The Real Estate Council of Ontario just imposed an $8,000.00 fine on an agent who had several listings “on the go” at the same time for the same property. There were differences in price, commissions offered to co-operating brokerages, and otherwise undocumented changes.
Exclusive listings were set in place as were overlapping MLS listings. Prices were changed without amendment, and listings were replaced without cancellations. Some listings had no commencement dates, others were missing initials as required. Advertisements often overstated the asking price compared with the then current MLS listing agreement. Trade record sheets were not signed by the Broker of Record or the agent.
The Agent subsequently advertised various properties as “SOLD for $123 XX OVER ASKING”, when indeed this was really not the case, unless one rummaged through the agent’s own personal records.
In this case, four separate consumers complained.
RECO Discipline Decision
The Discipline Committee specified that the agent acted unprofessionally when he:
1 Contrary to section 2(1) with reference to s.11 of the Code of Ethics, as a salesperson failed to prevent the multiple listings and/or multiple exclusive listings and/or publications, causing Brokerage A to market the above discussed properties in such a manner that created confusion in the market place wherein multiple sale prices appeared contemporaneously, to the possible detriment to his own seller clients and potential unrepresented buyers.
2 Contrary to section 3 of the Code of Ethics, failed to treat every person that he dealt with in the course of a trade in real estate fairly, honestly and with integrity by placing different sale prices in magazines and/or other publications for public viewing, while concurrently having a different sale price on the MLS®. This practice was unfair to consumers and registrants, as it gave information that was misleading and contradictory. Further, for those reviewing the asking price in the various advertisements, at a higher amount than the MLS® listings, it may have discouraged potential buyers, even though the same property was being listed at a lower price on the MLS®.
3 Contrary to section 4 of the Code of Ethics, failed to promote and protect the best interest of his seller clients by marketing the above discussed properties in such a manner that created confusion in the marketplace between prices in the exclusive listings, the MLS® listings and the publications, wherein multiple prices appeared contemporaneously, thereby creating potential confusion in the marketplace to the possible detriment to his own seller clients and potential unrepresented buyers.
4 Contrary to section 5 of the Code of Ethics, failed to provide conscientious service to his clients when he marketed the above discussed properties in such a manner that created confusion in the marketplace between prices in the exclusive listings, the MLS® listings and the publications, wherein multiple prices appeared contemporaneously and thereby creating confusion in the marketplace, to the possible detriment to his own seller clients and potential unrepresented buyers.
5 Contrary to section 38 of the Code of Ethics, failed to use his best efforts or any effort at all, to prevent either error, misrepresentation, fraud or any unethical practice in respect of trades in real estate. Having simultaneous listings and advertisements at significantly variegated list prices, was an error that led to misrepresentation.
6 Contrary to section 39 of the Code of Ethics, in the course of trading in real estate, engaged in marketing the above discussed properties in such a manner that created confusion in the marketplace between prices in the exclusive listings, the MLS® listings and the publications, wherein multiple prices appeared contemporaneously, thereby creating potential confusion in the marketplace to the possible detriment to his own seller clients and potential unrepresented buyers.
COMMENT
This particular series of “errors and mistakes” appear to have arisen more in the agent’s favour than simply by “oversight or neglect”. Some were clearly based in incompetence while others were intentional. Four consumers, four cases, not much of a fine. Certainly, a fine like this is not likely to be much of a deterrent.
This case is from 2016
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker