A Real Estate Council of Ontario appeals panel has dismissed an agent’s challenge to discipline findings over a promised commission rebate that was never paid to a buyer following a 2014 condominium purchase.
In a decision released March 17, 2025, the panel upheld earlier findings that Shuxin Liu, registered as Antone Liu, breached sections 3, 35 and 39 of the Code of Ethics under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002. The panel affirmed a $20,000 fine and a requirement that Liu complete RECO’s Compliance and Ethics in Real Estate courses, with new timelines that run 180 days from when RECO sends the appeal decision.
The matter began with a complaint to RECO from a buyer who used Liu’s services in May 2014 to purchase a new condominium unit in a building identified in the decision as 1‑A Street in City A. Some information was anonymized by RECO to protect the privacy of some of the parties involved.
As part of the engagement, Liu issued a promissory note or commission rebate agreement stating he would share 50 percent of the commission he received on closing. The buyer did not sign a buyer representation agreement during the purchase process. The transaction closed on May 19, 2021. After closing, the buyer made repeated requests for the rebate. According to the evidence accepted by the discipline panel, the rebate was not paid.
RECO brought an allegation statement in June 2022. A discipline hearing on the merits took place March 20 and 21, 2023. The buyer testified with an interpreter. Liu testified on his own behalf. The panel found that the written commission rebate did not contain any conditions and did not require the buyer to sign a buyer representation agreement. The panel also accepted brokerage records showing a commission was paid to Liu’s brokerage in connection with the transaction and that Liu accepted the trade record sheet reflecting commission rather than a referral fee. While the panel did not find that Liu misled RECO or the buyer about the status of the commission, it concluded he failed to honour his written rebate promise. On June 16, 2023, the panel held that Liu failed to treat the buyer fairly, failed to be financially responsible, and engaged in unprofessional conduct.
A separate penalty hearing occurred on August 28, 2023. Liu sought an adjournment to review case law filed by RECO, which the panel denied, noting there was no rule requiring earlier delivery and that RECO had identified the authorities it would rely on before the hearing. RECO asked for a $20,000 fine and completion of the Compliance and Ethics courses. In written reasons released October 19, 2023, the discipline panel accepted that position. It considered the factors set out in RECO v. Suzette Thompson, including the nature and gravity of the misconduct, the agent’s role, any financial gain, impact on the complainant, and the need for specific and general deterrence. The panel characterized the conduct as a deliberate decision not to pay a promised rebate, found financial benefit to the agent and financial loss to the buyer, and set the fine at $20,000 alongside the education requirement. No costs were sought at that stage.
Liu filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2023 and, after receiving an extension, delivered his factum on November 24, 2024. He remained self‑represented. On appeal he argued that the buyer’s testimony was inconsistent and not credible, that the hearing was biased and procedurally unfair, that the dispute was purely contractual and not a matter of professional ethics, and that the commission agreement was invalid or unenforceable because the buyer did not sign a buyer representation agreement.
The appeals panel identified reasonableness as the governing standard of review, citing that RECO appeal bodies have long applied deference to discipline findings and that nothing in recent Supreme Court jurisprudence altered that approach for this context. The panel noted that an appeal is not a new hearing and does not permit a relitigation of the evidence absent palpable and overriding error.
On the credibility and fairness points, the panel found no basis to interfere. It reviewed the discipline reasons and the record and concluded the discipline panel understood Liu’s evidence but preferred the buyer’s testimony and documentary records where they conflicted. It rejected the claim of bias, noting that the panel had in fact declined to proceed on a proposed amended allegation statement and instead used the original statement with only a clerical name correction. It also rejected criticisms about the registrar not using every document it had produced, emphasizing that many of the emails were in Liu’s possession and could have been filed by him. The appeals panel added that interruptions during the hearing reflected the chair’s efforts to maintain procedure rather than unfairness.
On jurisdiction, the appeals panel stated that discipline panels routinely consider contracts where they relate to alleged Code breaches. The existence and terms of the commission rebate were central to the allegations. The panel held that even if contractual issues could also ground a civil claim, they remained within the scope of professional discipline where a registrant’s conduct with a client is at issue.
On the enforceability argument, the panel pointed to Liu’s own wording of the rebate undertaking, which promised to share 50 percent of the commission received when the purchase closed. It found no mention of a buyer representation agreement in that document and concluded that the discipline panel reasonably interpreted the promise as unconditional. The appeals panel also noted that the discipline panel accepted that Liu did not intend to deceive anyone about payment timing, but that intent did not alter the plain terms of the rebate or the finding that it was not honoured.
Having rejected the grounds of appeal from the merits decision, the appeals panel turned to penalty. Liu did not advance specific submissions that the penalty was excessive. RECO argued the sanction was appropriate under the Thompson factors. The appeals panel agreed that the reasons on penalty were detailed and reasonable and that the $20,000 fine and education requirements should stand. The panel adjusted only the compliance dates, ordering that payment of the fine and completion of the courses occur within 180 days of RECO sending the appeal decision, and allowing Liu to apply for an extension if course availability prevents timely completion.
The panel left the issue of appeal costs to further written submissions. The registrar has seven days from the decision’s release to advise whether it will seek costs, after which the parties have a short timetable to agree or file brief written submissions on entitlement and quantum.
