N.B. realty agency loses licence permanently

The Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty Inc. office in Moncton in 2022.  (Pierre Fournier/CBC - image credit)
The Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty Inc. office in Moncton in 2022. (Pierre Fournier/CBC - image credit)

A New Brunswick realty agency has permanently lost its licence over breaches of the Real Estate Agents Act.

Two years ago, New Brunswick's Financial and Consumer Services Commission announced it was seeking to revoke the licence of Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty Inc. and manager Paul Burns.

The commission alleged misuse of trust fund accounts and failure to comply with conditions imposed on their licences.

In February, the Energy and Utilities Board ordered the cancellation of Burns and the agency's licences, fining the agency $30,000 and Burns $15,000.

The EUB issued the ruling because of a 2023 law that transferred the duties of the Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal.

While the agency admitted violations, it argued against the loss of its licence. The ruling cited the violations as warranting "the imposition of sanctions in order to protect the public interest and enhance public confidence in the real estate market in New Brunswick."

Appeal withdrawn

The agency sought to appeal the ruling and a hearing had been scheduled for earlier this month. However, the appeal was withdrawn, leaving the EUB decision standing.

Brian Murphy, a lawyer who represented Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty for the appeal, declined to comment.

The agency had 24 Realtors in Moncton, Saint Andrews, Fredericton and Rothesay.

In 2019, the New Brunswick Real Estate Association, as part of its role as co-regulator with the Financial and Consumer Services Commission, carried out an inspection of Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty.

The EUB decision says a "significant shortage" in its trust account was discovered, resulting in undertakings to comply with terms and conditions on their licences.

The shortage was later determined to total $57,838 and Century 21 A&T Countryside Realty was required to transfer $56,199.30 back into its trust account.

The Real Estate Agents Act states that when an agent receives a cheque as a deposit with an offer, the money must be placed into a trust account when the offer is accepted.

The statement of allegations says there were complaints from the real estate industry about late commission payments from A&T Countryside Realty.
The statement of allegations says there were complaints from the real estate industry about late commission payments from A&T Countryside Realty.

A sign outside the company's office in 2022. (Pierre Fournier/CBC)

As a result of the discovery, conditions were imposed on the company's licence and it was subject to increased oversight.

The EUB decision outlines several instances where conditions weren't followed, including one calling for independent accounting verification of its trust accounts.

A trust account shortage of $21,504.50 was discovered in 2020, largely due to a $20,000 transfer from the trust account to agency's operating account in January of that year.

The agency claimed it was the result of a bank error, but the transfer was later discovered to have been carried out by the company's business manager and recruitment co-ordinator.

The decision says no evidence was offered to explain the transfer, or the subsequent misrepresentation of how it occurred.

No actual harm to consumers

"This willful misrepresentation, combined with the other instances of trust account mismanagement and the failure to properly comply with the terms and conditions imposed on their licences, demonstrates either an unwillingness or an inability on the part of the Respondents to be properly regulated," the EUB decision states.

"Although no actual direct harm to the public resulted from the violations, the actions of the Respondents, especially as they related to the trust account shortages, certainly posed a risk of harm to the public."

The EUB ruled there was not enough evidence to conclude the company received any benefit as a result of the improper activity. And, it found that while no harm resulted to consumers, it created a substantial risk and demonstrated an inability or unwillingness to comply with regulatory authority.