A B.C. Realtor manipulated a client with whom he had a close personal relationship into selling her home, the provincial real estate regulator has found, in a ruling that describes the misconduct as “predatory.”
The B.C. Financial Services Authority published its findings of misconduct against Ismail Jamal Jinnah on its website last week. A separate decision on what penalties Jinnah should face for his misconduct will be issued sometime in the future, once the parties have had the opportunity to make further submissions.
BCFSA hearing officer Thelma O’Grady concluded in her liability decision that Jinnah committed a variety of forms of professional misconduct, including:
-
Failing to disclose the the nature of the representation he was providing; -
Failing to take reasonable steps to avoid a conflict of interest, and failing to disclose the conflict to his client; -
Failing to act honestly, with reasonable care and skill, and in the best interests of his client; -
And failing or refusing to co-operate with the regulator’s investigation.
O’Grady also found that Jinnah had made a false or misleading statement in a required document and that he had committed “conduct unbecoming,” as defined in the Real Estate Services Act.
What happened
What happened
The findings stem from a pair of transactions that Jinnah facilitated in 2015, which were the first two transactions of his career as a real estate licensee, according to the decision.
The two homeowners involved are referred to throughout the decision as “Individual 1” and “Individual 2.”
Jinnah met Individual 1 through a dating app in 2014 and began a relationship with her, the nature of which was disputed during the hearing on the matter.
Individual 1 told the BCFSA that the relationship was romantic, with Jinnah regularly bringing over dinner and a bottle of wine or champagne and the pair talking regularly and going for walks and drives together. The decision indicates Individual 1 believed she and Jinnah had a “boyfriend/girlfriend” relationship that lasted until July 2018.
While Jinnah acknowledged meeting Individual 1 on a dating site, spending a lot of time with her and bringing her food and gifts, he denied that they ever had an intimate or romantic relationship, according to the decision.
Individual 1 told the regulator Jinnah frequently talked to her about selling her detached house in Surrey. She said she had no interest in doing so, but was ultimately persuaded in June 2015. That’s when Jinnah arranged a showing for Individual 2, who he had already identified as a potential buyer.
Ultimately, Individual 1 sold her property to Individual 2 for $539,000 and purchased Individual 2’s property – a Surrey townhouse – for $320,000, according to the decision.
Jinnah made more than $39,000 on the transactions after charging higher-than-average commission rates.
Credibility and reliability
Credibility and reliability
Jinnah and Individual 1 disagreed substantially on the facts of the case during the hearing, leaving O’Grady to weigh their credibility when considering whose narrative to believe.
The hearing officer preferred Individual 1’s testimony, finding her evidence “generally consistent” and sincere, and noting that she answered honestly when she couldn’t recall information.
Jinnah, on the other hand, was not credible, according to the decision. He answered questions “confidently” during the BCFSA investigation, and rarely said he didn’t remember during his testimony, until he was under cross-examination, at which point he blamed his memory when confronted with clear evidence contradicting his statements.
He also claimed to have been diagnosed with dementia in 2010 or 2012, but did not provide any evidence to support this or any other diagnosis, according to the decision.
“The extent of Mr. Jinnah’s false and misleading evidence cannot be attributed to memory issues,” the decision reads. “Mr. Jinnah has picked and chosen which facts he remembers and those are facts that are favourable to his position.”
With this in mind, O’Grady concluded that Jinnah was intentionally downplaying the closeness of his personal relationship with Individual 1. The hearing officer noted that Individual 1 unsubscribed from the dating app shortly after meeting Jinnah, and found that whether or not the relationship was romantic in nature, it was clear that Individual 1 believed it to be.
“Mr. Jinnah and Individual 1 were not in an arm’s length professional transaction,” the decision reads. “I accept Individual 1’s evidence that she relied on Mr. Jinnah, and she trusted him to act in her best interest.”
‘Predatory’ behaviour
‘Predatory’ behaviour
Jinnah did not act in Individual 1’s best interest, according to the decision. Instead, he overcharged her for services she didn’t actually want and failed to advise her to seek independent legal advice or warn her that he was not obligated to act in her interest.
O’Grady noted that the parties’ personal relationship made the situation “unique.”
“Had this been two unconnected individuals, the homeowner could have simply stopped speaking to the licensee who had been providing real estate services,” her decision reads.
“However, in this situation, Mr. Jinnah used his personal connection and the trust that Individual 1 had in him to continue providing her extensive real estate advice, showing her listings, and showing her (Individual 2’s property) with the aim to advance his own interest in making a sale and charging commissions at above-market rates, over Individual 1’s expressed interest in not selling.”
The decision also notes that Jinnah did not acknowledge his close personal relationship with Individual 1 until he was confronted with her phone records showing numerous calls and texts between the two of them.
O’Grady found that Jinnah had deliberately mischaracterized his relationship with Individual 1 in an effort to conceal the conflict of interest he was engaged in by representing her.
His behaviour “undermined confidence in the real estate industry” and brought it into “disrepute,” according to the decision.
“Mr. Jinnah refused to accept that Individual 1 did not want to sell her house,” it reads. “He pressured and manipulated her to essentially switch properties with Individual 2. Mr. Jinnah took advantage of Individual 1 who, because she was in a close relationship with him and trusted him, was vulnerable. This type of behaviour can only be described as predatory.”
In a news release accompanying the decision on the BCFSA website, Jonathan Vandall, the BCFSA’s vice-president of compliance and enforcement, echoed the hearing officer’s word choice.
“Pressuring or manipulating a client in order to sell a property or earn higher commission is conduct that falls alarmingly short of the professional standards that BCFSA expects licensees to uphold,” Vandal said.
Jinnah surrendered his real estate licence in March of this year, according to the decision.
