) ) PERVEZ TAGARI Appellant – v. –, 2013 ONSC 7097

CITATION: Tagari v. Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2013 ONSC 7097 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 391/11 DATE: 20131115 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT HIMEL, SACHS AND CORBETT JJ. BETWEEN: ) ) PERVEZ TAGARI Appellant – and – THE REGISTRAR, REAL ESTATE ANDBUSINESS BROKERS ACT, 2002 Respondent )))))))))) Christopher J. Thiesenhausen, for theAppellant George Drametu, for the Respondent ) ) ) HEARD at Toronto: November 15, 2013 D. L. CORBETT J. (orally) [1] Mr.

Tagari appeals from the decision of Vice-Chair Sproule of the Licensing Appeal Tribunal finding, “serious and repeateddishonest conduct of the applicant” and directing the Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002, to carry out his proposaldated March 12, 2010 to revoke Mr. Tagari’s registration as a broker under the Act. [2] The Vice-Chair’s decision turned on the facts and this appeal is fact-driven. The standard of review of the decision isreasonableness (see Prestige Toys Ltd. v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act Registration, (ON SCDC), [2009]O.J. No. 3437 (Div.

Ct.) at paras. 12 and following). [3] In this case, at issue before the Tribunal were transactions involving nine properties and allegations that Mr. Tagari providedfalse information on his broker renewal applications in 2003, 2005 and 2007. The Tribunal found that there was evidence of dishonestconduct respecting properties 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9. It found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Mr. Tagari had acteddishonestly in respect of properties 1, 5 and 8. The Tribunal found that Mr. Tagari had made false statements in his broker renewalapplications in the three years in question. [4] Mr.

Tagari argues that the Tribunal erred in admitting certain evidence tendered before it, misapprehended other evidenceand failed to give proper weight to Mr. Tagari’s explanations. In the result, Mr.

Tagari argues that all findings of misconduct are unsafeand the matter ought to be remitted back for a new hearing before another member of the Tribunal. [5] Counsel for the respondent argues, in his excellent factum, that all of the evidence before the Tribunal was properlyadmitted, that the Tribunal weighed the evidence, made findings of credibility and came to factual conclusions on the basis of the recordbefore it; there is no basis for this Court to intervene. Arguments Advanced on this Appeal [6] Mr.

Tagari argued that the Tribunal erred in admitting hard drives taken from computers at Targari Team Brokerage. Inparticular, he argued that lack of evidence establishing continuity of this evidence until it was handed over to the RECO investigator was

a basis on which it ought not to be admitted into evidence. [ 7 ] We do not accept this submission. Mr. Tagari’s former spouse and business partner, Ms. Saleem directed removal of the hard drives and delivery of them to RECO investigators. She testified to this effect and the Tribunal accepted this testimony. No challenge is made on the basis of the treatment of the hard drives once they were received by RECO. It was open to the Tribunal to evaluate the evidence of Ms.

Saleem and to determine what weight to place on her evidence. [ 8 ] In oral argument, counsel raised the issue that the Tribunal did not give reasons for admitting the hard drive into evidence. The Tribunal does not have to give reasons for every point in the case. The contents of the hard drive are related to false statements made to banks on behalf of relatives of Mr. Tagari’s. The nature of those false statements are clear from bank records. Comparable false records are found on the hard drives. The Tribunal considered that this was some evidence that Mr.

Tagari was involved in providing false documents to the bank. This inference was available on the evidence; it was reasonable. [ 9 ] Mr. Tagari objects to the Tribunal’s finding that Mr. Murata’s evidence established that Mr. Tagari submitted a falsified TREB listing to the Tribunal. The argument is that Mr. Murata’s expertise is limited to the TREB in-house data systems and not the STRATAS third-party software through which Mr. Tagari viewed TREB data. It was open to the Tribunal to assess all this evidence. The conclusion reached by the Tribunal was available on the evidence and it is reasonable. [ 10 ] Mr.

Tagari objects to the Tribunal’s finding that Mr. Tagari forged Ms. Saleem’s signature on various documents. It would have been open to the Tribunal to reach this conclusion solely on the strength of Ms. Saleem’s evidence. Ms. Saleem’s evidence is supported by the expert forensic document examiner, Jacqueline Osmond. The Tribunal’s conclusion is rooted in the evidence and is reasonable. [ 11 ] Mr. Tagari argues that the Tribunal erred in finding that Mr. Tagari made false statements on his brokerage renewal applications in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Mr.

Tagari advised that he reported his bankruptcy in 2001 and did not repeat this report in 2003, 2005 and 2007. He said in answering this way, he was following advice from TREB personnel. [ 12 ] The Tribunal did not accept this evidence given the wording of the renewal application form and evidence of TREB’s general practice around the renewal process. The Tribunal weighed the evidence and did not accept Mr. Tagari’s explanation, as it was entitled to do. Mr. Tagari failed to disclose in 2007, his involvement in new businesses and Mr.

Tagari acknowledges that he failed to make this report. [ 13 ] In respect to the licence renewal applications, the Tribunal did not accept Mr. Tagari’s explanation for failing to show that he had previously declared bankruptcy and that he was involved in other businesses. It was open to the Tribunal to reject Mr. Tagari’s explanation for the false statements in his renewal application. [ 14 ] Mr. Tagari submitted that the Tribunal erred in stating, “that there were no submissions made that registration subject to conditions should be considered”.

This may be, however, the Tribunal did consider the evidence relevant to registration with supervision. It identified that the potential supervisor would not associate with Mr. Tagari if he was found to be advertently dishonest. And the Tribunal concluded that supervision is not appropriate in this case anyway, given the pattern of serious dishonesty. This conclusion is reasonable. [ 15 ] These issues are all in the context of a strong case against Mr. Tagari. No factual findings in respect to property 2 are challenged before us.

Thus, the Tribunal’s factual conclusion stands: “There is no dispute that the purchase and sale of property 2 involved mortgage fraud and the question is whether the applicant’s role amounted to wrongdoing, or was he simply duped? The only sense that can be made of what occurred is that the purchaser did not care whether there were any renovations done as they were not a legitimate purchaser and the applicant knew it and drafted an agreement intentionally, not referencing outstanding work, so as to avoid alerting the bank to the true state of affairs.

The Tribunal finds the applicant knew property 2 was being traded at a highly inflated price and he willingly and knowingly played a role in that.” [ 16 ] This finding, by itself, could have justified the Tribunal’s order, but there is much more to support that order. In respect of properties 3 and 4, after weighing the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Tagari knowingly assisted a relative to purchase two properties at inflated prices knowing that she could not afford them.

The relative was single mother of three with an income of $2,100 per month and yet she somehow qualified for mortgages of more than $500,000 for two properties purchased within three days of each other. The relative was unsophisticated and did not seem to understand the details of the financial arrangements made in her name. Her mortgage applications were supported by false information respecting her employment, income and means. Documents consistent with these false documents were found on the computer hard drives used at Mr. Tagari’s business. The Tribunal concluded that Mr.

Tagari was actively involved in deceiving the banks to obtain mortgage financing. In all the circumstances, this conclusion was open to the Tribunal. [ 17 ] In respect to properties 6 and 7 as noted above, the Tribunal concluded that Mr. Tagari forged his wife’s signature on mortgage documents and sale documents related to his matrimonial home and other property. [ 18 ] In respect to property 9, Mr. Tagari was involved in selling a farm property for a grossly inflated price. The listing agreement of the property was completely incorrect.

He explained the inaccuracies on the basis that he had been misled as to which property was for sale and so his description matched that of another property. In thorough and detailed reasons, the Tribunal explained why it did not accept this explanation; the description did not match the other property either. [ 19 ] The Tribunal’s findings establish a pattern of dishonest behaviour by Mr. Tagari. In light of the test in s. 10(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act , the decision is reasonable. [ 20 ] The appeal must be dismissed.

HIMEL J. COSTS [ 21 ] I have endorsed the back of the Appeal Book and Compendium, “For oral reasons delivered by Corbett J., the appeal of the decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal dated July 25, 2011 is dismissed. Costs are fixed in the amount of $7,500 for this appeal inclusive of disbursements and HST, an amount we deem fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Payable by the appellant to the respondent.” D. L. CORBETT J. HIMEL J. SACHS J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 15, 2013 Date of Release: November 26, 2013 CITATION : Tagari v.

Registrar, Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2013 ONSC 7097 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 391/11 DATE: 20131115 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT HIMEL, SACHS AND CORBETT JJ. BETWEEN:

PERVEZ TAGARI Appellant – and – THE REGISTRAR, REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS BROKERS ACT, 2002 Respondent ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT D. L. CORBETT J. Date of Reasons for Judgment: November 15, 2013 Date of Release: November 26, 2013