B.C. agents disciplined over conflicts in Tulameen property sale

B.C.’s real estate regulator has issued three consent orders imposing penalties, education requirements and enforcement expenses over a property sale in which former teammates represented opposite sides without the required conflict protections.

Ashley Doherty-Tullis remained the sellers’ agent after Tyler Willis was removed from the listing agreement and began representing the buyers. The two co-owned the brokerage, where Brenda Crawford was managing broker. Deregistering their team did not resolve the conflicts created by Willis’s change of role.

The Superintendent of Real Estate’s delegate accepted separate consent proposals in Crawford (Re), 2026 BCSRE 238, dated September 24; Willis (Re), 2026 BCSRE 241, dated October 2; and Doherty-Tullis (Re), 2026 BCSRE 248, dated October 14. BCFSA announced the connected outcomes on October 21, 2026.

Removing an agent did not remove the conflict

The agreed facts concern a 2023 sale in Tulameen. Doherty-Tullis and Willis originally appeared as the sellers’ designated agents. Their brokerage operated as Royal LePage Princeton Realty. After prospective buyers contacted Doherty-Tullis, she sought deregistration of the team, which BCFSA approved on October 6.

She then recommended Willis to the buyers and asked the sellers to remove him from the listing agreement. The sellers signed the amendment, but the findings distinguish that signature from informed agreement to the conflict. Doherty-Tullis did not adequately explain the competing interests and risks of Willis becoming the buyers’ agent.

Willis did not tell the buyers he had previously represented the sellers. Neither side signed the required agreement addressing the conflict. Crawford also signed the listing amendment and later acknowledged that allowing him to act for the buyers in those circumstances was an error.

The adopted findings against Doherty-Tullis also address confidentiality: she told the buyers that the sellers had received no offers. She failed to protect her clients’ interests and fully disclose the conflict created by referring her co-listing agent to the buyers.

Different orders for each licensee

Doherty-Tullis was ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $70,769.68 and enforcement expenses of $2,475 within three months of her October 14 order. She must complete remedial trading-services education at her own expense within the period directed by BCFSA.

Willis must pay a $40,000 discipline penalty and a separate $9,011.25 penalty representing his remuneration from the transaction within three months of his October 2 order. His $2,300 enforcement-expense payment is due within two months. He must also complete remedial trading-services education at his own expense as directed by BCFSA.

For both agents, failure to comply permits the superintendent to suspend or cancel the licence without further notice. The orders do not establish that the payments or courses have already been completed. Both agents’ agreed facts state that they had no prior BCFSA discipline.

Crawford’s order imposes education and expenses, rather than a monetary discipline penalty. She must complete the Broker’s Business Planning and Financial Management Licensing Course at her own expense within four months of September 24. Failure to complete it results in immediate cancellation of her managing-broker licence without further notice. She may continue to hold a representative licence if she satisfies the other licensing requirements.

Crawford must also pay $1,500 in enforcement expenses within four months. Her misconduct finding concerns the failure to ensure Willis obtained the required written agreement from all parties. Her agreed facts record a 2012 consent order over a different managing-broker duty: ensuring an accountant’s report was filed on time.

Consent findings have defined limits

The three orders arise from the same transaction but adopt separate findings and obligations for each licensee. They do not award compensation to the buyers or sellers. The additional penalty tied to Willis’s remuneration is payable to BCFSA, not a finding of an equivalent client loss.

Each accepted proposal includes a waiver of the statutory appeal right. The proposals also state that they resolve the discipline proceeding without admitting civil liability and cannot be used in a civil proceeding concerning the matter without the respondent’s consent. The outcomes therefore establish professional misconduct and regulatory consequences, not a damages determination between the clients and their agents.