Ontario court refuses interim removal of FSRA mortgage warning

Ontario's Divisional Court has refused to order the interim removal of a financial regulator's mortgage warning about Sam Kamra, while leaving his judicial review challenge for a later hearing.

In Kamra v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 5685, released October 7, Justice Vermette dismissed only Kamra's motion for temporary relief. The judge expressly cautioned that the panel hearing the judicial review application could reach a different conclusion on the record before it.

Kamra denies unlicensed mortgage activity and the allegations against him. The interim ruling did not determine those allegations or find that he committed fraud or a crime.

A warning challenged before the main hearing

Kamra is a real estate salesperson registered with the Real Estate Council of Ontario. The reasons state that he has never been licensed as a mortgage agent or broker. Those are distinct licensing regimes; his lack of a mortgage licence did not itself resolve whether he had engaged in activity requiring one.

FSRA published its warning on June 12, 2026, after communications about suspected unlicensed mortgage activity. Kamra said he had not been told the regulator was considering a warning naming him or notified when it appeared. He argued that the notice was inaccurate and issued without the process required by FSRA's own guidance.

FSRA maintained that it had credible information warranting a warning. In July, it agreed to remove a brokerage email reference and narrow one statement about a release to a single consumer, but declined to withdraw the notice.

Kamra began judicial review proceedings in August. A case-conference judge directed that his interim motion be decided first and that FSRA's separate motion to quash be heard by the panel deciding the application. Neither the application nor that quash motion was finally determined in this ruling.

Why removal required a stronger preliminary case

Vermette treated the requested website removal as a mandatory interlocutory injunction: it would require FSRA to take positive steps, rather than merely refrain from acting. Kamra therefore had to demonstrate a strong likelihood of ultimately succeeding in the judicial review, alongside the court's consideration of irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

On the interim record, the judge concluded that the publication decision was not amenable to judicial review. The notice did not determine Kamra's legal rights or obligations or carry legal consequences, even though it could damage his reputation. Nor, in the judge's analysis, did publishing it exercise the kind of statutory power required for the relief sought under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The reasons relied on an earlier Divisional Court decision concerning publication by FSRA. Vermette found no principled distinction that would establish the strong preliminary case Kamra needed. But this was a prima facie assessment for interim relief, not a final ruling insulating every regulatory warning from review.

Reputational harm accepted despite weak evidence

The court did not reject the possibility of serious reputational damage. Kamra said the notice had cost him clients and business opportunities and that readers understood it as suggesting criminal activity.

Vermette described his evidence as general, vague and largely unsubstantiated. The affidavit contained only one client interaction, which was undated and did not mention the notice. Nevertheless, the judge accepted that publication, search indexing and media republication had harmed, and would continue to harm, his business reputation in ways difficult to quantify financially.

The weakness of the evidence still mattered when weighing the competing harms. The court gave Kamra's claimed harm limited weight, rather than treating it as nonexistent.

Neither side strongly favoured on the balance

Vermette accepted that FSRA's warning rested on credible reports, while stressing that the allegations had not been finally determined. Earlier litigation concerning the enforceability of a consumer's release supported the reports' credibility; although that decision survived appeal, its mortgage-related findings would not bind a later trial judge.

Consumer protection therefore deserved some weight. However, FSRA's delay in handling the complaints and issuing the warning reduced the weight of its public-interest position. The judge concluded that the balance of convenience did not strongly favour either side.

Ultimately, the preliminary conclusion about the availability of judicial review played the leading role. Together with the weak evidence of harm and a balance that did not substantially favour Kamra, it led the court to refuse interim removal.

Kamra was ordered to pay FSRA $5,000 in all-inclusive litigation costs within 30 days. That was a costs award, not a regulatory fine. The underlying judicial review and disputed allegations remained unresolved by this motion.