IN THE MATTER OF

THE REAL ESTATE ACT, C. R-1.3

AND

IN THE MATTER OF HARPREET (HARPER) SINGH RANDHAWA

DECISION OF THE

SASKATCHEWAN REAL ESTATE COMMISSION

Commission File: #2011-48

Before: A Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission Hearing Committeecomprised of the following:Randal C. Touet - ChairpersonLarry GingerichDavid Chow

Appearances: Aaron Tetu, on behalfof the Investigation CommitteeHarpreet (Harper) Singh Randhawa, RegistrantScott Wickenden, Legal Counsel for Registrant

Hearing Date: June 25,2013, Saskatoon Club

Written Decision: January 30, 2014

The Formal Hearing was held on June 25, 2013, at the Upper Lounge at the SaskatoonClub, 417 - 21 5t Street East, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before a hearing committee (TheCommittee) of the Commission.

CHARGES

Harpreet (Harper) Singh Randhawa hereinafter referred to as the Registrant was chargedwith professional misconduct as follows:

The Registrant is charged with professional misconduct contrary to sections 39(1)(a)(c) of the Real Estate Act in that he breached the following commissionbylaws:

a) Bylaw 701 by making or permitting to be made a statement, record, report,notice, or other document required by this Act, the Regulations or theBylaws that contained an untrue statement of the material fact and/oromitted to state a material fact;

b) Bylaw 702 by failing to protect and promote the interests of his client andfailing to deal fairly with all of the parties to the transaction;

c) Bylaw 710 by failing to present all written offers in an objective andunbiased manner.

LEGISLATION

Clause 39(1) (a) of the Act states:

"Professional misconduct is a question of fact, but any matter, conduct or thing, whetheror not disgraceful or dishonourable, is professional misconduct within the meaning of thisAct, if it is harmful to the best interests of the public, the registrants to the Commission."

Clause 39(1) (c) ofthe Act states:

"Professional misconduct is a question of fact, but any matter, conduct or thing, whetheror not disgraceful or dishonourable, is professional misconduct within the meaning of thisAct, if it is a breach of this Act, the regulations or the bylaws or any terms or restrictionsto which the registration is subject."

Bylaw 701 of the Act states:

"N0 registrant shall make or permit to be made, whether orally or otherwise, a statement,record, report, notice or other document required by the Act, the regulations or the bylawsthat:

a) Contains an untrue statement of a material fact; or

2

b) Omits to state a material fact.

Bylaw 702 of the Act states:

"A registrant shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client. This primaryobligation does not relieve the registrant from the obligation of dealing fairly with allother parties to the transaction"

Bylaw 710 of the Act states:

"A registrant shall present all written offers in an objective and unbiased manner."

FACTS

The Hearing Committee heard from five (5) witnesses, including the Registrant, bothComplainants, the other Realtor involved in the transaction and the Broker for whom theRegistrant was employed at the time of the incidence. In addition, an Exhibit Book of thedocuments was entered into and agreed upon by Counsel for the Registrant and theCommission, subject to any specific witness statement to the contrary.

The circumstance of events concerned a Listing Agreement the Registrant had with theComplainants for property in the City of Regina, Saskatchewan. These events took placeessentially over the weekend starting Friday, September 16, 2011, until Mr. Randhawawas released as an agent for Royal LePage Regina, on September 26, 2011. He had beenworking as a Real Estate agent for the Brokerage since approximately 2007.

The Registrant in his evidence confirmed that he has a Bachelor of Engineering and hadsailed on merchant ships in the past before becoming a Real Estate agent in 2006. Hemoved to Saskatchewan and started with Royal LePage in August of 2007. He says hecompletes approximately 30 to 35 transactions a year and has no previous sanctionhistory with the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission.

The Complainant and the Registrant had a prior business relationship starting in the pastas the Complainant is a Real Estate solicitor in the City of Regina and the Registrant hadreferred clients to the Complainant. He contacted the Registrant in July of 2011 withregard to the proposed purchase of property in Grande Coulee. They presented a numberof offers for the purchase of this property which were not conditional on the sale of theRegina property; as they were confident that a sale would take place in a reasonableperiod of time. Mr. Randhawa understood that the Complainants did not need the sale ofthis Regina property in order to qualify for financing at that time and therefore made thepurchase transaction without the sale of the Regina property as a condition.

On August 4, 2011, the conditions were removed on the purchase of the Grande Couleeproperty and at that time the Registrant was asked to list the Regina property for the

3

Complainants. The listing was terminated and then commenced again on August 31 st asin the words of the Registrant it was to make a "fresh" listing. The Registrant stated thatthe Complainant was told by him that the Registrant would try to sell the property, but ifit didn't sell he would mention it to his family members. He agreed to reduce hiscommission to 3.75% rather than his usual commission of 4.5% to 5%. There were 27showings over the period of time from the listing. The Registrant indicated he was tryingto price the property reasonably.

Starting on September 15, 2011, Mr. Randhawa indicates he was advised by theComplainant that the property needed to be sold as the Complainant could not own twoproperties at the same time. Mr. Randhawa indicated that he was also asked by theComplainant whether the Registrant had spoken to the Registrants brother regarding aproposed sale. Mr. Randhawa arranged for a showing after another Realtor had shownthe property on Thursday the 15th and the Registrants family also viewed the house,noting that there was a problem with only one bathroom and the basement project had notbeen completed. The Complainant does not recall this conversation taking place andspecifically denies it occurring.

On Saturday, September 1t\ the Registrant was contacted by another Realtor regarding aviewing of the property. They texted back and forth and set up two showings thatevening after the Saskatchewan Roughrider game was over. The Complainant did notwish to have a showing during the time of the game.

On Sunday, September 18th, there was text communication between the Registrant and

the other Real Estate agent. The Registrant asked "how was the showing?" The responsewas "they loved it. Something in the afternoon". Mr. Randhawa indicates he waited allday and heard nothing further from the other agent. He did not contact the other agentagain because he was supposed to get "something to him". Later in the afternoon, afterhaving heard nothing further from the other agent, the Registrant prepared an offer for theRegina property on behalf of his family. He called the Complainants at home andindicated he would like to discuss the interest and offer. He states that the conversationwith the Complainant commenced with Mr. Randhawa discussing the feedback from theother agent on the showing, as indicated above.

The Complainant in his testimony advised that he received a voicemail in the eveningfrom the Registrant indicating that there was "no interest" from the weekend showing andhe and his brother would come over. The Registrant denies ever using the phrase "nointerest".

The Complainant indicates that at the meeting on the Sunday evening, the 18th ofSeptember, he was presented an offer from the Registrants family at approximately 8:00to 9:00 p.m. which was lower than the asking price. The Offer to Purchase was in theamount of $238,000.00, significantly less than the listing price of $267,800.00. It shouldbe noted that this offer had a condition which reads as follows: "Subject to seller beingable to get mortgage approval for ... Grand Coulee house and take possession of house ...

4

Grande Coulee, then this condition is automatically met. This condition is for solebenefit of seller, as seller doesn't wanna sell (Regina house), if seller is not available toget mortgage approval for (Grande Coulee house) seller is buying". With the reducedoffer, the Complainant indicated it would be quite tight and Mr. Randhawa agreed that ashe was acting for both parties he would reduce his commission to 2.25%. This was addedto the Disclosure Statement. The Registrant indicates that he then asked theComplainants whether they would assist in his family selling the property, if someprospective renter or buyer came in. He indicated he would prepare a Power of Attorneyfor the Complainants to sign.

On Monday, Se£tember 19th, the Real Estate agent who had viewed the property onSaturday the 1t and texted the Registrant on the 18th

, contacted the Registrant andindicated that he would have an Offer to Purchase coming to him. This Offer was in theamount of $260,000.00 and was signed at 1:54 p.m. on September 19th

; the offer beingopen for acceptance until 9:00 p.m. on September 19th

, the other Realtor indicates heheard orally from the Registrant that the offer was good but he would get amendeddocuments to him the next day.

On Tuesday, September 20th, the other agent received an amended Offer as prepared by

Mr. Randhawa with the only change in the Offer being the seller's names which nowindicated the family member of the Registrant as the seller. Later in the week, the otherReal Estate agent's clients spoke directly to the Complainant who told this person that theComplainants had no idea there had been an interest in the property. That Party thenrefused to complete the sale transaction.

The Registrant indicated in his testimony that he rewrote this Offer as it had so manyconditions and errors and the timeline had already passed to accept it. He indicates hesent this explanation to the other Realtor along with the Offer.

The Registrant indicated he was contacted by the spouse of the Complainant on Friday,September 23, 2011, and asked why the Offer from the other Realtor had not beenpresented to the Complainants. The Registrant tried to speak to the Complainantthereafter and the Complainant refused to speak directly with him. Thereafter, theRegistrant's employment was terminated by his Broker on the 26th of September.

The Registrant indicated in his testimony that he had not mentioned the other Offer to theComplainant because once the deal was done, the Offer is to the new purchaser, not to theprevious seller (the Complainant).

It was clear from all the testimony that the Offer from the other Realtor on September 19,2011, was never provided to the Complainant. The Registrant indicated he did notpresent the offer because he felt his family could deal with any potential buyer and heunderstood this to be agreed upon by the Complainant. This is denied by theComplainant.

5

With regard to the discussions that took place at the Complainant's home on Sunday,September 18, 2011, the Complainant indicates he was not asked to check out whether ornot the other Realtors position should be looked into or to wait for an answer. Heindicated that he was told that he should only deal with what they have on paper.

The transaction with the relative of the Registrant did not complete and a subsequent saleof the property did take place as brokered by the Brokerage and the new purchaser at areduced amount from the original offer.

It should be noted that the Complainant indicates strongly that had they known about thetext messaging between the other Registrant and Mr. Randhawa on Sunday, they wouldnot have accepted $238,000.00 as an offer without at least more directly checking out aninterested party, to see if an offer was forthcoming.

DECISION

The Committee found the Registrant guilty of all charges.

In accordance with The Real Estate Act, Regulations and Bylaws, the Committee madethe following orders:

a) Harpreet (Harper) Singh Randhawa receive an Order of Reprimand for theviolation ofBylaw 701;

b) The Registrant, prior to February 28, 2014, pay to the Saskatchewan Real EstateCommission a $3,000.00 fine for the violation ofBylaw 701;

c) The Registrant receive an Order of Reprimand for the violation of Bylaw 702;

d) The Registrant, prior to February 28, 2014, pay a fine in the amount of $5,000.00for the violation of Bylaw 702;

e) The Registrant receive an Order of Reprimand for the violation ofBylaw 710;

f) The Registrant, prior to February 28, 2014, pay a fine in the amount of $4,000.00for the violation of Bylaw 710;

g) The Registrant pay costs of the Hearing in the amount of $3,900.00 prior toFebruary 28, 2014; and

h) The Registrant's registration shall be suspended if he fails to pay any portion ofthe fine or costs within the said period of time.

6

ARGUMENT

The Hearing Committee heard oral argument from Mr. Wickenden, Solicitor for theRegistrant, and Mr. Tetu, the representative for the Investigation Committee. This wasdone by telephone conference call in the presence of the Hearing Committee, theRegistrant and the Court Reporter on July 5, 2013. Mr. Wickenden spoke on behalf ofthe Registrant and stated that he felt the bylaws were not specific enough to address thefacts in this matter. He felt that under Bylaw 701, all the statements made by Mr.Randhawa were accurate and correct. With regard to Bylaw 702, he felt that the evidencehas shown that Mr. Randhawa did promote the interest of all parties to the transaction andwith regard to Bylaw 710 he felt that while there was no specific case law on point, therehad been no breach of the Bylaw by the Registrant.

Mr. Wickenden felt that the sale of the Grande Coulee property underlies everything asthis unfortunate situation arose. He stressed that from his perspective there was nomalice on behalf of the Registrant and this had been extremely stressful to his client. Hisclient was thankful at this stage to have the opportunity to explain his position as he hadnever had the chance before to do so either to the Complainants or to his Broker.

In his review of the facts, Mr. Wickenden noted that there were no conditions on thepurchase of the Grande Coulee property although commissions were lower than normal,given the discount due to the prior relationship. With regard to the Regina property, therewere 27 viewings, but while this interest was shown, no written offers had been made.He says Mr. Randhawa had indicated to the Complainants that his family may beinterested in purchasing the property as a favour to the Complainant; as a "last ditchoffer" to sell the property.

Mr. Wickenden stressed that when the Registrant received the text from the other Realtoron Sunday, September 18th

, he had indicated that while he loved it and would havesomething by p.m., there was never a mention of an offer coming on Monday, it wasalways Sunday p.m. Mr. Wickenden stressed the word offer was never mentioned in thetext message. He states that when they had the meeting with the Complainants at theirhouse Sunday evening, the evidence is quite conflicted as to what discussions took place.He feels that it was underlying pressure to sell the Regina property because of the needfor the financing on the Grande Coulee property that created the situation for theComplainants. He felt the Complainant was focussed on selling the Regina property andwas relieved when the sale to the family member was put in place. This tangible writtenoffer was what the Complainant was focussing on.

Mr. Wickenden stressed that the Registrant, Mr. Randhawa, provided proper service andrelied on the other agent as a professional, but did not receive any proper follow up fromthat agent. He stressed that his Broker had no problem with the documentation that hadbeen in place to that date and that the disclosure document provided to the Complainantmade clear that the new purchaser may sell or rent and it was at a reduced commission.

7

He further confirmed that the conditions in the offer were favourable to the seller ratherthan the purchaser, which was unusual in Offers to Purchase. Mr. Wickenden stressedthat when the offer from the other Realtor did come in on Monday the 19th of September,the property was still available and the Registrant understood that the buyer could sell theproperty as he felt the Complainant also understood that the new buyer (the familymember of the Registrant) could deal with the property.

Mr. Wickenden stressed that his client was doing what he felt was right with no intentionto deceive. He was focussed on the buyers after September 19th when the new buyers, hethought, had the right to sell the property. He further stresses that the other offer at$260,000.00 was not guaranteed to go through as it was conditional and the possessiondate was after the date needed for the Complainant. He stressed that no offer was hiddenfrom the Complainant as in his belief all further offers were to go to the new buyersbecause of the Power of Attorney and the understanding in his mind of the Complainant.Mr. Wickenden stresses that there was an honest belief by the Registrant in all mattersprovided and the Power of Attorney was both verbal and written. All the procedurestaken by the Registrant were proper and he met all obligations under the Real Estate Actin the opinion of Mr. Wickenden. With regard to Bylaw 710, his position that theRegistrant had an honest belief that he had presented the Offer to Purchase to the properpeople. In hindsight, while matters may have been handled differently, Mr. Randhawabelieved he acted appropriately in all matters.

Mr. Tetu, on behalf of the Investigation Committee confirms that the facts are not largelyin dispute in this matter except for the Sunday night meeting. The Complainants areadamant that no discussion regarding an interested party took place and stressed that thecredibility of the parties in their evidence as to this matter is based on their potentialmotives. He further stresses that the offer from the Registrant's family was conditionaleven though the condition was on that of the seller, so there was no interest in the Reginaproperty created in favour of his family and they were not entitled to deal with theproperty. When the second offer came in on Monday the 19th

, there were essentially twooffers and the new one should have been presented to the Complainants.

Further, Mr. Tetu indicates that when the Power of Attorney document was actuallysigned by the Complainants, there was no disclosure of an offer coming from the otherRealtor. This was to the detriment of the Complainant and favourable to the family of theRegistrant. In the Investigation Committee's opinion, the explanation of the Registrant isa form of deception for his own benefit. When Mr. Tetu indicates who we are to believe,he viewed the motivations of the parties and believes the Registrant used their motives totheir own personal advantage. The Complainant indicated he would have followed uphad he known about the interest of the other Realtor on Sunday evening. Mr. Tetuindicates it is not reasonable to believe that the Complainants would disregard thepotential interest of the other parties. He argues that the Registrant would not be inclinedto share all the information because it would have the potential of the transaction with hisfamily falling apart.

8

With regard to Bylaw 701, Mr. Tetu indicates that although the Registrant believed thathis family were owners, this was not correct, so these become false documents. Theywere not sellers nor owners regarding the documents with the other Realtor; this is anuntrue statement of material fact. With regard to Bylaw 702, Mr. Tetu states the entiretransaction favoured the relatives of the Registrant over the position of the Complainant.Finally, with regard to Bylaw 710, Mr. Tetu indicates that "all written offers" must bepresented, not some offers. The offer received on Monday the 19th

, should have beenpresented. The discussion about the Power of Attorney was not enough to stop this fromtaking place. The Registrant cannot rely on alleged unsigned Power of Attorney at thattime. Mr. Tetu indicates this is a dangerous situation and felt the Registrant was takingadvantage. In summary, Mr. Tetu feels the charges are clearly supported by the evidencepresented.

In response, Mr. Wickenden indicated we were here because of the Real Estate Act andthe issue of damages is irrelevant. As to credibility, he feels the Complainant wasconfused about his recollections and this affects his credibility. He further says thespouse of the Complainant had no recollection of the meetings and discussions onSeptember 18th at the house.

CONCLUSION

The Hearing Committee found the Registrant guilty of all charges before it.

The Committee in reviewing the evidence from the various parties presenting felt that thecredibility of the Complainant in the circumstance overrode that of the Registrant wheretheir testimony conflicted. It is apparent from the entire transaction that there waspressure on the Complainants to move the transaction along as they had an unconditionaloffer on the Grande Coulee property which may have presented them with problems hadthe Regina property not sold.

It was also clear from the discussion and evidence that the circumstances leading to theSunday September 18th meeting created serious concerns for the Committee. Theproperty viewings had taken place in the past and a follow up had been provided to theRegistrant by the other Realtor via text message on Sunday. This message, although notas clear as it possibly could have been, was short, succinct and clearly indicated aninterest in the property. It stated as follows: "my clients love it and I should havesomething for you this afternoon".

The response from the Registrant stated "Cool, how's their financing, r they Pre­approved? I am sure you have checked already if they r qualified buyers." Theirresponse from the other Registrant was "Yes they are qualified". With this information,it is apparent that the other party was interested and qualified.

It is certainly true that the Registrant had not received a written offer by the time he wrotethe family offer later that evening and thereafter presented it to the Complainants. The

9

Complainants state that they had no indication whatsoever of such an interest in theproperty. In the opinion of the Committee, it strains credibility to state that theComplainants would not be extremely interested in determining whether an offer wascoming based on such communication at the meeting on Sunday evening. While theywere clearly anxious to move things and did feel relieved at an offer being provided, evenif it was much lower than they had anticipated, this was only because they were notaware of the text transactions earlier in the day. The evidence of the Complainants in thisregard as accepted by the Committee goes to the heart of the breach of Bylaw 702wherein the Registrant "shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client". TheCommittee is of the opinion it is apparent that this information was relevant, importantand necessary to be provided to your client.

The Committee is concerned that all registrants should be aware that any relevantinfonnation concerning the property must be provided to their clients. It is not for theRegistrant to decide whether or not the information is important, but for the clientthemselves. It is never to be assumed by the Registrant that something is important ornot important to your client if it is relevant at all to the transaction.

With regard to Bylaw 701, it is clear that the Offer to Purchase prepared by the Registrantin response to the offer received on September 19, 2011, had factual errors in it. Itindicated that the Registrants family member was the seller. The said family member hadno right to enter into such Offer to Purchase at that time. While this is a significant errorin the documents (both in the Offer to Purchase and in the Disclosure documentation) thefine in this matter is somewhat mitigated due to the honest belief as found by theCommittee by Mr. Randhawa, that he had the information correct.

With regard to Bylaw 710, while there is very little case law in this matter, theCommittee feels the Bylaw itself is straightforward. It states that a registrant shallpresent all written offers in an objective and unbiased manner. The issue at stake here isthat the offer was not presented at all to the Complainant. This being the offer ofSeptember 19, 2011. It is not up to the Registrant to determine which offers are to bepresented, but any and all offers must be presented. Mr. Randhawa indicated he felt hewas acting on behalf of the family member who he considered to be the new seller of theproperty at that time. While the Committee is of the opinion that was incorrect and thatparty did not have the ability to enter into an Offer to Purchase at that time, it is also clearthat this was still an offer relevant to the property and was relevant to thesellers/Complainants who had still a conditional offer only on their property, that being ofthe family member and the Complainants.

With regard to the sanctions, a conference call was held on July 10, 2013 with theCommittee members, the Counsel for Mr. Randhawa and the Counsel for theInvestigation Committee. Mr. Tetu indicated that he felt this was a border line fraud caseand in his opinion the only mitigating factor in sentencing is that there was no priorhistory with the Commission. He felt the actions of Mr. Randhawa were misleading andthere was potential personal gain by profit by the family member. He felt the Registrant

10

showed no remorse for the action that took place in these proceedings. Mr. Tetu felt thatthe fact of all information not being put forward to the Complainants created a harmfulsituation to the potential detriment of the Complainants. Mr. Tetu stated that theprincipals of sentencing are penalty, deterrence, protection and reformation andrehabilitation. He recommended a reprimand, cancellation of the license for Mr.Randhawa, restitution and costs. Mr. Tetu indicated that the maximum $5,000.00 fine foreach offence should be instituted and feels that a calculation of restitution could be basedon the comparison of the final sale price and the offer that was never presented, whichwould have left a net difference of$6,413.75. He strongly denounced the conduct of theRegistrant and feels that anything less than the maximum fine tells the real estate industryof Saskatchewan that this behaviour is acceptable.

Mr. Tetu recommends cancellation of the license as he believes that if Mr. Randhawadoes not feel he has done anything wrong that he could potentially do it again. He feelsthat behaviour of Mr. Randhawa cannot be tolerated by the real estate industry inSaskatchewan and must be dealt with harshly. He suggests registrants must be shownthat the clients are to be put ahead of their self-interest. In summary, he felt that in allcircumstances any offer presented must be given to the client. The presence of a Powerof Attorney is irrelevant. With regard to costs, he indicated that total costs areapproximately $5,900.00 for the hearing. He recommends $3,900.00 of the said cost bereimbursed as these are the actual disbursement costs of the Commission for the Hearing.

Mr. Wickenden, in response to the proposed sanctions, indicated that his client shouldreceive the low end in the range. This process, which took almost two years to come tofruition concerned five days in September, 2011. The Registrant has been cooperative,but has had the weight on him personally and professionally during that time leading tothis hearing. Mr. Randhawa's position is that he honestly believed he acted and did theright things. In hindsight, Mr. Randhawa indicates he would have done somethingdifferent. Mr. Wickenden confirms that the use of the Power of Attorney by aninexperienced Real Estate agent was misguided and an error perhaps, but was not anintentional infraction. There is no evidence of conspiracy with Mr. Randhawa and hisfamily and all the evidence was indicating he was acting on an honest belief in what wastaking place.

Mr. Wickenden feels this was not close to fraud as there was no intention to defraud ordeceive and says his client is remorseful as a man of honour. Mr. Wickenden confirmsthis was a series of unique events that may never occur again. He indicates his client didnot feel good about what happened. He also states that this is the first and last time Mr.Randhawa dealt with a Power of Attorney. He feels mitigating factors in the sentencingor lack of sanction history there had been none before and none after this transaction andthe client feels remorse but he can only testify as to what he felt was the truth. Mr.Randhawa has learned from his actions, feels bad and is remorseful. Mr. Wickendenstates that Mr. Randhawa felt he was doing the best for the Complainants. Mr.Wickenden states that the Registrant did not present the offer because he felt and believedthat the proper seller was his family member; he was not being intentionally deceitful.

11

This absence of intention to mislead is relevant and his actions were based on what heunderstood his instruction to be.

Mr. Wickenden states that the appearance of the family members in this matter were alast ditch chance on the part of the Registrant to assist the Complainant and there may nothave been another offer. Mr. Wickenden makes it clear that from his client's perspectivethere was no guarantee that the $260,000.00 offer would have been accepted as it hadpossession date of October 3rd which was after the Grande Coulee possession and mayhave led to further negotiations.

It should be noted that Mr. Wickenden provided a written submission on the issue ofsanctions which was reviewed by the Panel as well. He indicates that the case lawincluding the Schmidt case from 2007 was at the high end where there were clearintentions to mislead by the Registrant and a prior history of sanctions together with thelack of cooperation. He compares that to this situation in which there was no clearintention in his mind, no history of sanctions and the Registrant was cooperative. Mr.Wickenden also referred to the Elaine Elder case from 2012 and indicates that it, as well,can be distinguished as it is both under appeal and the goal was to send her a message inthat time. Mr. Wickenden indicates this should be at the low end of the sanctions andlicense removal would be an extreme element. He further relates that his client feels thismatter has been hanging over his head for the period of two years and has affected him.They are unique facts not dealt with before and there is no proof of fraud.

With regard to Bylaw 702, Mr. Wickenden indicates that Mr. Randhawa had taken theother Real Estate agent at his word that he would get ahold of him and as he had not, didnot feel that they should have chased down the agent for further documentation. As tothe matter of costs, Mr. Wickenden confirms this is in the discretion of the panel and thefines alone would create a huge financial burden for his client. In summary, he felt thatthis was six days of unusual circumstances and a second chance should be afforded to hisclient. He reiterated that his client did appreciate the opportunity to finally tell his side ofthe story.

Mr. Tetu indicated that if cancellation is not considered by the panel he would look at thisfrom a view to a suspension with an educational component.

With regard to sanctions, the Hearing Committee felt this was certainly a unique situationand did not feel restitution was appropriate as the potential loss to the Complainant wasspeculative and there was no firm evidence as to the actual loss. As well, the Committeefelt that this was not a circumstance for cancellation or suspension of Mr. Randhawa'slicense. The seriousness of the financial sanctions will bring this to the Registrants mostserious attention and it is anticipated that it will not reoccur. With the regard to theBreach of Bylaw 701, the mitigating factor was simply that Mr. Randhawa had honestlythought that the documents that he prepared were correct although it is clear to theCommittee that they were incorrect. This mitigating factor was sufficient to reduce thefine from the maximum to $3,000.00.

12

With regard to Bylaw 702, the Committee feels strongly that the actions throughout this

matter were more self-serving to the Registrant and were not in the best interests of the

Complainant. It is imperative that registrants realize they must review all information

and make sure their client is the one making determinations as to how to proceed after

having received such information. It is not up to the agent themselves to determine

what the client will determine is important. Therefore, and in all of the circumstances

it is felt by the Committee this is a very serious and egregious breach of the Bylaw and

relates to the most serious fine available.

With regard to the breach of Bylaw 710, again, The Committee feels it is not up to the

agent to decide what offers are to be presented, but all offers must be presented. This

is a fundamental aspect of the responsibility of a Real Estate agent and the sanction is

set to reflect the seriousness of that situation. The only mitigating factor was the belief

by Mr. Randhawa that he was entitled to act on behalf of the new purchaser/seller (his

family member) in regard to the later offer. This was an incorrect assumption but it is

sufficient to mitigate from the most harsh fine available.

With regard to the matter of costs, it is the position of the Committee that costs are

appropriate to be levied against the Registrant in these circumstances. The hearing

itself was detailed and complex and it was required only due to the serious actions taken

by the Registrant. The costs awarded reflect the seriousness of determining the issue of

whether the Bylaws have been breached and in this circumstance it was determined that

all three Bylaws had been in breach. There was no reasonable defence to the charges.

Therefore, the costs were awarded against the Registrant.

It is important for the Committee to make it known to the Real Estate industry that the

actions of Real Estate agents must continue to reflect their responsibility to look after

their clients. They must ensure that the best interests of their clients continue to be met

in order to preserve the integrity of the real estate industry in Saskatchewan.

Dated at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, this 30th day of January, 2014.

“Randy C. Touet”

Randal C. Touet, Chairperson

“David Chow”

David Chow

“Larry Gingerich”

Larry Gingerich