Man unsuccessfully applied to reinstate revoked licence under Trust in Real Estate Services Act
The Ontario Court of Appeal has refused to extend the time to file a leave application sought by a real estate broker who requested the reinstatement of his licence, which the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) had revoked in 2022.
Under s. 17 of Ontario’s Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002, the appellant in Lamba v. Ontario (Trust in Real Estate Services Act 2002, Registrar), 2026 ONCA 31, had to show that he had new evidence, or that a material change of circumstances had occurred.
RECO denied the reinstatement request upon finding that the appellant failed to meet the reinstatement requirements in s. 17.
The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT). After the LAT denied his adjournment request, he walked out of the hearing. Proceeding in his absence, the LAT dismissed his appeal, given the lack of evidence addressing the s. 17 requirements.
The appellant appealed to the Divisional Court and sought judicial review based on alleged procedural unfairness.
On Nov. 19, 2025, the Divisional Court exercised its discretion to decline judicial review. The Divisional Court determined that the appeal process could sufficiently address the issues and that the appeal grounds lacked merit.
By around one month, the appellant failed to comply with the 15-day application window to seek leave to appeal. He moved to extend the time to apply for leave to appeal.
Extension denied
The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion for an extension and ordered him to pay RECO $2,000 in costs, including disbursements and taxes.
The appeal court described this as a rare case where denying an extension of time to pursue leave to appeal after only a short delay would serve the interests of justice.
According to the appeal court, moving this matter to the leave stage, where it would certainly fail after additional expense to the parties and further use of court resources, would not serve the interests of justice.
The appeal court saw:
- no reason to grant the ill-fated application for leave to appeal
- no merit at all in the proposed appeal
- no issues of public importance arising from the LAT’s and Divisional Court’s decisions
- no questions of such a nature or significance that required a determination for any other reason
- no injustice against the appellant in dismissing the motion
- no coherent basis to grant a second appeal
The appeal court pointed out that the appellant had a LAT hearing and a full appeal before the Divisional Court.
In reaching its conclusion, the appeal court considered the length of the delay and any prejudicial impact. The appeal court rejected the appellant’s explanation for the delay.
Next, the appeal court addressed the merits. The appeal court saw no merit in the appellant’s arguments that the Divisional Court erred in interpreting a material change of circumstances under s. 17, and in failing to offer a pathway for reinstatement with specific criteria.
According to the appeal court, without evidence to assess, the LAT did not need to interpret s. 17, provide a pathway for reinstatement, or identify the applicable criteria. The appeal court added that the appellant did not address these issues before the Divisional Court.
The appeal court found no merit in the appellant’s argument that the Divisional Court inappropriately upheld the proceeding when it did not record or fairly conduct the proceeding after rejecting the adjournment request.
The appeal court ruled that the appellant identified no error on the Divisional Court’s part and could not realistically complain about the insufficiency of his opportunity to participate.
The appeal court noted that the appellant failed to establish that the lack of a record on appeal jeopardized the appeal’s fairness, decided not to arrange for his own transcription, and chose to leave the hearing.
The appeal court saw no merit in the appellant’s argument that RECO’s counsel committed at least nine inaccurate representations, which misguided the Divisional Court. The appeal court noted that the appellant failed to specify his factual disagreements with RECO counsel’s representations.
Lastly, the appeal court found no merit in the appellant’s argument that a government report discredited the registrar, who was under investigation. The appeal court concluded that the appellant failed to explain how the registrar’s issues impacted the decisions below.
