prejudice to the Registrar, and the appeal had some merit given the sparse particulars of alleged academic misconduct in the Notice of Proposal.

The motion for an extension of time was granted.

The moving party, a former real estate broker whose licence was revoked, sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The Divisional Court had previously declined to conduct a judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his appeal of a refusal to reinstate his licence, which occurred after he walked out of the tribunal hearing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for an extension of time, finding that the proposed appeal was entirely without merit and the moving party's explanations for the delay were not credible.

The appellant, a former real estate broker whose license was revoked, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his reapplication for registration.

He argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by denying his requests for a summons, an adjournment, and allegedly preventing him from recording the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in denying the irrelevant summons and the last-minute adjournment.

The court noted the appellant was explicitly granted permission to record the hearing but failed to retain a reporter, and his deliberate choice to leave the hearing meant he failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke his real estate salesperson registration and an Immediate Suspension Order issued by the Registrar due to alleged academic misconduct.

At the interim hearing, the Tribunal extended the Immediate Suspension Order until the conclusion of the appeal, finding it in the public interest and noting the parties had already signed a suspension agreement.

The Tribunal also granted a consent request to adjourn the hearing on the merits to allow the parties time to prepare.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order requiring the respondent unit owner and tenant to permanently remove a dog from the unit, alleging a breach of the corporation's pet prohibition rules.

The tenant claimed the dog was an emotional support animal but provided falsified medical notes.

The respondents failed to participate in the hearing.

The Condominium Authority Tribunal found the respondents in breach of the pet provisions and ordered the permanent removal of the dog within 30 days.

The tribunal also awarded $4,200 in costs to the applicant on a joint and several basis.

The applicant, a real estate agent, sought judicial review of a decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Appeals Committee, which upheld findings that she breached the Code of Ethics by misleading her clients about the existence of competing offers.

The applicant argued the proceedings were procedurally unfair and the decisions were unreasonable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness despite discrepancies between the allegation statement and the evidence presented.

The court also held that the RECO committees reasonably assessed credibility and weighed the evidence, including the lack of written records of other offers, in concluding the applicant had committed professional misconduct.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that directed the Registrar to carry out a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration as a broker under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and made errors of fact and law, specifically regarding the weighing of evidence and witness testimony.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the appellant failed to establish any breach of procedural fairness or significant error of law or fact.

The Tribunal noted that dissatisfaction with a decision and attempting to re-argue the case are not valid grounds for reconsideration.

The appellant real estate brokerage brought a motion to stay the Tribunal's prior decision revoking its registration, pending a request for reconsideration and potential appeal.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the appellant failed to address or satisfy the three-part test for a stay set out in RJR-MacDonald.

Specifically, the appellant provided no evidence of irreparable harm and failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, instead relying on unsupported allegations of procedural fairness breaches.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a Notice of Proposal to Revoke Registration issued by the Registrar under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant participated in creating a fraudulent Agreement of Purchase and Sale to assist clients in obtaining bridge financing for another property purchase.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke their registrations as a real estate brokerage and broker under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.

The Registrar issued the notice after discovering a $341,772.81 shortfall in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the appellants failed to maintain proper trust accounts, misappropriated trust funds for personal and business expenses, and breached an immediate suspension order.

Concluding that the appellants lacked financial responsibility and could not be expected to carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed the Registrar to carry out the revocation.

The appellants appealed an immediate suspension order issued by the Registrar under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The suspension was based on a shortfall of over $341,000 in the brokerage's trust account.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar established a prima facie case of the shortfall and that the appellants failed to provide an explanation or rectify it.

The Tribunal concluded that extending the immediate suspension order pending the full hearing was necessary in the public interest to protect consumer funds.

The appellant, a registered real estate salesperson, appealed a proposal by the Registrar to revoke her registration.

The Registrar alleged the appellant breached conditions of her registration, misappropriated funds from clients and others, failed to pay rent to landlords, contravened the Act by accepting commissions from someone other than her brokerage, and could not be expected to be financially responsible given her 13-year status as an undischarged bankrupt.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar proved the allegations on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds to believe she would not carry on business with honesty, integrity, and in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to suspend his registration as a real estate broker for making false statements and having administrative staff complete his continuing education courses.

Shortly after the hearing commenced, the parties reached a resolution and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order suspending the appellant's registration for 60 days and requiring him to complete an ethics course.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeals Committee of the Real Estate Council of Ontario, which upheld a discipline finding that she breached the Code of Ethics by failing to disclose a competing offer and a multiple representation situation.

The applicant argued she made the disclosure but the timing was unfortunate, and that the committee unreasonably found she was motivated by greed.

The Divisional Court found the underlying facts straightforward and the decision reasonable as to both liability and penalty, noting that even if her motives were to appease her client rather than financial gain, she was required to follow the Code of Ethics.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant, a real estate broker, brought a motion to strike the Registrar's Further Particulars in support of a proposal to suspend his registration.

The appellant argued the particulars contained irrelevant allegations of workplace harassment and duplicated other proceedings, constituting an abuse of process.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it had the authority to strike documents to prevent an abuse of process under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that the allegations were potentially relevant to whether the appellant would carry on business with integrity and honesty, and their inclusion did not amount to an abuse of process or procedural unfairness.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to revoke his registration as a broker under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent order disposing of the appeal without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued the consent order, directing the Registrar not to revoke the registration but to apply specific conditions, including mandatory education, reporting of outstanding criminal charges, and restrictions on acting as a broker of record.

The Registrar sought an order for the production of the Crown disclosure brief relating to ongoing criminal charges against the appellant, a real estate broker facing registration revocation.

The non-party Attorney General opposed production of the complete brief, arguing it would prejudice the ongoing prosecution.

Applying the Wagg screening process, the Tribunal found that the public interest in nondisclosure of the Crown brief while the prosecution is ongoing overrides the public interest in access to relevant information for the regulatory hearing, due to the risk of witness taint.

The motion for production was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to revoke her registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar alleged that the appellant engaged in a campaign of abuse and harassment against former business partners and other registrants, resulting in criminal charges which she failed to disclose as required.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, including sending vile and threatening messages, breaching release conditions, and attempting to influence witness testimony, afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that she would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the appellant's registration.

The appellant real estate broker appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision suspending his registration for three months.

The suspension was based on false statements in registration applications and workplace misconduct.

The appellant argued he was denied procedural fairness because the notice of proposal did not include the workplace misconduct allegations.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the LAT improperly relied on unparticularized evidence of workplace misconduct to support its finding that the appellant would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.