A house at “1 A Street, City A” has stood vacant for around seven years. Mustafa Zia, a salesperson at “Brokerage A”, leaves a door flyer there.
The owners call him in response to the flyer and meet him at the property. That evening they sign a listing agreement at $1,200,000, the price he recommends. It is exclusive for five months, also on his recommendation. RECO later finds he did not adequately explain what “exclusive” meant for them.
Zia presents an offer of $1,125,000 from “Buyer A”, a corporation. He is its sole director and officer, and a shareholder. He does not tell the sellers. The buyer is represented by another salesperson from the same brokerage; no multiple-representation consent has been sought. The sellers decline.
Zia returns with an increased offer of $1,300,000 from the same corporation, calls it a very good offer and encourages acceptance. The sellers accept. Among the papers they sign is a Registrant’s Disclosure of Interest that says “RREA is the director of the corporation purchasing the property”, and a form confirming the buyer is represented by their own brokerage. RECO finds this did not amount to clear disclosure.
The sellers retain a lawyer to complete the sale. Through the lawyer they learn for the first time that Zia is connected to the buyer. The lawyer raises concerns. A mutual release cancels the transaction.
A complaint reaches RECO and is investigated. The decision does not record who complained or when. Zia is represented by counsel and signs an Agreed Statement of Facts and Penalty, waiving a hearing.
The Chair of the Discipline Committee releases the decision: breaches of Code of Ethics sections 4, 5, 17, 38, 39 and 2(1) in respect of 16. Fine of $20,000 and the MCE Compliance and Ethics course, Parts 1 and 2.
Deadline for completing the ethics course and confirming it to RECO.
Deadline for paying the $20,000 fine.
Not part of the case, but relevant context: the Trust in Real Estate Services Act replaces REBBA 2002 in Ontario, tightening the rules on representing more than one party.
The decision does not say whether the fine was paid or the course completed, and we have no information suggesting otherwise. It does not identify the city, the brokerage, or the other salesperson. We have not attempted to identify them and will not publish speculation.