29 SEPTEMBER 2022
A request to substitute one witness for another on a witness list was granted in accordance with Rule 8.7(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Tribunal found the Respondents would not sustain any prejudice provided the testimony of the new witness was limited to the same facts and matters set out in the Notice of Witness for the original witness.
27 MAY 2022
A request to adjourn the merits hearing was granted because the lead investigator’s medical condition prevented him from testifying and the Applicant would be prejudiced without this testimony.
10 FEBRUARY 2022
A request to change the hearing format in an enforcement proceeding from an oral hearing with the testimony of witnesses to an oral hearing with evidence provided by way of Affidavit was denied. The Tribunal found that proceeding with Affidavit evidence would not afford it the opportunity to ask clarification questions of the witnesses nor to assess their credibility.
8 OCTOBER 2021
The Appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a property and paid a deposit to the sellers. The agreement was subject to conditions, including a financing condition. The Appellant secured financing, but it was later withdrawn after he lost his employment. The Appellant was unable to purchase the property and requested the return of the deposit. The sellers refused. The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant had defaulted on the completion of the transaction, such that the sellers were entitled to retain the deposit.
29 SEPTEMBER 2021
The Tribunal approved a settlement agreement in an enforcement proceeding. The Respondents had brokered mortgages without holding a licence, operated as a mortgage brokerage without a licence, represented borrowers and private investors in the same mortgage transaction, traded in real estate without a licence, acted as a credit broker without being registered, and made untrue statements.
14 JUNE 2021
A request to change the hearing format to an oral hearing with evidence provided by way of Affidavit was denied. After consideration of the factors set out in rule 13.2(5) of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal concluded that proceeding by way of Affidavit evidence would curtail the meaningful participation of the self-represented respondent who intended to participate in the hearing and would not ensure a fair and meaningful process.
11 MAY 2021
The Tribunal granted a request for an extension of time to file an Affidavit in opposition to a motion, noting that preparing Affidavits may be a difficult exercise for a self-represented party. The extension of the filing deadline did not impact the date for the hearing of the motion.
17 FEBRYARY 2017
In this appeal, the Tribunal overturned the Director of Consumer Affairs’ decision, finding that the Appellant should be granted a real estate agent’s licence with terms and conditions. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Director of Consumer Affairs for the determination of those terms and conditions. The Tribunal also commented on the duty of procedural fairness applicable to the denial of a licence.
1 NOVEMBER 2016
In this motion, the Tribunal held that the appeal of the Director of Consumer Affairs’ decision should proceed as a hybrid appeal with no deference given to the decision of the Director and that the decision would be reviewed for correctness.
5 OCTOBER 2016
In this Order, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal of the Director of Consumer Affairs’ decision should proceed as a hybrid appeal, with reasons to follow.
© 2020 | Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal