The Real Estate Council of Ontario has issued a discipline decision involving Jaswinder Singh Gill, a registered broker also known as Jas Gill, following multiple complaints regarding his professional conduct and solicitation tactics. The proceedings, which concluded with a decision released on October 31, 2025, centered on allegations of harassment, the persistent targeting of homeowners who were already represented by other brokerages, and the use of anonymous marketing materials that failed to identify his name or brokerage. The matter was resolved through an agreed statement of facts and penalty, in which Gill admitted to various violations of both the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act and the Trust in Real Estate Services Act.
The first set of incidents began in the summer of 2023 and involved a property located on a street anonymized as 1A Crescent. The sellers of the property had entered into a representation agreement with a specific brokerage in late June 2023 to list their home for sale. During the month of July, Gill, who was employed by a different brokerage, initiated contact with the sellers’ representative. Since both registrants had listings on the same street, they discussed the general interest and traffic their respective properties were receiving. During these discussions, Gill informed the other representative that he had a potential buyer for the home. A meeting was subsequently arranged for Gill to meet the sellers and view the property. During this encounter, Gill requested and obtained the phone number of one of the sellers.
In August 2023, the sellers adjusted their listing price and entered into a second representation agreement with their original brokerage. However, by mid August, they directed their representative to remove the listing from the local real estate board service, and the listing was terminated. Under the terms of both their first and second representation agreements, the sellers had specifically initialed a clause stating that if the agreement was cancelled or expired without a sale, they did not consent to being contacted by other real estate representatives to discuss marketing or listing the property. Despite this explicit lack of consent, Gill began a series of unsolicited communications shortly after the listing was removed.
On August 18, 2023, Gill sent a text message to the sellers requesting a phone call. Ten days later, he sent another message stating that he had recently sold a similar property and wanted to discuss how his team creates active buyers. The communication continued the following day with a phone call and a voicemail, followed by another text message on August 31 and yet another phone call and voicemail on September 2. The sellers, feeling pressured by the frequency of the contact, informed their original representative about the multiple texts and calls. They requested that their representative contact Gill directly to tell him they were already represented and that all inquiries must go through their agent.
In September 2023, the sellers’ representative sent a text message to Gill advising him to stop contacting the homeowners. The representative noted that the sellers felt harassed by the constant communication. While the sellers’ representative alleged that multiple phone calls were made to Gill to demand he cease all communication, Gill denied those specific allegations. However, the agreed facts established that the repeated attempts to solicit the listing when Gill knew or ought to have known the sellers were clients of another brokerage constituted a violation of professional standards.
A second, separate complaint arose in April 2024 involving a property on 2B Crescent. This property was listed for sale with a different brokerage, and the listing explicitly noted on the real estate board service that the sellers did not wish to be contacted after the expiration of the listing. The sellers eventually terminated the listing before its scheduled expiration date. Shortly after this termination, Gill began attending the property in person and leaving handwritten notes. These notes asked the homeowners if they were still taking offers for their house and provided a direct phone number for contact. Notably, the notes did not identify Gill by name or mention his brokerage, which is a requirement for real estate advertising in Ontario.
The homeowners of the 2B Crescent property had a prominent “No Soliciting” sign posted on their front door. After receiving several of these anonymous notes, the sellers performed an online search of the phone number provided. Their research led them to identify Gill as the source of the notes. They also discovered various public complaints from other consumers regarding Gill’s solicitation tactics. In an effort to get the behavior to stop, the sellers posted a one star review on Gill’s Google business profile, expressing their frustration with the notes and the fact that they had clearly indicated they did not want to be contacted.
Gill’s response to the negative Google review was notably defiant. Rather than apologizing for the unsolicited contact or the disregard for the “No Soliciting” sign, Gill replied by thanking the homeowner for the review. He stated that he did not know if the homeowner realized how much the review would help him find new clients. He claimed that the review highlighted traits that were attractive to buyers and sellers, such as being aggressive, hungry, and caring. He further asserted that most people are looking for an active agent like himself and mentioned his history of selling more than 150 homes over two decades. Despite this public exchange and the homeowners’ clear request for him to stop, Gill allegedly returned to the property afterward, ringing the doorbell and leaving another note. Gill later removed the Google review and the response from public view.
The Discipline Committee found that Gill’s conduct across both cases violated several sections of the real estate code of ethics. Under the older Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, his actions were deemed to be a failure to communicate through a person’s representative and were characterized as unprofessional and unbecoming of a registrant. The committee also found that the frequency and nature of the communication constituted harassment. Under the newer Trust in Real Estate Services Act, which governs current real estate practice in Ontario, Gill was found to have failed to act with courtesy and integrity. The committee specifically noted that his behavior of repeatedly visiting a property and continuing solicitation after being asked to stop constituted undue pressure and harassment.
Furthermore, the committee addressed the technical violations regarding Gill’s marketing materials. Real estate regulations in Ontario require that any advertisement or solicitation clearly and prominently disclose the name of the registrant and the brokerage that employs them. By leaving handwritten notes that only contained a phone number, Gill failed to meet these transparency requirements. This lack of disclosure prevented homeowners from easily identifying who was soliciting them and made it more difficult for them to file formal complaints or request that communication stop.
As a result of these findings, the Chair of the Discipline Committee ordered Gill to pay a fine of $8,000 to the Real Estate Council of Ontario. The fine is required to be paid in full by April 29, 2026. In addition to the financial penalty, Gill is required to successfully complete a specific continuing education course titled Introduction to TRESA. This course focuses on the legislative framework and ethical obligations that currently govern the real estate profession in the province. Gill must provide proof of completion to the regulator within 240 days of the decision.
The decision serves as a formal record of the expectations placed on real estate professionals regarding the “cold calling” and “door knocking” practices that are common in the industry. It clarifies that while solicitation is a standard part of the business, it must be conducted within the bounds of existing representation agreements and must respect the explicit wishes of homeowners. The findings emphasize that persistence which crosses into harassment, or the failure to identify oneself in marketing materials, will result in regulatory discipline. The committee’s ruling underscores the requirement for registrants to maintain professional boundaries and adhere to the transparency rules intended to protect the public from unwanted or anonymous solicitation.
Read more Ontario legal news here.
