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, 21, 35, 38 and 39;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Mohsen Molsen Hanasavha;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Ali Kiani Nejad.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO REFUSE TO RENEW LICENCE, IMPOSE COMPLIANCE ORDER AND IMPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES

TO: Mohsen Molsen Hanasavha

AND TO: Ali Kiani Nejad

TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to Sections 16 and 21 of the Act, by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (the “Chief Executive Officer”), the Director, Litigation and Enforcement (the “Director”) is proposing to refuse to renew the mortgage agent licence issued to Mohsen Molsen Hanasavha (licence # M10002474).

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 39 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer, the Director is proposing to impose an administrative penalty in the total amount of $20,000 on Mohsen Molsen Hanasavha for dealing in mortgages outside his brokerage and receiving remuneration for dealing in mortgages from an entity other than his brokerage, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act and section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08.

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 35 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer, the Director is proposing to issue an order against Ali Kiani Nejad to cease and desist from dealing in mortgages in Ontario.

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 39 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer the Director is proposing to impose an administrative penalty in the amount of $12,000 on Ali Kiani Nejad for dealing in mortgages in Ontario without having a licence, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act.

Details of these 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 39(2) AND 39(5) 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 W, 7^th 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. TAKE FURTHER NOTICE of the payment requirements in section 4 of Ontario Regulation 192/08, which states that the penalized person or entity shall pay the penalty no later than (thirty) 30 days after the person or entity is given notice of the order imposing the penalty, after the matter is finally determined if a hearing is requested or such longer time as may be specified in the order.

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

These are the reasons for the proposal by the Director to:
1. Refuse to renew the mortgage agent licence issued to Mohsen Molsen Hanasavha (“Hanasavha”);
2. Impose an administrative penalty in the total amount of $20,000 on Hanasavha;
3. Impose a compliance order on Ali Kiani Nejad (“Nejad”); and
4. Impose an administrative penalty in the amount of $12,000 on Nejad.

II. BACKGROUND

FSRA Licensing History

Hanasavha has been licensed as a mortgage agent (licence #M10002474) under the Act since November 22, 2010. Hanasavha was authorized to deal in mortgages under the mortgage brokerage Morcan Financial Inc. (licence #10687) (“Morcan”) from April 2014 to July 2024. Hanasavha applied to renew his licence on March 25, 2025. Hanasavha is currently authorized to deal in mortgages with Kingsdale Mortgage Centre Inc. (licence #13585).
Nejad was licensed as a mortgage agent (licence #M13002200) under the Act from November 13, 2013 until March 31, 2020, when his licence expired.

The DB Mortgage

Between February and May 2023, Hanasavha and Nejad dealt in mortgages with respect to a $234,000 mortgage for DB (the “DB Mortgage”) from RZ a private lender. The DB Mortgage was secured on DB’s residential property. DB was a retired and vulnerable senior citizen.
Hanasavha initiated the DB Mortgage process by:
1. Opening a file for DB at his authorizing brokerage;
2. Creating a mortgage application dated February 21, 2023 (the “DB Mortgage Application”) in which he was named as agent;
3. Receiving a copy of DB’s identification from a third party; and
4. Ordering a credit report, property report and appraisal for DB’s property.
Hanasavha did not conclude the DB Mortgage. He provided Nejad, who was not licensed under the Act at the time, the DB Mortgage Application and copies of documents containing DB’s personal and financial information, including DB’s personal identification and the credit report, property report and appraisal.
Nejad stated to FSRA that Hanasavha contacted him regarding a mortgage for DB. Nejad subsequently referred DB to a private lender, FH.
While presenting the deal to FH, Nejad provided FH with DB’s driver licence, birth certificate, credit report, property report, property tax letter, and property estimate, all of which were collected or prepared by Hanasavha and provided by Hanasavha to Nejad. Nejad also provided FH with the DB Mortgage Application referencing Hanasavha as agent. FH did not fund the mortgage and referred DB to another lender. Ultimately, RZ funded the DB Mortgage.
The term of the DB Mortgage was 1 year with an annual interest rate of 10% which was to be paid from mortgage proceeds. The entire principal amount was to become due after the expiry of the 1-year term.
Hanasavha never interacted with DB. He carried out the above acts without DB’s knowledge or consent, and did not confirm if DB was seeking a mortgage.
DB defaulted on the DB Mortgage and received a notice of sale. DB subsequently passed away and litigation regarding his property is ongoing.
Hanasavha received $27,700 as remuneration for the DB Mortgage (the “Broker Fee”). Hanasavha received the Broker Fee outside of Morcan, directly from DB’s lawyer.
Hanasavha retained $15,045 of the Broker Fee. He transferred $5,600 to Nejad and the remainder to another individual.
Morcan was not aware of Hanasavha’s involvement in the DB Mortgage or the Broker Fee.
On March 13, 2025, FSRA interviewed Hanasavha. Hanasavha was unable to answer questions regarding the DB Mortgage Application and did not respond to further questions provided to his counsel in writing.

III. CONTRAVENTIONS OR FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT

A. Hanasavha: Dealing in Mortgages for Remuneration Outside the Brokerage

Section 2(3) of the Act prohibits an individual from dealing in mortgages for remuneration unless they have a licence and are acting on behalf of a mortgage brokerage.
Section 2(1) of the Act states that a person is dealing in mortgages in Ontario when they assess a prospective borrower and provide information about a prospective borrower to a prospective mortgage lender in Ontario, or hold themself out as doing so.
Section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08 states 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.
Hanasavha’s role in the arrangement of the DB Mortgage went far beyond that of a simple referral to Nejad. Hanasavha initiated and facilitated the arrangement of the DB Mortgage, outside of Morcan.
Hanasavha obtained DB’s personal identification from a third party, created the DB Mortgage Application and obtained a credit report, property appraisal, and property report for DB, all without DB’s knowledge or consent.
Hanasavha provided the information and documents relating to DB and DB’s property to Nejad so that Nejad could arrange the DB Mortgage.
Hanasavha received the Broker Fee, outside of Morcan, for dealing in mortgages with respect to the DB Mortgage.
The Director is satisfied that Hanasavha contravened section 2(3) of the Act and section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08 by dealing in mortgages and receiving the Broker Fee for doing so, outside of Morcan and without its knowledge.

B. Nejad: Dealing in Mortgages without a Licence

Section 2(2) of the Act prohibits an individual from dealing in mortgages in Ontario unless they have a brokerage licence or are exempted from the requirement to have such a licence.
Section 2(1) of the Act states that a person or entity is dealing in mortgages in Ontario when they provide information about a prospective borrower to a prospective mortgage lender in Ontario, or hold themself out as doing so.
Section 1 of Ontario Regulation 407/07 establishes a narrow “simple referrals” exemption from the requirement to be licensed and acting through a licensed brokerage.
To qualify for the exemption, the person is only permitted to give a prospective lender specific contact information and must disclose any fee they will receive in writing.
Nejad’s attempt to arrange a mortgage for DB from FH went beyond the scope of a simple referral. As described above, while receiving DB’s mortgage deal from Hanasavha, Nejad obtained DB’s identification documents, the DB Mortgage Application, and documents relating to DB’s finances and property. Nejad subsequently attempted to arrange a mortgage from FH, without DB’s knowledge or consent, and forwarded all of the aforesaid documents to FH.
The Director is satisfied that Nejad contravened section 2(2) of the Act by dealing in a mortgage without a license. Nejad provided FH with information and documents relating to DB for the purpose of arranging a mortgage for DB.

IV. GROUNDS FOR REFUSAL TO RENEW LICENCE

Section 16(4) of the Act states that the Chief Executive Officer shall renew the license of an applicant who satisfies the prescribed requirements for renewal of the license unless the Chief Executive Officer believes, on 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.
Section 10 of Ontario Regulation 409/07 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 license.
In view of Hanasavha’s contravention of the Act and its regulations as outlined above and Hanasavha’s dishonest conduct during the arrangement of the DB Mortgage, the Director has reasonable grounds to believe that Hanasavha is not suitable to be licenced under the Act.
Hanasavha knowingly and actively facilitated dishonesty and fraud by creating or obtaining the DB Mortgage Application, identification documents, and financial and property reports for DB, without DB’s knowledge or consent, and forwarding the same to Nejad, an unlicensed person, for the purposes of arranging a mortgage for DB. Hanasavha intentionally did not interact with DB and did not undertake basic due diligence of confirming with DB whether DB wanted a mortgage.
The Mortgage Broker Regulators’ Council of Canada has issued guidelines on the obligations of mortgage brokers to detect and prevent fraud (the “Guidelines”). The Guidelines, which were active when the DB Mortgage was arranged, state that mortgage brokers have a duty to act proactively to prevent and detect fraud. The Guidelines also state that Mortgage Brokers are prohibited from facilitating dishonesty and fraud.
Furthermore, Hanasavha deliberately went outside his brokerage and received substantial remuneration outside of Morcan, which was not disclosed to the brokerage.
DB did not receive the protections required under the Act, including identity verification, suitability assessment and risk and conflict disclosures.
Hanasavha’s conduct exhibits a wilful and blatant disregard for his responsibilities as a licensed mortgage broker, the regulatory regime, and for the interests of DB, causing DB significant harm.
In view of the above, Hanasavha’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.

V. GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING COMPLIANCE ORDER

The Director is of the opinion that Nejad has committed an act or pursued a course of conduct that contravenes or does not comply with a requirement established under the Act. The Director is of the opinion that the proposed order is necessary to remedy the situation.
Nejad has engaged in the business of dealing in mortgages in Ontario without a licence and for remuneration. Nejad, without DB’s knowledge or consent, attempted to arrange a mortgage for DB. During that process, he provided FH with information and documents relating to DB for the arrangement of the DB Mortgage.
Therefore, the Director proposes an order pursuant to section 35 of the Act for Nejad to cease and desist from dealing in mortgages in Ontario.

VI. GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES

The Director is satisfied that imposing administrative penalties on Hanasavha and Nejad under section 39 of the Act will satisfy one or both of the following purposes under section 38(1) of the Act:
1. To promote compliance with the requirements established under the Act.
2. To prevent a person or entity from deriving, directly or indirectly, any economic benefit as a result of contravening or failing to comply with a requirement established under the Act.
The Director is satisfied that an administrative penalty in the total amount of $20,000 should be imposed on Hanasavha, for dealing in an unauthorized mortgage transaction outside his authorized brokerage and receiving remuneration for it, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act and section 4(1) of Ontario Regulation 187/08.
The Director is satisfied that an administrative penalty in the amount of $12,000 should be imposed on Nejad for dealing in a mortgage without a licence, contrary to section 2(3) of the Act.
In determining the amount of each of the administrative penalties, the Director has considered the following criteria as required by section 3 of Ontario Regulation 192/08:
1. The degree to which the contravention or failure was intentional, reckless or negligent.
2. The extent of the harm or potential harm to others resulting from the contravention or failure.
3. The extent to which the person or entity tried to mitigate any loss or take other remedial action.
4. The extent to which the person or entity derived or reasonably might have expected to derive, directly or indirectly, any economic benefit from the contravention or failure.
5. Any other contraventions or failures to comply with a requirement established under the Act or with any other financial services legislation of Ontario or of any jurisdiction during the preceding five years by the person or entity.

Regarding Hanasavha

In respect of the first criterion, the Director is satisfied that Hanasavha’s actions were intentional and negligent.
Hanasavha has been licensed as a mortgage agent since 2010 and was well-aware of his regulatory obligations and the statutory requirements.
Hanasavha took no steps to confirm if DB wanted a mortgage or had the capacity to consent to a mortgage before making a mortgage referral to Nejad. Despite not undertaking this basic due diligence, Hanasavha collected information permitting the assessment of DB and actively facilitated the arrangement of DB’s mortgage. Hanasavha deliberately acted outside his authorizing brokerage and avoided its supervision.
In respect of the second criterion, the Director is satisfied that Hanasavha caused harm and potential harm to others by his involvement in arranging an unauthorized mortgage and dealing in the mortgage transaction outside his brokerage.
Hanasavha’s actions resulted in DB receiving a mortgage that he could not afford and DB defaulting on the DB Mortgage.
Hanasavha’s actions deprived DB of the protections he was entitled to under the Act, including brokerage supervision, suitability assessment, risk and conflict disclosures, and identity verification.
Further, by accepting the Broker Fee directly and not through Morcan, Hanasavha undermined the critical supervisory function that brokerages are required to execute within Ontario’s mortgage industry. Brokerages must maintain oversight over fees and other remuneration charged in connection with mortgage transactions in order to ensure that client funds are not misappropriated and clients are not charged unauthorized or inappropriate fees.
Hanasavha’s misconduct as a licensed mortgage agent has the potential to harm public confidence in the regulatory regime established by the Act and its regulations.
In respect of the third criterion, the Director is not aware of any efforts by Hanasavha to mitigate any loss or take other remedial action.
In respect of the fourth criterion, Hanasavha received $27,700 outside of his brokerage for dealing in the DB Mortgage, of which he retained $15,045.
In respect of the fifth criterion, the Director is unaware of any further contraventions or failures to comply in the preceding five years by Hanasavha, other than those discussed in this Notice of Proposal.

Regarding Nejad

In respect of the first criterion, the Director is satisfied that Nejad’s unlicensed activity was intentional. Nejad was licensed as a mortgage agent between 2013 and 2020 and thus was well-aware of the requirement to be licensed to deal in mortgages.
In respect of the second criterion, the Director is satisfied that Nejad’s actions caused harm to DB and potential harm to others. Nejad’s actions resulted in DB receiving a mortgage that he could not afford and defaulted on. DB was denied the protections he is entitled to under the Act, including brokerage supervision, suitability assessment, risk and conflict disclosures, and identity verification.
Being unlicensed, Nejad’s conduct was not supervised by a licensed individual or brokerage. This directly contributed to the harm caused to DB and undermined the regulatory regime.
In respect of the third criterion, the Director is not aware of any efforts by Nejad to mitigate any loss or take other remedial action.
In respect of the fourth criterion, Nejad received $5,600 from Hanasavha as remuneration for the DB Mortgage.
In respect of the fifth criterion, the Director is unaware of any further contraventions or failures to comply in the preceding five years by Nejad, other than those discussed in this Notice of Proposal.
The Director is satisfied, having regarded all the circumstances, that the proposed amount of the penalty is not punitive in nature, and the amount is consistent with one or both purposes of section 38 of the Act.
Such further and other reasons as may come to my attention.

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, March 12, 2026

Original signed by

Elissa Sinha
Director, Litigation and Enforcement

By delegated authority from the Chief Executive Officer

Si vous desirez recevoir cet avis en français, veuillez nous envoyer votre demande par courriel immediatement a : contactcentre@fsrao.ca.