In Real Estate Council of Alberta v More, 2026 ABKB 459 (CanLII), the regulator received several complaints about a former registrant’s conduct which raised serious concerns, including misappropriating client money. Before being notified of the complaints, the registrant had permitted his licence to lapse. When notified of them, the former registrant stated that he would not be responding, and that his “doors” were closing for health reasons. The former registrant initiated no further contact with the regulator.
Some sixteen months later, the regulator attempted to serve a notice of hearing on the former registrant by registered mail at his last known address in its files. The legislation permitted service “by sending the document by recorded mail addressed to the licensee at the last business or residential address provided by the licensee to the Board or Industry Council, as the case may be”. The Interpretation Act stated that registered mail “includes any form of mail for which the addressee or a person on behalf of the addressee is required to acknowledge receipt of the mail by providing a signature.”
The letter was returned because the former registrant had moved or was unknown at that address. Attempts to locate the former registrant and serve him personally were also unsuccessful.
At the hearing, the regulator argued that the former registrant had been adequately served with the notice of hearing because it had been “sent” to the last known address he provided. The panel determined that the notice to the former registrant was insufficient and declined to hear the allegations because:
- It was known that the former registrant had not actually received the notice of hearing and there was no information to suggest that he had knowledge of it.
- Reading the enabling statute and Interpretation Act together, sending the document without an indication of its receipt was insufficient.
- The fact that the former registrant had notice of some of the complaints is insufficient to imply notice that a formal discipline hearing was going to take place.
- A duty upon registrants to provide current contact information does not mean that sending a notice to a former registrant’s address contained in the regulator’s records is adequate service.
- The public interest in regulators’ being able to proceed to discipline with serious allegations does not override a registrant’s right to notice of discipline proceedings.
- Failure of the former registrant to provide a new address does not establish purposeful evasion.
- Procedural fairness requires more, especially for such serious allegations.
On appeal, while the Court indicated that it might not have reached the same conclusion as the hearing panel on all of these points, it also did not find its decision to be unreasonable.
The regulator also asked the Court to order dispensing of service (or for substituted service) of the notice of hearing. The Court said that, even if it had the authority to do so, it would only make such an order where substituted service is likely to bring the document to the attention of the intended recipient or if service is unlikely to make any difference (as the recipient would likely not oppose the order sought). Neither condition applied. The Court was also concerned about the regulator’s delay in proceeding with the matter.
While this Alberta decision is founded on its individual circumstances and the wording of its specific legislative provisions, it is a useful reminder that notice expectations for disciplinary proceedings should not be treated casually.
