Certificate renewal - Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers

Transcription

z
Volume 5 | Number 3 October 2006
THE PUBLICATION FOR QUÉBEC REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE PROFESSIONALS
PROFESSIONAL INSPECTION CAPSULE
Marijuana
growhouses for sale
The members of the Discipline Committee
When the notice of disclosure
play a key yet
unrecognized role
is handled by the
collaborating agent
Page 3
A few precautions
Page 22
Page 7
Certificate renewal
time is almost here
C
ertificate renewal forms for the year 2007 will go out at the beginning of November.
Members who wish to renew their certificate must return their duly completed renewal
notice and payment before December 13, 2006 for their application to be processed
by January 1, 2007.
Please note that changes have been made to the renewal forms. The section concerning criminal
offences will now appear on the recto, right after the information on the applicant. Applicants will need
to verify the accuracy of the information and make any corrections on the reverse of the form.
As in previous years, brokers and agents will be able to track the status of their certificate renewal
on the Association’s website. u
The Fonds d’indemnisation du courtage immobilier
contributes more than
$3.2 million to the capitalization
YOUR
COPY OF THE
BRAND NEW
of the Fonds d’assurance responsabilité professionnelle de l’ACAIQ
age
te Broker
Real Esta
f
Book o
rd
Standa
s
Clause
PUBLISHER
Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Elected Chairman
Serge Brousseau
Elected Directors
Robert Aubin
Georges Bardagi
Diane Bourbonnière
Raymond Desbiens
Richard Dion
David Farber
Daniel Pelchat
Johanne Roy
I
n September 2006, the Fonds d’indemnisation du courtage immobilier contributed the
sum of $3,231,300 to the initial capitalization of the new Fonds d’assurance responsabilité
professionnelle (FARCIQ), created by the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du
Québec (ACAIQ). “This financial contribution to set up the insurance fund helps us fulfill our mandate
to protect consumers who do business with real estate brokers and agents,” declared Me Paul Mayer
(center), Chairman of the Fonds d’indemnisation. He is flanked by Me Claudie Tremblay, Secretary of the
Fonds d’indemnisation, Jean Landry and Me Marie-Chantal Thouin, FARCIQ Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer respectively, and ACAIQ President and Chief Executive Officer Robert Nadeau. u
Directors appointed by the Government
Louise Clément
Jean Mathieu
President and Chief Executive Officer
Robert Nadeau
Secretary appointed by the Board
INSERTED
IN THIS NEWSLETTER
Claude Barsalou
PRINTED ON
RECYCLABLE
PAPER
Publications Mail • Agreement No. : 40065526
6300 Auteuil, suite 300, Brossard (Québec) J4Z 3P2
Telephone: (450) 676-4800 or 1 800 440-5110 • fax: (450) 676-7801
[email protected] • www.acaiq.com
LEGAL DEPOSIT:
BIBLIOTHÈQUE et archives NATIONALEs DU QUÉBEC,
LIBRARY AND ARCHIVES CANADA • ISSN 1703-9800
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
c
o
u
r
t
i
e
r
s
e
t
a
g
e
n
t
s
i
m
m
o
b
i
l
i
e
r
s
d
u
Q
u
é
b
e
c
The broker’s and agent’s
duty to
D
espite a notable improvement in the
practices of real estate brokers and
agents regarding their disclosure obligations, the Professional Inspection Department
wishes to remind everyone of a few rules and to
highlight some of the errors commonly made
in this area.
Who must disclose?
• Any real estate broker or agent, whether in
the course of his duties or not, who holds
or intends to acquire an interest in immovable property that is being purchased, sold
or exchanged (section 22 of the Real Estate
Brokerage Act).
• Any broker or agent whose certificate is suspended must also fill out a notice of disclosure
since he remains a member of the ACAIQ until
his certificate expires, i.e. December 31 of
the current year.
Whose responsibility is it?
•The responsibility of having the notice of disclosure signed belongs to the broker or agent
who buys, sells or exchanges an immovable,
directly or indirectly. If the agent is the seller
of an immovable or represents a close relative
(his father, for example) and a collaborating
agent represents the buyer, it is the responsibility of the agent who is selling or representing the seller to ensure with the collaborating
agent that the buyer has signed the notice of
disclosure (read advice to this effect in the
capsule entitled “When the notice of disclosure is handled by the collaborating agent”,
on page 3).
When does one hold a direct
interest in an immovable?
•Direct interest usually refers to cases where
the broker or agent is one of the parties to the
transaction. Very often, these are cases where
the professional is not acting in the course of
his duties and not acting as intermediary. For
example, an agent who buys or sells a residence for himself must disclose to the seller
or the buyer the fact that he is the holder of a
certificate, even if they already know that he
is a real estate agent.
disclose
When does one hold an indirect
interest in an immovable?
•Indirect interest refers to cases where the broker or agent represents a close relation, e.g.
father, mother, spouse, child, brother, sister, or
a company in which he is a shareholder. When
in doubt, spell it out!
How to disclose?
•Section 22 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act
requires written disclosure without delay, in
the manner prescribed in the by-laws. To this
effect, the ACAIQ proposes a form entitled
“Notice of disclosure to be completed before
any commitment”. The form is available on the
Association’s website and fulfills the requirements of section 81 of the By-Law of the
ACAIQ.
•Notifying the prospective contracting party
(buyer or seller) verbally or by any other written means (including by using clause 8.1 of
the promise to purchase) is not sufficient
and not in accordance with the law.
When and to whom should disclosure be made?
The broker or agent must have the prospective
contracting party (usually the consumer) sign
without delay, meaning at the earliest opportunity, and definitely before the consumer enters
into a contractual agreement.
•Scenario 1: If the real estate broker or agent
is or represents the seller, have the buyer sign
the notice before the promise to purchase is
drafted.
•Scenario 2: If the real estate broker or agent
is or represents the buyer, have the seller sign
the notice before the promise to purchase is
accepted.
Consequences of non-disclosure
or improper disclosure
• According to section 22 of the Real Estate
Brokerage Act, a prospective contracting party
who does not receive the notice of disclosure
without delay could, as long as the contract
evidencing the transaction has not been
signed (usually the notarized deed), withdraw
without penalty from any promise to purchase
by sending a formal demand letter.
•This entails the risk of legal action. Consumers
could take action against the real estate agent
for failing to disclose, thereby causing their
sale or purchase to abort. Legal action could
also come from the brokers or agents involved
in the transaction for loss of compensation
through the agent’s fault.
•Notices of disclosure received by the ACAIQ or
seen during professional inspection visits are
verified and, if found inadequate or missing
altogether from the files, could be referred to
the Professional Inspection Committee, which
in turn can refer the case to the Syndic for
investigation.
What to do with the signed copy
of the notice of disclosure
•The copy must be sent to the ACAIQ’s Professional Inspection Department as soon as
possible together with a copy of the promise
to purchase and its annexes. It is the agent’s
responsibility to do this, not the broker’s.
•The original signed by the parties must be
given to the broker who will place copies in
the transaction files.
Common errors
Here is a list of the most common errors made by
real estate brokers and agents when completing
their notices of disclosure:
•Identity of the prospective contracting party:
This is the person to whom you must disclose
your quality as certificate holder (and not the
person with whom you have a connection).
For example, if you are representing your sister
who is buying an immovable, the prospective
contracting party is the seller, not your sister.
•The timing of the signature by the prospective
contracting party: This is the most common
error. Very often notices of disclosure are
signed after the prospective contracting party
has entered a contract i.e. after he has signed
or accepted a promise to purchase.
•The nature of the interest: Often, the explanation provided is complicated or vague. The
idea here is to explain the situation in simple
terms. Examples: “I am selling my own
residence”, “I am representing my daughter”,
“My spouse is buying the property”, “I am a
shareholder in the company that is buying the
property”, etc.
•Missing signature(s): It is important that all
prospective contracting parties identified as
sellers on the brokerage contract or buyers
on the promise to purchase sign the notice of
disclosure.
• Failure to send a copy of the notice of disclosure, together with the promise to purchase
and its annexes, to the ACAIQ without
delay. u
For more information on your duty to disclose,
read the articles on this topic on the ACAIQ website
or contact the Info ACAIQ telephone information
center at 450 462-9800 or 1 800 440-7170.
www.century21quebec.com
® and TM Registered trademarks of Century 21 Real Estate Corporation used under license. Each office is independently owned and operated.
® TM Trademarks of AIR MILES International Trading B.V. Used under license by Loyalty Management Group Canada Inc. and Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership
z
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec
When the notice of disclosure
is handled by the collaborating agent
W
hen a real estate broker or agent
owns or intends to acquire a direct
or indirect interest in an immovable
that is being purchased, sold or exchanged, he
must disclose his professional status. This applies,
for example, to an agent who sells or buys for
himself or who represents a close relative in a real
estate transaction. In some cases, however, it can
be difficult to get a copy of the disclosure signed.
For a selling agent, this is often the case when a
collaborating agent is involved. Since the collaborator is the only one with access to the buyer (the
prospective contracting party), he is the one who
must get the notice of disclosure signed.
To better understand the real estate agent’s obligations in this area, we recommend the following
articles, available on the ACAIQ website:
•In the Notice of Disclosure, who is the
“prospective contracting party”?
•Disclosure obligation
• A real estate agent is obligated to disclose
his professional status, even in a personal
transaction
Steps to follow for the
selling agent:
•Include clear instructions on the Detailed Description Sheet, e.g. “Notice of disclosure must
be signed by any prospective buyer before
drafting a promise to purchase”.
•Complete your notice of disclosure and make
several copies in order to have one handy
at all times. Fill out the sections “Identity of
the certificate holder”, “Identification of the
immovable”, “Nature of the interest of the
certificate holder” and “Certificate holder’s
declaration and signature” and leave blank
the section “Identity of the prospective
contracting party(ies) and signatures”, to be
completed by the collaborating agent.
•When a collaborating agent makes an appointment, remind him of his obligation to
have the notice signed before the buyer signs
a promise to purchase and mention that your
notice of disclosure will be available at the
time of the visit, or fax it to him.
•Explain to the collaborating agent the
importance of having the notice of disclosure
signed, stressing the consequences if he fails
to do so, i.e. the fact that the buyer may
withdraw his offer at any time before the signing of the act of sale without penalty (loss of
compensation) and the risk of legal action in
case of non-disclosure or improper disclosure.
•Make sure the collaborating agent takes a
copy of the notice at the time of his visit and
insist on the importance of getting it signed by
the buyer within the required time frame.
Despite all these precautions, you may receive
a promise to purchase without the notice of
disclosure signed by the buyer. Remember that if
this happens, you will be in violation since you are
responsible for completing the notice and having it
signed in a timely fashion.
How can you reduce the risk of
legal and disciplinary action?
STEP UP TO AN
exciting
The ACAIQ proposes three options:
Option 1: Refuse the promise to purchase and
ask the collaborating to have the notice of disclosure signed prior to drafting a new promise to purchase. This option can be unrealistic in an active
market since it could cause the loss of a buyer.
Option 2: If you have followed all the above
steps and still receive a promise to purchase without a notice of disclosure signed by the buyer, use
the acceptance period indicated on the promise to
purchase to get the notice of disclosure from the
collaborating agent.
Option 3: When it is not in the seller’s interest to wait (e.g. in case of multiple promises to
purchase), draft a counter-proposal and include a
requirement that the buyer sign the notice of disclosure (to be attached to the counter-proposal)
within the required time frame.
Without speculating on your potential
liability or that of the collaborating agent, we
can safely say that if these recommendations are
followed, if the buyer attempts to withdraw his
promise to purchase, the real estate agent will be
able to show, with supporting evidence in the file,
that he took all reasonable means to ensure that
the notice of disclosure was completed and signed
at the earliest opportunity. u
CAREER
By building your career at Multi-Prêts,
you join a winning team and benefit
from our many advantages:
Major assets…
Access to our mortgage base rates
Significant advertising spin-offs
($ 1 000 000* and more)
Support and training…
Revision office (evaluation of difficult files)
Technology and marketing support
Continuing education
Additional income opportunities
(mortgage protection plan)
14, Place du Commerce, office 600
Nuns’ Island (Quebec) H3E 1T5
For more information, please contact Annie Blais at 514 287-8785
www.multiprets.ca
One out of two French Canadians knows Multi-Prêts – Source: Descarie & Complices – April 2005 Omnibus survey
*
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ z
#2 - MPH -du
Journal
ICCPH anglais - Octobre 2006 - 7,3 po x 5,8 po - CLR
Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers
Québec
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERIES
Use of clause B2.3 to cancel
a first promise to purchase conditional upon
the sale of the buyer’s immovable
C
lause B2.3 of Annex B – Residential
immovable allows for the acceptance of
a promise to purchase conditional upon
cancellation of a promise previously accepted by
the seller. With this clause, the seller promises to
undertake, in good faith and at his own expense,
reasonable steps to obtain cancellation of every
previously accepted promise to purchase the immovable. Several real estate brokers and agents
wonder about the extent of the steps that need to
be taken by the seller to obtain cancellation of a
first promise to purchase conditional upon the sale
of the buyer’s immovable (clauses B2.1 and B2.2).
Under clause B2.2 of Annex B, the seller
may continue to offer his immovable for sale even
if a promise to purchase has been accepted. This
privilege is granted in exchange for a right of preference (right of first refusal) granted to the buyer
whose promise to purchase has been accepted.
If the seller accepts a new promise to purchase
conditional to the cancellation of the first one, he
will be required, within the period indicated under
The period granted to the seller, in the
second buyer’s promise to purchase, to obtain
cancellation of a previous promise to purchase
conditional upon the sale of the buyer’s immovclause B2.3, to send a notice to the
able, should exceed by at least five days the
first buyer as soon as the second
longest period provided for the fulfilment of the
buyer has fulfilled all the conditions
conditions of the new promise to purchase. This is
contained in his promise to purchase (fithe minimum reasonable period to allow the seller
nancing, building inspection, water and/or
to send his 72-hour notice to the first seller, get
soil quality test, etc.), except for the signing of
proof of receipt and notify the second buyer of the
the act of sale in the presence of a notary.
cancellation of the
The first buyer
first promise to purhas 72 hours followThe seller’s broker or agent should
chase. One should
ing receipt of this
never advise him to send the notice to
not hesitate to make
notification (or of the
the second buyer if any uncertainty
this period even
time sent if sent by tellonger if circumegram )1 to notify the
whatsoever remains regarding the
stances require.
seller or his broker in
cancellation of the first promise
Before the
writing of his decision
to purchase.
seller notifies the
to waive the condition
second buyer of
regarding the sale of
the cancellation of the first promise to purchase,
his immovable and any other condition contained
he must make sure it has indeed been cancelled.
in his promise to purchase, or to make his promise
The seller’s broker or agent should never advise
to purchase null and void. If the first buyer
him to send the notice to the second buyer if any
chooses to waive the condition regarding the sale
uncertainty whatsoever remains regarding the
of his immovable, he must at the same time demcancellation of the first promise to purchase. This
onstrate to the seller that he has the necessary
could be the case if, for example, the buyer gave
funds to cover the purchase price. In some cases,
an ambiguous reply to the 72-hour notice2. In this
this may mean that the buyer will need to send a
case, the agent should advise the seller to consult
second letter of commitment from the mortgage
his legal advisor to determine out whether he is
lender that does not contain any conditions. If the
liberated from the first promise to purchase.
buyer does not avail himself of the provisions of
clause B2.2 within the 72-hour period, the promise to purchase becomes null and void.
10:45
Once cancellation has been obtained,
the real estate broker or agent must fill out an
“Amendments and Notice of Fulfilment of Conditions” form in order to notify the second buyer
that condition B2.3 has been fulfilled. u
For more information, do not hesitate
to contact the INFO ACAIQ
telephone information center :
450 462-9800 • 1 800 440-7170
1
The data recorded by the telecommunications
company serves as proof of the time and date
of notification by the seller.
2
For instance, rather than waiving his conditions,
the buyer were to indicate simply that he is still
interested in buying and will make every
necessary effort to complete the transaction.
T h i s i s T i ff a n y … a n e w R E / M A X re c r u i t !
T iffany just got a new listing and she's already dreaming up her marketing strategy.
And with references from her 118,000 colleagues worldwide, there's a very good
chance she'll find a buyer sooner rather than later. That's because the RE/MAX
network opens a lot of doors!
A f t e r a b r i e f s t o p a t t h e o ff i c e , T i ff a n y i s h e a d i n g o ff t o a v e r y i m p o r t a n t l u n c h
date…with her kids!
B a l a n c i n g y o u r p e r s o n a l a n d p ro f e s s i o n a l i s e a s y w h e n y o u ' re p a r t o f a
winning team.
l
u
f
i
t
u
a
e
b
s
eat
r
Life'
g
a
t
o
g
e
when you'rvk behind you.
netwo
J o i n T i ff a n y a n d b e c o m e p a r t o f t h e R E / M A X f a m i l y t o d a y.
1.800.361.9325
z
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ THOUSANDS OF HOUSES.
ONE HOME.
35776_Dossier_BNP_ACAIQad_Eng
8/28/06
2:30 PM
Page 1
“An large international bank
like BNP Paribas demands quality
at every level”.
Quality is of capital importance to us. I believe that the people at
dossier hold high the same principle. We trust much of our printing
and copying to dossier, where the level of service and quality of
work are of exceptional calibre.
I once needed about fifteen presentation posters.
They were difficult to produce because a piece of
mirror had to be set into foamcore. The staff at
dossier had to do everything by hand, but the
final result was excellent!
When quality counts, we count on dossier!”
Sauveur Menella, Co-Director, Communications and Advertising
BNP Paribas (Canada)
The BNP Paribas Group is one of the global leaders in the banking and financial services sector,
ranking among the top 15 banks in the world. It operates in 85 countries and employs 140,000 people.
In Canada since 1961, the Bank offers a wide range of specialized financial services and investment
products to medium and large businesses. The head office of BNP Paribas (Canada) was established
in Montreal, with branch offices in Quebec City, Toronto and Vancouver
by
4 locations. 1 number to call.
1-866-554-5525
www.dossier.ca
Complexe Desjardins • Centre Manuvie
Le Faubourg Ste-Catherine • 9201 Metropolitain Blvd East, Anjou
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES SERIES
Standard clause
Cancellation of a previously
accepted promise to purchase
C
lause B2.3 of Annex B - Residential
immovable allows the seller to accept
a new promise to purchase conditional
upon the cancellation of a previously accepted
promise to purchase. In some cases, however, this
clause may not suit the needs of the seller. An
example of this is if the seller accepts a second
promise to purchase for the sole purpose of having an alternative if the first promise becomes null
and void. In this case, of course, the seller will not
be willing to take the steps needed to cancel the
previously accepted promise.
In such a case, the ACAIQ suggest that
members respond to the second promise with
a counter-proposal that includes the following
standard clause:
This counter-proposal is conditional upon the
cancellation of a promise to purchase previously
accepted by the seller by (date)
at (time)
.Should this previous
promise to purchase be cancelled, the seller shall
notify the buyer in writing within the above time
period. All time periods contained in promise to
purchase PP
shall begin from the
time of receipt of the seller’s written notification.
Should the seller fail to notify the buyer within the
time period and in the manner provided above,
this counter-proposal shall become null and void.
z
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ With this clause, the seller is not agreeing
to take the steps to obtain cancellation of the
first promise to purchase, contrary to the provisions of clause B2.3 of Annex B – Residential
immovable. Rather, he is agreeing, in case the
first promise to purchase becomes null and void,
to notify the second buyer within the specified
time period.
In most cases the time period indicated in
this clause should exceed the period remaining
for the fulfilment of the conditions contained
in the first promise to purchase. Most often,
the end of this period is when one finds out
whether the first promise to purchase has
become null and void. The time periods allowed
for the fulfilment of conditions contained in the
second buyer’s promise to purchase begin to
run only from the time of receipt of the written
notification from the seller that the first promise
has been cancelled. This implies that the second
buyer is bound to the seller for the time period
indicated under this clause, but that he will not
disburse any money to buy the property until he
has received the seller’s reply. If the seller does
not notify the second buyer within the time
period provided, the counter-proposal becomes
null and void.
It is important to make sure that the first
promise to purchase is indeed cancelled before
notifying the second buyer. If any uncertainty
whatsoever remains regarding such cancellation, the seller should consult his legal advisor
before sending notification. The times periods
contained in the second promise begin to run
as soon as the buyer receives notification from
the seller. u
Clear up any confusion
during open house visits
by potential buyers
T
he ACAIQ is concerned by the actions
of certain listing agents and brokers
regarding open houses. It has come
to the Association’s attention that some people
are not familiar with the proper way to act with
potential buyers who go to open houses. This
is creating a lot of undue confusion, sometimes
leading to disputes.
The purpose of the open house is to allow
a maximum number of potential buyers to take
an interest in a property with the representative of their choice. Always remember that a
buyer who goes to an open house can do so
on his own or through a “collaborating agent”,
without a purchase brokerage contract.
If you are the collaborating agent in this
case, it is highly advisable that you accompany
your buyers on their open house visits. If you
cannot go, ask them to mention to the listing
agent once they get there that they are already
working with an agent.
The buyer may also go through a “buying
agent”, with a brokerage contract. Here again,
the presence of the buyer’s agent is recommended. In this case, however, if the buyer
goes alone, he is bound by the ACAIQ purchase
contract to disclose that he is represented by a
broker.
In conclusion, it is important to note that
in all cases, it is good practice for any listing
agent holding an open house to ask all visitors
who are not accompanied by an agent whether
or not they are already working with an agent.
Always remember that a buyer may do business
with the broker or agent of his choice and is not
bound to the listing broker simply for going to
an open house. u
play a key yet
unrecognized role
T
he Discipline Committee reviews all
complaints filed against members of the
ACAIQ for offences committed under
the Real Estate Brokerage Act or the regulations
thereunder. Each complaint is analyzed by the
Committee’s chairman or substitute chairman,
who are lawyers appointed by the government,
and by two members of the profession. These
members must have an in-depth knowledge of
the field. Their expertise enables the Committee
to find the best way to help real estate brokers
and agents follow the rules of professional
ethics, thereby protecting the bond of the trust
between themselves and the public.
The members’ task consists first in hearing
and examining a given complaint in order to determine whether the member brought before the
Discipline Committee is guilty of the offence with
which he is charged. This requires sound listening
and analytical skills. But where the members
of the Discipline Committee make their most
valuable contribution is in determining sanctions.
Because they are well acquainted with the way
their peers work and with the latest industry
trends, they are in a good position to weigh the
impact of a breach to the code of ethics and the
seriousness of a case.
pendently from the Board of Directors and staff
of the Association. Some sixty real estate brokers
A fair and equitable decision cannot be
and agents currently sit on this Committee.
reached lightly. Its main purpose is to allow the
To be on the Committee, real estate brokers
member who receives a guilty verdict to improve
his professional practices and his behaviour while and agents must go through a set application process and not
serving as an exhave a disciplinary
ample for the other
These members must have an inrecord. Members are
members of the
depth knowledge of the field. Their
appointed to the Disprofession. Thus the
expertise enables the Committee to
cipline Committee by
sanction complethe Board of Directors
ments the primary
find the best way to help real estate
role played by the
brokers and agents follow the rules of for a three-year term
following an interview
Continuing Educaprofessional ethics, thereby protecting with an evaluation
tion Department.
the bond of the trust between themcommittee, which veriThe chairman is
fies that the applicant
there to assist Comselves and the public.
meets the requiremittee members in
ments. Members may
this important task
be called to sit several times during the year, but
and to ensure that there is a link between all the
never so often that their work would suffer. They
causes and coherence between the sanctions.
also receive specific continuing education
A full-fledged tribunal
each year.
Established in accordance with section 128 of the
Real Estate Brokerage Act, the Discipline Committee is an autonomous tribunal that acts inde-
RE/MAX du Cartier is 10 years old
play a key role on this tribunal as well as in the
industry in general, a fact that is not widely recognized. Their analytical skills and knowledge of
the field are held in the highest regard. Together
they form an intervention team that is an ideal
complement to the training activities developed
by the ACAIQ, all in the best interest of real
estate brokers and agents. They are the Association’s ambassadors when it comes to breaches to
the Act and its regulations. u
10
years old...
and still growing !
1998: Just three years old, RE/MAX du Cartier is already steady on its feet,
proudly branching out from Plateau Mont-Royal to Outremont.
With 52 agents, the company already has $36 million in sales.
2000: RE/MAX du Cartier is five years old, energetic, healthy
and still growing: 74 agents and $91 million in sales.
2003: RE/MAX du Cartier undergoes an incredible growth spurt
with the addition of Ville Mont-Royal and Villeray:
143 agents and $261 million in sales.
2006: RE/MAX du Cartier is 10 years old. Young and dynamic, the
company has its whole future ahead of it. Already autonomous
like an adult and setting new standards, the family now proudly
counts 212 agents and sees its sales constantly increasing.
We’re growing because our agents are growing with us.
Look at the numbers and do the math: as our sales rise,
so does each agent’s average compensation.
So… are you going to wait
another 10 years to call us?
514.281.5501
RE/MAX du Cartier... Far and away a leader!
Chartered real estate broker
An independently owned and operated franchise
of RE/MAX Québec Inc.
Outremont
1290 Bernard Street West, Suite 100
Outremont, Québec H2V 1V9
Tel: 514.271.2131
Fax: 514.271.8800
[email protected]
Plateau Mont-Royal
835 Saint-Joseph Boulevard East
Montréal, Québec H2J 1K5
Tel: 514.281.5501
Fax: 514.281.2033
[email protected]
Villeray
7170 Saint-Laurent Boulevard, Suite 301
Montréal, Québec H2S 3E2
Tel: 514.278.7170
Fax: 514.278.2109
[email protected]
Ville Mont-Royal
1257 Laird Boulevard
Town of Mount Royal, Québec H3P 2S9
Tel: 514.731.7575
Fax: 514.731.8998
[email protected]
The lessee’s right
to maintain occupancy
nected person who has been living with the lessee
for six months if this person continues to occupy
the dwelling after the cessation of cohabitation
and gives notice to that effect to the lessor within
two months after cessation of cohabitation. This
right also extends to a person living with the
lessee at the time of the death of the lessee if
that person continues to occupy the dwelling and
gives notice to that effect to the lessor within two
months after the death. A sublessee, however
does not have that right as a sublet terminates at
the end of the lease.
T
he Civil Code of Québec grants several
rights to the lessee of a dwelling, including the right to maintain occupancy.
Basically, this right allows the lessee to occupy the dwelling for as long as he wishes. This
means he can only be evicted under very specific
circumstances provided in the law. The sale of the
immovable does not impact this right, which the
new owner must uphold.
Not only does the lessee have the right to
stay in his dwelling for the duration of the initial
lease, but he is also entitled to the automatic
renewal of the lease (renewal of right) at term.
At term, the lease is renewed for the same period
or, if the initial term was more than a year, for a
period of 12 months.
Lessee’s agreement to vacate
the premises
A lessee may not renounce his right to maintain
occupancy. Therefore, a clause in a lease that
provides for non-renewal if the lease is without
effect, even it was included with the lessee’s
consent. However, nothing prevents the lessor and
the lessee to agree to a resiliation of the lease and
the lessee’s departure at a given date, as long as
such agreement is made freely, without pressure
on the part of the lessor.
Other beneficiaries
The right to maintain occupancy applies not
only to the signatories of the lease, but also to a
married or civil union spouse. It also extends to
a common law spouse and to a relative or a con-
expecting the lessees to vacate the premises by
that date at the latest. In the court’s opinion, the
For instance, a promise to purchase could be
conditional to the seller obtaining a resiliation of
lessees’ departure was not optional and the seller
the lease and an agreement by the lessee to vahad to ensure it took place at any cost. Faced with
cate his dwelling before
the lessees’ relucThe right to maintain occupancy apa given date, failing
tance to vacate the
which the promise
premises, the buyer
plies not only to the signatories of the
would become null and
ended up negotiatlease, but also to a married or civil
void. This condition
ing the conditions
union spouse. A sublessee, however
however should specify
of his departure
does not have that right as a sublet
that the seller cannot
and his compensaguarantee that the lestion themselves,
terminates at the end of the lease.
see will actually vacate
even before the
the premises on the agreed date. The reason for
act of sale was completed. The court ordered the
this is that there are no guarantees that the lessee
seller to reimburse the buyers for a portion of the
will not dispute the validity of the agreement
amount they paid. u
made with the previous owner. He could refuse to
vacate the premises, forcing the new owner to apply to the Régie du logement to have him evicted,
For more information on the right to maintain
without any guarantee of success.
occupancy, visit the Régie du logement website at
The seller could even be held liable. The
www.rdl.gouv.qc.ca or dial 514 873-2245.
Court of Québec dealt with this issue in a decision
rendered in 2002. In this particular case, the seller
had accepted a promise to purchase agreeing to
make the premises available as of a certain date,
Mobile Solutions
for the ACAIQ Members
Helping You
Create Your Personal Website –
Royal LePage Clientclick Program
At Royal LePage we’re committed to
Helping You, and that means providing
tools and services that give you a
competitive advantage. The Royal
LePage Clientclick program provides you
with the tools to build a personal
website that builds your business.
Visit www.clientclick.com to see how
Royal LePage can help you maximize
your web presence today.
“I have used the Clientclick
website and have had great
success. The site builder was
quick and easy to use, and it
allows me to edit my website
anytime I want.
I can account two of my recent
home sales to my new web
presence.”
Elite
Rate Plan*
$45/month
Partner
Rate Plan
$20/month
Evenings and
Weekends 700
$45/month
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
INCLUDED
• 200 minutes/month
• Message Centre
• Unlimited evenings
(from 6pm to 8am)
and weekends
• Unlimited evenings
(from 6pm to 8am)
and weekends
• Message Centre
• Message Centre
• Ulimited Text
Messaging
• Free incoming calls
(on Bell Mobility
territory)
Monthly access and e911 fees
of $7.70 not included.
Mike Coffin
Royal LePage Binder Real Estate
Windsor, ON
• 20 % discount
on Data options
Mobility
Up to 18 customizable templates to choose from.
Palm Treo 650
Motorola E815
For more information
dial 1-800-667-0123
Reference number : 101893865
Call your local Royal LePage office or visit
www.royallepage.ca/careers
to see how Royal LePage can Help You today.
z
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ * The Elite rate plan is exclusive to ACAIQ members, it must include the the rate plan and services
mentionned above. Evenings and weekends: Mondy to Thursday from 6 pm to 8 am and Friday 6 pm to
Monday 8 am. Also included in the rate package: Call Waiting, Call forwarding, Three Way Calling, Detail
Billing. A $7.70 monthly fee will be added to your invoice for the provision of a System Access Fee as well
as wireless access to 911 Emergency Service. Available on Bell Mobility territory only. Offer subject to
change without notice.
What is the area of a condo unit?
Discrepancies between
architectural and cadastral plans
Georges Halasz
bids a regretful farewell
to the ACAIQ Board
By Me Serge Allard, notary*
A
CAIQ Chairman Serge Brousseau recently
marked the departure of Georges Halasz by
offering his sincere thanks for his involvement as
director for the Montréal region. Mr. Halasz said
that he greatly enjoyed his experience and hinted
that he intends to continue working to develop
the profession. u
R
eal estate brokers and agents are very
familiar with the difficulties involved
in determining the area of a divided
co-ownership unit. On the one hand, the current
practice of selling new co-ownership properties
“on plans” means that measurements are based
on architectural plans. On the other hand, the
Civil Code of Québec requires that the cadastral
plan from which the creation of the co-ownership
originates1 be determined from an actual measuring of the inside of the private portions based on
established physical boundaries2.
The net area shown on the cadastral plan is
based on net measurements calculated from the
interior divisions or finishings, excluding columns
and other common portions that go through the
private portion such as ventilation, plumbing or
electrical shafts. It is therefore inevitable that
sometimes significant discrepancies are found to
exist between the architectural plans and
the cadastral plan.
*Me Serge Allard is a senior partner with the firm
of de Grandpré Joli-Coeur, in Montréal, specializing in co-ownership law. He is the author of
several studies published in academic journals
and in the collections of the Barreau du Québec
and the Chambre des notaires du Québec.
He is a founding member of the Conseil de la
copropriété du Québec and co-hosts the website
www.droitdelacopropriete.qc.ca.
Michael R. Concister
Avocat-Barrister & Sollicitor
B.A., B.C.L., LL.B. DIP. MGMT (APP.)
Spécialisé en droit immobilier, baux commerciaux
et droit de la famille
Specialized in Real Estate, commercial lease and family law
Membre du Barreau du Québec
Member of Bar of Ontario
1253, ave McGill College, Suite 955, Montréal, Québec H3B 2Y5
Art. 3030 C.C.Q.
1
Tél. : (514) 875-5311
Cell. : (514) 999-1952
Fax : (514) 875-8381
Art. 3041 C.C.Q.
2
E-mail : [email protected]
Properly informing the buyer
and the seller
It is up to the broker and the agent to exercise
caution and inform the seller and the buyer clearly
about these “natural” discrepancies between the
calculations methods used. This diligence will of
course vary depending on whether the immovable
is a new or a resale unit.
In the case of a new unit, the agent must
ensure that:
• the preliminary contract states that measurements are approximate and that there could
be a difference between the area indicated in
the promotional document, i.e. the architectural plans, and the net area that will appear
in the cadastral plan;
• the seller give buyers, regardless of the
number of co-ownership units, a written notice informing them that the area and volume
calculations of each private portion resulting
from the land survey and the cadastral plan
show net measurements that could be different from and inferior to those indicated in the
architectural plans used to sell the units.
In case of a resale unit, the agent must ensure that:
• the area indicated in the brokerage contract
and on the detailed description sheet is the
same as it appears on the cadastral plan and
not on the original architectural plans. u
Open
the door
to vintage
insurance
w w w. d p l m . c o m / a c a i q
GATINEAU
JONQUIERE
MONTREAL
QUEBEC CITY
(Poitras, Lavigueur)
SHERBROOKE
(Dunn-Parizeau)
Partner Program ACAIQ
1 877 807-3756
At Dale-Parizeau LM, we’re always looking to find the best solutions and offer our clients
only the most professional and personalized services. Thanks to the expertise of an
accredited broker and multidisciplinary team dedicated to members of the ACAIQ, you
can relax and trust that we’ll find you the most competitive rates out there
OFFER FOR NEW CUSTOMERS
BEST PRICE
GUARANTEED
-10
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR “BEST OFFER” PROGRAM
Save at least 10%* on the cost of car and home insurance premiums offered by our competitors
when you renew your current insurance policy or buy a new one.
* Some conditions apply. To learn more about these conditions, please visit www.dplm.com/acaiq
 Computers
 Soft
 Printer
cartridges
1-866-synbad6
w w w . s y n b a d . c o m [email protected]
CAR & HOME
INSURANCE
Life & drug insurance:
Find out about our GUARANTEED RATES
449,99$
499
# dossier: 06171-DAL
# d’insertion: -Format: 7,3” x 5,8” ,99$
AUTO / Equivalent to ISO 100/200/ 400/800/1600/3200
Large High Resolution 2.5-inch LCD monitor
Intelligent Flash system
“Picture Stabilization” mode
Fujinon 3X optical zoom lens
Up to 500 pictures per battery
Shooting speed: max 2.2 frame/sec.
Fujifilm FinePix F30
Date: 21/07/2006
Client: Dale-Parizeau LM
PubHigh-quality,
générique ACAIQ-ENhigh sensivity
Pers Ress:6th-generation
Deborah Debas
w a rCampagne:
e
Publication: Journal
de L’ACAIQ
Date de parution: --/--/-Super
CCD 6.3 Mega pixels
Couleur: CMYK
Lpi: -- lpi.
%
Notices of suspension of certificate
A SSOCI A TION DES COURTIERS ET A GENTS IMMOBILIERS DU Q UÉBEC
MRS. GHISL AINE DEMERS
(File: 33-04-0777)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Ghislaine
Demers, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No.
B5768), formerly employed by or authorized to act on
behalf of Groupe Sutton Clodem inc., chartered real
estate broker (Certificate No. A2928), whose establishment is located at 9515 Lasalle Blvd. in Lasalle,
has been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of
the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du
Québec of the offences summarized below:
1 count: On or around December 20, 2002, failing to demonstrate integrity, participating in an act in
st
real estate matters which may be illegal or which may
cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, failing to advise and inform her clients with objectivity
with respect to an immovable, namely by:
On July 17, 2006, the Court of Quebec, in the appeal of
treatment to the promising buyer, party to a transaction
the Discipline Committee’s decision, granted the motion to
dismiss the appeal, thus upholding the decision of the Discipline Committee, and confirmed the suspension of Mrs.
referred to in section 1 of the Act, namely by failing to
inform, in a timely fashion, the real estate agent repre-
Ghislaine Demers’ certificate for three concurrent periods of thirty (30) days on these counts of the complaint.
The decision of the Court of Quebec being enforceable
c) allowing her clients to accept a subsequent promise to purchase from her son, without any provision for the cancellation of the previously accepted
promise to purchase, thereby exposing them to
committing twice to the sale of this immovable;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13 and 26 of the
Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
2 count: On or around December 20, 2002, with
respect to an immovable, failing to provide fair treatnd
ment to the promising buyer, party to a transaction
referred to in section 1 of the Act, namely by:
a) falsely representing to her clients that he no longer
wished to buy;
b) leading the sellers to believe that they could render
a promise to purchase null and void by signing
an Amendments form and adding “ la promesse
d’achat et ses annexes sont refusés (sic)” (the
promise to purchase and its annexes are refused);
c) omitting to inform in a timely fashion the real
estate agent who represented him of the existence
of a promise to purchase signed by the defendant’s son;
the whole contrary to section 24 of the Rules of
Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
3rd count: On or around December 20, 2002, with
is therefore effective as of August 17, 2006 for a period of
thirty (30) days.
member and using unfair practices against him,
namely by:
Discipline Committee Secretary
This notice is given in accordance with section 137 of the
Real Estate Brokerage Act (R.S.Q., c. C-73.1).
a) around 2:40 p.m., failing to inform, in a timely fashion, a real estate agent of a promise to purchase;
Brossard, August 17, 2006
Chantal Peltier
MR . VINCENT NIZ Z A
(File: 33-05-0786)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Vincent Nizza, affiliated
real estate agent (Certificate No. C6182), employed by or
authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max Montréal Métro
inc., chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. C3505),
whose establishment is located at 6436 Beaubien St. East
in Montréal, has been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offence summarized below:
2nd count: Between November 7 and 18, 2002, with respect to an immovable, participating in an act or practice
in real estate matters which may be illegal or which may
cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, failing
to perform with prudence, diligence and competence the
obligations he had agreed to perform, namely by obtaining and transmitting a written lease concerning a dwelling,
to the prospective buyer or his real estate agent, knowing
that said lease did not reflect the agreement between his
clients and the lessee, the whole contrary to sections 1
and 13 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
On January 6, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Vincent Nizza’s certificate for a period
of forty-five (45) days on this count of the complaint.
On May 25, 2006, the Court of Quebec, in the appeal of
the Discipline Committee’s decision, granted the motion to
dismiss the appeal, thus upholding the decision of the Discipline Committee, and confirmed the suspension of Mr.
Vincent Nizza’s certificate for a period of forty-five (45)
days on this count of the complaint.
The decision of the Court of Quebec is enforceable after the appeals deadline, however, the defendant having
respect to an immovable, abusing another member’s
good faith and using unfair practices against him,
namely by:
a) falsely representing to her clients that the promising buyer no longer wished to buy;
d’achat et ses annexes sont refusés (sic)” (the
Brossard, June 14, 2006
Chantal Peltier
c) omitting to inform him in a timely fashion of the
existence of a promise to purchase signed by the
MR . R AYMOND DUCLOS
On March 10, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mrs. Ghislaine Demers’ certificate
for three concurrent periods of thirty (30) days on
these counts of the complaint.
was going to present a promise to purchase himself
at 7:00 p.m.;
the whole contrary to sections 41 and 43 of the Rules of
On April 24, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’ certificate for
two concurring periods of three (3) months on these
counts of the complaint, to take effect whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance
of a new certificate.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. May
30, 2006. The suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’
chartered real estate broker certificate will therefore become effective whenever he applies for reinstatement
of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate, for
a period of three (3) months.
This notice is given in accordance with section 137 of
the Real Estate Brokerage Act (R.S.Q., c. C-73.1).
Chantal Peltier
MR . FR ANÇOIS C A RDINA L
(File: 33-05-0815)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. François Cardinal,
affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. C3323), employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Century 21
Signature, chartered real estate broker (Certificate No.
D3387), whose establishment is located at 507 A, rue
Principale in Lachute, has notably been found guilty
by the Discipline Committee of the Association des
courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offence summarized below:
1st count: During the month of December 2001, with
respect to an immovable, committing an act that is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession,
participating in an act or practice in real estate matters
which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to
the public or to the profession, failing to inform and to
ensure that a party to a transaction referred to in section 1 of the Act, represented by a real estate agent,
was informed of relevant facts and/or factors of which
he was aware that could unfavourably affect the parties
or the very object of the transaction, namely by:
failing to inform him of a moisture and/or water infiltration problem in a bedroom at the back of an immovable;
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Raymond Duclos, chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. C1301) formerly
employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Immeubles
Sherbrooke, whose establishment is located at 200, rue du
On April 21, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mr. François Cardinal’s certificate
2 count: On or around March 17, 2003, with respect to
nd
MRS. NICOLE A SSELIN
(File: 33-05-0816)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Nicole Asselin,
affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. C1326),
employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Groupe
Sutton - Action inc., chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. B0884), whose establishment is located
at 2190 Lapinière Blvd. in Brossard, has notably been
found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec
of the offences summarized below:
2nd count: On or around August 4 and 5, 2003, with
respect to an immovable, failing to protect and promote
the interests of her client, failing to advise and inform
her with objectivity, namely:
a) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading a real estate agent, representing a potential buyer, to understand that she would not immediately allow a visit
of an immovable because an offer was to be presented to the owner of this immovable;
b) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading another
real estate agent, representing a potential buyer, to
understand that she would not immediately allow
a visit of an immovable because an offer was to be
presented to the owner of this immovable the
next day;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 26 and 28 of the
Bord de l’Eau in Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, has notably
been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of
the offences summarized below:
Chantal Peltier
b) around 5:40 p.m., falsely claiming that he himself
(File: 33-05-0810)
defendant’s son;
waived his right to appeal as of June 13, 2006, the suspension of Mr. Vincent Nizza’s affiliated real estate agent
certificate is effective as of June 14, 2006 for a period
of forty-five (45) days.
as of June 9, 2006 for a period of sixty (60) days.
3rd count: On or around March 17, 2003, with respect
to an immovable, abusing the good faith of another
ing buyer no longer wished to buy;
d’achat et ses annexes sont refusés (sic) “ (the
al Ethics of the ACAIQ.
2006. The suspension of Mr. François Cardinal’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective
after the appeals deadline, the suspension of Mrs.
Ghislaine Demers’ affiliated real estate agent certificate
a) falsely representing to her clients that their promis-
senting him of the existence of a transaction proposal
already in progress, i.e. a promise to purchase, the
whole contrary to section 24 of the Rules of Profession-
able as of the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. June 9,
for a period of sixty (60) days on this count of the
complaint.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforce-
c) on or around August 5, 2003, by indicating under
clause 10 of a promise to purchase from a promising
buyer, whom she represented, a short irrevocability
period whereas a real estate agent had mentioned
to her that he was going to have a promise to purchase signed on behalf of another potential buyer;
d) on or around August 5, 2003, by neglecting to ensure the timely presentation of a promise to purchase on this immovable from a promising buyer;
e) on or around August 5, 2003, due to the acceptance
of a promise to purchase, by reducing from 7% to
6% the compensation indicated in a brokerage contract on said immovable whereas she was aware of
the existence of another promise to purchase;
3rd count: On or around August 4 and 5, 2003, with
respect to an immovable, failing to provide fair treatment to a prospective buyer represented by a real estate agent and to a potential buyer represented by another real estate agent, namely:
a) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading a real estate agent, representing a potential buyer, to understand that she would not immediately allow a visit
of an immovable because an offer was to be presented to the owner of this immovable;
b) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading a real estate agent, representing a potential buyer, to understand that she would not immediately allow a
visit of an immovable because an offer was to be
presented to the owner of said immovable the next
day;
c) on or around August 5, 2003, by neglecting to ensure the timely presentation of a promise to purchase on this immovable from a promising buyer;
an immovable, failing to promote the interests of the seller
duly represented by her niece and failing to provide fair
z
10
d) on or around August 5, 2003, due to the acceptance
had already been agreed to for March 2, 2002, the whole
On May 12, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
On June 20th, 2006, the Discipline Committee
contrary to sections 1, 13, 22, 24 and 26 of the Rules of
suspension of Mr. Sylvain Krief’s certificate for a period
ordered the suspension of Mrs. Sylvia Younan’s
of fifteen days on count number 1 b) of the complaint, a
suspension for a consecutive period of thirty days on count
number 1 c), a suspension for a consecutive period of
forty-five days on count number 1 d), a suspension for a
certificate for a period of twelve (12) months on count
number 4, a suspension for a consecutive period of
one (1) month on count number 7, and a suspension
for a concurrent period of four (4) months on count
consecutive period of three months on count number
1 e), a suspension for a period of three months on count
number 1 f) but concurrent with count number 1 e), a
number 8.
On June 12, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Laurent François Blouin’s certificate
for three concurrent periods of thirty (30) days on these
counts of the complaint.
4th count: On or around August 4 and 5, 2003, failing to collaborate with another member who had so
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable
requested, abusing another member’s good faith, using
unfair practices against him and seeking to gain an unfair advantage over him, namely:
from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. July 18, 2006.
The suspension of Mr. Laurent François Blouin’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective as of
July 18, 2006 for a period of thirty (30) days.
suspension for a consecutive period of six months on count
number 1 g), and a suspension for a period of six months on
a) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading a real es-
from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. June 16, 2006.
The suspension of Mr. Sylvain Krief’s affiliated real
estate agent certificate will therefore become effective
tate agent, representing a potential buyer, to understand that she would not immediately allow a visit
of an immovable because an offer was to be pre-
sented to the owner of an immovable;
Chantal Peltier
b) on or around August 4, 2003, by leading a real estate agent, representing a promising buyer, to understand that she would not immediately allow a
visit of an immovable because an offer was to be
presented to the owner of said immovable the
next day;
c) on or around August 5, 2003, by neglecting to ensure the timely presentation of a promise to purchase on said immovable from a promising buyer;
d) on or around August 5, 2003, due to the acceptance
the whole contrary to sections 40 and 43 of the Rules
of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
On June 20, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mrs. Nicole Asselin’s certificate for
three concurrent periods of thirty (30) days on these
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. July 28,
2006. The suspension of Mrs. Nicole Asselin’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective
as of July 28, 2006 for a period of thirty (30) days.
Brossard, July 28, 2006
Chantal Peltier
(File: 33-05-0821)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Laurent François
Blouin, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No.
B5921), employed by or authorized to act on behalf of
Groupe Sutton Excellence inc., chartered real estate
broker (Certificate No. D2827), whose establishment is
located at 1555 de l’Avenir Blvd., Suite 100 in Laval, has
notably been found guilty by the Discipline Committee
of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers
du Québec of the offences summarized below:
1st count: On or around March 1, 2003, with respect to
an immovable, abusing another member’s good faith,
using unfair practices against him, seeking to gain an
unfair advantage over him, namely by failing to inform,
in a timely fashion, a real estate agent of the existence
of a promise to purchase, the whole contrary to section
43 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
2nd count: On or around March 1, 2003, with respect
to an immovable, failing to provide fair treatment to
a party to a transaction referred to in section 1 of the
Act, namely by failing to inform, in a timely fashion, the
real estate agent representing him of the existence of a
promise to purchase, the whole contrary to section 24
of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
5th count: On or around March 1, 2002, with respect to
an immovable, failing to inform with objectivity his client, namely by failing to inform him, before he accepted
the promise to purchase made by the promising buyers,
whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or
the issuance of a new certificate, for a total period of ten
(10) months and sixty (60) days.
MR . SY LVAIN K RIEF
(File: 33-05-0832)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Sylvain Krief, affiliated real estate agent (B0825), formerly employed by or
authorized to act on behalf of S.O.G.I.P., chartered real estate broker (D2982), whose establishment was located at
256 Saint-Louis St. in Lemoyne, has been found guilty by
the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers
et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offences summarized below:
1st count: From October 2004 to date, hindering the work
of an assistant syndic of the ACAIQ, failing to collaborate
during an inquiry conducted by him, namely:
a) by informing him in a letter dated October 14, 2004
that he would not attend the scheduled appointment;
b) further to a letter from the assistant syndic dated November 26, 2004, by not making himself available on
one of the dates and times indicated in this letter, i.e.
December 2, 3 or 6, 2004 between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., and by failing to produce the documents requested in this letter;
c) further to a letter from the assistant syndic dated
December 22, 2004, by failing to make himself available on one of the dates indicated in this letter, i.e. during the week of January 3 to 10, 2005 and by informing
the assistant syndic in a letter from his attorney dated
December 22, 2004 that he would not be available to
meet him before January 31, 2005;
d) further to a letter from the assistant syndic dated Feb-
MR . L AURENT FR ANÇOIS BLOUIN
count number 1 h) but concurrent with count number 1 g).
ruary 8, 2005, by failing to make himself available on
one of the dates indicated in this letter, i.e. February
10, 14, 15, 17 and 18, 2005 at the times indicated and
by failing to produce the documents requested in
this letter;
e) by refusing, in a letter from his attorney dated February 21, 2005, to produce the association agreement
between the brokerage firm under his control and the
representative of this firm to the ACAIQ;
f) by informing the assistant syndic, in a letter from his attorney dated February 21, 2005, that he had not kept
copies of the transaction cheques cashed between
January 1, 2004 and the month of August 2004 or any
proof of compensation received and/or paid by his
broker;
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable as from the date of notification to Defendant, to
wit: June 20th, 2006. The suspension of Mrs. Sylvia
Younan’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is
therefore effective as of June 20th, 2006, for a total
period of thirteen (13) months.
Brossard, June 21st, 2006
Chantal Peltier
(File: 33-05-0843)
Chantal Peltier
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Raymond Duclos,
chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. C1301) for-
MRS. SY LVIA YOUNAN
(File: 33-05-0840)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Sylvia Younan, affiliated real estate agent (C7166), employed by or authorized
to act on behalf of Groupe Sutton Immobilia, chartered real
estate broker (C0349), whose establishment is located at
1260, Avenue Bernard Ouest, Suite 304, in Outremont, was
notably found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the
4th count: With respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, committing acts that are derogatory to
the honour and dignity of the profession, participating in
an act or practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the
profession, namely by:
a) on April 29th, 2004, omitting to leave a copy of a form
AG to the sellers, right after they did sign it;
b) at an undetermined date but not prior to April 29th,
2004, adding, after the signature of the sellers, words
in section G.2 “Supplementary terms and conditions”
of the said form AG;
professional ethics of the ACAIQ and section 98 of the
By-law of the ACAIQ.
7th count: On or about February 25th, 2005, failing to collaborate during an inquiry conducted by the syndic, namely
by making to an investigator from the office of the syndic,
statements to the effect that:
a) she received, from the hand of a friend of the sellers
during a meeting, an alleged letter dated May 20th,
2004, bearing the name of the said friend;
b) she received also by fax, from that friend of the sellers,
the same alleged letter;
professional ethics of the ACAIQ.
8th count: On or around May 11th 2005, with respect to
merly employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Immeubles Sherbrooke, whose establishment is located
at 200, rue du Bord de l’Eau in Sainte-Catherine-deHatley, has been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offences summarized below:
1st count: Between or around July 26, 2002 and or
around August 25, 2002, with respect to immovables,
failing to act with prudence, diligence and competence,
the public or to the profession, namely by:
a) drafting and supposedly having the promising buyer
sign a promise to purchase dated July 26, 2002:
i) without indicating the name of the seller under
section 1 “Identification of the parties”;
ii) that included under section 4.2 “Deposit” of a
promise to purchase an amount different from
that indicated under section A3.1
“Deposit” of an Annex A linked thereto;
iii) indicating “inclus ANNEXE 1” under section
8.1, whereas said Annex 1 was sent to him only
on August 1, 2002;
b) keeping and sending to a chartered real estate broker a copy of a promise to purchase that included
additions and changes that did not appear on the
copy of said promise to purchase given to the seller,
notably:
i) the addition of the seller’s name under section
1 “Identification of the parties”;
ii) a change in the amount indicated as deposit
under section 4.2 “Deposit”;
c) signing as witness to the signature of the seller
designated in the transaction, on a promise to purchase, whereas there was no such signature;
d) having the seller sign, in the section “Respondent’s
Reply”, a counter-proposal by the seller intended for
the promising buyer;
g) by informing the assistant syndic, in a letter from his
attorney dated March 16, 2005, that he would not
appear before him on March 23, 2005;
an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, committing
acts that are derogatory to the honour and dignity of the
profession, participating in an act or practice in real estate
h) by failing to appear, in accordance with a subpoena
duces tecum issued by the assistant syndic, who had
the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Act
respecting public inquiry commissions (R.S.Q., chapter
C-37), served to the defendant on March 15, 2005, and
matters which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice
to the public or to the profession, by mandating a law firm
to institute legal proceedings against the seller on behalf
of her employer at that time and herself while, namely Defendant was not authorized by her then employer’s legal
representative to engage it in said legal proceedings, the
2nd count: Between or around August 2, 2002 and or
around August 5, 2002, with respect to immovables,
failing to demonstrate integrity, committing an act that
whole contrary to sections 1 and 13 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ and section 72 of the By-law
of the ACAIQ.
dice to the public or to the profession, engaging in an
act that is incompatible with an exclusive brokerage
contract awarded to another member, namely by:
with a letter by the assistant syndic dated March 22,
2005 addressed to the defendant’s attorney, on March
23, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of the ACAIQ
with the documents requested therein;
the whole contrary to sections 117 and 127 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act and section 54 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession, participating in an act or practice in real estate
matters which may be illegal or which may cause preju-
having the seller sign and/or arranging for him to sign
an exclusive brokerage contract falsely dated August
26, 2002;
of the fact that real estate agents each had a promise
to purchase in hand and that, in the case of one of the
agents, a meeting to present this promise to purchase
11
3rd count: With respect to immovables, failing to
demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession,
participating in an act or practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice
to the public or to the profession, namely by:
sending to the seller, on or around October 11, 2002,
an invoice in the amount of $16,908.68 for the sale of
the said immovables and by instituting, on or around
November 18, 2002, a civil suit on behalf of his brokerage firm against the seller following his refusal to
pay said invoice, whereas no real estate transaction
concerning these immovables had been concluded
during the term of the brokerage contract awarded to
the chartered real estate broker and/or through him;
4th count: With respect to immovables, hindering
the work of an assistant syndic, failing to collaborate
during his investigation, misrepresenting information
to him, failing to demonstrate integrity and committing an act that is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession, namely when an assistant
syndic asked him to provide the originals of the
following documents:
i)Exclusive brokerage contract – Sale of a chiefly
residential immovable
ii)Contrat de courtage exclusif – Vente d’un
immeuble principalement résidentiel
MR. LOUIS PHILIPPON
(File: 33-05-0860)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Louis Philippon, affiliated real estate agent (D1155), employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Capitale Cité inc., chartered real
estate broker (C4435), whose establishment is located at
2600 Laurier Blvd., suite 181 in Sainte-Foy, has been found
guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des
courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offence
summarized below:
1st count: On or around August 8, 2004, with respect to
an immovable, committing an act in real estate matters
which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the
public or to the profession, namely by:
signing, in the space provided for signatures, the name of
the seller in his lieu and stead and without his knowledge,
on a brokerage contract;
the whole contrary to section 13 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
On March 17, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Louis Philippon’s certificate for a period of sixty days on this count of the complaint.
Following the discontinuance of Mr. Louis Philippon’s
appeal, the decision of the Discipline Committee is
enforceable on June 19, 2006. The suspension of Mr.
Louis Philippon’s affiliated real estate agent certificate
is therefore effective as of June 19, 2006 for a period
of sixty (60) days.
d) another Amendments form;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 12 and 13 of Rules of
3rd count: On or around April 7, 2005 and on or around
June 14, 2005, failing to collaborate and misrepresenting
information during an inquiry conducted by an assistant
syndic, namely by falsely asserting to an investigator from
the Office of the Syndic that his client had signed the following forms:
a) a promise to purchase, in the buyer’s Acknowledgement of receipt section;
d) another Amendments form;
suspension of Mr. Manuel Lucian Barbosu’s certificate
for a period of thirty (30) days on the 1st count of the complaint, a suspension for a consecutive period of thirty (30)
days on the 2nd count and a period of thirty (30) days on
the 3rd count, the latter to be served concurrently with the
suspension ordered for the 2nd count.
from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. July 25, 2006.
The suspension of Mr. Manuel Lucian Barbosu’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective as of
July 25, 2006 for a period of sixty (60) days.
a) on or around January 8, 2004, by claiming that he
would be able to send the originals once the dispute before the Court of Quebec was settled;
b) on or around February 5, 2004, by falsely testifying
before an honourable judge of the Court of Quebec that he had given the originals of the brokerage contracts to the Association des courtiers et
agents immobiliers du Québec;
c) on or around March 18, 2005, by claiming that the
originals of said documents were at his lawyer’s;
d) on or around April 5, 2005, by falsely claiming
that the originals of the requested documents
had remained in his office after he had sold
this establishment;
the whole contrary to sections 117 and 127 of the
Quebec Real Estate Brokerage Act and to sections
54 and 55 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of
the ACAIQ.
On April 24 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’ certificate for a
period of one (1) month on the 1st count of the complaint, a suspension for a period of three (3) months
on the 2nd count, a suspension for a period of six (6)
months on the 3rd count, and a suspension for a period
of twelve (12) months on the 4th count, to be served
consecutively, and to take effect whenever he applies
for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a
new certificate.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. May
30, 2006. The suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’
chartered real estate broker certificate will therefore
become effective whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate, for a period of twenty-two (22) months.
Chantal Peltier
Chantal Peltier
MR . MANUEL LUCIAN BA RBOSU
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Manuel Lucian
Barbosu, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No.
C7144), employed by or authorized to act on behalf of
Century 21 Réalité, chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. A3403), whose establishment is located at 135 SaintLaurent Street in Saint-Eustache, has been found guilty by
the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers
et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offences summarized below:
1st count: With respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is derogatory to
the honour and dignity of the profession, participating in
an act or practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the
profession, by writing or allowing someone to write, in the
space provided for signatures, the name of his client in her
lieu and stead, namely on the following documents:
a)as of March 23, 2004, on a promise to purchase, in the
buyer’s Acknowledgement of receipt section;
b) as of March 23, 2004, on an annex AA, in the buyer’s
Acknowledgement of receipt section;
c) as of April 21, 2004, on an Amendments form;
MR . HENRI PRIME AU
(File: 33-05-0885)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Henri Primeau, chartered real estate agent (Certificate No. C9117), employed
by or authorized to act on behalf of Exit du Suroît, chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. A1997), whose
establishment is located at 250, Route 338, Suite 200 in
Les Côteaux, has notably been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et
agents immobiliers du Québec of the offences summarized below:
1st count: During the month of February 2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate a spirit
of cooperation, using unfair practices against another
member, notably by refusing to allow this member to
take part in the presentation of transaction proposals
referred to section 1 of the Act, namely the following
proposals:
a) a promise to purchase signed on February 13, 2003 by
the prospective buyer;
b) a promise to purchase signed on February 17, 2003 by
the prospective buyer;
d) as of May 11, 2004, on an Amendments form;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 43 and 47 of the Rules
and by signing as witness to his client’s signature on these
documents;
2nd count: During the month of February 2003, with re-
2nd count: In April 2005, with respect to an immovable,
failing to demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is
derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession,
which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the
public or to the profession, and attempting to intimidate a
spect to an immovable, failing to practice his profession
with prudence, diligence and competence, participating in an act or practice in real estate matters which may
cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, failing
to promote the interests of his client, notably by acting
so as not to present to him the transaction proposals
emanating from the prospective buyer, namely the following promises to purchase:
a) a promise to purchase signed on February 13, 2003
by the prospective buyer;
person with whom he was dealing within the context of his
professional practice, i.e. his client, by asking her to falsely
declare that she had signed the following documents:
b) a promise to purchase signed on February 17, 2003
by the prospective buyer;
a) a promise to purchase, in the buyer’s Acknowledgement of receipt section;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13 and 24 of the Rules
b) an annex AA, in the buyer’s Acknowledgement of
receipt section;
MR . GU Y TURGEON
(File: 33-05-0892)
viii)Document entitled Annexe 1
(45) days.
the whole contrary to sections 54 and 55 Rules of
Chantal Peltier
(File: 33-05-0867)
able from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. July
18, 2006. The suspension of Mr Henri Primeau’s
chartered real estate agent certificate is therefore effective as of July 18, 2006 for a period of forty-five
Chantal Peltier
iv) Annexe A – Immeuble
vii)Contrat de courtage exclusif – Vente d’un
immeuble principalement résidentiel
c) an Amendments form;
Real Estate Brokerage Act (R.S.Q., c. C-73.1)
vi)Contre-proposition à une promesse d’achat
two concurrent periods of forty-five (45) days on
these counts of the complaint.
Annexe B – Immeuble résidentiel
a suspension of Mr. Henri Primeau’s certificate for
b) an annex AA, in the buyer’s Acknowledgement of
receipt section;
iii) Promise to purchase
v)
On June 15, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Guy Turgeon, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. C9009), formerly
employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max
Avantages inc., chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. A3730), whose establishment is located at 9201,
boul. du Centre-Hospitalier in Charny, has been found
guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association
des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the
offences summarized below:
1st count: During the months of January, February and
March 2004, committing an act that is derogatory to
the honour and dignity of the profession and participating in an act or practice in real estate matters which
may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by leading the public to
believe, by the presence of signs, that the services of a
chartered real estate broker had been retained for the
sale of parcels of land and would be used for the precontracts, the whole contrary to sections 1 and 13 of
the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
2nd count: On March 8, 2004, prior to the signing of
a private offer to purchase concerning a parcel of land,
failing to disclose, without delay and in writing, according to the terms of sections 81 and following of the ByLaw of the ACAIQ, to the prospective buyer concerned
by this offer, his quality as affiliated real estate agent
and the interest he held or intended to acquire, directly
or indirectly, in this parcel of land, the whole contrary to
section 22 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.
3rd count: On or around April 26, 2004, failing to ensure that the prospective buyer was able to exercise
his right of withdrawal from a private offer to purchase
dated March 8, 2004 concerning a parcel of land,
namely by neglecting or refusing to follow up on requests from his attorney demanding that the defendant
and a legal person in which the defendant was president, director and majority shareholder, to reimburse
the $10,000 paid by the prospective buyer upon signing
of this private offer to purchase, the whole contrary to
the second paragraph of section 22 of the Real Estate
Brokerage Act and sections 1 and 13 of the Rules of
On May 16, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mr. Guy Turgeon’s certificate for a
period of twelve (12) months for all three counts of the
complaint, to take effect whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new
certificate.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. June 26,
2006. The suspension of Mr. Guy Turgeon’s affiliated
real estate agent certificate will therefore become effective whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate, for a period
of twelve (12) months.
Chantal Peltier
c) an Amendments form;
z
12
MRS. SHAO MEI OU
The parties having waived their right to appeal, the decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable as of this
day, i.e. August 9, 2006. The suspension of Mrs. Phon
2nd count: On or around August 24, 2005, with respect
to an immovable and an enterprise, participating in an act
or practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Shao Mei Ou, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. C6138), em-
Tan’s affiliated real estate agent is therefore effective as
which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profes-
of August 9, 2006 for a period of forty-five (45) days.
sion, namely by:
ployed by or authorized to act on behalf of Groupe
a) having the seller sign an Amendments and Notice of
Fulfilment of Conditions form linked to an Exclusive
real estate broker certificate will therefore become effective whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate, for a period
(File: 33-05-0893)
Sutton-Expert, chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. C5821), whose establishment is located at 2869
St. Charles Blvd. in Kirkland, has notably been found
Chantal Peltier
1st count: On or around September 16 and 17, 2004,
with respect to an immovable, failing to provide fair
treatment to prospective buyers, namely:
a) on or around September 16, 2004, by failing to in-
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Raymond Duclos, char-
form their real estate agent in a timely fashion of the
existence of a promise to purchase;
b) on or around September 17, 2004, by failing to inform their real estate agent in a timely fashion of the
existence of a second promise to purchase;
whereas it had been agreed since September 15, 2004
with the Defendant that they would visit the
immovable on September 18, 2004;
(File: 33-05-0896)
tered real estate broker (Certificate No. C1301) formerly
employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Immeubles
Sherbrooke, whose establishment is located at 200, rue
du Bord de l’Eau in Sainte-Catherine-de-Hatley, has been
found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the
1st count: Between or around August 1, 2005 and or
around September 7, 2005, whereas his chartered real estate broker certificate had been suspended since August 1,
On August 9, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mrs. Shao Mei Ou‘s certificate for a
2005, pursuing the activity of real estate broker, concerning the sale of an immovable and an enterprise, and concerning the sale of another immovable.
period of thirty (30) days on this count of the complaint.
Concerning an immovable, namely:
from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. September
14, 2006. The suspension of Mrs. Shao Mei Ou’s
a) on or around August 13, 2005, by visiting an immovable with the prospective buyers;
affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective as of September 14, 2006 for a period of thirty
(30) days.
b) on or around August 14 or 15, 2005, by drafting a
promise to purchase and its annexes A and B for and
on behalf of the prospective buyers;
c) on or around August 19, 2005, by presenting this
promise to purchase and its annexes to the sellers;
Brossard, September 14, 2006
Chantal Peltier
d) on or around August 19, 2005, by drafting a counterproposal for and on behalf of the sellers;
e) on or around August 20, 2005, by presenting a counter-proposal to the prospective buyers;
f) on or around August 21, 2005, by having the acknowl-
MRS. PHON TAN
(File: 33-05-0894)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Phon Tan, affiliated
real estate agent (Certificate No. B8993), employed by
or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max Alliance inc.,
chartered real estate broker (Certificate No. A2985),
whose establishment is located at 4865 Jarry St. East in
Saint-Léonard, has been found guilty by the Discipline
Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents
immobiliers du Québec of the offence summarized
below:
1st count: On or around August 1 and August 3, 2003,
with respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate
integrity, committing acts that are derogatory to the
honour and dignity of the profession, participating in
acts in real estate matters which may be illegal or which
may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession,
namely:
a) on or around August 1, 2003, by drafting a promise
to purchase, knowing that the parties to this promise to purchase were already legally bound by another promise to purchase, and by falsely signing as
witness to the sellers’ signature;
b) on or around August 3, 2003, by falsely signing as
witness to the sellers’ signature on an Amendments
and Notice of Fulfilment of Conditions form;
c) by altering clause B1 of an Annex AB, substituting
the number “5” to the last “0” of the alphanumerical identification of a promise to purchase form.
On July 25, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mrs. Phon Tan’s certificate for a period
of thirty (30) days on sub-paragraphs a) and b) of the
complaint, and a suspension for a consecutive period
edgement of receipt of this counter-proposal signed by
the sellers;
g) after August 1, 2005 and at least until September 1,
2005, by leaving a sign with the words ”commercial”,
“Immeuble Sherbrooke”, “courtier immobilier agree”,
“Raymond Duclos”, “agent immobilier agréé” and the
phone number near this immovable;
Brokerage Contract – Sale of a chiefly residential immovable, indicating the following under clause M2.3
Other amendments:
“ - Raymond Duclos agent immobilier a donné sa démission le 1-08-2005 - Les vendeurs acceptent que la firme
de l’intimé continue à vendre la propriété sous seing
privé avec Raymond Duclos consultant immobilier ”
(Raymond Duclos real estate agent resigned on 1-082005 – The sellers agree that the respondent’s firm will
continue to sell the property by private agreement with
Raymond Duclos real estate consultant);
b) drafting and having the sellers sign an Amendments
and Notice of Fulfilment of Conditions form linked to
an Exclusive Brokerage Contract – Sale of an enterprise, indicating the following under clause M2.3 Other
amendments:
“ - Raymond Duclos agent immobilier a donné sa
démission le 1-08-2005 - Les vendeurs acceptent que
la firme de l’intimé continue à vendre la propriété sous
seing privé avec Raymond Duclos consultant immobilier ” (Raymond Duclos real estate agent resigned on
1-08-2005 – The sellers agree that the respondent’s
firm will continue to sell the property by private agreement with Raymond Duclos real estate consultant);
On April 25, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’ certificate for two
concurring periods of four (4) years on these counts of the
complaint, to take effect whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate
from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. May 30, 2006.
The suspension of Mr. Raymond Duclos’ chartered real
estate broker certificate will therefore become effective
whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate
or the issuance of a new certificate, for a period of four
(4) years.
Chantal Peltier
Concerning an enterprise, namely:
h) on or around August 14 or 15, 2005, by drafting a
promise to purchase for an enterprise and its annexes
(Annex A and Annex B – Enterprise) for and on behalf
the prospective buyers;
i) on or around August 19, 2005, by presenting this
promise to purchase and its annexes to the seller represented by a third party;
j) on or around August 19, 2005, by drafting a counterproposal to a promise to purchase for and on behalf of
the seller, represented by a third party;
k) on or around August 20, 2005, by presenting this counter-proposal to the prospective buyers;
l) on or around August 21, 2005, by having the acknowl-
MR . GILLES JOBIN
(File: 33-05-0897)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Gilles Jobin, chartered
real estate broker (Certificate No. A3100), formerly employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Trans-Action
2000 QC., whose establishment was located at 149, place
de la Vanoise in Saint-Romuald, has notably been found
guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des
courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec of the offence
summarized below:
2nd count: On or around March 10, 2004, with respect to
an immovable, failing to perform the obligations he had
agreed to perform with prudence, diligence and compe-
edgement of receipt of this counter-proposal signed by
a third party;
tence, failing to act with objectivity when advising and informing the sellers, namely by:
m)on or around September 6, 2005, by drafting an Annex
G – General linked to promises to purchase and having
it signed by the sellers of the enterprise and by the prospective buyers;
advising the sellers not to disclose to potential buyers the
existence of water infiltration in the basement of the immovable;
Concerning another immovable, namely:
n) on or around September 7, 2005, by giving the buyer a
detailed description sheet of this immovable and by offering to help him find financing;
the whole contrary to the provisions of section 68 du ByLaw of the ACAIQ.
suspension of Mr. Gilles Jobin’s certificate for a period
of ninety (90) days on this count of the complaint, to take
able from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. July 21,
2006. The suspension of Mr. Gilles Jobin’s chartered
of ninety (90) days.
Chantal Peltier
MR . GU Y TURGEON
(File: 33-05-0898)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Guy Turgeon, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. C9009), formerly
employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max
Avantages inc., chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. A3730), whose establishment is located at 9201,
boul. du Centre-Hospitalier in Charny, has been found
1st count: On or around August 27, 2003, prior to the
signing of a private promise to purchase concerning an
immovable, and on June 28, 2004, upon the signing
of an addendum to this promise to purchase, failing to
disclose, without delay and in writing, according to the
terms of sections 81 and following of the By-Law of the
ACAIQ, to the sellers designated on these documents,
his quality as affiliated real estate agent, the whole
contrary to section 22 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.
2nd count: On or around September 2, 2004, failing
to follow up, on August 25, 2004, on the exercising by
the designated sellers of their right of withdrawal from
a prospective transaction on an immovable, namely by
sending them through his attorney, a notice to execute
an act in accordance with certain terms, the whole contrary to the second paragraph of section 22 of the Real
Estate Brokerage Act and sections 1 and 13 of the Rules
On May 16, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a
suspension of Mr. Guy Turgeon’s certificate for a period of six (6) months for both counts of the complaint,
to be served consecutively to the suspension ordered in
decision No. 33-05-0892, to take effect whenever he
applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. June 26,
2006. The suspension of Mr. Guy Turgeon’s affiliated
real estate agent certificate will therefore become effective whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate, for a period
of six (6) months.
Chantal Peltier
MR . RONA LD L ABELLE
(File: 33-06-0903)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Ronald Labelle, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. B8867), employed by or authorized to act on behalf of La Capitale
Centre, Coop, chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. C3705), whose establishment is located at 1600
Le Corbusier Blvd. Suite 201 in Laval, has notably been
found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec
effect whenever he applies for reinstatement of his certificate or the issuance of a new certificate.
of fifteen (15) days on sub-paragraph c).
13
3rd count: On or around April 30, 2003, with respect
to an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity,
committing an act that is derogatory to the honour
and dignity of the profession, participating in an act
or practice in real estate matters which may cause
prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by
inciting a selling party to sign, in the space reserved
for the signature of “Seller 2”, the name of her spouse
on a promise to purchase and an Annex A, the whole
contrary to sections 1 and 13 of the Rules of Profes-
Chantal Peltier
MRS. SUET-YIM FUNG
(ALSO KNOWN AS DEBBIE FUNG)
sional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
(File: 33-06-0956)
5th count: At an indeterminate date, with respect to
an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, com-
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Suet-Yim Fung, af-
mitting an act that is derogatory to the honour and
dignity of the profession, participating in an act or
practice in real estate matters which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by in-
filiated real estate agent (B8009), formerly employed
by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max Platine,
chartered real estate broker (A2784), whose establishment is located at 1850 Panama Avenue, suite 110, in
citing a selling party to sign, in the space reserved for
“signature 2”, the name of her spouse on an Amend-
Brossard, has been found guilty by the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents im-
ments form, supposedly signed on May 26, 2003, the
whole contrary to sections 1 and 13 of the Rules of
mobiliers du Québec of the twelve (12) counts of infractions summarized as follows:
On August 9, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a suspension of Mr. Ronald Labelle’s certificate for
two concurrent periods of thirty (30) days on these
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e. September 15, 2006. The suspension of Mr. Ronald
Labelle’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is
therefore effective as of September 15, 2006 for a
period of thirty (30) days.
Chantal Peltier
MR. RAUL CAPELA
(File: 33-06-0912)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Raul Capela, affiliated real estate agent (Certificate No. B8031), employed
by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max Royal
Jordan inc., chartered real estate broker (Certificate
No. A2958), whose establishment is located at 101
Amherst Rd. in Beaconsfield, has notably been found
b) an amendments form dated August 23rd, 2003;
5th count: Beginning on or around June 1st, 2004, with
respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate
integrity, participated in an act or practice which may be
illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the
profession, namely by signing as a witness of the signature
to the profession, namely by signing as a witness to the
signature of her client, while knowing that the latter
was not the one who signed an amendments form, the
of her client while she was not present when the following
documents were signed:
11th count: Beginning on or around July 15, 2003, with
a) a promise to purchase together with an annex A,
dated June 1st, 2004;
b) a counter-proposal dated June 1 , 2004;
st
c) a counter-proposal dated June 3rd, 2004;
d) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
e) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
f) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
g) an amendments form dated June 11 , 2004;
1st count: From 2003 to 2006, with respect to various
immovables, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity,
committed acts derogatory to the honour and dignity of
the profession, participated in an act or practice in real
estate matters which may be illegal or which may cause
prejudice to the public or the profession, namely by:
A) acting as a real estate agent for the acquisition of
the Properties, by buyers of Asian origin and domiciled outside of the province of Québec, while she
knew or should have known that the purpose of
these acquisitions was to grow cannabis inside the
Properties or to conduct other illicit activities;
B) by acting, as a listing agent, for the resale of properties while she knew or should have known that for
each of the properties:
a) cannabis had been grown inside the house;
b) superficial alterations, repairs or works had
been done or actions had been taken in order
to hide the stigmata left by the said growing;
and by:
iii) letting buyers present promises to purchase for
the properties without disclosing that fact;
v) letting buyers notarize the sale without disclosing that fact;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 26, 28 and 29 of
to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity,
participated in an act or practice which may be illegal or
ments were signed:
the public or to the profession, namely by signing as a
witness to the signature of her client, while knowing
that the latter was not the one who signed the follow-
a) a promise to purchase together with an annex A
and AB, dated August 22nd, 2003;
b) an amendments form dated August 27th, 2003;
was only partially reimbursed by the buyers after
the deed of sale was completed;
On August 15, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a suspension of Mr. Raul Capela’s certificate
for a period of three (3) months on this count of the
complaint.
The parties having waived their right to appeal, the
decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable
as of August 21, 2006. The suspension Mr. Raul
Capela’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is
3rd count: Beginning on or around March 15th, 2005,
with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice in
real estate matters which may be illegal or which may
cause prejudice to the public or the profession, did not
disclose in writing a factor of which she has knowledge,
that could unfavorably affect the object of the transaction, namely the fact that the immovable has been used
for cannabis’ growing, the whole contrary to sections 1,
13 and 29 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of
the ACAIQ.
4th count: Beginning on or around August 22nd, 2003,
with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice
witness of the signature of her client, while she was not
present when the following documents were signed:
a) a promise to purchase together with annexes A
and AB, dated April 13th, 2002 as well as an
annex pyrite;
b) a counter-proposal dated April 15th, 2002;
which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by signing as a witness of the signature of her
d) an amendments form dated April 24th, 2002;
client, while she was not present when the following documents were signed:
a) a promise to purchase together with annexes A, AB,
and an annex pyrite dated April 24th, 2005;
ject of the transaction, namely by:
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 26, 28 and 29
ing documents:
7th count: Beginning on April 24th, 2005, with respect to
an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity,
the public or to the profession, in order to allow prospective buyers to obtain a mortgage financing, based
b) by denying to his real estate agent, that the immovable has been used for such;
12th count: Beginning on or around April 13th, 2002,
with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice
may cause prejudice to the public or the profession, did
not disclose a factor of which she has knowledge, that
could unfavorably affect a prospective buyer, or the ob-
a) not disclosing in writing the fact that the immovable
has been used for cannabis’ growing;
c) a counter-proposal dated July 16th, 2003;
client, while she was not present when the following docu-
demonstrate integrity, committing acts that are derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession,
participating in acts or practices in real estate matters
c) by supplying the buyers with a bank draft for the
amount of $8,779.63 for the payment of the cash
down, the adjustments and the notary fees, which
b) a counter-proposal dated July 16th, 2003;
3rd count: Between on or around March 16 and April
15, 2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to
down;
and AB, dated July 15th, 2003;
6th count: Beginning on August 22nd, 2003, with respect
b) by supplying the buyers with a blank “gift letter”
to be completed and signed by a third person,
in order for them to demonstrate to the mortgage creditor the availability of funds for the cash
latter was not the one who signed the following
documents:
d) a counter-proposal dated July 17th, 2003;
2nd count: Beginning on or around September 24th,
2005, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not
demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or which
ing price agreed to between the parties;
may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by signing as a witness
to the signature of her client, while knowing that the
c) an amendments form dated April 27th, 2005;
a) preparing and having the parties sign a promise
to purchase indicating a selling price of $139,000
whereas this price did not represent the real sell-
respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice which
th
the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
on false pretences, namely by:
10th count: On or around August 21st, 2003, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate
integrity, participated in an act or practice which may
be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or
8th count: Beginning on May 27th, 2005, with respect to
an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity,
a) a promise to purchase together with annexes A and AB
dated May 27th, 2005 and an annex pyrite;
On September 5th, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered a permanent suspension of the certificate of Mrs.
Suet-Yim Fung (also known as Debbie Fung) for
these twelve counts.
The above decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable from the date of the appeals deadline, i.e.
October 11, 2006. The permanent suspension of Mrs.
Suet-Yim Fung’s affiliated real estate agent certificate
is therefore effective as from October 11th, 2006.
Brossard, October 16th, 2006
Chantal Peltier
b) an amendments form dated May 27th, 2005;
c) a promise to purchase together with an annex A, dated
June 10th, 2005;
d) a counter-proposal dated June 10th, 2005;
9th count: Beginning on August 14th, 2003, with respect
to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity,
and AB dated August 14th, 2003;
b) a counter-proposal dated August 16th, 2003;
a) a promise to purchase together with annexes A and
AB dated August 22nd, 2003 and an annex pyrite;
therefore effective as of August 21, 2006 for a period
of three (3) months.
z
14
Notices of provisional suspension of certificate
A SSOCI A TION DES COURTIERS ET A GENTS IMMOBILIERS DU Q UÉBEC
MRS. SY LVIA YOUNAN
(File: 33-06-0939)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Sylvia Younan,
affiliated real estate agent (C7166), employed by
or authorized to act on behalf of Groupe Sutton
Immobilia chartered real estate broker (C0349),
whose establishment is located at 1260, Avenue
Bernard Ouest, suite 304, in Outremont, is charged
in a formal complaint before the Discipline Committee of the Association des courtiers et agents
immobiliers du Québec with seven (7) counts of
infractions summarized as follows:
a)Between May 26th and September 23rd, 2003, by participating to the imitation of the sellers’ signature on a
brokerage contract and an annex AG;
b)On or about September 23rd, 2003, by invoking in
her legal procedure against the sellers, a brokerage
contract and the annex AG as if these forms were
signed and agreed by the sellers whereas Defendant
knew they neither signed or agreed to those
forms ‘ content;
c)On or about September 24th, 2003, by transmitting
copy of the said brokerage contract and an annex AG
to her broker;
1st count: On May 26th 2003, prior to the signature of a promise to purchase concerning an immovable, failing to disclose, without delay and in
writing, his quality as real estate agent to the prospective contracting parties identified as the sellers on the said promise to purchase, in the manner
prescribed in section 81 and ss of the By-law of
the ACAIQ, the whole contrary to section 22 of the
Real Estate Brokerage Act.
2nd count:On or about May 26th 2003, failing to
transmit as soon as possible to the Association des
courtiers et agents immobiliers du Québec, a copy
of a promise to purchase, together with the annex
A, concerning an immovable, the whole contrary to
section 23 of the Real Estate Brokerage Act.
On June 6th, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
the provisional suspension of the certificate of Mrs.
Sylvia Younan until the final decision of the Discipline
Committee is rendered, either rejecting the complaint
filed against her or ordering a penalty; unless such a
penalty is a suspension or cancellation of his certificate, in which case the provisional suspension order
shall remain in force until the said final decision
becomes enforceable.
3rd count: On or about May 26th 2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, participating in an act or practice in real
estate matters which may be illegal or which may
cause prejudice to the public or to the profession,
namely by signing with the sellers, two specimens
of a promise to purchase, while only one of those
specified at section 8, that defendant’s deposit
will be produced after her mortgage approval, the
whole contrary to sections 1 and 13 of the Rules
4th count: On or about May 26th 2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to send without
delay to the manager of the place of business to
which she is assigned the information and documents required in order to maintain the records,
books and registers provided for in Chapter XI of
the By-law of the ACAIQ, namely a promise to purchase together with an annex A, the whole contrary to section 147 of the By-law of the ACAIQ.
5th count: On or about June 13th 2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to demonstrate integrity, participating in an act or practice in real
cause prejudice to the public or to the profession
namely by transmitting to another broker’s representative which services have been retained in
order to obtain a mortgage financing, a false specimen of a promise to purchase that established, according to its section 4.1 and its annex A, a selling
price of $140,000 instead of the $105,000 agreed
by the parties to the said promise to purchase, the
6th count: Between May 26th and September 24th,
2003, with respect to an immovable, failing to
demonstrate integrity, committing acts that are
derogatory to the honor and dignity of the profession, participating in an act or practice in real
cause prejudice to the public or the profession,
namely:
7th count: On or about February 25th, 2005, failing
to collaborate during an inquiry conducted by the assistant syndic, namely by making to an investigator, a
statement to the effect that on May 20 th 2003, the sellers signed a brokerage contract, the whole contrary to
sections 54 and 55 of the Rules of Professional Ethics
of the ACAIQ.
The above decision of the Discipline Committee is
enforceable as from the date of notification to Defendant, to wit: June 7th, 2006. The suspension of Mrs.
Sylvia Younan’s affiliated real estate agent certificate
is therefore effective as from June 7th, 2006.
the Real Estate Brokerage Act (R.S.Q., c. C-73.1) and
section 133 of the Professional Code (R.S.Q., c. C-26).
Brossard, June 8th, 2006
Chantal Peltier
MRS. THI THU THU Y HO
(File: 33-06-0949)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Thi Thu Thuy Ho,
affiliated real estate agent (D6707) employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max Alliance inc., chartered real estate broker (A2985), whose establishment
is located at 3299 Beaubien Street East in Montréal, is
charged in a complaint before the Discipline Committee
du Québec with the offences summarized below:
1st count: Between or around May 18, 2005 and or
around June 29, 2005, with respect to an immovable,
failing to inform with objectivity, without exaggeration, concealment or misrepresentation, all the parties
to a transaction referred to in section 1 of the Act, of
relevant facts surrounding a transaction and the object
thereof and/or of factors that could unfavourably affect
the parties or the very object of the transaction, whereas she knew or should have known that the immovable
had been used to grow cannabis, namely by:
failing to inform in a timely fashion the prospective
buyers, or the real estate agent representing them, that
the immovable had been used to grow cannabis;
2nd count: Between or around March 10, 2006 and
the end of May 2006, with respect to an immovable,
failing to inform with objectivity, without exaggeration, concealment or misrepresentation, all the parties
to a transaction referred to in section 1 of the Act, of
relevant facts surrounding a transaction and the object
thereof and/or of factors that could unfavourably affect the parties or the very object of the transaction,
namely by:
a) failing to inform in a timely fashion the prospective
buyers, or the real estate agent representing them,
that the immovable had been used to grow cannabis;
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable as of the date of notification to the defendant, i.e. July 25, 2006. The suspension of Mrs.
Thi Thu Thuy Ho’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is therefore effective as of July 25, 2006.
This notice is given in accordance with section 137
of the Real Estate Brokerage Act (R.S.Q., c. C-73.1)
and section 133 of the Professional Code (R.S.Q.,
c. C-26).
Chantal Peltier
b) on or around May 11, 2006, by failing to indicate in
writing on a counter-proposal form in reply to a promise to purchase that the immovable had been used to
grow cannabis;
c) on or around May 23, 2006, by letting the prospective buyers have the immovable inspected without disclosing the fact that the immovable had been used to
grow cannabis;
3rd count: Between or around May 18, 2005 and the
end of May 2006, failing to demonstrate integrity, committing acts that are derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession, participating in acts or a practice
in real estate matters which may be illegal or which
may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession,
namely by:
a) acting as listing agent for the resale of immovables,
including for two immovables, while she knew or
should have known that these had been used to grow
cannabis and that modifications, repairs or work had
been done or actions had been taken to hide any
damage left by the growing operation:
i) without taking the necessary means to ensure
that this information was duly brought to the
attention of any prospective buyer in a timely
fashion; and/or
ii) by failing to inform in a timely fashion the prospective buyers or the real estate agent representing them that the immovable had been
used to grow cannabis; and/or
iii) by letting the prospective buyers have these
immovables inspected without disclosing
that fact;
iv) concerning one immovable in particular, as of
May 8, 2006, by failing to follow an investigator’s instructions and disclose the fact that the
immovable had been used to grow cannabis;
b) acting as real estate agent for the acquisition of immovables, notably one immovable, whereas she knew
or should have known that the purpose of these acquisitions was to grow cannabis or conduct other illegal activities in these immovables;
On July 25, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a provisional suspension of Mrs. Thi Thu Thuy Ho’s
certificate until the final decision of the Discipline Committee is rendered, either rejecting the complaint filed
against her or ordering a penalty; unless such a penalty is a suspension or cancellation of her certificate,
in which case the provisional suspension order shall
remain in force until the said final decision becomes
enforceable.
MRS. SUET-YIM FUNG
(ALSO KNOWN AS DEBBIE FUNG)
(File: 33-06-0956)
NOTICE is hereby given that Mrs. Suet-Yim Fung,
affiliated real estate agent (B8009), formerly employed by or authorized to act on behalf of Re/Max
Platine, chartered real estate broker (A2784),
whose establishment is located at 1850 Panama
Avenue, suite 110, in Brossard, is charged in a formal complaint before the Discipline Committee of
the Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers
du Québec with twelve (12) counts of infractions
summarized as follows:
1st count: From 2003 to 2006, with respect to
various immovables, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, committed acts derogatory to the
honour and dignity of the profession, participated
in an act or practice in real estate matters which
may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the
public or the profession, namely by:
A) acting as a real estate agent for the acquisition
of the Properties, by buyers of Asian origin and
domiciled outside of the province of Québec,
while she knew or should have known that the
purpose of these acquisitions was to grow cannabis inside the Properties or to conduct other illicit
activities;
B) by acting, as a listing agent, for the resale of
properties while she knew or should have known
that for each of the properties:
a) cannabis had been grown inside the house;
b) superficial alterations, repairs or works had
been done or actions had been taken in
order to hide the stigmata left by the said
growing;
and by:
iii) letting buyers present promises to purchase for the properties without disclosing
that fact;
v) letting buyers notarize the sale without
disclosing that fact;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 26, 28 and
29 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ
2nd count: Beginning on or around September
24th, 2005, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in
an act or practice in real estate matters which may
be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or the profession, did not disclose a factor of
which she has knowledge, that could unfavorably affect a prospective buyer, or the object of the
transaction, namely by:
15
a) not disclosing in writing the fact that the immovable has been used for cannabis’ growing;
a) a promise to purchase together with annexes A, AB,
b) by denying to his real estate agent, that the immovable has been used for such;
of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ
d) an amendments form dated April 24th, 2002;
the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 26, 28 and 29
3rd count: Beginning on or around March 15th,
2005, with respect to an immovable, Defendant
did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an
act or practice in real estate matters which may be
illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public
or the profession, did not disclose in writing a factor of which she has knowledge, that could unfavorably affect the object of the transaction, namely
the fact that the immovable has been used for cannabis’ growing, the whole contrary to sections 1,
13 and 29 of the Rules of Professional Ethics
of the ACAIQ.
4th count: Beginning on or around August 22nd,
2003, with respect to an immovable, Defendant
did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an
act or practice which may be illegal or which may
namely by signing as a witness of the signature of
her client, while she was not present when the following documents were signed:
and an annex pyrite dated April 24th, 2005;
8th count: Beginning on May 27th, 2005, with respect
to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice which may be
illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to
the profession, namely by signing as a witness of the
signature of her client, while she was not present when
the following documents were signed:
AB dated May 27th, 2005 and an annex pyrite;
b) an amendments form dated May 27th, 2005;
c) a promise to purchase together with an annex A,
dated June 10th, 2005;
d) a counter-proposal dated June 10th, 2005;
Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ
b) an amendments form dated August 23rd, 2003;
9th count: Beginning on August 14th, 2003, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate
integrity, participated in an act or practice which may
be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or
to the profession, namely by signing as a witness of the
signature of her client, while she was not present when
the following documents were signed:
AB dated August 14th, 2003;
5th count: Beginning on or around June 1st, 2004,
with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not
demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or
practice which may be illegal or which may cause
prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely
by signing as a witness of the signature of her client while she was not present when the following
b) a counter-proposal dated August 16th, 2003;
and AB dated August 22nd, 2003 and an annex
pyrite;
a) a promise to purchase together with an annex A,
dated June 1st, 2004;
b) a counter-proposal dated June 1st, 2004;
c) a counter-proposal dated June 3rd, 2004;
d) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
e) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
f) an amendments form dated June 9th, 2004;
g) an amendments form dated June 11th, 2004;
6th count: Beginning on August 22nd, 2003, with
respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice
which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by
signing as a witness of the signature of her client,
while she was not present when the following documents were signed:
a) a promise to purchase together with an annex A
and AB, dated August 22nd, 2003;
b) an amendments form dated August 27th, 2003;
7th count: Beginning on April 24th, 2005, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice
which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by
signing as a witness of the signature of her client,
while she was not present when the following
z
16
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ the whole contrary to sections 1 and 13 of the Rules of
10th count: On or around August 21st, 2003, with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate
integrity, participated in act or practice which may be
illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to
the profession, namely by signing as a witness to the
signature of her client, while knowing that the latter
was not the one who signed an amendments form, the
11th count: Beginning on or around July 15, 2003, with
respect to an immovable, Defendant did not demonstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice which
may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the profession, namely by signing as a witness
to the signature of her client, while knowing that the
latter was not the one who signed the following
documents:
AB, dated July 15th, 2003;
b) a counter-proposal dated July 16th, 2003;
c) a counter-proposal dated July 16th, 2003;
AB, dated April 13th, 2002 as well as an annex pyrite;
On August 17 , 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered the provisional suspension of the certificate of
Mrs. Suet-Yim Fung (also known as Debbie Fung)
until the final decision of the Discipline Committee is
rendered, either rejecting the complaint filed against
her or ordering a penalty; unless such a penalty is a
suspension or cancellation of his certificate, in which
case the provisional suspension order shall remain in
force until the said final decision becomes enforceable.
th
The above decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable as from the date of notification to Defendant,
to wit: August 21st 2006. The suspension of Mrs. SuetYim Fung’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is
therefore effective as from August 21st, 2006.
Brossard, August 23rd, 2006
Chantal Peltier
MR . JACQUES PRUNE AU
File: 33-06-0957
NOTICE is hereby given that Mr. Jacques Pruneau,
affiliated real estate agent (A9844), employed by or
authorized to act on behalf of Avantage immobilier,
chartered real estate broker (C9793), whose establishment is located at 1179 Saint-Louis St. in Gatineau, is
charged in a complaint before the Discipline Committee
du Québec with the offences summarized below:
1st count: During the months of February and March
2004, committing acts that are derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession, participating in acts
or a practice in real estate matters which may be illegal
or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the
profession, failing to provide fair treatment to the parties to a transaction, abusing another member’s good
faith, using unfair practices against him and failing to
convey a fact surrounding a transaction, notably in the
course of the following events, the purpose of which
was the profitable resale of an immovable:
a) soliciting visits from a real estate agent, without disclosing to him that the Defendant would not be accepting a promise to purchase from these visitors,
even if they showed an interest in acquiring this immovable following such visit;
b) soliciting such visits from a real estate agent without
disclosing to him that any transaction proposal from
these visitors would not be intended for the seller contemporary to these visits, but rather to a third party;
12th count: Beginning on or around April 13th, 2002,
with respect to an immovable, Defendant did not dem-
c) hiding from the potential buyers the fact that the Defendant would collaborate in the acquisition of this
d) a counter-proposal dated July 17th, 2003;
onstrate integrity, participated in an act or practice
witness to the signature of her client, while knowing
that the latter was not the one who signed the following documents:
immovable by a third party for the purpose of resale to
one and/or the other of them;
d) allowing these potential buyers to visit this immovable
while allowing them to be assisted by a third party, an
individual whom the Defendant knew to be looking
for an offer to purchase intended for a seller who was
not the seller cotemporary to these visits;
such events leading, on or around February 27,
2004, to the signing by a promising buyer of a
promise to purchase in the amount of $136,000
and, on or around March 11, 2004, the signing by
a promising buyer of a promise to purchase in the
amount of $158,000, the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 24, 26, 35 and 43 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
2nd count: During the month of February 2004,
committing acts that are derogatory to the honour
and dignity of the profession, participating in acts
or a practice in real estate matters which may be illegal or which may cause prejudice to the public or
to the profession, failing to provide fair treatment
to the parties to a transaction, abusing another
member’s good faith, using unfair practices against
him and failing to convey a fact surrounding a
transaction, notably in the course of the following
events, the purpose of which was the profitable
resale of an immovable:
a) on or around February 21, 2004, soliciting a visit
from a real estate agent, without disclosing to
him that the Defendant would not be accepting a
promise to purchase from potential buyers, even
if they showed an interest in acquiring this
immovable;
b) soliciting such visit from a real estate agent without disclosing to him that any transaction proposal from these visitors would not be intended for
the seller contemporary to these visits, but rather
to a third party;
c) on or around February 21, 2004, allowing these
visitors to visit this immovable without disclosing the identity of the seller contemporary to their
visit or his asking price;
d) hiding from these visitors the fact that the Defendant would collaborate in the acquisition of
this immovable by a third party for the purpose of
resale to one and/or the other of them;
e) allowing these potential buyers to visit this immovable while allowing them to be assisted by
a third party, an individual whom the Defendant
knew to be looking for an offer to purchase intended for a seller who was not the seller cotemporary to these visits;
such events leading, on or around February 21,
2004, to the signing by a promising buyer of a
promise to purchase in the amount of $102,000
and, on or around February 27, 2004, the signing by a promising buyer of a promise to purchase
in the amount of $136,000, the whole contrary to
sections 1, 13, 24, 26, 35 and 43 of the Rules of
3rd count: During the month of May 2004, committing acts that are derogatory to the honour and
dignity of the profession, participating in acts or a
practice in real estate matters which may be illegal
or which may cause prejudice to the public or to the
profession, failing to provide fair treatment to the
parties to a transaction, abusing another member’s
good faith, using unfair practices against him and
failing to convey a fact surrounding a transaction,
notably in the course of the following events, the
purpose of which was the profitable resale of an
immovable:
a) on or around May 7, 2004, soliciting a visit from
a real estate agent, without disclosing to him that
the Defendant would not be accepting a promise
to purchase from the potential buyer, even if she
showed an interest in acquiring this immovable;
b) soliciting such visit from a real estate agent without disclosing to him that any transaction proposal from this visitor would not be intended for the
seller contemporary to these visits, but rather to a
third party;
c) hiding from the potential buyer the fact that Defendant would collaborate in the acquisition of
this immovable by a third party for the purpose of
resale to her;
d) allowing this potential buyer to visit this immovable while allowing them to be assisted by a third
party, an individual whom the Defendant knew to
be looking for an offer to purchase intended for a
seller who was not the seller cotemporary to
this visit;
such events leading, on or around May 7, 2004,
to the signing by a promising buyer of a promise
to purchase in the amount of $92,000 and, on or
around May 10, 2004, the signing by a promising
buyer of a promise to purchase in the amount of
$119,000, the whole contrary to sections 1, 13, 24,
26, 35 and 43 of the Rules of Professional Ethics
of the ACAIQ.
4th count: During the month of March 2005, committing acts that are derogatory to the honour and
dignity of the profession, participating in acts or a
practice in real estate matters which may be illegal
or which may cause prejudice to the public or to
the profession, failing to provide fair treatment to
the parties to a transaction, abusing another member’s good faith, using unfair practices against him
and failing to convey a fact surrounding a transaction, notably in the course of the following events,
the purpose of which was the profitable resale of
an immovable:
a) during the month of March 2005, soliciting a
visit from a real estate agent, without disclosing
to him that the Defendant would not be accepting a promise to purchase from potential buyers,
even if they showed an interest in acquiring this
immovable;
b) soliciting such visit from a real estate agent without disclosing to him that any transaction proposal from these visitors would not be intended for
the seller contemporary to these visits, but rather
to a third party;
c) hiding from these visitors the fact that the Defendant would collaborate in the acquisition of
this immovable by a third party for the purpose
of resale to one and/or the other of them;
d) allowing these potential buyers to visit this immovable while allowing them to be assisted by
a third parties, individuals whom the Defendant
knew to be looking for an offer to purchase intended for a seller who was not the seller cotemporary to this visit;
such events leading, on or around March 24, 2005,
to the signing by a promising buyer of a promise
to purchase in the amount of $115,000 and, on
an undetermined date, the signing by promising
buyers of a promise to purchase in the amount of
$148,000, the whole contrary to sections 1, 13,
24, 26, 35 and 43 of the Rules of Professional
Ethics of the ACAIQ.
5th count: On or around February 5, 2006, failing
to demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is
derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession and participating in an act or practice in real
namely by completing and having promising buyers
sign a promise to purchase concerning an immovable,
and, at the same time, the complementary agreement
drafted on an annex, whereas this promise to purchase
did not cross-reference said annex and the absence of
such cross-reference allowed the obtaining of mortgage
financing on the basis of information that did not take
the content of this annex into consideration, the whole
contrary to sections 1, 13 and 35 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of the ACAIQ.
6th count: On or around February 16, 2006, failing to
demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession and
the public or to the profession, namely by completing
and having a promising buyer sign a promise to purchase, an Annex A concerning an immovable, and, at
the same time, the complementary agreement drafted
on an Annex AG, whereas this promise to purchase did
not cross-reference this Annex AG and the absence of
such cross-reference allowed the obtaining of mortgage
financing on the basis of information that did not take
the content of this Annex AG into consideration, the
whole contrary to sections 1, 13 and 35 of the Rules of
7th count: On or around February 18, 2006, failing
to ensure the presentation to the promising buyer,
as soon as possible after receiving it, of a counterproposal to a promise to purchase concerning an
immovable, the whole contrary to section 78 of
the By-Law of the ACAIQ.
demonstrate integrity, committing an act that is derogatory to the honour and dignity of the profession and
the public or to the profession, namely by completing
and having a promising buyer sign a promise to purchase and an Annex A concerning an immovable, and,
at the same time, the complementary agreement drafted on an Annex AG whereas this promise to purchase
did not cross-reference this Annex AG and the absence
of such cross-reference allowed the obtaining of mortgage financing on the basis of information that did
not take the content of this Annex AG into consideration, the whole contrary to sections 1, 13 and 35 of the
in which case the provisional suspension order shall
remain in force until the said final decision becomes
enforceable.
The decision of the Discipline Committee is enforceable as from the date of notification to Defendant,
i.e. August 23, 2006. The suspension of Mr. Jacques
Pruneau’s affiliated real estate agent certificate is
therefore effective as of August 23, 2006.
Chantal Peltier
Telephone
Information
Center
WE’RE
OPEN
TO YOUR
QUESTIONS
Monday
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Tuesday
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Wednesday 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Thursday
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Friday
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
450 462-9800
1 800 440-7170
include in a weekly publication the mandatory statements that the holder of an affiliated real estate agent
certificate must include visibly in any advertising, client
solicitation and representation regarding the pursuit of
the activity of real estate broker referred to in section 1
of the Act, the whole contrary to section 104 (3) of the
By-Law of the ACAIQ.
10th count: On or around March 24, 2006, failing to
collaborate and making false statements during an investigation conducted by an assistant syndic, notably
when the Defendant falsely stated that up to that date
he had only been involved in three or four transactions
directly or indirectly involving promising buyers, the
On August 23, 2006, the Discipline Committee ordered
a provisional suspension of Mr. Jacques Pruneau’s
certificate until the final decision of the Discipline Committee is rendered, either rejecting the complaint filed
against him or ordering a penalty; unless such a penalty is a suspension or cancellation of his certificate,
17
ILLEGAL PRACTICE
A verbal agreement
makes no difference
F
rom January to July 2004, Denis Talbot, a
have been acting as a real estate broker or agent.
former real estate agent who had not reAt the trial, Court of Quebec Judge Nicole Martin
newed his certificate expired on December
ruled otherwise and concluded that there was
31, 2003, performed various real estate brokerage proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Denis
acts by acting as intermediary in the sale of one
Talbot had illegally practiced the activity of real
of his friends’ property. This was the contention
estate broker or agent.
of the ACAIQ, which filed a complaint against
According to Judge Martin, the ACAIQ
him for illegal practice.
proved the three
Even in the absence of a contract, the
Denis Talbot argued
elements constitutthat he had simply
ing an offence, i.e.
mere act of posting a sign with his
performed a verbal
a brokerage act,
name and phone number in front of
agreement. The case
for others, and for
the property in order to put the seller
was heard on April 4,
compensation. The
2006 and Mr. Talbot
magistrate based
in contact with potential buyers was
was found guilty.
her ruling on a decireason enough to conclude that a
The facts of the
sion rendered by the
brokerage act had been performed
case were as follows:
Court of Quebec in
for another.
Denis Talbot put a sign
ACAIQ vs. Salvatore
in front of his friend’s
Secondino, which
property which read “For Sale, contact Denis
stated that putting a seller in contact with a
Talbot”, followed by his phone number. He also
potential buyer was in fact the essential function
sent documents to the collaborating agent, i.e. a
of a broker.
data collection sheet from a real estate board and
According to Judge Martin, the fact that
his business card which read “Denis Talbot, BroDenis Talbot was acting by virtue of a verbal
kerage”. He was present at every step of the trans- agreement changed nothing to the fact that he
action, made appointments for viewing, attended
had agreed to act as his client’s real estate broker
the presentation of the promise to purchase and
just as he would have if there had been a written
received $2,000 in compensation.
brokerage contract. The judge also stated that
Denis Talbot’s defence was based mainly on
even in the absence of a contract, the mere act of
the fact that there was no written contract, only a
posting a sign with his name and phone number
verbal agreement, and that therefore he could not
in front of the property in order to put the seller in
contact with potential buyers was reason enough
to conclude that a brokerage act had been performed for another. Denis Talbot was found
guilty and, as a first offender, was fined $500
plus costs. u
z
18
ILLEGAL PRACTICE
Illegal practice remains illegal
even if the “compensation” is called a “reward”
CAPITAL Recruitment
Given its incredible growth, La Capitale is
actively recruiting at all levels of its operations.
LA CAPITALE IS RECRUITING AGENTS
Regardless if you are a seasoned agent or new to the industry,
you will love it at La Capitale if you enjoy coaching, ongoing
training and tools that are convincing, like our guarantees, and
modern, like our agent-intranet.
For more information: visit the careers section of our site, lacapitalesells.com,
call the La Capitale director nearest you or call us at 1 800 363-6715.
LA CAPITALE IS RECRUITING OFFICE DIRECTORS
O
n April 18, 2006, Court of Quebec Judge Robert Lanctôt returned a guilty verdict in the
case of Antonio Royer, accused of illegally carrying out the activity of real estate broker
and agent, notably by requesting and receiving compensation for acting as intermediary
between a buyer and a seller.
To summarize: Antonio Royer solicited a property owner, offering to introduce him to a potential buyer in exchange for a $25,000 commission, or 2% of the sale price if the property sold for
more than $1,500,000. The seller accepted and signed an agreement with him. As agreed, Antonio
Royer introduced the buyer to the seller, but the sale did not take place. Not long after the expiration of the agreement with Antonio Royer, the seller and the buyer contacted each other again and
completed the transaction. Getting wind
of this, Antonio Royer decided to claim
The act of introducing, putting in conhis due. Following a formal demand and
tact and acting as go-between for two
lawsuit, the case was settled out of court.
individuals constitutes a brokerage act
By applying the Court of Appeal
decision in ACAIQ vs. Cie de fiducie
under the Real Estate Brokerage Act ,
whether or not there is a clear mandate MRS, the judge concluded that the act
of introducing, putting in contact and
to this effect.
acting as go-between for two individuals
constitutes a brokerage act under the Real
Estate Brokerage Act, whether or not there is a clear mandate to this effect. The judge was convinced
beyond any reasonable doubt that a brokerage act had been performed on behalf of another, for
compensation, even though the defence called the sum that the seller had to pay to Antonio Royer
a “reward”.
This being a first offence, Antonio Royer was ordered to pay a $500 fine, i.e the minimum
under the Act. u
La Capitale is searching for directors. After adequate training,
the chosen individuals will be called to take over a corporate
office or existing franchise for its owner(s).
If you are interested, contact Denis Joanis without delay at 514-287-1818,
extension 318. All calls will be treated confidentially.
LA CAPITALE IS RECRUITING REGIONAL DIRECTORS
Following a large expansion project, the La Capitale Real Estate
Network is searching for several candidates to fill regional director
positions.
Detailed information regarding these positions and the application procedure
to follow are posted on our Web site at www.lacapitalesells.com/emploi.
LA CAPITALE IS RECRUITING FRANCHISEES
There are still many areas for La Capitale to develop. To accomplish
this, the Network wants to be able to count on seasoned business
women and men who are invested in their work and are steadfastly
focused on success.
For a nominal monthly sum, without any other compulsory fees,
you will receive exclusive tools that help list properties, exclusive
access to the CMHC’s repossessed residential properties, a social
benefits program for your real estate agents, a partnership with
the pan American network, Coldwell Banker, and its 120 000 real
estate agents worldwide.
Effective tools help recruit top agents, increase sales and build an
excellent reputation, everything you need to make your franchise
a success.
Consult the franchise section of our site, www.lacapitalesells.com, or better
yet, dial 1 800 363-6715, extension 312 and ask for a La Capitale franchise
information packet. You can count on our full discretion!
Chartered Real Estate Broker
www.lacapitalesells.com
19
STAY ON TOP OF
THE HOUSING MARKET
Enhance your decision-making with the latest information
on Canadian housing trends and opportunities.
Now you can keep on top of Canada's housing
markets with CMHC – Absolutely free.
The Market Analysis Centre's national suite
of on-line publications is your best source of
current and authoritative housing market data,
reliable analysis, insight and forecasts. CMHC's
reports cover this information at the local,
provincial, regional and national levels.
Sign-up for convenient subscriptions to receive
every pdf format issue automatically – emailed
directly to you on the day of release. Or you
can access current and recent reports individually
when you need them!
Get the market intelligence
you need today. Free!
Visit www.cmhc.ca/
housingmarketinformation
Mark Your Calendar!
CMHC’s Housing Outlook Conferences are the best
venues to access timely, reliable and unbiased information.
Each conference’s program is tailored to the specifics of
your local market. If you are looking for information to
help you understand new trends in the market place or
identify new markets and investment opportunities, be
sure to register for the Housing Outlook Conference
in your area:
Atlantic:
Halifax
February 6, 2007
Québec:
Québec City November 15, 2006
Montréal November 21, 2006
Ontario:
Hamilton
Toronto
London
Kitchener
Ottawa
November 7, 2006
November 9, 2006
November 14, 2006
November 16, 2006
November 21, 2006
Prairies:
Calgary
November 16, 2006
Regina
February 2007
British Columbia:
Vancouver November 14, 2006
To register, visit:
www.cmhc.ca/housingmarketinformation
z
20
ILLEGAL PRACTICE
Mortgage brokerage
Advertiser found guilty of
“leading others to believe”
that he was a broker
Disclosing a suicide:
the obligation remains
O
n April 28, 2006, Court of Quebec
Judge Johanne White found Gino
Raphaël Falsetti guilty of leading
others to believe that he was authorized to
carry out the activity of real estate broker or
agent in the field of loans secured by immovable
hypothec.
Gino Falsetti had run the following ad in
the Journal de Montréal along with his phone
number:
1st 1-yr 3.25%, 2-yr 3.75%, 3-yr 3.90%, 4-yr
4.30%, 5-yr 4.55%.
SPECIALTY, 2nd 100% of value.
APPLIC. REJECTED BY BANKS OR CAISSES.
FINANCE BUNG. COTT. DUPLEX, 3 plex, 4 plex,
appt. bldgs, off. bldgs, comm. & industrial
$50,000 to $50,000,000.
PRIVATE LENDERS AVAILABLE $10,000,000
GOOD RATE.
BUSINESS, MANUFACTURING, RESTAURANT,
BRIDGE. GINO’S PERSONAL PLAN $3,000
to $15,000.
To determine whether an ad leads others
to believe that Gino Raphaël Falsetti is authorized to act as a real estate broker, Judge White
applied the test of the average consumer. In her
opinion, the content of the ad itself certainly
indicates a brokerage operation related to a
loan secured by immovable hypothec. She came
to the conclusion that a consumer reading this
ad would certainly believe that Gino Raphaël
Falsetti is authorized to act as a real estate
broker.
I
The defence pleaded that, based on the
wording of section 1 of the Real Estate Brokerage
Act, the prosecution had to prove the existence
of compensation and show that the action had
been performed for others, which the prosecution
did not do. But Judge White ruled that for one
thing, the ad, by mentioning a cost of $3,000 to
$15,000, does suggest that fees are collected.
For another, the offence consisting in “leading
others to believe” should not be confused with
the notion of “illegal practice”. In this case, the
prosecution is not obligated to prove the existence
of compensation. In any event, it was clear that
Gino Falsetti was not acting on his own behalf.
The defendant, a recidivist who has been
found guilty of similar offences several times in
the past, was ordered to pay a $1,200 fine. u
n October 2005, the ACAIQ published
an article on the duty to inform the
buyer when a violent death has occurred
on a property in which he is interested 1. On
the other hand, the Small Claims Court 2 has
just ruled that a suicide is not a factor that
must be declared by the seller, since the event
has no bearing on the value of the immovable
and is too subjective. According to the judge,
it is up to the buyer to ask questions about
this if this is factor that is important to him.
Based on this decision, some ACAIQ
members have formed the impression that
a real estate agent is no longer obligated to
disclose this information to the buyer. It is
important to note that the Small Claims Court
decision changes nothing to current Discipline
Committee jurisprudence, which is very clear
on that subject, nor to the Rules of Professional
Ethics of the ACAIQ. An agent who is apprised
of the fact that a suicide has occurred on a
property still has an ethical obligation to disclose
this fact. u
Violent death on a property – Duty to advise
the seller and inform the buyer (Info ACAIQ,
October 2005)
1
KNIGHT vs. DIONNE (C.Q. Small Claims,
January 27, 2006)
2
Ensures...
We compensate victims of fraud, dishonest transaction or misappropriation of funds or other property which, under the Real Estate
Brokerage Act, must be deposited in a trust account.
We cover acts committed in the course of transactions carried out
through a real estate broker or agent who is a member of the ACAIQ.
The maximum compensation is $15,000 per brokerage transaction
eligible for a claim. Please note that the claimant must file his application in the year following the date at which he was apprised of the
facts giving rise thereto
... and reassures
Ask for our folder explaining the protections offered to the public
and the benefits of dealing with a real estate broker or agent, and
distribute it to your clients. They will appreciate this added value.
We also have booklets of trust account receipts available to real
estate brokers and agents.
Please do not hesitate to contact us!
6300 Auteuil, suite 300, Brossard (Québec) J4Z 3P2
Tel.: (450) 676-4800 or 1 800 440-5110
Fax: (450) 676-7801
[email protected] | www.indemnisation.org
21
ACAIQ Benefit Golf Tournament
A generous gift of $26,000
for Fondation Jean Lapointe
Marijuana
growhouses for sale
A few precautions
M
R
obert Nadeau, President and Chief Executive Officer of the ACAIQ and honorary
president of the Association’s benefit golf tournament, held at Club Saint-Jean
on September 26, was very pleased to donate a cheque for the proceeds of this
event, totalling $26,000, to the representatives of Fondation Jean Lapointe. From left to
right, Jacques Monchamp, Chairman of Fondation Jean Lapointe, Robert Nadeau, Marcelle
Lamarche, General Manager of the Fondation and Luc Germain, Board Secretary.
(Photo Christian Mahiout, Société Trader) u
PSSST... DO YOU NEED TO ESCAPE?
LA CAPITALE OFFERS YOU A GETAWAY...
At:
• Château Montebello
in OUTAOUAIS
• Grand Lodge in
MONT-TREMBLANT
• Manoir Richelieu
in CHARLEVOIX
How to participate:
Visit the
www.mescentpremiersjours.com site.
Read several short stories, looking
for letters that don’t B E L O N G .
The prizes:
5 mini-vacation packages*
for 2 people including
lodging, dinner and breakfast.
On November 20, 2006, 5 names
will be drawn from among the
agents who answered the contest
question correctly. Winners will
receive the exciting news over the
telephone.
Conditions:
You must be a real estate
agent (regardless of banner).
These letters will spell the answer
to the contest question.
An invitation from the La Capitale
Real Estate Network, licensed real
estate broker.
* 1 drawing for every 50 participants up
to 5 packages. Packages are valid for
12 months, excluding certain peak dates.
any agents have recently been faced
with difficult situations where they
suddenly found out that a property
concerned in a brokerage contract or a promise to
purchase (in progress or accepted) had been used
as a marijuana growing operation. Here are the
ACAIQ’s recommendations in such cases.
As soon as he has reason to believe or is
informed that the property has been used to grow
cannabis, the agent, depending on the nature of
his involvement in the transaction and the stage it
has reached, must do the following:
SCENARIO A
The listing agent knows ahead of time or
learns after the signing of the brokerage
contract that the property has been used
as a growhouse:
1.The listing agent must ask the owner to fill
out and sign a Declarations by the Seller form
(ACAIQ recommended form) to the effect
that the property for sale has been used as a
marijuana growhouse.
2.If the selling client fills out and signs the
Declarations by the Seller form as required, the
listing agent must cross-reference this on the
detailed description sheet.
3.The listing agent must recommend that
the seller have the air quality tested on the
property to determine the potential degree of
contamination by mould spores. If air quality
if good, the property should be tested for
mould.
4.The listing agent must advise his selling client
about the obligations and civil liability associated with the sale of such a property.
5.If the client refuses to allow the agent to disclose the fact that the property has been used
to grow marijuana, the agent must refuse to
put the property on the market and simply
terminate the brokerage contract. This is a
serious motive that amply warrants cancelling
the contract.
SCENARIO B
The agent learns that the property has been
used as a marijuana growhouse before
submitting a promise to purchase:
1.The agent must inform the buyers in writing
of the potential problems that purchasing this
type of property entails. He must recommend,
among other things, that they have the air
quality tested in order to detect any contamination caused by mould spores that can be
harmful to the health of future occupants,
and also to test for mould.
2.It is also very important that the potential
buyer have all electrical wiring checked by a
master electrician, including the main mast.
The buyer must be informed of any potential
capital losses and problems that could be
encountered at the time of resale, as well
as the difficulties of obtaining mortgage approval for himself or for any subsequent buyer.
The buyer must also be told that the general
condition of the property as well as the health
of its future occupants could be compromised.
Finally, he must be informed of the difficulties
he would experience in exercising his rights if
the seller is not a resident of Québec (which
is common in cases such as these) or if he
is insolvent.
SCENARIO C
The agent learns that the property has
been used as a marijuana growhouse once
a promise to purchase is in progress or has
already been accepted:
1.The agent must immediately inform all the
parties, including the mortgage broker, preferably in writing, of this new development. If
the buyer wishes to pursue the transaction,
an Amendments form must be completed and
signed by the parties.
2.If the promise to purchase is in progress but
has not yet been accepted, the agent may,
if he can, ask the seller to make a counterproposal stating that the property has been
used to grow cannabis.
3.If the promise has already been accepted,
the agent must, as in Scenario B, inform the
parties about potential problems in writing
and recommend that the buyer inform his
mortgage lender, also in writing.
4.The agent who directed the buyer to the
mortgage lender must inform the lender
in writing. u
Chartered Real Estate Broker
www.lacapitalesells.com
Need new motivational drive to better SUCCEED in REALESTATE?
The time has come to consider
new opportunities.
Bouchard Parent Associates offers:
>
>
>
>
>
COACHING, COACHING, COACHING
Buyer/Seller contacts
Improved work methods developed to IMPROVE YOUR RESULTS
Learn to defy the competition with our unique work procedures
Our brokers motivate you to SUCCEED
Call now. Our team is ready to make you a winner
z
22
October 2006 | INFO ACAIQ 514.725.2000
A S S O C I É S
I N C
Certified Realestate Broker
w w w. B o u c h a r d Pa r e n t . c o m
ILLEGAL PRACTICE
Two former real estate agents
found guilty of illegal
O
n May 25, 2006, Court of Quebec
Judge Gilles Pigeon found Salvatore
Secondino guilty on three counts for
illegally carrying out the activity of real estate
broker and agent, notably by signing a property
management contract, signing a promise to
lease and having a lease signed without a
certificate of practice. Judge Pigeon ordered the
defendant to pay a $9,000 penalty, i.e. $3,000
per accusation count.
The company Les Immeubles Salsec, of
which Salvatore Secondino is sole administrator
and principal shareholder, was also found guilty
by the Court. Les Immeubles Salsec was charged
with two counts, i.e. signing a management
contract and signing a promise to lease. The
penalty for this first conviction was $2,000, i.e.
$1,000 per accusation count. u
practice
O
n September 11, 2006, judge Gaby
Dumas of the Court of Quebec, Penal
Division, found Élizabeth Riquelme
guilty of using a title that could lead others to
believe that she was authorized to carry out real
estate broker and agent activities.
Élizabeth Riquelme is no longer a member
of the ACAIQ, not having renewed her certificate
since January 2003. In November 2003, wanting to sell her cottage, she signed a brokerage
contract with a real estate agent. Mrs. Riquelme
then requested that the agent pay her 25% in
referral fees, informing him that she was herself
an agent. She gave the agent a business card
with her picture and the title “Affiliated Real
Estate Agent”.
Judge Dumas sentenced Mrs. Riquelme to
a $500 fine. u
Over $3,200,000
for the creation of the Fonds d’assurance
responsabilité professionnelle
The members of the Board of Directors of the Fonds
d’indemnisation du courtage immobilier are proud to have
supported the creation of the Fonds d’assurance responsabilité
professionnelle de l’ACAIQ and to contribute to its funding.
The Fonds has contributed over $3,200,000 to the initial
capitalization of this new insurance fund.
This financial contribution supports the Fonds d’indemnisation’s
mission to ensure the protection of consumers who deal
with real estate brokers and agents. The Fonds d’indemnisation
also helps protect the integrity of Québec real estate
brokerage professionals.
[email protected] | www.indemnisation.org
23
3-PubACAIQ_AOUT06_EN
8/29/06
1:03 PM
Page 1
Looking forward to succeed quickly?
Don’t wait any longer and go to
www.sellmorerapidly.com
Learn how Proprio Direct can help you stand out at
www.propriodirect.com/standout

Certificate renewal - Association des courtiers et agents immobiliers

Transcription

Similar documents

national real estate statistics existing home sales increased 4.9% in

NEW 2009 Edition SurePass - United Educational Services

1 - Harris Real Estate and Auction

Royal LePage Dynamic Real Estate Brochure

TAKE THE REBOSA EQUALITY PLEDGE TODAY

before they were brokers

Cissell Mueller Ad 1.ai

Tweet your support #RespectAllMusic

DIBELLA`S REAL ESTATE CRITERIA

BeauBox Property: River Palms Two Bedroom Condo