Published June 17, 2026

Disciplinary Newsletter

June 2026

Volume 15 Edition 1

IN THIS ISSUE

Detailing Investigations
Publishing Disciplinary Decisions

Public Initiated Investigations

Case #1: Not Protecting Interests of Clients and Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement
Case #2: Not Protecting Interests of Clients and Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement
Case #3: Unprofessional Conduct
Case #4: Not Protecting Interests of Client
Case #5: Not Protecting Interests of Client
Case #6: Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement
Case #7: Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement

NSREC Initiated Investigations

This Disciplinary Newsletter does not include investigations initiated by the NSREC. 

DETAILING INVESTIGATIONS

The Disciplinary Newsletter does not detail every case the Commission investigates. Rather, these cases were found to be the most useful as a learning resource.

PUBLISHING DISCIPLINARY DECISIONS

The Commission Disciplinary Newsletter publicizes decisions in accordance with the Commission By-law.

These decisions reflect the Commission By-law that was in effect at the time the events occurred. As such, licensees were charged with the By-law that was in effect. Additionally, at the time of these cases, the Buyer Customer Acknowledgement was in effect and not the Unrepresented Party Acknowledgement.

At the recommendation of the Complaints Review Committee, as a result of a jurisdictional review of other province's disciplinary fines, effective July 1, 2025, disciplinary fines increased to be more in line with other provincial regulators. Prior to this date, a standard fine for a first time offense for a salesperson was $500. This information was communicated to the industry in a news bulletin on May 8, 2025.

PUBLIC INITIATED INVESTIGATIONS

CASE #1: Not Protecting Interests of Clients and Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement

A first-time home buyer had an accepted agreement on a property with a few conditions subject to Form 408: Buyer Waiver of Conditions, including insurance. At the time the agreement was accepted, the buyer’s licensee prepared a Form 408 in advance, in anticipation of the buyer waiving all applicable conditions. The licensee stated this was their standard practice when working with buyers.

On the Form 408 due date, the buyer was unable to secure insurance so their licensee prepared two documents, Form 408 waiving all conditions except insurance, and an amendment to extend the insurance condition by two days. When the licensee sent the documents to the buyer for their signature, they erroneously sent the Form 408 which they had prepared at the time the agreement was accepted, which included insurance. The buyer signed the documents and the buyer’s licensee provided them to the seller’s licensee at 6:38pm. The Form 408 deadline was 7:00pm.

Shortly after, the buyer noticed the error on the Form 408 and contacted their licensee. The licensee sent the buyer the correct Form 408 for their signature and then sent the corrected form to seller’s licensee at 6:48pm. The open for acceptance time on the amendment was 9:00pm. In order to extend the insurance deadline, all parties had to agree to the amendment prior to the 7:00pm deadline, per the wording of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), otherwise the transaction would be deemed terminated. The buyer’s licensee was aware that the seller’s licensee was out that evening and wouldn’t be accessible until approximately 7:45pm.

The evidence supported that the buyer’s licensee did not understand the significance of having the amendment agreed to by 7:00pm. Their response to the investigator referred to notice of dissatisfaction, which was removed from the buyer’s conditions on the APS effective January 3, 2022. This did not protect the interests of their client, a violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

Upon returning home, the seller’s licensee called the buyer’s licensee and advised the seller was not signing the amendment. Their position was that the buyer waived all conditions unrelated to title when the first Form 408 was submitted. It was crucial for the buyer’s licensee to review Form 408 prior to sending it to the buyer for their signature, given their policy of preparing the form in advance. Their actions did not protect their clients’ interests, a second violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

The buyer’s licensee did not inform the buyer the seller did not accept the amendment. Further, over the next few days they consulted with the buyer’s lawyer, without consent from the buyer, on how to proceed with the situation. Licensees have a fiduciary obligation to keep their clients informed of all information. Since the buyer was not told otherwise, they believed the amendment was accepted by the seller and they had two additional days to secure insurance. Additionally, the buyer believed that if they terminated the transaction, they would be entitled to the return of their deposit. When the buyer eventually terminated the transaction, the seller did not agree to return the deposit to the buyer. The buyer’s licensee demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement, a violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

The seller’s licensee was aware the buyer was having difficulty obtaining insurance and of the 7:00pm deadline for Form 408. Despite this, they informed the buyer’s licensee that they would be unavailable until 7:45pm. The seller’s licensee had ample time from when the Agreement was accepted to have another designated agent from their brokerage be available in their absence. Had they of done so, the situation could potentially have been rectified prior to the 7:00pm deadline. Their actions did not protect the interests of their client, a violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

The buyer’s licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated, two counts of Commission by-law 702, Article 2 for not protecting their clients’ interests; and Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a) for demonstrating a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement. 

The seller’s licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Commission by-law 702, Article 2 for not protecting the interests of their client.

Commission by-law 702, Article 2

‘The industry member shall protect and promote the interests of their client. This primary obligation does not relieve the industry member of the responsibility of dealing fairly with all other parties to the transaction.’

Penalty

Alisha Caillie-Fleet, buyer’s licensee, salesperson with EXP Realty of Canada, Inc., was fined $500 for the violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2) (a) and $1,000 for each violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

Richa Ledingham, seller’s licensee, salesperson with Exit Realty Metro, was fined $1,000 for the violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

CASE #2: Not Protecting Interests of Clients and Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement

Out-of-province buyers wanted to buy a piece of land to build a retirement home. They saw an advertisement online for a piece of land that piqued their interest and had their licensee view the property on their behalf. The licensee sent videos of the property to the buyers. The buyers were satisfied with the property and the views from the property and proceeded to purchase the property. After closing, the buyers visited the property and were shocked to discover a for-sale sign had been erected on the property they understood they purchased. They quickly discovered that the videos their licensee sent them were not of the property in the advertisement, they were of a property a few lots over, which has since been listed for sale. The buyers submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging that their licensee showed them the incorrect property and they only purchased the property based on the videos provided to them from the licensee.   

The evidence supported that when the licensee attempted to view the property for the buyers, the for-sale sign had not yet been erected and the licensee was unsure exactly where the property was located. The licensee contacted the listing licensee to determine this information. While waiting to hear back, the licensee believed they were at the correct property and took videos from a vacant lot, including the view from the lot, which was partially cleared and had a driveway, and sent the videos to the buyers.  

After the licensee was made aware of the correct location of the property, the licensee did not send new videos of the correct lot and the view from the lot. The licensee did not walk the correct property to attempt to discover the boundaries or grade of the lot.

The buyers stated they purchased the property based on the view from the videos and would not have purchased the property if the actual view and location had been shown. The licensee was responsible to ensure their clients had all pertinent information so that they could make an informed decision. By not providing pictures/videos of the subject property or following up in writing that the videos sent were not of the subject property, they did not protect the interests of her clients, a violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

The licensee did not obtain clear instruction by obtaining a written agreement with the buyers with respect to the buyer’s expectations and the licensee’s role in this transaction, because the buyers were not present to view the property. The licensee was acting as the buyer client’s ‘eyes and ears’ without written instruction of what their role was. This goes beyond the scope of normal agency representation and therefore put the clients and brokerage in a high-risk situation. This is a violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

The licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a) for demonstrating a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement; and Commission by-law 702, Article 2 for not protecting their client’s interests.

Commission by-law 702, Article 2

‘The industry member shall protect and promote the interests of their client. This primary obligation does not relieve the industry member of the responsibility of dealing fairly with all other parties to the transaction.’

Penalty

Suzanne Gravel, broker of Century 21 Trident Realty Limited, was fined $1,000 for the violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2 and $500 for the violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a). At the time of this transaction, Ms. Gravel was licensed as a managing associate broker with Sotheby’s International Realty Canada.

Case #3: Unprofessional Conduct

A property was owned by four family members – a sister, and a brother and his two sons. The brother and one of the sons were interested in selling the property and met with a licensee to discuss listing the property. The brother told the licensee that his other son was also interested in selling the property. After this meeting, the licensee reached out to the sister to discuss listing the property and was advised by the sister that she was not interested in listing the property.

The licensee discovered that through the Partition Act, the brother and sons could get a court order to sell the property. The licensee then contacted a lawyer for a recommendation of another lawyer the brother and sons could use to start this process. They passed the name of the recommended lawyer onto the brother.

A few months later, the father and son contacted the licensee again and requested a meeting. During this meeting, they advised the licensee that the lawyer the licensee recommended suggested they e-mail to the sister to obtain her formal position on the matter of selling the property. The licensee drafted the e-mail on behalf of the father and two sons, from one of the son’s e-mail accounts. At this point the licensee had only met with and communicated with one of the two sons. 

After receiving the e-mail, the sister submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging that after they advised the licensee they were not interested in selling the property, the licensee continued to meet with the other property owners in attempts to list the property, that the licensee inserted themselves in a private family situation, and that the licensee drafted the e-mail from the son’s account.

The licensee ought to have known that in order to list a property, all property owners must be in agreement. The licensee knew there were four property owners and only had confirmation that two owners wanted to list. As soon as the licensee was advised by the sister that she did not want to list, the licensee ought to have immediately advised the other owners that they could not proceed until all four owners were in agreement. Instead, the licensee continued to meet with the brother and son.

Advising the brother and son of the Partition Act was simply passing on information, which in itself is not a compliance issue. That said, by seeking recommendation of a lawyer for the brother and sons, the licensee acted outside the scope of a real estate licensee. It is not the role of a real estate licensee to advocate on behalf of property owners in attempts to list a property, be that by mutual agreement of all owners or by court order through the Partition Act.

The licensee admitted to drafting the e-mail to the sister from the son’s account but states they were simply a scribe while the brother and son dictated what they wanted to communicate. This was also unprofessional and not the role of a licensee. Further, the e-mail was from the father and two sons, but the licensee had not met or spoken to one of the sons to confirm their position concerning listing the property.

The licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Commission By-law 702, Article 35 for demonstrating unprofessional conduct.

Commission by-law 702, Article 35

‘An industry member shall not engage in an act or omission relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard for all circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by industry members or the public as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.’

Penalty

The licensee was fined $500 for the violation. 

Case #4: Not Protecting Interests of Client

A consumer listed their property with the licensee on a Monday. The licensee is a member of a team at a brokerage that practices designated agency. The Seller Designated Brokerage Agreement (SDBA) instructed that offers were due the following Sunday at 6:00pm and all offers were to be left open for acceptance for 24 hours. This instruction was advertised on the MLS. Many viewings were facilitated during this week. Two days after listing, the seller’s licensee received two offers and sent a text message to the seller detailing information about the offers but did not provide the seller with the offers. The seller went away from Friday to Sunday to leave the property vacant for viewings.

During this time, multiple viewings were facilitated and more offers were received. Again, the licensee sent the seller text messages detailing limited information about some of the viewings/offers, but did not provide them with the offers.

On Monday, the seller’s licensee called the seller and advised they received six offers in total. Later that day, the seller met with another member of the team to review offers. The seller was provided with three offers and was advised these were all the offers received. The seller proceeded with one of the offers.

After closing, the seller submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging that their licensee failed to communicate the offer process to them and failed to seek their instruction concerning what to do with offers once they were received. The consumer further alleged that they were not provided with all offers and were not provided with offers in a timely manner.

The evidence supported that a total of six offers were received. Two were pre-emptive offers and were not provided to the seller before the open for acceptance date. The licensee advised that one of the pre-emptive offers was withdrawn but did not provide confirmation of this. One of the other offers was withdrawn and the licensee provided confirmation of this.

The licensee advised the Investigator that the SDBA instructed that offers were to be presented on a specific date and time, not in real time. The instruction in the SDBA was for buyer’s licensees; specifically, when offers were due and when they were to be left open until. This instruction has nothing to do with when the seller’s licensee was to provide offers to the seller. Licensees are required to have conversations with seller clients regarding the offer process and seek their instruction with respect to offers. This includes: keeping sellers informed about offers, including pre-emptive offers, determining how sellers would like offers to be sent to them, i.e. as they come in, all at once on a set date, etc. The licensee later advised that they had a verbal conversation with the seller and the instruction was to relay all offers by the deadline. The seller stated that they did not have this conversation with the licensee and that the licensee did not seek this instruction.

The licensee also stated that they did not withhold information from the seller, the seller did not request copies of the offers. The licensee advised they would have provided the seller with copies of the offers, had they of been requested. 

Even if the licensee and seller did have a verbal conversation in which the seller directed the licensee to provide all offers by the deadline of the SDBA, once the licensee received a pre-emptive offer, they were required to seek the seller’s instruction on how they wanted to proceed with that offer. The evidence supported that the licensee withheld the pre-emptive and withdrawn offers from their client and failed to seek their instruction concerning these offers. This did not protect the interests of their client.

The licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Commission by-law 702, Article 2 for withholding offers from their client.

Commission By-law 702 Article 2

‘The industry member shall protect and promote the interests of their client. This primary obligation does not relieve the industry member of the responsibility of dealing fairly with all other parties to the transaction.’

Penalty

Andrew Murray, salesperson with Keller Williams Select Realty, was fined $1,000 for the violation.

Case #4: Not Protecting Interests of Client

A seller submitted a complaint to the Commission alleging that their licensee did not explain Clause 6, Fixtures and Chattels, of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale to them.

Agreement of Purchase and Sale, clause 6.1: ‘All fixtures attached to the Property as viewed on the _____ day of __________, 20____, are to remain with the Property and shall be included in the purchase price.’

They stated their licensee first advised them that they could take blinds with them, and later advised them that the blinds had to remain. The seller further alleged their licensee did not act in their best interests by stating the buyers would terminate the agreement if the hot water tank was not replaced, even though there were no issues with the hot water tank. The seller did not replace the hot water tank and the buyers proceeded to close on the property.

The evidence supported that during the transaction, the seller advised their licensee that they wanted to take blinds that were affixed to the windows with them and the licensee advised that since the buyers didn’t ask for them, the seller could take them. The licensee later advised the seller that the buyers wanted the blinds and that the seller would not be able to take them. The seller’s lawyer confirmed that the blinds were a fixture and had to remain at the property. This is a basic concept in real estate transactions that the licensee ought to have known. The licensee’s lack of knowledge on a subject that they ought to have known was contrary to their client’s interest, a violation of Commission by-law 702, Article 2.

The licensee stated that they had discussed fixtures and chattels with their team lead and were incorrectly advised that the seller could take the blinds. The team lead is licensed as an associate broker and cannot give broker level advice. Only brokers and managing associate brokers can give transaction advice.

Respecting the hot water tank, the evidence supported that the licensee was advised by the buyer’s licensee that if the seller did not replace the hot water tank, it would be a deal breaker for their client.  The licensee was required to relay this information to their client, which they did.

The licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Commission by-law 702, Article 2 for not protecting the interests of their client. The licensee was also issued a written warning for seeking advice from an associate broker.

The broker was issued a written warning reminding them to ensure licensees at their brokerage are provided instruction on who can provide broker level advice.  

Commission by-law 702, Article 2

‘The industry member shall protect and promote the interests of their client. This primary obligation does not relieve the industry member of the responsibility of dealing fairly with all other parties to the transaction.’

Penalty

The licensee was fined $500 for the violation.

Case #6: Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement

After selling a property, a consumer submitted a complaint to the Commission citing concerns with the conduct of the buyer’s licensee during the transaction. The consumer alleged the buyer’s licensee installed a lockbox on the property without their knowledge or consent and that they allowed the buyers to gain unsupervised access to the property prior to closing.

The evidence supported the seller’s licensee gave the buyer’s licensee verbal permission to install a lockbox on the property during the pre-closing viewing. The seller’s licensee stated their client had previously advised they trusted them to do whatever they felt was right to get the deal closed, therefore they did not seek specific instruction from their client in regards to the lockbox.

During the pre-closing viewing, the buyer’s licensee texted the seller’s licensee and advised that there was a bowl of keys and they would see if one worked the door to leave in their lockbox for their client to access the property upon closing. After the pre-closing viewing, the buyer’s licensee sent the seller’s licensee another text and advised that they left a lockbox on the railing with the seller’s key inside. They also advised that they would hold the lockbox code until the keys could be released after closing. The seller’s licensee did not respond to either text message.

The day of closing, water was discovered in the property and the seller hired a plumber to assess the situation. The buyers wanted to be present while the plumber was at the property. The buyer’s licensee and seller’s licensee discussed the situation and neither of them were able to attend with the plumber and buyers. The seller consented to the plumber being in the property without the seller’s licensee present. The seller’s licensee advised the buyer’s licensee that the buyers could not attend without the buyer’s licensee present. Despite this, the buyer’s licensee provided their lockbox code to the buyers so they could attend with the plumber. In the end, the seller’s licensee was able to attend with the plumber and when they arrived at the property, they discovered the buyers unloading items from their vehicle into the property without a representative present.

The buyer’s licensee ought to have known that they did not have authority to release the code to the lockbox and provide the buyers access to the property prior to closing without consent from the sellers. Further, the licensee demonstrated that they were unaware that their clients should not have been at the property without either themself or another designated agent present. Finally, the licensee ought to have reached out to either a managing associate broker or broker for assistance once they realized the severity of the situation. It was closing day, there was an issue with a leaking pipe and they were unavailable to service their clients. The licensee’s actions demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill or judgment, a violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2).

The evidence supported that the buyer’s licensee allowed the buyers to leave items on the property after the pre-closing viewing without consent from the sellers. This was inappropriate.

The buyer’s licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a) for demonstrating a lack of knowledge, skill or judgement. They were also issued a written warning for touching the personal belongings of the seller without consent and for allowing the buyers to leave personal items at the property after the pre-closing viewing without consent from the sellers.

The seller’s licensee was issued a written warning for allowing the buyer’s licensee to install a lockbox on the property without specific consent from their client and allowing the buyer’s licensee to touch the seller’s personal items.

Penalty

Cheryl Bullock, salesperson with Royal LePage Atlantic, was fined $750 for the violation.

Case #7: Lack of Knowledge/Skill/Judgement 

First time home buyers excited to purchase their first home began viewing properties with a licensee. The buyers viewed numerous properties with the licensee and submitted offers on two different properties which were not accepted. They offered on another property, which was accepted. The property was not listed at the time. The property they purchased was owned by the licensee and included a basement apartment for rental income. After closing, the buyers discovered that the basement apartment did not conform with municipal by-laws and no permit existed. They submitted a complaint to the Commission citing numerous allegations against the licensee, including; that the licensee misled them concerning the basement apartment, advised them a basement window met egress when it did not, and that the licensee was conflicted by selling their own property and did not recommend the buyers obtain independent representation. 

The evidence supported that the licensee facilitated numerous viewings for the buyers and advocated on their behalf prior to addressing agency by having them sign a Working With the Real Estate Industry (WWREI) form and a Buyer Designated Brokerage Agreement (BDBA). The licensee was required to have them sign a WWREI at the earliest opportunity. The licensee was not required to have them sign a BDBA in order to facilitate viewings, but the licensee was required to have them sign a BDBA prior to providing any advice or advocating on their behalf, this includes the preparation of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The buyers signed all documentation at the time they offered on the property. The licensee sent all documentation, WWREI, BDBA and a prepared APS, to the buyers in the same Authentisign envelope. Ultimately, this offer was not accepted; however, the licensee did not follow the order of operations that must be followed with respect to relationships disclosures, agency/customer agreement and agreements of purchase and sale.

The standards to which transaction files will be reviewed, including the required timing and order of having disclosure documents and contracts signed, is outlined in the Commission’s Brokerage Transaction and Trust Account Policy.

The buyers later offered on the licensee’s personal property. The licensee had them sign a Buyer Customer Acknowledgement (BCA) but did not terminate the BDBA. The licensee sent the BCA and a prepared APS to the buyers to be signed at the same time. Again, the licensee was required to address agency by having the BDBA terminated and the BCA signed prior to the preparation of the APS. After the licensee accepted the buyer’s offer, the property was listed on the MLS.

The licensee demonstrated a lack of understanding of the basics of agency. They stated that they were a private citizen selling their own personal property and were not acting in the capacity of an agent in the transaction. This is incorrect. They listed the property for sale through their brokerage, used the Commission’s forms, their brokerage held the trust funds and had the consumers sign a BCA with their brokerage. Further, the licensee states the buyers were customers and their only duty was to themself, yet they also stated that they only listed the property after the buyers offer was accepted because they chose to prioritize the buyer’s interests. 

Despite having the buyers sign a BCA, the licensee proceeded to provide them with advice and acted as if they were their representative. Based on the correspondence between the buyers and licensee, it was clear a friendship was forming and the buyers were clear that they were first time home buyers and were relying on the guidance of the licensee. It was a conflict for the licensee to attempt to treat the buyers as customers.

The licensee stated that they recommended that the buyers receive their own representation but they refused. The buyers deny this conversation occurred.

A review of the brokerage transaction file identified numerous of paperwork discrepancies.

Through their conduct of convoluting their role and the paperwork discrepancies, the licensee demonstrated a lack of knowledge, skill and judgement, the licensee violated Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

Respecting the basement apartment, the evidence supported that the licensee misled the buyers into thinking the subject property was a legal, 2-unit dwelling. They advised them it was a duplex, the basement apartment was recently renovated, offered to help them find a tenant and incorrectly attached the Multi-Unit Residential Income Property Schedule to the APS. The licensee ought to be aware that in order to rent out a basement apartment, proper permits are required. This constituted a second violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

Respecting the basement window, the evidence supported that the licensee did advise the buyers that the window met egress. The licensee advised that their contractor misadvised them that the window met egress. Based on a picture of the window it was clear that the window does not meet egress. Advising the buyers that it did constituted a third violation of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

The licensee was charged with and agreed to having violated three counts of Real Estate Trading Act Section 22 (2)(a).

Penalty

Cathy Burke, salesperson with EXP Realty of Canada, Inc. was fined $3,000 total, $1,000 for each violation. At the time of this transaction, Ms. Burke was licensed as a salesperson with Re/Max Park Place Incorporated.

Commission Initiated Investigations per Real Estate Trading Act Section 17(2)

This Disciplinary Newsletter does not include investigations initiated by the NSREC.