Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• License revocation under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act resulted from improper removal of funds from a real estate trust account, establishing grounds for professional discipline

• Procedural fairness challenges regarding the Tribunal's discretionary refusal to issue a summons requiring the Registrar to testify, based on the irrelevance of the evidence sought to statutory grounds for reregistration

• Statutory reeligibility requirements under section 17 of TRESA demand that a revoked licensee demonstrate either new or other evidence or material changes in circumstances before reapplication eligibility

• Denial of adjournment request at hearing commencement was upheld as a proper exercise of tribunal discretion, considering prior adjournments, file age exceeding one year, and absence of consent from the opposing party

• Voluntary withdrawal from the hearing eliminated the appellant's opportunity to present evidence despite being afforded full procedural rights, resulting in fatal consequences to the appeal

• Standards of appellate review apply correctness to legal questions and palpable and overriding error to factual determinations, with procedural fairness claims assessed solely on whether fairness was maintained

Background and revocation

The Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) regulates real estate professionals under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act. Amarjot Lamba held a license as a registered real estate broker until March 3, 2022, when the Registrar revoked his license due to improper removal of funds from his trust account. Under TRESA, a revoked licensee cannot reapply unless twelve months have passed and either new evidence exists or material circumstances have changed.

The reapplication and notice of proposal

On August 10, 2023, Lamba applied to become registered as a salesperson. On November 21, 2023, the Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal refusing registration on four grounds: no new evidence or material changes in circumstances; financial irresponsibility; past conduct showing lack of integrity and honesty; and false statements in the application.

Tribunal proceedings and procedural disputes

Lamba appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on December 7, 2023. During the proceedings, he requested permission to retain a court reporter (granted on October 15, 2024) but did not exercise this right. He also requested a summons to compel the Registrar to testify, seeking evidence about complaints statistics and alleged bias. The Tribunal denied this request, finding the evidence irrelevant to the statutory reeligibility criteria. At the January 27, 2025 hearing, Lamba requested an adjournment based on a false claim that he was appealing the summons decision to the Divisional Court. The Tribunal denied the adjournment, considering prior adjournments already granted, the one-year-old file, and lack of consent from the Registrar. Lamba then left the hearing without providing any evidence.

Tribunal decision

The Tribunal proceeded in Lamba's absence under its rules allowing this when a party fails to attend. It dismissed his appeal, finding that Lamba had failed to establish new evidence or material changes in circumstances as required by section 17 of TRESA. By withdrawing and providing no evidence, he could not meet his burden of proof.

Divisional Court review

Lamba appealed to the Ontario Superior Court's Divisional Court, claiming procedural unfairness in all Tribunal decisions. The Court rejected all claims. It found no error regarding the court reporter (he had been granted permission), the summons (the evidence sought was irrelevant), or the adjournment (the denial fell within acceptable range of outcomes). Most significantly, the Court held that nothing prevented Lamba from proceeding with the hearing and presenting evidence; his voluntary withdrawal was fatal to his appeal.

Outcome

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal entirely. The successful party was the Registrar, which was awarded $2,000.00 in costs. The decision upheld Lamba's permanent ineligibility for reregistration, confirming that his past misconduct involving improper trust account handling, combined with his failure to establish new evidence or material changes in circumstances, rendered him unfit to re-enter the real estate profession.