Disclaimer
An order that is made regarding a licence holder reflects a situation at a particular point in time. The status of a licence holder can change. Readers should check the current status of a person’s or entity’s licence on the Licensing Link section of FSRA’s website. Readers may also wish to contact the person or entity directly to get additional information or clarification about the events that resulted in the order.

 

Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006,
S.O. 2006, c.29, as amended (the “Act”), in particular sections 16 and 21;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Sanjay Pahuja.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE COMPLIANCE ORDER

TO: Sanjay Pahuja

TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to sections 16 and 21 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (the “Chief Executive Officer”), the Senior Manager, Regulatory & Credentialing Oversight (the “Senior Manager”) is proposing to refuse to renew the mortgage agent licence issued to Sanjay Pahuja.

Details of these alleged contraventions and reasons for this proposal are described below. This Notice of Proposal includes allegations that may be considered at a hearing.

SI VOUS DÉSIREZ RECEVOIR CET AVIS EN FRANÇAIS, veuillez nous envoyer votre demande par courriel immédiatement à: contactcentre@fsrao.ca.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING BY THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL (THE “TRIBUNAL”) PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 21(2) AND 21(3) OF THE ACT. A hearing by the Tribunal about this Notice of Proposal may be requested by completing the enclosed Request for Hearing Form (Form 1) and delivering it to the Tribunal within fifteen (15) days after this Notice of Proposal is received by you. The Request for Hearing Form (Form 1) must be mailed, delivered, faxed or emailed to:

Address:

Financial Services Tribunal
25 Sheppard Avenue West, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6S6

Attention: Registrar

Fax: 416-226-7750

Email: contact@fstontario.ca

TAKE NOTICE THAT if you do not deliver a written request for a hearing to the Tribunal within fifteen (15) days after this Notice of Proposal is received by you, orders will be issued as described in this Notice of Proposal.

For additional copies of the Request for Hearing Form (Form 1), visit the Tribunal’s website at www.fstontario.ca

The hearing before the Tribunal will proceed in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings before the Financial Services Tribunal (“Rules”) made under the authority of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, as amended. The Rules are available at the website of the Tribunal: www.fstontario.ca. Alternatively, a copy can be obtained by telephoning the Registrar of the Tribunal at 416-590-7294, or toll free at 1-800-668-0128 extension 7294.

At a hearing, your character, conduct and/or competence may be in issue. You may be furnished with further and or other particulars, including further or other grounds, to support this proposal.

REASONS FOR PROPOSAL


    I. INTRODUCTION

  1. These are the reasons for the proposal by the Senior Manager to refuse to renew the mortgage agent licence issued to Sanjay Pahuja (“Pahuja”).

  2. The Senior Manager has reasonable grounds to believe that Pahuja is not suitable for licensing having regard to the circumstances prescribed under the Act. Specifically:

    1. Pahuja provided false information on his current and previous licensing applications; and

    2. Pahuja’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he will not deal or trade in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty since he was found by the Law Society of Ontario to have misappropriated funds and acted without integrity, and has contravened the Act by accepting fees outside of the brokerage.


  3. Effective, June 8, 2019, pursuant to the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario Act, 2016, S.O. 2016, c. 37, Sched. 8, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (“FSRA”) became the regulator under the Act and the powers and duties previously vested in the Superintendent were vested in the Chief Executive Officer.

    4. II. BACKGROUND

    A. Licensing History

  4. Pahuja was previously licensed as a mortgage agent (licence # M18000158) under the Act. Pahuja’s licence was issued on January 24, 2018 and expired on March 31, 2020.

  5. Pahuja was previously licensed as a lawyer from 2003 until February 2018, when he was given the opportunity to surrender his licence after being sanctioned by the Law Society of Upper Canada (“Law Society”).

    6. B. Law Society Proceedings and Licensing in New York

  6. On March 11, 2014, Pahuja entered into a voluntary trusteeship with the Law Society so he could leave his law practice due to personal reasons.

  7. Pahuja’s licence to practice law was administratively suspended by the Law Society on March 21, 2014. Subsequently, on February 16, 2018, the Law Society Tribunal held a hearing against Pahuja to consider allegations of misconduct after assigning his practice to the Law Society in 2014. At this hearing, Pahuja was found to have committed professional misconduct as follows:

    1. Misappropriation of client funds held in trust;

    2. Failing to act with integrity;

    3. Failing to take reasonable steps to satisfy himself that a property development was legitimate and therefore ought to have known he was being used to facilitate dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct;

    4. Withdrawing fees from his trust account without delivering a fee billing (5 instances);

    5. Holding himself out as entitled to practice law when his licence was suspended; and

    6. Failing to pay a Small Claims Court judgement.


  8. At the hearing, the Law Society Tribunal ordered that Pahuja be granted permission to surrender his lawyer licence by February 28, 2018 or be revoked March 1, 2018, pay the Law Society Compensation Fund the amount of $3,229.28 and pay $15,000 in costs to the Law Society on or before February 16, 2021.

  9. The documentation provided to FSRA, by Pahuja, indicates that he has been largely non-compliant with the Law Society Order apart from surrendering his licence to practice law and a nominal payment of approximately $100.

  10. Additionally, Pahuja was licensed to practice law in New York State as of 2005 but his license was suspended on April 15, 2016. No information has been provided by Pahuja regarding this suspension.

    11. C. False Information on January 2018 Application

  11. On January 19, 2018, Pahuja submitted an application for a mortgage agent licence (“First 2018 Application”) to the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (“FSCO”), the former regulator under the Act. The First 2018 Application was sponsored by The Mortgage Alliance Company of Canada Inc. (licence # 10530).

  12. Pahuja did not disclose his previous licensing as a lawyer in Ontario, licence suspension in 2014, upcoming Law Society disciplinary proceedings, nor his New York State licence and licence suspension in 2016 on his First 2018 Application. Specifically, Pahuja answered “No” to the question:

    “Have you ever been refused registration or a licence under any legislation which required registration or licensing to deal with the public in any capacity (e.g. insurance agent, RIBO broker, securities dealer, motor vehicle dealer etc.) in any province, territory, state, or country; have you held such a licence and been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a penalty being imposed (e.g. suspension, termination, reprimand, surrender, etc.); are you the holder of such a licence and currently the subject of an investigation or upcoming disciplinary proceeding that may result in a penalty being imposed?” [emphasis added]”


  13. Pahuja also answered “No” to the question:

    “Have you ever been successfully sued or has a complaint ever been made against you to a regulatory body in any province, territory, state, or country that was or is, based in whole or in part, on fraud, theft, deceit, misrepresentation, forgery, or similar conduct; or based in whole or in part, on professional negligence or misconduct (including claims paid by your errors and omissions insurance carrier or bonding company)?” [emphasis added]


  14. Contrary to Pahuja’s denial, the Law Society Tribunal Decision cited that the Compensation Fund had claims on his behalf:

    1. claim CF-2015-156023, to a maximum of $81,034.14;

    2. claim CF-2015-157449, to a maximum of $108,652.67;

    3. claim CF-2015-160009, to a maximum of $36,712.50.00;

    4. claim CF-2015-165331, to a maximum of $27,226.00; and

    5. claim CF-2015-160469, to a maximum of $150,000.00.


  15. The Compensation Fund helps clients who have lost money because of the dishonesty of a lawyer or paralegal.

  16. Pahuja further answered “No” to the question:

    “Have you ever been declared bankrupt or made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy, or are you currently an undischarged bankrupt or are you currently a defendant in any civil proceeding or are there any unsatisfied judgements imposed by a civil court in Canada or elsewhere, against you personally? (If yes, include trustee’s name and address, location of bankruptcy filing, Assignment of Bankruptcy or Receiving Order, Statement of Affairs, a list of creditors, and an explanation as to the circumstances of the bankruptcy. If the bankruptcy has been discharged, please fax a copy of your discharge papers to (416)226-7838.)” [emphasis added]


  17. Contrary to Pahuja’s denial, he was a defendant in multiple civil proceedings and has an unpaid Small Claim Court judgement from 2013.

  18. In making the First 2018 Application, Pahuja swore to have truthfully answered all questions, and certified that:

    “Providing false or misleading information in this application/declaration and/or any attachment is an offence under the MBLAA, and doing so may be sufficient grounds to reject the application/declaration, revoke or refuse to renew a licence or, if you are an officer/Senior Manager/partner, result in refusal of the brokerage or administrator licence applied for, or result in your prosecution.”


  19. By confirming the First 2018 Application, Pahuja also swore to have “truthfully answered all questions contained within this electronic application and consent to the Collection, Use and Disclosure by FSCO of this information”.

  20. Based on the false information provided on the First 2018 Application, and the clear criminal record search, Pahuja was granted a mortgage agent licence which expired on April 1, 2018.

    21. D. False Information on March 2018 Application

  21. On March 30, 2018, Pahuja submitted an application to renew his mortgage agent licence to FSCO (“Second 2018 Application”). The Second 2018 Application was sponsored by Broker Financial Group Inc. operating as Zolo Mortgages (“Zolo Mortgages”) (licence # 12619).

  22. Pahuja again answered “No” to all questions asked on the Second 2018 Application. Specifically, Pahuja again failed to disclose his previous licensing as a lawyer in Ontario, licence suspension in 2014, Law Society disciplinary proceedings on February 16, 2018, the findings of the Law Society Tribunal, his New York State licence suspension in 2016, being a defendant in multiple litigation proceedings, compensation fund claims, and unpaid Small Claims Court judgement.

  23. Based on the false information provided on the Second 2018 Application, Pahuja’s licence was renewed.

  24. In November 2018, FSCO received a complaint that Pahuja had accepted funds outside of his sponsoring brokerage. The details of this complaint are provided later in this proposal. However, while investigating this complaint, on April 2, 2019, Pahuja emailed FSCO’s investigator explaining his failure to provide particulars of his Law Society proceedings stating:

    “…All I can say is that I was certain that I was not misstating myself when I made the application to FSCO for my license as I was not aware of the decision at the time the application was made. And even to this very day, I have not read the decision and this is on purpose. Perhaps this is willful blindness, but I honestly believed my statements to be true at the time they were made.”


  25. It is highly improbable that Pahuja was unaware of the Law Society Tribunal’s Decision at the time of the Second 2018 Application (dated March 30, 2018). Pahuja surrendered his licence to practice law on February 21, 2018, five (5) days after the hearing. Pahuja was clearly aware of the Law Society Tribunal’s decision as he complied with the directive to surrender his licence.

  26. Pahuja also failed to notify his sponsoring brokerage, Zolo Mortgages, of FSCO’s investigation and he was terminated on March 21, 2019. On June 25, 2019, he transferred to Delta Mortgages Inc. (“Delta Mortgages”) (licence # 13078) but was ultimately terminated July 4, 2019, for failure to advise them of FSCO’s investigation.

  27. Pahuja’s mortgage agent licence expired March 31, 2020 and Pahuja did not submit a renewal application. Since Pahuja was not licensed, FSRA did not initiate revocation proceedings in response to Pahuja’s failure to disclose Law Society disciplinary proceedings, collection of fees outside of his sponsoring brokerage and unpaid Small Claims Court judgement.

    28. E. False Information on August 2020 Application

  28. On August 13, 2020, Pahuja submitted an application to renew his mortgage agent licence to FSRA (“2020 Application”). The 2020 Application was also sponsored by Delta Mortgages, despite their prior termination in 2019.

  29. Pahuja did not provide complete nor accurate disclosure of his previous licensing as a lawyer nor Law Society regulatory proceedings on his 2020 Application. Specifically, Pahuja answered “Yes” to the question:

    “Have you ever been successfully sued or has a complaint ever been made against you to a regulatory body in any province, territory, state, or country that was or is, based in whole or in part, on fraud, theft, deceit, misrepresentation, forgery, or similar conduct; or based in whole or in part, on professional negligence or misconduct (including claims paid by your errors and omissions insurance carrier or bonding company)?” [emphasis added]


  30. The details provided by Pahuja with respect to this question was: “A disciplinary action at the LSO has resolved in my surrendering of my law license. The conduct complained of occurred in 2014.”

  31. Contrary to Pahuja’s abbreviated disclosure, he entered voluntary trusteeship with Law Society in March 2014, his licence to practice law had been suspended since March 2014 and he was allowed to surrender his licence following a disciplinary hearing in February 2018 to avoid revocation. Furthermore, he failed to mention that he was ordered to pay costs, was found to have misappropriated client funds and was required to pay money to the Compensation Fund.

  32. Additionally, Pahuja also failed to disclose that he was licensed to practice law in New York State where he was admitted in 2005 and his licence was suspended April 15, 2016.

  33. Pahuja further answered “No” to the question:

    “Have you ever been declared bankrupt or made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy, or are you currently an undischarged bankrupt or are you currently a defendant in any civil proceeding or are there any unsatisfied judgements imposed by a civil court in Canada or elsewhere, against you personally? (If yes, include trustee’s name and address, location of bankruptcy filing, Assignment of Bankruptcy or Receiving Order, Statement of Affairs, a list of creditors, and an explanation as to the circumstances of the bankruptcy. Keep your documents handy. Once we review your application, you may be required to email us electronic copies.” [emphasis added]


  34. Contrary to Pahuja’s denial, he is a defendant in multiple civil proceedings and had an unpaid Small Claims Court judgement.

  35. In a letter dated November 10, 2020, Pahuja provided additional information to the Regulatory Disciplinary Officer (“RDO”) at FSRA, who was reviewing his 2020 Application. Pahuja asserted that while the Law Society hearing took place February 16, 2018, the final decision was not provided until after his 2018 applications but failed to acknowledge that the applications also asked about upcoming disciplinary proceedings. He further downplayed that he surrendered his license to Law Society in 2014 instead of admitting that his licence was suspended. Pahuja also claimed that he did not misappropriate client funds, contrary to the findings of the Law Society Tribunal.

  36. Based on the false information provided on the First 2018, Second 2018 and 2020 Applications as well as acceptance of fees outside of the brokerage, FSRA reached out to Pahuja advising that his 2020 Application would be refused for suitability. Pahuja instead chose to withdraw the 2020 Application.

    37. F. False Information on April 2021 Application

  37. On April 20, 2021, Pahuja submitted an application to renew his mortgage agent licence to FSRA (“2021 Application”). The 2021 Application was again sponsored by Delta Mortgages.

  38. Pahuja again did not provide complete nor accurate disclosure of his previous mortgage agent licensing history nor Law Society regulatory proceedings on his 2021 Application. Specifically, Pahuja answered “Yes” to the question:

    “Have you ever been refused registration or a licence under any legislation which required registration or licensing to deal with the public in any capacity (e.g. insurance agent, RIBO broker, securities dealer, motor vehicle dealer etc.) in any province, territory, state, or country; have you held such a licence and been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in a penalty being imposed (e.g. suspension, termination, reprimand, surrender, etc.); are you the holder of such a licence and currently the subject of an investigation or upcoming disciplinary proceeding that may result in a penalty being imposed?” [emphasis added]”


  39. The details provided by Pahuja with respect to his FSRA licensing history:

    “My Mortgage Agent License application of last year was withdrawn as an alternative to a proceeding with FSRA. The proceeding flowed from my failure to advise of the discipline and subsequent surrender of my license to practice law in Ontario. The failure, as I contend, was inadvertent and not intentional. Nonetheless, it was in my best interest to withdraw the then pending application for a mortgage agent license and re-apply, as I am doing now, based on discussions and written confirmation the [sic] investigation branch dealing with mortgage agent licensing at FSRA.”


  40. Pahuja also answered “Yes” to the question:

    “Have you ever been successfully sued or has a complaint ever been made against you to a regulatory body in any province, territory, state, or country that was or is, based in whole or in part, on fraud, theft, deceit, misrepresentation, forgery, or similar conduct; or based in whole or in part, on professional negligence or misconduct (including claims paid by your errors and omissions insurance carrier or bonding company)?”


  41. The details provided by Pahuja with respect to the Law Society disciplinary proceedings was: “As a former lawyer, I acted on behalf of investors in what turned out to be a fraudulent condo development in Natale, Brazil. Some of the investors filed complaints with the Lawyers' Compensation Fund. The Fund determined that I acted dishonestly in remitting the monies I held in trust to the developer. Please note that the funds were not taken by me and there were no criminal proceedings. I was a party to a sophisticated fraud scheme.”

  42. Contrary to Pahuja’s disclosure that “…Please note that the funds were not taken by me”, the Law Society Tribunal found that he did in fact “misappropriate” client funds aside from funds remitted to the developer.

  43. Furthermore, contrary to Pahuja’s abbreviated disclosure, he entered voluntary trusteeship with the Law Society in March 2014, his licence to practice law had been suspended since March 2014 and he was allowed to surrender his licence following a disciplinary hearing in February 2018 to avoid revocation. He also failed to mention that he was ordered to pay costs and the Law Society Tribunal found that he “ought to have known that he was being used to facilitate dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct..”.

  44. Additionally, Pahuja also failed to disclose that he was similarly licensed to practice law in New York State where he was admitted in 2005 and his licence was suspended April 15, 2016.

  45. Pahuja further answered “No” to the question:

    “Have you ever been declared bankrupt or made a voluntary assignment in bankruptcy, or are you currently an undischarged bankrupt or are you currently a defendant in any civil proceeding or are there any unsatisfied judgements imposed by a civil court in Canada or elsewhere, against you personally? (If yes, include trustee’s name and address, location of bankruptcy filing, Assignment of Bankruptcy or Receiving Order, Statement of Affairs, a list of creditors, and an explanation as to the circumstances of the bankruptcy. Keep your documents handy. Once we review your application, you may be required to email us electronic copies.” [emphasis added]


  46. Contrary to Pahuja’s denial, he is a defendant in multiple civil proceedings and has an unpaid Small Claims Court judgement.

    47. III. CONTRAVENTIONS OR FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT

    A. Receipt of Fees Outside of Mortgage Brokerage

  47. Section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08 provides that a mortgage broker or agent shall not receive, directly or indirectly, any fee or other remuneration for dealing or trading in mortgages from a person or entity other than the brokerage on whose behalf he or she is authorized to deal or trade in mortgages.

  48. On November 23, 2018, less than a year after Pahuja became licensed as a mortgage agent, FSCO received a complaint against Pahuja with respect to a failed mortgage deal. At that time, Pahuja was authorized to deal and trade on behalf of Broker Financial Group Inc.

  49. The substance of the complaint was that the complainant sought a mortgage for a property the complainant was buying. The complainant paid Pahuja $500 upfront to commence the mortgage application process. Pahuja collected documents from the complainant and worked to arrange the mortgage.

  50. After several months of delay, the complainant contacted Pahuja. Pahuja sent the complainant a mortgage commitment and requested his 1% commission for the mortgage. The complainant requested proof that the deal was approved and was informed by Pahuja that the deal would settle in 5 business days. The complainant paid Pahuja directly $4,000 as commission.

  51. The complainant’s lawyer encountered issues with the lender and the mortgage did not close, despite Pahuja’s assurance. As a result, the complainant required a private mortgage to cover the cost of purchasing the property.

  52. The complainant asked Pahuja for the return of the commission fees paid to Pahuja. Pahuja refused to return the commission even though the mortgage transaction he brokered did not close.

  53. The brokerage was unable to resolve the complainant’s issue and referred the complainant to FSCO.

  54. During FSCO’s review of this complaint, Pahuja admitted to FSCO investigators that he received $4,500 in fees for his commission directly from the complainant.

  55. Pahuja further admitted to investigators that he also had an unpaid civil judgement of approximately $5,000. He claimed that he failed to report same on his application for licensing as the application asked about “fraud” and the judgement was not related to fraud.

  56. The Senior Manager is satisfied that Pahuja contravened subsection 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08 by accepting $4,500 as a mortgage brokering fee from the complainant directly.

    57. IV. GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL TO RENEW LICENCE

  57. Section 16(4) of the Act states that the Chief Executive Officer shall renew the licence of an applicant who satisfies the prescribed requirements for renewal of the licence unless the Chief Executive Officer believes, on the reasonable grounds, that the applicant is not suitable to be licensed having regard to such circumstances as may be prescribed and such other matters as the Chief Executive Officer considers appropriate.

  58. Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 409/07 under the Act provides that, in determining whether an individual is not suitable to be licensed as a mortgage broker or agent, the Chief Executive Officer is required by subsections 14(1) and 16(4) of the Act to have regard to the following prescribed circumstances:

    1. Whether the individual’s past conduct affords reasonable grounds for belief that he or she will not deal or trade in mortgages in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

    2. Whether the individual is carrying on activities that contravene or will contravene the Act or the regulations if he or she is licensed.

    3. Whether the individual has made a false statement or has provided false information to the Chief Executive Officer with respect to the application for the licence.


  59. Furthermore, as set out in section 45(1) of the Act “No person or entity shall give false or misleading information to the Chief Executive Officer or a person designated by the Chief Executive Officer in respect of any matter related to this Act or the regulations.”

  60. The Senior Manager is satisfied that Pahuja contravened subsection 45(1) of the Act by providing false or misleading information in the First 2018 Application, Second 2018 Application, 2020 Application and 2021 Application. Contrary to Pahuja’s sworn declaration on the First and Second 2018 Applications:

    1. His licence to practice law in Ontario was suspended in 2014;

    2. He was the subject of disciplinary proceedings through Law Society in February 2018;

    3. His licence to practice law in New York State was suspended in 2016;

    4. He was a defendant in multiple litigation proceedings; and

    5. He has an unpaid Small Claims Court judgement for approximately $5,932.50 plus costs.


  61. Contrary to Pahuja’s sworn declaration on the 2020 Application dated August 13, 2020:

    1. His Law Society disciplinary action did not simply end with his licence surrender. Due to personal circumstances, he was allowed to surrender his licence to avoid revocation in addition to Orders for costs, which remain largely unpaid;

    2. His licence to practice law in Ontario was suspended in 2014;

    3. His licence to practice law in New York State was suspended in 2016;

    4. He was a defendant in multiple litigation proceedings; and

    5. He has an unpaid Small Claims Court judgement for approximately $5,932.50 plus costs.


  62. Contrary to Pahuja’s sworn declaration on the 2021 Application dated April 21, 2021:

    1. He was found to have misappropriated client funds in his Law Society disciplinary proceedings;

    2. He has failed to comply with the Law Society Orders for the compensation fund and costs, which remain largely unpaid;

    3. His licence to practice law in Ontario was suspended in 2014;

    4. His licence to practice law in New York State was suspended in 2016;

    5. He is a defendant in multiple litigation proceedings; and

    6. He has an unpaid Small Claims Court judgement for approximately $5,932.50 plus costs.


  63. Pahuja’s false statements on the First 2018 Application, Second 2018 Application, 2020 Application and 2021 Application prevented FSCO and subsequently FSRA from making an accurate determination of whether they should be accepted. The questions posed to those who apply for licenses or renewals under the Act are vitally important to FSRA in assessing the suitability and qualifications of applicants. These questions are a necessary screening tool to protect the public from unqualified, unsuitable, and unscrupulous persons.

  64. The Senior Manager is satisfied that Pahuja has demonstrated a lack of suitability for licensing pursuant to sections 14 and 16 of the Act by repeatedly failing to disclose his civil judgement, being a defendant in multiple civil proceedings, Law Society disciplinary proceedings and loss of licence to practice law in both Ontario and New York.

  65. Pahuja’s conduct speaks to a concerted effort to mislead FSRA and avoid providing particulars of his Law Society disciplinary proceedings, which were underway at the time he initially applied to be licensed as a mortgage agent. The fact that the Second 2018 Application dated March 30, 2018, was a month and a half after his Law Society hearing, during which he was represented by counsel, suggests that Pahuja provided false information willfully and knowingly to FSCO.

  66. Additionally, based on Pahuja’s conduct in obtaining licensing, acceptance of fees outside of the brokerage and false statements, the Senior Manager has reasonable grounds for the belief that Pahuja has demonstrated unwillingness to operate in the mortgage industry in accordance with the law or with integrity and honesty. The Law Society Tribunal findings that Pahuja acted without integrity and misappropriated client funds also brings into question his honesty.

  67. Given Pahuja’s regulatory history coupled with his provision of false information, the Senior Manager reasonably believes that he is not suitable for licensing having regard to the circumstances prescribed in paragraphs 1 and 3 of section 10 of Ontario Regulation 409/07. The Senior Manager further believes that Pahuja is not a candidate for supervisory conditions given the risk of public harm. In fact, his conduct and provision of false and misleading information on his licensing applications appear to have been an attempt to circumvent an accurate assessment of his suitability.

  68. The Senior Manager is not satisfied that Pahuja has shown that new or other evidence is available or that material circumstances have changed since his disciplinary proceedings before the Law Society Tribunal nor acceptance of money outside of the brokerage, especially when his conduct is coupled with his sophisticated understanding of his legal obligations. The Senior Manager believes granting Pahuja a license under the Act would pose a danger to the public.

  69. Such further and other reasons as may come to my attention.

DATED at Calgary, Alberta, this 3rd day of March, 2022.

Roy Dias
Senior Manager, Regulatory & Credentialing Oversight

By delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer

Si vous désirez recevoir cet avis en français, veuillez nous envoyer votre demande par courriel immédiatement à : contactcentre@fsrao.ca.