DECISION OF THE SASKATCHEWAN REAL ESTATE COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL ESTATE ACT, C. R-1.3 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALVIN WILLIAM SCHWEITZER

Transcription

1 DECISION OF THE SASKATCHEWAN REAL ESTATE COMMISSION Schweitzer (Re), 2015 SKREC 11 Date: July 22, 2015 Commission File: IN THE MATTER OF THE REAL ESTATE ACT, C. R-1.3 AND IN THE MATTER OF ALVIN WILLIAM SCHWEITZER Before: A Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission Hearing Committee comprised of the following: Jeffrey P. Reimer - Chairperson David Chow Jeff Markewich On Thursday, May 21, 2015, a Hearing was conducted at 1854 McIntyre Street, Regina, Saskatchewan, before the Hearing Committee. Also in attendance were Aaron Tetu and Reché McKeague on the behalf of the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission. J.H., the individual who raised the complaints about Mr. Schweitzer, was present to give his testimony. Mr. Schweitzer did not appear. Mr. Tetu, on the behalf of the Commission, invited the Committee to conduct the Hearing in Mr. Schweitzer s absence, citing the provisions of Section 37 (10) of the Real Estate Act (Saskatchewan) (herein called the Act ), which reads: (10) Where the registrant whose conduct is the subject of the hearing fails to attend the hearing, the Commission, on proof of service of the notice mentioned in subsection (1), may proceed with the hearing in his or her absence. Mr. Tetu proffered an Affidavit of Service with an Exhibit being a Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum whereby a Barclay Elles swore before a Notary Public that he personally DECISION SREC #

2 served Mr. Schweitzer with the Writ of Subpoena on the 27th day of April, The said Writ directed Mr. Schweitzer to attend at the location of the Hearing at 1854 McIntyre Street, Regina, on the date of the Hearing, being May 21, Under Section 37 (1) of the Act, the Registrar of the Commission is required, at least 14 days before the date of any hearing, to serve notice of the date, time and place of a hearing upon the registrant whose conduct is the subject of such hearing. Under Section 37 (4) of the Act, the Commission has the discretion to accept any evidence that it considers appropriate and is not bound by the rules of law concerning the admission of evidence. The Committee was hesitant to proceed in Mr. Schweitzer s absence because of the severity of the allegations against him. The purpose for conducting a hearing is to facilitate production of all of the relevant facts of the matter before a decision is rendered as to those allegations, and Mr. Schweitzer s absence denies to us a significant source for those facts. After a brief adjournment to consider Mr. Tetu s submission, the Committee ruled that we would accept the Affidavit of Service as a full Exhibit, being Exhibit P-1, and found that it constituted proof that Mr. Schweitzer was served with the Writ of Subpoena advising of the place and date of the Hearing on the 27th day of April, In that that date was more than 14 days before the hearing, we found, as well, that the notice provided to Mr. Schweitzer constituted compliance with the requirement in Section 37 (10). In that Mr. Schweitzer was properly served with notice of the Hearing specifically scheduled for this purpose it would seem evident that he had no intention of appearing, so adjourning the Hearing to attempt to secure his attendance would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Committee ruled that we would conduct the Hearing in the absence of Mr. Schweitzer in accordance with Section 37 (10). CHARGES Mr. Schweitzer has been charged that: Count 1 He did commit Professional Misconduct under Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act, in that he failed, within a reasonable time, to properly account for or pay over any money received to the person entitled to it; Count 2 Contrary to Section 71 (1) (d) of the Act, he failed to disburse trust money only in accordance with the terms of the trust pursuant to which the money was received; DECISION SREC #

3 Count 3 Contrary to Section 8 (4) of the Real Estate Regulations, R-1.3 Reg 1, passed under the Act, he failed to respond, in writing, to the request made by the Commission by the date set out in such request; and Count 4 Contrary to Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission Bylaw 702, he failed to protect and promote the interests of his client. THE EVIDENCE J.H. testified before the Hearing Committee. He stated that he was contacted about a year ago, in March of 2014, by Mr. Schweitzer regarding the possibility of J.H. s purchasing the [Property] in Regina. He said that he was intrigued by the idea of a multi-suite facility on that site making use of the existing building. He told the Committee that he was an experienced real estate investor owning, at that time, some 150 rental units. He also said that, though he had done some 500 real estate deals in his life, the contact with Mr. Schweitzer was the first time that he had ever met Mr. Schweitzer. J.H. testified that he instructed Mr. Schweitzer to draft an Offer to Purchase and he provided Mr. Schweitzer with a cheque drawn upon the account of [J.H. s company] in the amount of $50, being the deposit set out in the Offer that was produced for him and marked as Exhibit P-2 at the hearing. A copy of the cheque that he provided with the Offer, dated March 7, 2014, was entered as Exhibit P-7. The Hearing Committee further heard testimony from J.H. that the Offer that he made was subsequently amended and was then met by a Counteroffer from the [Vendor]. Exhibit P-4 is the Counteroffer which was accepted by J.H. on or about the 14th of March, J.H. testified that he was having difficulty in sourcing mortgage financing for the transaction so, in June of 2014, he instructed Mr. Schweitzer to draft an Amendment and Counteroffer to his original Offer to Purchase which substituted the transfer of other real estate instead of the balance of cash otherwise payable to the Vendor under the original Offer. That Amendment and Counteroffer was recorded in these proceedings as Exhibit P-5. DECISION SREC #

4 The Vendor did not accept J.H. s Amendment and Counteroffer, however, and by correspondence dated June 17, 2014, and marked as Exhibit P-6 herein, the Vendor confirmed that J.H. s proposal was not accepted by its finance council. J.H. testified that, with the communication of that decision, he concluded that the deal to purchase the [Property] was essentially dead. He said that he called Mr. Schweitzer when he learned of the rejection of his Counteroffer, and asked for the return of his $50, He said that Mr. Schweitzer was vague in his response to that request. After the passage of some time including the weekend after the deal had collapsed J.H. had still not received a refund of the deposit. J.H. testified that he continued to press Mr. Schweitzer for return of his deposit and, finally, on June 20, 2014, Mr. Schweitzer attended at J.H. s office and presented him with a cheque for $30,000.00, instead of the full amount of the deposit. He said that Mr. Schweitzer exhibited what he thought was a shit-eating grin when he gave him that cheque. He said that Mr. Schweitzer asked him for a week to produce the balance and J.H. gave him until June 27, 2014, to do so. He said that that time came and went without any contact with Mr. Schweitzer. J.H. testified that, despite his repeated requests, Mr. Schweitzer has never provided him with the $20, balance of his deposit. As a consequence, J.H. contacted the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission to complain of Mr. Schweitzer s conduct. Mr. Tetu advised the Committee that the Commission undertook an investigation of Mr. Schweitzer's activities as a result of J.H.'s complaint. He tendered as an exhibit a number of pieces of correspondence, the originals of which he indicated were forwarded to Mr. Schweitzer. The Committee accepted the collection of documents into evidence as Exhibit P-11. Among those documents is a hard copy of an directed to Mr. Schweitzer and dated July 4, 2014, from Mr. Tetu and seeking fax copies of Mr. Schweitzer's trust account statements and advising that his immediate attention to that request was required. The same document evidences a further to Mr. Schweitzer from Mr. Tetu of July 9, 2014, asking that Mr. Schweitzer contact him as soon as possible. Also a part of Exhibit P-11 is a letter of September 4, 2014, from Mr. Tetu to Mr. Schweitzer and noting the July 4, 2014, and numerous telephone messages and stating that we have made several requests for information that have gone unanswered. That letter appeared on its face to have been sent by and by regular mail. Mr. Tetu advised the Committee that the only contact from Mr. Schweitzer throughout the period after June of 2014, came in the form of a fax from Schweitzer Realty Ltd., dated July 7, 2014, and saying that Mr. Schweitzer had called Mr. Tetu with no DECISION SREC #

5 response and that he would call tomorrow being July 8, Mr. Tetu advised the Committee that there was no call to the Commission on that date and that, in fact, there had been no further contact from Mr. Schweitzer. Also a part of Exhibit P-11, is a letter from Mr. Tetu to Mr. Schweitzer dated September 26, 2014, giving Mr. Schweitzer the option to consent to an Agreed Statement of Facts and to forego a formal Hearing. Mr. Tetu represented to the Hearing Committee that Mr. Schweitzer did not respond to that letter. Licensed real estate brokers in Saskatchewan are required, on at least an annual basis, to disclose to the Commission the particulars of the trust accounts that those brokers are employing for receipt of trust funds, such as monies paid as deposits toward transactions. Mr. Schweitzer s reporting is evidenced by his facsimile transmission of March 3, 2014, to the Commission and marked as Exhibit P-12. It shows that Mr. Schweitzer reported that his trust account was # at the Bank of Nova Scotia, 4110 Albert Street, Regina. Mr. Tetu advised the Hearing Committee that after the complaint was received from J.H., the Commission alerted the Deputy Superintendent of Real Estate, who took steps to freeze that trust account. Mr. Tetu advised the Committee that an investigation into Mr. Schweitzer s accounts was conducted and that the Bank of Nova Scotia produced Mr. Schweitzer s bank statements. A copy of the statement for account # , identified thereon as the Schweitzer Realty Ltd. Real Estate Trust Account was produced by Mr. Tetu and marked as Exhibit P-8. It showed that the only activity in that account for the month of March, 2014, was a $10.00 transfer from that trust account to account # The statement also showed the trust balance was $1.47 at the end of March. It further showed that the only deposit into that trust account during the period from December 31, 2014 to July 31, 2014, as a deposit for $10, on April 24, That is, Exhibit P-8 evidenced the fact that J.H. s deposit cheque in the amount of $50, was not deposited into that trust account. Exhibit P-8 also included a bank statement for a business account # for Schweitzer Realty Ltd.. It showed the aforementioned $10.00 transfer from the trust account on March 5, 2014, which brought the business account balance to zero at that date. The next activity on the account was a $50, deposit on March 24, 2014, and then a series of $ and $ ABM withdrawals along with a number of $1.50 Interac ABM fees. On June 23, 2014, a cheque in the amount of $30, cleared that account. DECISION SREC #

6 SUBMISSIONS Mr. Tetu submitted that the evidence was clear that Mr. Schweitzer took J.H. s $50, deposit and kept $20, of it, and that that fact constitutes professional misconduct. Mr. Tetu was asked by the Committee as to whether or not there was duplicity in some of the counts of the allegations of breach against Mr. Schweitzer in that the charges arose from the same event the alleged appropriation of that $20, Mr. Tetu responded that, in his view, each of the counts stood on their own as made out by separate actions of Mr. Schweitzer. Mr. Tetu also submitted that this was an appropriate case for the ordering of restitution under Section 38(1)(e) of the Act, because J.H. has been deprived of his funds and that the quantum of his loss is a sum certain - $20,000.00, being the $50, deposit less the $30, returned to him. Mr. Tetu further made submissions as to penalty in the event that we were to find that Mr. Schweitzer was guilty of the alleged breaches. He reported that Mr. Schweitzer s registration with the Commission was currently suspended and submitted that it be cancelled as a result of the severity of the alleged breaches. He further submitted that the fines must also reflect the severity of the alleged breaches and that they should be at the upper limit of the fines permitted under the legislation, as a result. He seeks a fine in the amount of $5,000.00, each, for the respective alleged breaches of Section 39 (1) (b) and Section 71 (1) (d) of the Act, $3, for the alleged breach of Section 8 (4) of the Regulations and $3, for the alleged breach of Bylaw 702. Mr. Tetu referred the Committee to a number of prior decisions of the Commission as indicators of the penalties previously levied under the individual legislative provisions. He requested that, because Section 38(2) of the Act limits the fines available to an aggregate $15, for all findings against Mr. Schweitzer, our Decision should reflect the fact that our ability to levy an individual fine is restricted by the aggregate of the fines thereby. Mr. Tetu s point in that request is that the Decision, as it pertains to individual breaches, would reflect a lower fine than the individual maximums and therefore stand as an erroneous precedent for appropriate fines for the alleged breaches, taken individually. Lastly, Mr. Tetu submitted that Mr. Schweitzer be ordered to pay costs in the amount set out on the draft Bill of Costs provided to us, and that he receive a letter of reprimand. DECISION SREC #

7 DECISION We have no hesitation in finding that Mr. Schweitzer s activities constituted professional misconduct. Section 39 (1) of the Act provides: 39(1) Professional misconduct is a question of fact, but any matter, conduct or thing, whether or not disgraceful or dishonourable, is professional misconduct within the meaning of this Act, if: (a) it is harmful to the best interests of the public, the registrants or the Commission; (b) it is fraudulent; (c) it is a breach of this Act, the regulations or the bylaws or any terms or restrictions to which the registration is subject; or (d) it is a failure to comply with an order of the investigation committee or the Commission.. Mr. Schweitzer did not appear so we do not have the benefit to any testimony that he might have provided. The evidence that we do have before us in uncontroverted. That evidence shows that J.H. voluntarily paid the sum of $50, to Mr. Schweitzer as a deposit on the prospective purchase of [the Property]. J.H. had only met Mr. Schweitzer for the first time when Mr. Schweitzer contacted him in March of 2014 regarding this potential transaction. The money that he paid him - a not inconsiderable sum - was therefore provided by J.H. to a person who was all but a total stranger to him. We conclude that it was paid to Mr. Schweitzer only because he was a realtor. J.H. testified that he was an investor in real estate and owned 150 homes. He said that he had dealt with realtors before, and the fact that he would pay this amount of money to a virtual stranger shows the faith that he obviously had that a realtor would honour the trust that the Act and the Saskatchewan Real Estate Commission Bylaws mandate for the conduct of realtors and real estate brokers regarding monies paid "in trust". The Act and the Bylaws dictate that a real estate broker must use a trust account for funds accepted as a deposit on real estate transactions. The reason for that it clear: it will facilitate the segregation of those funds from the money actually belonging to the broker. That is necessary because prospective purchasers of real estate in this Province must be able to place a deposit with the confidence that it will be credited toward the closing on a prospective purchase, or returned to that purchaser if the transaction does not proceed. If they cannot proceed with that confidence, then that would have a chilling effect upon the real estate industry. This would be significantly harmful to the public, who are served by that industry, and even more so the people that work within the industry - the licensed realtors across this Province. The evidence DECISION SREC #

8 before us clearly shows that Mr. Schweitzer breached the trust that J.H. relied upon in placing deposit funds with him. The evidence also shows a degree of pre-meditation to the actions of Mr. Schweitzer regarding J.H.'s deposit. Contrary to the mandated practise of maintaining a segregation of trust monies, we conclude that J.H.'s deposit cheque was deposited not into his trust account but into another account, his business account. This fact is evident in Exhibit P-8 and we conclude, therefrom, that the $50, received from J.H. was deposited into Mr. Schweitzer s business account in March of 2014, and those funds permitted Mr. Schweitzer to make a great many cash withdrawals, for unknown purposes. As a result of his using J.H. s money over the months from March to June of 2014, Mr. Schweitzer did not have sufficient funds in either his business or his trust account to refund the full deposit. We find the fact that the monies were never deposited into a trust account to evidence Mr. Schweitzer s intention, upon his receipt of the deposit cheque, to treat this money as his own. In fact, Exhibit P-8 shows that he set about using these funds by way of his cash withdrawals, almost immediately after his receipt of the same. COUNT ONE Mr. Schweitzer s misappropriation of J.H. s deposit constitutes professional misconduct under Section 39 as it is disgraceful and dishonourable, it is harmful to the best interests of the public, the registrants and the Commission, it is fraudulent and it is a blatant breach of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we find that Mr. Schweitzer is guilty of the allegations in Count One under Section 39 (1) (b). Section 38(1) of the Act provides as follows: (1) Where the Commission finds a registrant guilty of professional incompetence or professional misconduct, it may make one or more of the following orders: (a) an order that the registration be cancelled; (b) an order that the registration be suspended for a specified period; (c) an order that the registration be suspended pending the satisfaction and completion of any conditions specified in the order; (d) an order that the registrant may continue to be registered only under conditions specified in the order, which may include, but are not restricted to, an order that the registrant: (i) successfully complete specified classes or courses of instruction; (ii) obtain treatment, counselling or both; (e) an order requiring the registrant to pay restitution to any person as compensation for a loss suffered by that person as a result of the registrant s DECISION SREC #

9 professional incompetence or professional misconduct; (f) an order reprimanding the registrant; (g) any other order that the Commission considers just. (2) In addition to any order made pursuant to subsection (1), the Commission may order: (a) that the registrant pay to the Commission within a fixed period: (i) a fine in a specified amount not exceeding $5,000 for each finding and $15,000 in the aggregate for all findings; and (ii) the costs of the investigation and hearing into the registrant s conduct and related costs, including the expenses of the investigation committee and the Commission and the costs of legal services and witnesses; and.. (emphasis added) Under Section 38 (1) (a), we hereby order that Mr. Schweitzer s registration with the Commission by cancelled. Under Section 38 (1) (f), we order that Mr. Schweitzer be reprimanded by the Commission for this conduct. Further, for the Count 1 allegations, we order that Mr. Schweitzer pay a fine in the amount of $5, for the same under Section 38 (2) (i), within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision. But for the maximum mandated under that Section, we would have found for a greater fine in that we view this conduct as the most serious contemplated by the Act. COUNT TWO Section 71 of the Act provides as follows: 71(1) Every brokerage shall: (a) maintain one or more interest-bearing trust accounts in a financial institution in Saskatchewan; (b) deposit into a trust account all money received by the brokerage in trust for other persons in connection with a trade in real estate, within two business days after the later of: (i) the day on which an offer to purchase is accepted; and (ii) the day on which the money is received by the brokerage; (c) at all times, keep the money that it receives in trust for other persons in connection with a trade in real estate separate and apart from other money; and (d) disburse trust money only in accordance with the terms of the trust pursuant to which the money is received. (2).. While the evidence clearly showed that Mr. Schweitzer misappropriated J.H. s money in direct breach of Section 71 (d), it also showed that he breached Section 71 (b) before he did so. We agree with Mr. Tetu that this constitutes a separate and distinct breach of DECISION SREC #

10 the legislation and warrants the maximum fine in that this breach facilitated his misappropriation of the money. Accordingly, For the Count 2 allegations, we order that Mr. Schweitzer pay a fine in the amount of $5, for the same under Section 38 (2) (i), within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision. COUNT THREE Section 8 of the Real Estate Regulations provides as follows: 8(1) On its own motion or where it receives a written complaint with respect to a registrant alleging professional misconduct or professional incompetence, the Commission shall refer the matter to a review officer to review the circumstances of the action or complaint and the conduct of the registrant. (2) The review officer shall provide to the registrant: (a) a copy of the complaint; or (b) a written summary of the conduct complained of that is alleged to constitute professional misconduct or professional incompetence. (3) The review officer may request verification of any information or material related to the action or complaint from the registrant whose conduct is the subject of the complaint or from any other registrant. (4) A registrant shall respond, in writing, to the request made pursuant to subsection (3) and deliver the response to the review officer by the date set out in the request. Within Exhibit P-11 is a hard copy of an directed to Mr. Schweitzer and dated July 4, 2014, from Mr. Tetu and seeking fax copies of Mr. Schweitzer's trust account statements. The advises that Mr. Schweitzer s immediate attention to that request was required. Also a part of Exhibit P-11 is the letter of September 4, 2014, from Mr. Tetu to Mr. Schweitzer and mentioning the July 4, 2014, and numerous telephone messages and stating that we have made several requests for information that have gone unanswered. This is a confirmation of Mr. Tetu s representations before the Committee that Mr. Schweitzer had not responded to the request except for the non-responsive fax from Schweitzer Realty Ltd., dated July 7, We have noted that the address used in Mr. Tetu s request for the account information of July 4, 2014, is the identical address aws@sasktel.net as that set out on Mr. Schweitzer s fax of July 7, Accordingly, we find Mr. Schweitzer s fax is a confirmation that he received Mr. Tetu s request for the account information. As alluded to earlier herein, Section 37 (4) of the Act provides as follows: DECISION SREC #

11 (4) The Commission may accept any evidence that it considers appropriate and is not bound by rules of law concerning evidence. Though Mr. Tetu s representations as to Mr. Schweitzer s lack of response to that request is unsworn testimony, pursuant to the discretion set out in Section 37 (4), we accept those representations, as corroborated by the documents in Exhibit P-11 as proof that Mr. Tetu, on the behalf of the Commission, made a request under Section 8 (4) of the Real Estate Regulations, and that Mr. Schweitzer failed to make a substantive response to that request contrary to Section 8 (5) of the Real Estate Regulations. The requirement that a registrant co-operate with the Commission is integral to the Commission s duty to investigate complaints and by doing so to provide protection to the public and to the real estate industry in Saskatchewan. It provides a registrant with an opportunity to make response to a complaint but also facilitates any investigation, saving time and expense for the Commission. This expedition of the process is in the best interest of the Industry and of the public that it serves. When Mr. Schweitzer ignored the legitimate requests of the Commission for account information, he frustrated the necessary investigative work then underway and thereby would have caused a delay in dealing with the very reasonable request by J.H. for redress for the conduct of Mr. Schweitzer herein. The sentencing case law for breaches of Section 8 (5) of the Regulations is consistent with the $3, submitted by Mr. Tetu as being an appropriate disposition for this violation, especially if adjusted for inflation. We would have levied a fine of that magnitude, but we are bound by Section 38 (2) regarding the aggregate of the fines in this instance and, accordingly, for the Count 3 allegations, we order that Mr. Schweitzer pay a fine in the amount of $2, for the same under Section 38 (2) (i), of the Act within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision. COUNT FOUR Bylaw 702 of the Commission Bylaws provides as follows: A registrant shall protect and promote the interests of his or her client. This primary obligation does not relieve the registrant from the obligation of dealing fairly with all other parties to the transaction. DECISION SREC #

12 We have no hesitation in finding that Mr. Schweitzer breached Bylaw 702 in that he failed in his duty to protect the financial interests of J.H. with his dealing with the deposit funds that J.H. provided to him. Rather than preserving the deposit as the property of J.H. s company pending the completion or frustration of the transaction contemplated by the Offer to Purchase, as amended, Mr. Schweitzer immediately placed those funds in jeopardy by mixing them with his business funds and by making a number of withdrawals from the account where he deposited them and thereby reducing the balance in that account to below the $50, required to fully protect J.H.. By doing so, he wilfully made it impossible to refund the money in that he had withdrawn it for his own purposes and directly contrary to the purposes of his client. It is our finding that Mr. Schweitzer put his own financial interests ahead of J.H. s and caused him financial prejudice as a direct consequence. The facts giving rise to this finding have direct relation to the facts upon which we found the breaches to Sections 39 and 70 of the Act, and we are aware of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Kineapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729, ruling against multiple convictions where they arise out of the same facts. But here Mr. Schweitzer acted in separate sequence. He deposited the funds into his general account and therefore co-mingling the monies even before he back to siphon money off for personal purposes. He withdrew and presumably spent the funds and therefore failed to make good on the entire deposit. And, finally, he preferred his personal aims for the funds over those of his client. These are separate acts which breached the provisions of separate legislative provisions. Accordingly, we do not find that the Kineapple Principle has application to this set of facts. In accordance with the foregoing, while we accept the submissions of Mr. Tetu as to the appropriate quantum of the fine for Count 4, and would have levied a fine of $3, for this breach, we are bound by Section 38 (2) regarding the aggregate of the fines in this instance. Accordingly, for the Count 3 allegations and we order that Mr. Schweitzer pay a fine in the amount of $2, for the same under Section 38 (2) (i), of the Act within ninety (90) days of the date of this decision. We also agree with Mr. Tetu s stated concerns that these fines, taken individually, can stand as an erroneous precedent because they do not accurately reflect our views as to the severity of the respective breaches on each of the Counts. We do feel restricted by the operation Section 38 (2) of the Act, and we would have levied greater fines but for the cumulative restrictions under that Section. DECISION SREC #

13 RESTITUTION Mr. Tetu has submitted that this is an appropriate case for the ordering of restitution under Section 38 (1) (e) of the Act. He has argued that the quantification of the financial losses to J.H. from the actions of Mr. Schweitzer is an easy matter of subtracting the amount paid by Mr. Schweitzer from the amount that he received: $30, subtracted from $50, equals the $20, shortfall. We agree with those submissions and find that it is a most appropriate exercise of our discretion under Section 38 given our findings in this Hearing. Accordingly, we order that Mr. Schweitzer immediately pay to [J.H. s company] the sum of $20, as compensation for the loss suffered by J.H. s company as a result of Mr. Schweitzer s professional misconduct. COSTS Mr. Tetu has submitted that Mr. Schweitzer should pay Costs and has provided a Bill of Costs. Section 38 (1) (b) of the Act reads: (2) In addition to any order made pursuant to subsection (1), the Commission may order: (a) that the registrant pay to the Commission within a fixed period:. (ii) the costs of the investigation and hearing into the registrant s conduct and related costs, including the expenses of the investigation committee and the Commission and the costs of legal services and witnesses; Part of Exhibit P-11, is a letter from Mr. Tetu to Mr. Schweitzer dated September 26, 2014, giving Mr. Schweitzer the option to agree forego a formal Hearing. Mr. Tetu represented that Mr. Schweitzer did not respond to that letter. That non-response and Mr. Schweitzer s general lack of participation in this process has compelled the Commission to conduct this Hearing and also to incur the cost of the investigation into this complaint without Mr. Schweitzer s response and information. We have reviewed the Draft Bill of Costs in detail and we find each entry to be a reasonable statement of the costs that had to be incurred in proceeding with the Hearing. With Mr. Schweitzer s willing participation, we find that these costs would not have been incurred and that these expenses were therefore needlessly incurred. Accordingly, pursuant to the discretion provided under Section 38 (1) (b) of the Act, we DECISION SREC #

14 approve of the Draft Bill of Costs and order that Mr. Schweitzer immediately pay the further sum of $6, SUMMARY OF THE HEARING COMMITTEE S ORDERS 1. Mr. Schweitzer s license under the Act is cancelled; 2. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to pay a fine of $5, for a breach of Section 39 (1) (b) of the Act, within 60 days of the date hereof; 3. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to pay a fine of $5, for a breach of Section 71 (1) (b) of the Act, within 60 days of the date hereof; 4. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to pay a fine of $2, for a breach of Section 8 (4) of the Regulations, within 60 days of the date hereof; 5. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to pay a fine of $2, for a breach of Bylaw 702, within 60 days of the date hereof; 6. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to immediately pay restitution to [J.H. s company] in the amount of $20,000.00; 7. Mr. Schweitzer be issued a letter of reprimand; and 8. Mr. Schweitzer is ordered to immediately pay to the Commission the Costs in the amount of $6, Dated at Regina, Saskatchewan, this 22 nd day of July, Jeffrey P. Reimer Jeffrey P. Reimer Chair David M. Chow David M. Chow Jeff Markewich Jeff Markewich` DECISION SREC #