Sunshine Coast, B.C. (Canva)
QUICK HITS
- Two B.C. Realtors were fined over $200,000 for failing to disclose key restrictions in a 2017 waterfront property sale on the Sunshine Coast.
- Acting as dual agents, they marketed the cabin as “legal non-conforming” without informing buyers of its seasonal-use limitations on Crown foreshore land.
- The B.C. Financial Services Authority found their actions misleading, ordering penalties and remedial education for violating disclosure and client care standards.
Two Realtors in B.C. are facing more than $200,000 in fines for failing to disclose information to clients related to a 2017 oceanfront property sale on the Sunshine Coast.
According to a consent order by the B.C. Financial Services Authority (BCFSA), Joel Patrick O’Reilly and Denise Anne Brynelsen with Royal LePage Sussex in Sechelt acted as dual agents, representing both the buyers and sellers in the sale.
Property in question
The waterfront property included an 800-square-foot cabin and a dock, both built on Crown foreshore land in Pender Harbour, B.C. Foreshore land, the area between high and low tide, is subject to strict provincial regulations.
According to the consent order, the cabin had initially been built as a shed in the 1960s. Over time, the previous owners remodelled it into a residence, without obtaining permits. In 2010, the sellers signed a tenure agreement with the provincial government, acknowledging that the cabin was only allowed to be used as a seasonal residence. The government had also communicated that the foreshore tenure was temporary and subject to renewal or revocation.
The sellers did not share this information with the agents at the time of listing.
Professional misconduct
O’Reilly and Brynelsen eventually learned of these restrictions, not through the sellers, but through an inquiry on behalf of a prospective buyer. A foreshore tenure consultant confirmed the cabin was “not legalized” and classified as a “non-conforming use,” and “that structures on Crown foreshore are generally not approved.”
Despite being made aware of the cabin’s non-conforming status through a government email in 2017, O’Reilly dismissed these concerns, writing in an email to the sellers he thought there was “zero chance of a government agency removing the cabin.”
The agents marketed the cabin as “legal non-conforming” without disclosing the provincial restrictions or the seasonal limitation. On MLS, the property was described as “freehold nonstrata” and highlighted the cabin as a “completely renovated beach cottage.”
According to the consent order, the buyers, who eventually purchased the cabin for $900,000, asked about foreshore tenure and the possibility of rebuilding. The agents assured them that the tenure transfer would be straightforward and that the cabin’s legal non-conforming status allowed rebuilding within its existing footprint.
After the sale
After the sale, the provincial government refused to transfer the foreshore tenure to the new owners until the cabin was removed. The buyers filed a complaint with BCFSA in 2019, ultimately building a new home on the property in 2023.
In the consent order, O’Reilly and Brynelsen admitted to advertising the property with “false and/or misleading representations” and failing to disclose “material information” regarding the cabin’s use. They also admitted to providing inaccurate information to the buyers and neglecting to conduct necessary verifications about the property’s restrictions.
As a result, the agents were found to have violated the Real Estate Services Act’s requirements for accuracy, honesty and client care in advertising, disclosure and due diligence.
They each agreed to pay a $100,000 penalty and $2,500 in enforcement costs to BCFSA, and are required to complete a real estate trading services remedial education course.
“The licensees’ failure to disclose information was harmful to their clients”
“It is imperative that licensees disclose all pertinent information to their clients about a property or transaction,” said Jonathan Vandall, BCFSA’s senior vice president of compliance and enforcement in a press release.
“In this case, the licensees’ failure to disclose information was harmful to their clients. The penalties handed down are reflective of the severity of their misconduct and serve as a reminder to all real estate licensees about the importance of disclosing crucial information to clients.”
Jordana is the editor of Real Estate Magazine. You can reach her by email.
They deserved the punishment however the real crime is the harm to the buyer – the value of the property would have been significantly affected by the actual ownership rights and as such the province gets 200,000$ in fines and the board gets 5,000$ while the buyer gets nothing –
The system should automatically be required to make the buyer ( or seller) whole at expense if the broker who causes them injury – the fines should cover those losses –
I agree Don, the fines that are imposed a misdirected in many cases. These are the agents we need out of our business so we can stop reading these articles.
That would be up to a court to decide. The council can only enforce the legislation.
Licenses should be revoked for these kinds of violations.
There should be damages awarded to the purchaser. The difference between the real value and what they paid should be awarded. That would keep only the professionals in business.
I agree in principle, The Province has no right to profit from these errors, internional or otherwise and any “punishment funds”‘ should be redirected to the injured party. I expect that the buyers will still be able to attack the Realtors in court for any value lost due to the lack of disclosure. maybe I am wrong on this?
Edit: Intentional, not internional (is that a word)?
I agree with other comments. Revoke their real estate licenses and the Buyer’s should get the $200,000 ! or whatever difference in value the property was truly worth.
This Might Not Be Popular But Lots of Questions Here – Not to defend the actions, but sounds like real estate “ballpark” thinking was at play where maybe thought “OK” based on loose policy and procedure elsewhere. But no doubt due diligence communication was required for seller/buyers…..but
* why would anyone knowingly buy a property on foreshore land?
* who in their right mind would build on a plot subject to high and low tide ?
* how many acres was the property – it sounds like the “cabin” was an appendage on a dock
* the buyers ultimately built a new home on the property in 2023 – where was this ? Was this a BC policy reversal?
* where did the $200k go – what did the buyers get out of it –
These questions need to be answered in assessing the affair
Far too often govt decides to pass bylaws and legislation that allows it to benefit when a property owner is deemed in violation however in reality the permit fees. restriction’s, need for engineer approved sketches, mandatory need to use municipal or provincial licensed professionals ( eg arborist to verify a tree is dead) does little other then create expensive red tape govt despotism.
The age of common sense and common law property rights has been hijacked in the name of egalitarian race to destroy the foundation of Canadas wealth – which was founded on private property ownership and used of those lands to create wealth .
Why are they still able to keep their licenses? The reason you hire a Realtor is to help you Know what questions to ask and to find the answers to all questions !
How do you show Realtors and the public that if the Realtors code of ethics isn’t followed , there are repercussions!
So it looks like the seller screwed the realtor. The buyer found out more than the realtor?