Professional conduct committee finds he made inadequate communications regarding his absence
The British Columbia Court of Appeal has rejected the appeal of a licenced real estate agent who alleged that certain disciplinary decisions against him were oppressive or unfairly prejudicial under BC’s Societies Act, 2015.
The appellant in this case was the managing broker of a real estate agency. He belonged to the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board (FVREB), which was the respondent in this case and a voluntary association of real estate agents working in the area.
In October 2021, after a hearing, the FVREB’s Professional Conduct Committee imposed penalties on the appellant upon determining that he had breached the Canadian Real Estate Association Code of Conduct by failing to adequately communicate regarding his leave of absence from his office. The FVREB Appeal Board rejected his appeal in March 2022.
In May 2022, the appellant filed a petition seeking to set aside these decisions, which allegedly breached his reasonable expectations and amounted to oppressive and/or unfairly prejudicial treatment under s. 102 of the Societies Act. He also claimed that the decisions were procedurally unfair.
The appellant also argued that he did not receive adequate notice that the FVREB would address the issue of policies concerning communications with office staff and did not receive sufficient details of the allegations against him under s. 70(3)(a) of the Societies Act. He added that he would have presented evidence about the relevant issue if he had known.
A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the petition, which prompted the appellant to appeal.
In Sandhu v. Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, 2025 BCCA 6, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed the appeal.
First, the appeal court agreed with the judge’s conclusion that the FVREB did not engage in oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct. The appeal court found no basis to the appellant’s claim that the judge misapprehended the evidence relating to this issue and found no palpable and overriding error in the judge’s findings.
The appeal court accepted that the judge’s reasons were relatively brief but rejected the appellant’s arguments that the reasons failed to respond to the live issues, failed to grapple with the evidence, or failed to explain the process leading to the conclusion made.
The judge properly recognized that her analysis should focus on what the appellant’s reasonable expectations were and whether oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct breached those expectations, the appeal court said.
The judge also properly addressed the evidence on the issue of the adequacy of the appellant’s communications in connection with his absence and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, the appeal court added.
Next, the appeal court found no merit in the appellant’s argument that the judge should have found an abuse of process by reason of delay.
Lastly, the appeal court disagreed with the argument that the judge should have determined that appellant had received inadequate notice. No defects in the notice attributed to the appellant’s failure to present evidence of the relevant policies or communications, the appeal court explained.
