Printed . This content is updated regularly, please refer back to https://bcfsa.ca to ensure that you are relying on the most up-to-date resources.
Consent Order
- Licensee
- Adrian (A.J.) Hazzi, Adrian Joseph Hazzi
- Brokerage at Time of Sanctioned Activity
- Current Brokerage
- Re/Max of Kelowna, Kelowna
- Consent Order Date
- 20 December 2007
Summary
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
In the matter of the Real Estate Services Act
S.B.C. 2004 ch. 42
AND in the matter of a Consent Order pursuant to Section 41 of the Real Estate Services Act
Complaint: Contravention of sections 35(1)(d) and 27(4) of the Real Estate Services Act; sections 5-11, 3-3(1)(i), 3-3(1)(a), and 3-4 of the Council Rules/Incompetence, stakeholder provisions, duty to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, duties to clients
Issue: Adrian Joseph Hazzi, representative, Norwich Real Estate Services Inc. dba Re/Max of Kelowna, Kelowna, committed professional misconduct within the meaning of section 35(1)(d) of the Real Estate Services Act, in that he demonstrated incompetence by:
- failing to promptly disclose the source and amount of the anticipated remuneration in accordance with section 5-11 of the Council Rules;
- acting as an agent of the buyer when it was inappropriate to do so and in so doing acted in a conflict of interest as he had an ongoing relationship with the seller, contrary to section 3-3(1)(i) and section 3-3(1)(a) of the Council Rules;
- failing to act with reasonable care and skill in a real estate transaction, in accordance with section 3-4 of the Council Rules, including:
- failing to clarify in writing the value of the 2002 Bombardier (quad ATV) for the purpose of the contract, failing to clarify why a deposit of $5,000.00 was payable to someone other than the seller, and failing to clarify by separate written agreement, in accordance with section 27(4) of the Real Estate Services Act, that the stakeholder provisions do not apply;
- failing to ensure the buyer was advised to include a subject to financing in light of the fact that the construction was incomplete and the buyer had separated from his spouse;
- failing to ensure a contract was put into effect that clearly set out in writing the rights and responsibilities of the parties including upon default, and without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the right to walk through prior to completion, a provision of a deficiency holdback, and the requirement for an occupancy permit;
- failing to advise the buyer to seek independent legal advice and the time to obtain such advice, both prior to the execution of the contract and during the course of the contract, when the seller 's failure to complete became an issue; and
- failing to promptly deliver a copy of an accepted contract to his brokerage.