A real estate agent who was found to have misled her clients in a multiple-offer situation has been ordered to pay a total of $23,000 in fines and costs after a lengthy disciplinary and appeal process. Nina Deeb was found to have breached several sections of the Code of Ethics under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002 for her conduct in a 2017 transaction where she represented both the buyers and the seller. The case, which spanned several years and involved multiple hearings and appeals, concluded with a final decision on costs released on June 7, 2024.
The matter originated from a complaint filed with the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) in August 2017. The complainants, who were the buyers in the transaction, alleged that Ms. Deeb had led them to believe they were in a competitive bidding situation for a property, causing them to offer $50,000 over the asking price. RECO anonymized some of the information in the case, to protect the privacy of other persons or companies.
Ms. Deeb was acting as a dual agent, representing both the buyers and the seller of the property located at 1-A Street in City A. The property was listed for $839,000, and the complainants ultimately purchased it for $890,000.
The initial discipline hearing was held over several days in October 2019 and January 2021. The central issue was whether Ms. Deeb had misrepresented the number of offers on the property. The complainants testified that Ms. Deeb had informed them of other offers, leading them to believe they needed to make a strong offer to be successful. A key piece of evidence was an email from Ms. Deeb to the complainants on May 9, 2017, which stated, “I wanted to let you know that one of the agents that had registered to submit an offer has withdrawn… It is one offer and your offer at this point.” However, the complainants maintained they were never clearly told their offer was the only one before it was submitted and accepted.
Ms. Deeb, in her testimony, claimed that she had verbally informed the complainants that their offer was the only one before it was presented to the seller. She characterized the wording in her email as a “poor choice of words.” The Discipline Committee, however, found the complainants’ evidence to be more credible. In its decision released on March 11, 2021, the panel found that Ms. Deeb had failed to protect the best interests of her clients, had not provided conscientious and competent service, and had knowingly made an inaccurate representation in respect of a trade in real estate. The panel noted that in a dual agency situation, a real estate agent has a heightened duty to be transparent and ensure all parties have accurate information. The panel concluded that Ms. Deeb had multiple opportunities to clarify the offer situation in writing but failed to do so.
Following the finding of professional misconduct, a penalty hearing was held on June 11, 2021. In its decision released on September 15, 2021, the Discipline Committee ordered Ms. Deeb to pay a fine of $14,000. The committee also ordered her to pay $6,000 in costs related to an unsuccessful motion she had brought to have the proceedings stayed for abuse of process. The panel found that the motion was “unreasonable, frivolous and vexatious” and had unnecessarily delayed the proceedings. The panel noted that Ms. Deeb had shown no remorse for her actions.
Ms. Deeb appealed the Discipline Committee’s decisions to the RECO Appeals Committee. The appeal was heard on February 24, 2023. Ms. Deeb’s counsel argued that the lower panel had made errors of fact and law, had failed to properly consider evidence, and that its decisions were unreasonable. The appeal challenged the initial motion decision, the merits decision, and the penalty decision.
The Appeals Committee, in a detailed decision released on October 25, 2023, dismissed Ms. Deeb’s appeal in its entirety. The panel found that the Discipline Committee’s findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The appeal panel noted that Ms. Deeb’s attempt to re-argue interlocutory matters and challenge the credibility findings of the lower panel was unproductive. The panel stated that it is not the function of an appeal panel to retry the merits of a discipline hearing. The Appeals Committee upheld the $14,000 fine and the $6,000 costs order, giving Ms. Deeb one year from the date of the appeal decision to pay.
The final stage of the proceedings involved the issue of costs for the appeal itself. As the parties could not agree on costs, they made written submissions. RECO sought an additional $3,000 in costs, arguing that Ms. Deeb’s appeal was unreasonable, frivolous, and vexatious. Ms. Deeb argued that each party should bear their own costs.
In its final decision on costs, released on June 7, 2024, the Appeal Panel awarded RECO the $3,000 it had requested. The panel reiterated that its authority to award costs is derived from statute and is limited to situations where a party’s conduct has been unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious. The panel found that Ms. Deeb’s appeal met this threshold. The panel noted that Ms. Deeb’s attempts to re-litigate issues that had already been decided were unproductive and questionable. The decision stated that the appeal hearing took a single day, and the panel was restricted to making an award of $3,000. Ms. Deeb was ordered to pay the amount within thirty days of the decision’s release.
In total, Ms. Deeb has been ordered to pay a $14,000 fine, $6,000 in costs for the initial hearing, and $3,000 in costs for the appeal, for a total of $23,000.
