A recent discipline decision released by the Real Estate Council of Ontario has highlighted the regulatory obligations placed on real estate agents regarding the verification of property information. Jeffery W. Gyles, a salesperson with EXP Realty of Canada Inc., has been ordered to pay a fine of $8,000 and complete additional education after admitting to publishing incorrect property tax information for a home in Mississauga. The decision, which follows a complaint filed after the closing of a residential transaction, centers on the failure to verify material facts before marketing a property to potential buyers. The case was resolved through an Agreed Statement of Facts and Penalty, where Gyles acknowledged that his actions breached the Code of Ethics under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002.
The transaction in question involved a residential property located at 6517 Western Skies Way in Mississauga, Ontario. On December 11, 2023, the seller of the property entered into a representation agreement with the brokerage EXP Realty of Canada Inc., designating Jeffery Gyles as the listing representative. As part of the standard procedure for listing a home, the agent was responsible for gathering and publishing data about the property to the local Multiple Listing Service to market the home to other agents and the public. When the property was uploaded to the real estate board’s listing service that same day, it was listed with an asking price of $1,749,000. Included in the detailed description of the property was a specific figure for the annual tax levy for the year 2023, which was advertised as $5,480.
The marketing of the property continued through the winter months of late 2023 and early 2024. On December 28, 2023, at the request of the seller, Gyles lowered the asking price on the listing to $1,625,000. Several weeks later, on January 15, 2024, a further price reduction was implemented, bringing the list price down to $1,579,000. Throughout these pricing adjustments, the property tax information on the Multiple Listing Service remained consistent with the original figure provided when the listing first went live. Potential buyers relying on this data would have calculated their monthly carrying costs based on the advertised annual tax burden of approximately $5,500.
By late January 2024, the marketing efforts attracted a serious offer. On January 28, 2024, two buyers, represented by a salesperson from Housesigma Inc., submitted an offer to purchase the property for $1,515,000. This initial offer included a deposit of $100,000 and contained specific conditions regarding a home inspection and a requirement for the seller to buy out a furnace rental contract. Notably, the offer did not include a condition for financing, suggesting the buyers were confident in their ability to fund the purchase or had pre-arranged their capital. Following a period of negotiation between the parties, several amendments were made to the offer. The timeframe for the home inspection was adjusted, and the clause requiring the seller to buy out the furnace rental was removed. Ultimately, the parties agreed on a final purchase price of $1,510,000 with a closing date set for April 2, 2024.
The transaction proceeded toward closing for the next two months without any documented issues regarding the property taxes. However, on April 1, 2024, just one day before the scheduled completion of the sale, the lawyer representing the buyers contacted the seller’s lawyer regarding a significant discrepancy. The legal team had discovered that the actual property taxes for the home were considerably higher than what had been advertised on the listing service. While the listing had stated the 2023 taxes were $5,480, the actual tax certificate revealed the true figure to be higher. Despite this late discovery, the buyers and seller were unable to reach an agreement to settle the difference prior to closing. The transaction was completed as scheduled on April 2, 2024, but the issue regarding the misleading information remained unresolved between the parties.
Following the closing, the buyers received the official tax certificate for the property which confirmed their lawyer’s findings. The final property taxes for 2023 were in fact $8,709.61. This revealed a discrepancy of $3,229.61 between the actual tax levy and the amount of $5,480 that Gyles had advertised in the MLS listing. This difference represented a significant increase in the annual carrying costs for the new owners, amounting to more than a fifty percent increase over the advertised tax rate. A complaint was subsequently filed with the Real Estate Council of Ontario regarding the conduct of the listing agent and the accuracy of the information provided during the marketing process.
During the ensuing investigation by the regulator, Gyles provided an explanation for how the incorrect figure appeared in the listing. He stated that the property tax amount had been provided to him verbally by the seller during a telephone conversation. Gyles admitted that he had used this verbal figure as the sole source for the advertised property taxes and had not taken steps to independently verify the amount through documentation such as a tax bill or municipal records. This admission became central to the findings of the Discipline Committee, as it established a failure to verify material facts which is a core requirement for registrants trading in real estate in Ontario.
The Discipline Committee reviewed the conduct in the context of the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, and its associated Code of Ethics. The legislation imposes strict duties on agents to ensure the accuracy of the information they publish. Specifically, Section 22.1 of the General Regulation requires a broker or salesperson who represents a client to take reasonable steps to determine the material facts relating to a transaction and to disclose those facts to their client. By relying solely on a verbal representation from the seller without seeking supporting documentation, Gyles failed to meet the standard of taking “reasonable steps” to determine the accuracy of the tax levy. Property taxes are considered a material fact because they directly impact a buyer’s decision-making process and their financial obligations regarding the property.
Furthermore, the conduct was found to violate Section 37 of the Code of Ethics, which explicitly prohibits registrants from making false, misleading, or deceptive statements in any advertisement or material published regarding a trade in real estate. While there was no finding that Gyles intended to deceive the buyers, the strict liability nature of advertising regulations means that publishing incorrect information, due to a lack of verification, still constitutes a breach of the Act. The committee also cited violations of Sections 5 and 9 of the Code of Ethics. Section 5 mandates that registrants make their best efforts to ensure representations are accurate and not misleading. Section 9 outlines the requirement to provide conscientious, courteous, and competent service, demonstrating reasonable knowledge, skill, and judgment. The failure to verify a basic financial figure like property taxes was determined to fall short of the competent service expected of a professional licensee.
The penalty agreed upon by the parties and accepted by the Chair of the Discipline Committee reflects the seriousness of the error while acknowledging the agent’s cooperation with the process. Gyles agreed to pay a fine of $8,000 to the Real Estate Council of Ontario. This fine is payable within one year of the decision date, with a deadline of July 14, 2026. In addition to the financial penalty, the order emphasizes professional remediation. Gyles is required to successfully complete the educational course titled “RECO Introduction to TRESA.” This course is designed to reinforce the agent’s understanding of the legislative framework and ethical obligations under the current act. He must complete this educational requirement within six months of the decision and provide proof of completion to the regulator shortly thereafter.
The decision explicitly notes that the buyers and seller could not agree to settle the tax discrepancy before closing, which suggests the buyers were left to absorb the higher ongoing costs of the property taxes. The regulatory outcome focuses on the conduct of the registrant rather than restitution for the buyers. The discipline process serves to uphold the standards of the profession by ensuring that agents understand their duty to verify information rather than acting as mere conduits for unverified data provided by sellers. The requirement to verify material facts is intended to protect the integrity of the real estate marketplace and ensure that consumers can rely on the representations made by licensed professionals.
The order was finalized on July 14, 2025, by the Chair of the Discipline Committee. The Chair confirmed that the agreed statement of facts supported the finding that Gyles breached the relevant sections of the Code of Ethics and the General Regulation. By accepting the joint submission, the committee avoided the need for a full contested hearing, allowing the matter to be resolved based on Gyles’ admission of the facts and his acceptance of the penalty. The case serves as a matter of public record detailing the specific obligations of real estate agents to validate the financial details of the properties they list for sale.
