IN THE MATTER OF the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.29, as amended (the “Act”), in particular sections 35, 38 and 39;

AND IN THE MATTER OF Baiju Vijayaraghavan, Sukhraj Atwal, and Balwinder Chouhan.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE COMPLIANCE ORDER
AND TO IMPOSE ADMISTRATIVE PENALTIES

TO: Sukhraj “Sue” Atwal

AND TO: Baiju Vijayaraghavan

AND TO: Balwinder Chouhan

TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 35 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 Director, Litigation & Enforcement (the “Director”) is proposing to issue a permanent compliance order on Sukhraj “Sue” Atwal (“Atwal”) prohibiting her from:

Using the titles of “mortgage agent”, “mortgage broker”, their equivalents in another language, a variant or abbreviation of either title, or any description that would reasonably lead to the belief of being a mortgage broker or agent;
Advertising or holding out as being able to assist with mortgages or home financing;
Preparing or assisting in the preparation of mortgage documents, including drafting or editing documents likely to be used in mortgage applications;
Soliciting or having others solicit lenders to lend money for mortgages; or
Carrying on the business of dealing or trading 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 two administrative penalties in the total amount of $50,000 on Atwal:

One administrative penalty of $30,000 for describing herself in a way that may reasonably be expected to lead to the belief that she is a mortgage agent or broker, contrary to section 11 of the Act; and
One administrative penalty of $20,000 for failing to cooperate with the Chief Executive Officer’s investigation, contrary to section 30(6) of the Act.

AND TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 39 of the Act, and by delegated authority from the Chief Executive, the Director is proposing to impose two administrative penalties in the total amount of $30,000 on Baiju Vijayaraghavan:

One administrative penalty of $20,000 for giving false or deceptive information or documents when dealing in mortgages, contrary to section 43(2) of the Act; and
One administrative penalty of $10,000 for dealing in mortgages outside of his authorized brokerage contrary to section 2(3) of the Act.

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 $10,000 on Balwinder Chouhan for dealing in mortgages without 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 35(3), 35(4), 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 reasons for the proposal by the Director to impose a compliance order on Sukhraj Atwal (“Atwal”) and to impose administrative penalties totaling $50,000 on Atwal, $30,000 on Baiju Vijayaraghavan (“Vijayaraghavan”), and $10,000 on Balwinder Chouhan (“Chouhan”).
In 2022, Vijayaraghavan, Atwal and Chouhan were all involved in mortgage transactions related to a property in Whitby (the “Whitby Property”). Vijayaraghavan provided fake gift letters to the Bank of Nova Scotia (“Scotiabank”) to secure a first mortgage for the purchasers of the Whitby Property (the “Borrowers”). A private second mortgage was registered to cover the amount that had purportedly been gifted.
The gift letters said that Vijayaraghavan and the second lender were related to the Borrowers and that they had gifted the Borrowers funds. They had not made gifts and were not related. Atwal provided the fake letters to Vijayaraghavan. Vijayaraghavan acted outside his authorized brokerage for both mortgages. Chouhan acted as a mortgage broker for the second mortgage and was paid for doing so but is not licensed.
Atwal initially responded to FSRA’s email and inquiry letter but then stopped responding to FSRA’s emails or calls. She never provided the requested records or attended the required interview.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Parties

Atwal is not and has never been a mortgage agent or broker.
In August 2013, Atwal applied to be licensed as a mortgage agent. The Financial Services Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse the licence based on Atwal’s outstanding criminal charges and her non-disclosure of the charges on her licence application. She did not seek a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.
Vijayaraghavan was a licensed mortgage broker (licence # M15001291). He was first licensed as a mortgage agent on June 15, 2015, and became a mortgage broker in 2023. His licence expired on March 31, 2025.
From April 1, 2016, until the expiry of his licence, Vijayaraghavan was authorized to deal on behalf of the mortgage brokerage 2404034 Ontario Inc. (licence # 12521), carrying on business as Dominion Lending Centres The Guardian.
Vijayaraghavan is a licensed real estate agent.
Chouhan is not and has never been a licensed mortgage agent or broker. She is a licensed real estate agent.
HPA Financial Services Inc. (“HPA”) is a federally incorporated company operating in Ontario. HPA maintains a public-facing office in Vaughan, Ontario.
Atwal is a director and owner of HPA. Atwal sometimes presents herself as the “CEO” of HPA. Atwal works out of the HPA office and communicates with the public through HPA-branded means. For instance, her voicemail, business card, and email refer to HPA.

B. The Whitby Property Mortgages

In March 2022, the Borrowers entered into an agreement to purchase the Whitby Property for $1,550,000.
The Borrowers encountered a number of issues impacting their ability to finance the purchase of the Whitby Property. A friend connected them to Vijayaraghavan, who acted as their mortgage broker.
The Borrowers reported paying Vijayaraghavan $25,000 in cash in exchange for arranging the mortgages. The Borrowers also sent Vijayaraghavan $1,000 through Interact eTransfer.
Vijayaraghavan communicated with the Borrowers about the mortgages through his real estate email rather than his brokerage email. The Borrowers mortgages were not brokered through Vijayaraghavan’s brokerage.

i. The First Mortgage

Vijayaraghavan brokered the Borrowers’ first mortgage. Vijayaraghavan relied on Atwal to arrange the first mortgage from a major bank. A bank employee that Atwal knew processed the mortgage. The employee was terminated following an investigation into their conduct related to this transaction.
The bank lent $1,000,000 as the first mortgage for the Whitby Property.
Vijayaraghavan sent the Borrowers two completed gift letters (the “Gift Letters”) for signature. The Gift Letters were provided by Atwal to Vijayaraghavan.
One Gift Letter purported to be from Vijayaraghavan, providing a gift of $80,000 to the Borrowers. The other purported to be from RM, providing a gift of $160,000 to the Borrowers. RM was subsequently the private lender on the second mortgage.
Vijayaraghavan and RM are each shown on the Gift Letters as being the Borrowers “brother” which is false. Neither Vijayaraghavan nor RM actually gifted the Borrowers any money.
The terms of the first mortgage prohibit any secondary financing on the Whitby Property. Another term specifies that the mortgage can be terminated if the bank learns of a misrepresentation in the application.

ii. The Second Mortgage

The second mortgage was a private mortgage for $264,000 with a term of six months.
Vijayaraghavan was the Borrowers’ broker on the second mortgage for the Whitby Property. He presented them with the mortgage documents and information about the mortgage. However, he did not process the mortgage through his brokerage.
Chouhan recruited the second mortgage lender for the Whitby Property, RM. RM is Chouhan’s neighbour. Chouhan coordinated RM making the loan, such as scheduling RM’s meeting with the lawyer to execute the relevant paperwork.
The Borrowers paid a lender/broker fee of $26,400 for the second mortgage. Chouhan received $5,280 for acting as “broker”. The balance was shared between RM and HPA.
After the six-month period, the Borrowers needed to renew the second mortgage. Vijayaraghavan continued to work with the Borrowers. Chouhan communicated with RM and the lawyer about the renewal. The renewal was not completed and the second mortgage was later paid out.

C. Borrowers Forced to Sell

The combined monthly mortgage payments on the Whitby Property were not affordable for the Borrowers. They sold the Whitby Property in June 2023 for $1,300,000. This was $250,000 less than they paid the year before.

D. Atwal Holding Out

Atwal presents herself as a mortgage agent or broker. Business cards with Atwal’s name and HPA listed say “NEED A MORTGAGE? Or just a second opinion?” along with other services purportedly offered by HPA.
Atwal’s business cards are displayed on the front desk at the HPA office.
Atwal presented herself to Vijayaraghavan, Chouhan, and others as someone who had been in the mortgage industry for a long time and who has connections to many lenders.
Communications from Atwal give the impression that Atwal is authorized to work as a mortgage agent or broker. For example, emails signed by Atwal and sent to consumers request supporting documents to help secure a mortgage.

E. FSRA Investigation and Atwal’s Failure to Respond

A FSRA Investigator sent an inquiry letter to Atwal by email on January 13, 2026. The inquiry letter required her to provide certain listed records and to attend an interview with FSRA. Atwal had previously spoken over the phone with a FSRA Investigator and was aware that the inquiry letter was coming. She confirmed her email address.
Atwal initially responded to FSRA’s email with the inquiry letter but then stopped responding to FSRA’s emails or calls. She never provided the requested records or attended the required interview.

III. CONTRAVENTIONS OR FAILURES TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT

A. Vijayaraghavan Provided False or Deceptive Information

Section 43(2) of the Act states that no mortgage broker or agent shall give, assist in giving, or induce or counsel another person or entity to give or assist in giving any false or deceptive information or document when carrying on the business of dealing in mortgages in Ontario.
Vijayaraghavan knew the Gift Letters were false. He had not made a gift to the Borrowers and was not their brother. He knew RM was not their brother and that RM had also not made a gift to the Borrowers.
Vijayaraghavan provided the Gift Letters to the Borrowers and advised them to sign the letters. He assisted in submitting the Gift Letters to the bank despite knowing they were false. He knew that presenting the second mortgage funds as a gift would reduce the perceived risk of the mortgage to bank and encourage them to make the loan on favourable terms.
Accordingly, the Director is satisfied that Vijayaraghavan breached section 43(2) of the Act.

B. Vijayaraghavan Dealt in Mortgages Outside of His Brokerage

Section 2(3) of the Act states that “No individual shall deal in mortgages in Ontario for remuneration, whether direct or indirect, as an employee or otherwise, unless he or she has a mortgage broker’s or agent’s licence and is acting on behalf of a mortgage brokerage or is exempted from the requirement to have such a licence.”
Vijayaraghavan did not broker the Whitby Mortgages through his brokerage. Neither of the mortgages were processed through his brokerage, and Vijayaraghavan even avoided using his brokerage email in his dealings with the Borrowers.
Vijayaraghavan was directly paid for his services as a broker by the Borrowers.
Accordingly, the Director is satisfied that Vijayaraghavan dealt in mortgages outside of his authorized brokerage.

C. Atwal’s Holding Out as a Mortgage Agent or Broker

Section 11(4) of the Act states that “No person or entity shall use in Ontario a description that might reasonably be expected to lead to the belief that he, she or it is a mortgage broker unless he, she or it is licensed as a mortgage broker.”
Section 11(6) of the Act similarly restricts the use of descriptions that may lead to the belief that a person is a mortgage agent.
The Director is satisfied that Atwal contravened the Act by holding herself out as a mortgage agent or broker. Through her conduct and presentation to the public, including her business cards, she suggested that she could do the activities of a mortgage broker or agent. She cannot.

D. Atwal Failed to Cooperate with FSRA’s Investigation

Section 30(1) of the Act authorizes FSRA to make inquiries and conduct examinations of the business and activities of licensees and those required to have a licence to ensure they are in compliance.
Section 30(6) of the Act requires a person to whom a section 30 inquiry is directed to answer questions, produce documents or records, and provide assistance to FSRA in the manner and within the period specified by FSRA.
Atwal held herself out as a mortgage agent or broker and accordingly was required to have a licence under the Act and properly the subject of an inquiry letter. She corresponded with FSRA about the inquiry letter and was clearly aware of it.
The Director is satisfied that Atwal received the inquiry letter and failed to provide the information and responses required of her.

E. Chouhan’s Unlicensed Activity

Section 2(3) of the Act provides that no individual shall deal in mortgages for direct or indirect remuneration without a mortgage agent or broker licence, or without a valid exemption.
Section 2(1) of the Act defines dealing in mortgages to include soliciting another person to borrow money on real property, providing information about a prospective borrower to a prospective mortgage lender, assessing a prospective borrower on behalf of a prospective mortgage lender, and negotiating or arranging mortgages on behalf of another person or entity.
Chouhan solicited RM, her neighbour, to lend money for the second mortgage. She received a fee of 2% of the mortgage amount. Chouhan also attempted to arrange a renewal of the second mortgage.
Chouhan did not have a mortgage agent or broker licence, nor was she covered by an exemption. The simple referral exemption provided in section 2 of O. Reg. 407/07 does not apply because, among other things, Chouhan did not limit her activities to providing a name and contact number, nor did she provide the required written disclosure to RM.
The Director is satisfied that Chouhan engaged in unlicensed mortgage brokering for remuneration.

IV. GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING COMPLIANCE ORDER ON ATWAL

Section 35(1) of the Act provides that a compliance order can be issued on a person if the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate is satisfied that the person:
1. is committing any act or pursuing any course of conduct that contravenes or does not comply with a requirement established under this Act;
2. is pursuing any course of conduct that might reasonably be expected to result in a state of affairs that would contravene or not comply with a requirement established under this Act; or
3. has committed any act or pursued any course of conduct that contravenes or does not comply with a requirement established under this Act.
As described above, Atwal has contravened the Act. In particular, she has held herself out as a mortgage agent or broker and continues to do so.
Further, by providing the fake Gift Letters to Vijayaraghavan for the first mortgage on the Whitby Property Atwal assisted him with violating section 43(2) of the Act.
The public remains at risk. The proposed compliance order will help protect the public from an unlicensed person holding out as a mortgage agent or broker. Further, lenders will be protected from the provision of false documents and borrowers from the risks of being placed in unsuitable mortgages.
The Director is satisfied that the conditions under section 35(1) have been met and that a compliance order should be issued against Atwal.

V. GROUNDS FOR IMPOSING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES

The Director is satisfied that imposing administrative penalties on Vijayaraghavan, Atwal and Chouhan 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.
Imposing administrative penalties on Vijayaraghavan, Atwal and Chouhan will encourage their compliance with the Act and compliance by others, including licensees and non-licensees. Further, the imposition of administrative penalties will prevent the actual or expected economic benefits that Vijayaraghavan, Atwal and Chouhan received related to their contraventions.
In determining the amount 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.
In respect of the first criterion, the Director is satisfied that Vijayaraghavan and Atwal behaved intentionally. Vijayaraghavan had a decade of experience as a mortgage agent and broker and knew that he could not work outside of his authorized brokerage but still did so. He intentionally shielded the transactions from his brokerage by using another email. Further, he knew that the Gift Letters were fake and that they would encourage the bank into lending money.
Atwal knew that she was not licensed to deal or trade in mortgages. She was well aware of the need to be licensed and of the licensing regime for mortgage agents and brokers given that she had previously applied to become licensed. Similarly, she was informed that she was required to comply with FSRA’s inquiries and still chose not to do so.
Chouhan’s conduct was negligent or reckless. Chouhan is a licensed real estate agent and should have known about restrictions on her ability to deal in mortgages, including soliciting lenders.
In respect of the second criterion, the Director believes that Vijayaraghavan and Atwal have caused significant harm. The Borrowers were placed in an unsuitable mortgage and forced to sell their home at a significant loss. The lender was denied the opportunity to properly assess risk and was subjected to an increased risk of default on the first mortgage.
Further, confidence in the mortgage brokering profession is harmed by the submission of fake documents by licensees, and by non-licensees portraying themselves as brokers or agents authorized to deal in mortgages.
Chouhan has also caused harm by brokering a mortgage without being licensed. By soliciting and brokering the second mortgage, she enabled the harm to the Borrowers and put RM at risk because he did not have the protections of using a licensed brokerage, including suitability assessment, risk disclosures and insurance. Chouhan also harmed confidence in the sector by engaging in activities without being licensed despite being a real estate professional who ought to have known better.
In respect of the third criterion, the Director is not aware of any mitigating conduct by Vijayaraghavan, Atwal or Chouhan. Atwal, in particular, has actively avoided participating in FSRA’s investigation despite being required to comply with an inquiry letter. Rather than mitigating her conduct, she tried to prevent the investigation of it.
In respect of the fourth criterion, Vijayaraghavan, Atwal and Chouhan each benefited economically from the mortgage transactions on the Whitby Property or expected to do so. Vijayaraghavan received payments from the Borrowers for arranging the mortgages. Chouhan received a portion of the “Lender/Broker Fee” on the second mortgage and Atwal would have expected to benefit from a portion of the amount received by HPA.
In respect of the fifth criterion, the Director is unaware of any further contraventions or failures to comply in the preceding five years by Vijayaraghavan, Atwal or Chouhan.
The Director is satisfied, having regarded all the circumstances, that the proposed amounts of the administrative penalties are not punitive in nature, and the amounts are consistent with one or both purposes of section 38 of the Act.
Such further and other reasons as may come to the Director’s attention.

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, March 24, 2026

Original signed by

Elissa Sinha
Director, Litigation & 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.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO IMPOSE COMPLIANCE ORDER AND TO IMPOSE ADMISTRATIVE PENALTIES