Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra, Royal Group Tapestry Realty, Surrey

Respondent:     SUKHMANDER (SAM) RAKHRA

File:   265-04 and 412-05

Date of Consent Order:   December 24, 2007                      

Complaint: Contravention of sections 35(1)(a), 25, 6(2) 35(1)(d), 6, 27(1), and 27(4) of the Real Estate Services Act, sections 8-9, 3-1(1), and 5-9 of the Council Rules/Professional misconduct, brokerage records, brokerage must have managing broker , incompetence, payment into trust records must be kept up to date, managing broker responsibilities disclosure of interest in trade     

Issue:   Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty, Surrey, brokerage, committed professional misconduct within the meaning of section 35(1)(a) of the Real Estate Services Act in that it (a) failed to keep proper books, records and accounts, contrary to section 25 of the Real Estate Services Act and section 8-9 of the Council Rules; and (b) failed to have a managing broker supervising the performance of the duties of the brokerage representatives, in accordance with the duties under section 6(2) of the Real Estate Services Act and section 3-1(1) of the Council Rules.   

Issue:   Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra, currently unlicensed, who, while acting as managing broker, Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty, Surrey, committed professional misconduct within the meaning of section 35(1)(d) of the Real Estate Services Act in that he (a) failed to be actively engaged in the management of the related brokerage and failed to ensure that the business of the brokerage was carried out competently and in accordance with the Act, regulations, rules and bylaws, both with regard to the subject transactions noted and in the general course of business of the brokerage, contrary to section 6 of the Act; (b) failed to ensure that a representative, in providing trading services on behalf of the brokerage, promptly delivered all trust monies received on behalf of a principal in relation to real estate services to the brokerage trust account, contrary section 27(1) of the Act; (c) in those transactions where the seller was to directly hold deposits; (i) failed to ensure that buyers were advised to seek independent advice with respect to that deposit; and (ii) failed to ensure that separate written agreements were in place, as required by section 27(4) of the Act; (d) permitted a licensee to act in a conflict of interest in that the representative acted as a limited dual agent when he was also a director of the corporate seller; (e) failed to ensure that in transactions where a representative, while a licensee, was disposing of real estate in which he had an interest, made disclosure of that interest to the Buyers, as required by section 5-9 of the Council Rules; (f) failed to maintain control over all brokerage files, including ensuring that all documentation was retained in the brokerage file, including disclosure of remunerations, listing agreements, separate written agreements when deposits were paid directly to the seller/developer, pursuant to section 27(4) of the Act and that they were made available to the Council at its request; (g) failed to be actively engaged in the management of the brokerage in respect of his supervision of licensees, in that he failed to ensure that this aspect of the business of the brokerage was carried out competently, in accordance with the Act, Regulations, Rules and/or bylaws, and that he failed to ensure that there was adequate level of supervision of the said licensees in that he: (i) failed to ensure in accordance with section 27(4) of the Act in a number of transactions in which the licensees acted as a limited dual agent, that there were separate written agreements executed in instances where deposits were paid directly to the seller/developer, that buyers were advised to seek independent legal advice with respect to the payment of the deposits directly to the seller/developer and that buyers were advised that the stakeholder provisions of the Act would not apply; and (ii) failed to ensure a licensee withdrew from her agency obligations to her seller/developer client when she bought her own listing.  

Result: Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty was reprimanded for professional misconduct as described above after an Agreed Statement of Facts, Proposed Acceptance of Findings and Waiver was entered into between the Real Estate Council and Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty, and a Consent Order was issued.   Further, Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty and Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra are jointly and severally liable to pay enforcement expenses to the Council in the amount of $1,500.00.  

Result: Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra was suspended for one hundred and eighty days (180) from February 13, 2008 to August 10, 2008 (inclusive) for professional misconduct as described above after an Agreed Statement of Facts, Proposed Acceptance of Findings and Waiver was entered into between the Real Estate Council and Sukhmander (Sam Rakhra), and a Consent Order was issued.   Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra, as a condition of re-licensing as managing broker, associate broker or representative, must successfully complete the disciplinary education assignments applicable to Chapter 2 (Mandatory Requirements Under the Real Estate Services Act), Chapter 3 (Business Standards), Chapter 7 (Personnel Management, Part I: Job Analysis, Recruitment, and Selection) and Chapter 8 (Personnel Management, Part II: Training, Appraising, and Motivating Performance) of the Broker ’s Licensing Course, and Chapter 9 (Professional Ethics) of the Real Estate Trading Services Licensing Course. Further, Sukhmander (Sam) Rakhra and Tapestry Realty Ltd. dba Royal Group Tapestry Realty are jointly and severally liable to pay enforcement expenses to the Council in the amount of $1,500.00.  

P: Jan 24, 2008 R:  Jan 24, 2013