B.C. regulator fines man $100,000 for unlicensed property management

Surrey is seen in this file image. (Murray Titus / CTV Vancouver)

B.C.'s real estate regulator has ordered an unlicensed property manager to pay a $100,000 fine and more than $25,000 in enforcement expenses over his "flagrant disregard for the regulatory regime."

The B.C. Financial Services Authority reached its decision on sanctions in the case of Glenn Richard Campbell late last month. The decision was published online last week. 

The case against Campbell began with a complaint from a Surrey bylaw officer in October 2017. The complainant told the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate – the predecessor to the BCFSA – that Campbell had admitted he was not a licensed property manager while dealing with the bylaw officer on a matter related to a Surrey property.

Moreover, he indicated to the bylaw officer that he had been "working as a property manager for five years running a variety of properties around the Lower Mainland," according to BCFSA chief hearing officer Andrew Pendray's decision.

The OSRE received a second complaint about Campbell in March 2019. This one came from a woman who rented a property in Surrey that Campbell managed, and specified that she understood him to be unlicensed, according to the decision.

Pendray concluded in an earlier decision on liability that Campbell and his company, Greater Realty Care Property Management, were not and had never been licensed property managers in B.C., but had nonetheless been providing such services since at least 2013.

Pendray also concluded that Campbell had withheld or concealed information from investigators when they contacted him in 2020 regarding his unlicensed activities.

'SPECIFIC DETERRENCE' WARRANTED

BCFSA investigators sought a $100,000 penalty for Campbell, arguing that his conduct showed a "disregard for the regulatory regime."

In his sanctions decision, Pendray agreed.

"In my view, the respondent’s apparent willingness to admit that not only was he providing unlicensed rental property management services, but that he had been doing so for an extended period of time, provides some insight into the respondent’s views as to the need to follow the regulatory regime," the decision reads.

"In short, I consider the respondent had determined, on his own, that it was not necessary for him to be licensed, despite having an awareness that licensing for rental property management services existed."

Moreover, Pendray noted, investigators had found invoices from Campbell's company dating to January 2021, seven months after the regulator first contacted him regarding the complaints it had received about his activity.

This, too, was evidence of Campbell's disregard for the regulatory regime, according to the hearing officer.

Pendray also found that Campbell had told the OSRE that it was investigating the "wrong person," despite knowing that claim was untrue.

"That he also continued to provide unlicensed rental property management services for an extended period of time subsequent to (July 2020), makes this a case in which it is clear that the respondent had a flagrant disregard for the regulatory regime," the decision reads. "This calls for specific deterrence of the respondent."

Pendray found Campbell likely earned more than $80,000 for his unlicensed work, which included collecting rent, acting as a liaison between owners and tenants, advertising properties for rent, serving tenants with eviction notices, working with bylaw officers on behalf of property owners and appearing before the Residential Tenancy Board as a "landlord," among other things.

Campbell's earnings were an aggravating factor to his conduct, according to Pendray, who dismissed possible mitigating factors such as Campbell's lack of a discipline record with the BCFSA and the lack of evidence of harm caused by his unlicensed work.

"There is, in this case, no evidence that any specific or significant harm resulted from the respondent’s misconduct," the decision reads. "However, the respondent was creating a risk of harm in providing the services that he did while being unlicensed and thereby operating outside of the regulatory regime."

Pendray ordered Campbell to pay a $100,000 penalty to the BCFSA within 90 days of his decision. He also ordered Campbell to pay $25,805.26 in enforcement expenses within the same timeframe.

"I have no doubt that the administrative penalty sought by BCFSA would impose a heavy burden on the respondent," Pendray writes in his decision.

"Having considered the prior discipline decisions and consent orders cited by BCFSA, I accept, however, that the imposition of that heavy burden, and the penalty being sought, is appropriate in the circumstances."