Contact Us Licensee Login

 

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DISCIPLINE DECISION

In the matter of the Real Estate Services Act

  S.B.C. 2004 ch. 42

AND in the matter of a Hearing pursuant to Section 42 of the Real Estate Services Act

 

Respondents:  Kevin Donald Green

Files:  10-009, 10-165 and 10-351

Date of Hearing: November 18, 2013

Date of Hearing Decision:  February 11, 2014

Issue: Kevin Donald Green, associate broker, Southview Property Management Inc., Richmond, was found by a Discipline Hearing Committee, while licensed with Croft Agencies Ltd., Surrey, to have committed professional misconduct within the meaning of section 35(1)(a) of the Real Estate Services Act in that he:

File 10-009

(a) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a), 3-3(1)(c) and 3-4  of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client, failed to act within the scope of authority given by the client and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that, as set out in the Report, he caused Croft Agencies to charge additional fees totaling approximately $3,746.00 to a client, none of which additional fees were contemplated in the Services Agreement;

Files 10-165 and 10-351

(b) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a), 3-3(1)(c), 3-3(1)(f) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client, failed to act within the scope of authority given by the client, failed to disclose material information and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that, on February 16, 2009, without the knowledge or consent of the client or the second client, and without notice to the client or the second client, he transferred or caused Croft Agencies Ltd. to transfer the unauthorized amount from the client’s Contingency Reserve Fund (“CRF”) Trust Account to the client’s Operating Fund (“OF”) Trust Account to pay for invoices rendered by IP Ltd. (“IP invoices”) the IP invoices and then paid or caused Croft Agencies to pay the IP invoices from the client’s OF Trust Account;

(c) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a), 3-3(1)(c), 3-3(1)(f) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client, failed to act within the scope of authority given by the client, failed to disclose material information and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that, without instructions from the client or the second client concerning the terms of the reimbursement and without notice to the client or the second client, he reimbursed the unauthorized amount to the client’s CRF Trust Account from the second client’s OF Trust Account during the period of April 23, 2009 to November 11, 2009 by way of eight (8) payments totaling the unauthorized amount; 

(d) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a), 3-3(1)(c), 3-3(1)(f) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client, failed to act within the scope of authority given by the client, failed to disclose material information and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that, without the knowledge or consent of the second client, and without notice to the second client, he withdrew or caused Croft Agencies to withdraw from the Special Levy “SL” Trust Account, the major project fees and that SL Trust Account contained special levy funds for a building envelope remediation project;

(e) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that when he was questioned by the second client about the withdrawal of the sum of $36,750.00 on October 2, 2008, he advised the second client that this was a mandatory 10% insurance fee on all projects, which was not true, as no such fee existed or was payable;

(f) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that when he advised the second client in February and March 2009 that the second client should reduce its special levy amount for a building envelope remediation project from $150,000.00 to below $100,000.00, he failed to make it clear whether the reduction was to avoid a mandatory 10% insurance fee, which was not true, as no such fee existed or was payable or whether a failure to reduce the project to below $100,000.00 would require the second client to enter into a mandatory CCDC2 contract which would result in higher costs; and

(g) contrary to sections 3-3(1)(a), 3-3(1)(f) and 3-4 of the Council Rules, failed to act in the best interests of the client, failed to disclose material information and failed to act honestly and with reasonable care and skill, in that he failed to advise the second client at the Annual General Meeting in February 2009 that the second client had a deficit of $69,925.51 in its CRF for the building remediation project.

Result: Kevin Donald Green was subject to an Order of a discipline committee that he be suspended for sixty (60) days from March 19, 2014 to May 17, 2014 (inclusive).

 

Result: P: March 24, 2014 R: March 24, 2019