In October 2021, I wrote “Conflicts of Interest: Sound Judgment Required,” a Legally Speaking article, where I reviewed many decisions and consent orders from the the Real Estate Council of BC (the regulator at that time, now the BC Financial Services Authority or “BCFSA”). I was assessing the type of penalties meted out generally, to find any common threads in cases receiving the harshest penalties.

My conclusion was:

“… the penalty for simple errors, as evidenced by reviewing discipline decisions and consent orders for the past year, is far exceeded by the penalty and sanctions for matters where a licensee puts themselves in a conflict placing their own interests ahead of their client, the industry, or the public (a looking glass into what the regulator likely values).

Conflicts of interest hurt clients and appear to be a source of higher sanctions from the regulator.

Put simply, clients come first. As a professional, your interests are always secondary.”

Even today, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

So what’s happened in the last 3+ years? Unfortunately, the more things change the more they stay the same.

To shed some light on recent rulings and reinforce the message of putting client interests first, I’ve identified three more examples of cases where agents put themselves and their own interests — and in some cases, their family’s interests — ahead of those of their client.

1. Buying a property out from underneath your buyer

In Zhong v. Hu, the court found the following in an unusual case:

• The agent agreed to help a buyer and located a property.
• The buyer made two offers for the property, neither of which were successful.
• In the same timeframe and while the agent was vacationing with a friend, that friend purchased the subject property, and then assigned the contract to the agent.
• Several years later, the agent sold the property for a profit of $1.2 million.

The court found that the buyer’s agent was in a conflict of interest and had breached his fiduciary duty to the buyer. The agent was ordered to disgorge all his profits and commissions earned.

This is a clear example of putting your own interests ahead of your client and the consequences of doing so.

2. Undue pressure to sell

BCFSA handed down a December 13, 2024 disciplinary decision in Jinnah (Re), 2024 BCSRE 51, followed by a decision on sanctions where the agent’s license was cancelled along with a $10,000 penalty and enforcement expenses levied of more than $67,000. It should be noted that some of the misconduct took place before the Real Estate Services Act was amended to increase discipline penalties, and accordingly, the pre-amendment penalties ($10,000 maximum) were applicable.

The regulator found that the agent had a personal relationship with the client during the transaction and failed to act in her best interest and make all appropriate disclosures. Further, he pressured the client to sell a property they would not otherwise have sold. The regulator condemned the agent’s behavior as predatory.

3. Using the client as your bank

In Rahil v. Chand, 2025 BCSC 106, the court dealt with a situation where an agent used money advanced for him to invest in properties on behalf of his clients to instead purchase property for himself. The court found this was a clear breach of fiduciary duty.

This case provides an excellent summary of the scope of fiduciary duties owed by an agent, which includes:

“a) To act loyally and transparently, in the best interests of the client;

b) To act in accordance with the instructions given and within the authority granted by client;

c) To maintain the confidentiality of information respecting the client;

d) To assiduously avoid a conflict of interest and to promptly disclose any that arise in the course of the fiduciary relationship; and

e) To make full and fair disclosure of all material circumstances and of everything the agent knows about the subject matter, including all facts within the agent’s knowledge which might affect the value of the property or the client’s decision.”

Assiduously, a great word, meaning working with great care and perseverance. Again, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The court found there was a breach of these various duties in a myriad of ways. The court ordered a disgorgement of all profits and interest earned by the agent as well as punitive damages of $25,000. Punitive damages are rare and meant to express denunciation and deterrence.

Learning from the experiences of others, rather than the hard way

While all three of these incidents may seem clear to many of us, we’re still continuing to see cases of agents putting their interests ahead of their clients. The next time you find yourself in a situation that you’re unsure about whose interests you’re putting first, consider what a judge might say if the facts were put before them. And then act accordingly, so you can avoid finding yourself in one of these situations.

I’ll report back again in another few years, hopefully with better news!