In 1979, Ontario’s Divisional Court said that an allegation of professional misconduct “is not in the form of [a criminal] indictment and it should not be approached in an overly technical manner.” See: Re Stevens and Law Society of Upper Canada, 1979 CanLII 1749 (ON SC).
That point was reiterated recently by the same court in Deeb v. Real Estate Council of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 1100 (CanLII). A real estate broker was alleged to have acted inappropriately when representing both the seller and the buyers in a transaction. The buyers complained that the broker told them there were multiple offers on a house when, in fact, theirs was the only one. The buyers significantly increased the amount they offered as a result. The broker disputed the complaint. A finding was made against the broker who was fined $14,000 and directed to pay costs of $6,000.
The Allegation Statement indicated that the buyers signed the offer after receiving an email from the broker that there were three offers. However, before the hearing, will say statements were disclosed indicating that the offer was signed the day previously following a verbal statement by the broker indicating that there were three offers. The email was confirmation of the verbal statement given the day before. The Allegation Statement was not amended. The broker argued that the allegations had not been proved because the evidence was inconsistent with the Allegation Statement.
The Divisional Court held that there was no unfairness:
The proceedings were not a criminal prosecution, and the Allegation Statement is not the equivalent of particulars in an indictment. Well before the actual hearing of the matter on the merits, Ms. Deeb [the broker] was aware of the details of the allegations the Complainants were making. The fact that these details may have changed was a matter that Ms. Deeb could and may have pursued in trying to undermine the credibility of the Complainants. The Discipline Committee ultimately accepted the evidence of the Complainants and found that Ms. Deeb had breached the Code. It was entitled to do so even though the Complainants’ evidence as given at the hearing did not accord with the particulars set out in the Allegation Statement. Ms. Deeb had adequate notice of the case she had to meet and an opportunity to test that case and put her own version before the Discipline Committee. There was no breach of procedural fairness.
The Court also found that the other technical arguments made by the broker (e.g., late disclosure resulting in an adjournment being requested without a formal motion; “doctored” documents because one document was placed behind the wrong tab of a brief) also had no merit.
When it comes to particulars and disclosure by a regulator to a registrant, the bottom line is whether the registrant understands the essence of the case against them.