When regulators become aware that unregistered individuals may be performing restricted procedures or holding themselves out as registrants, they sometimes issue public notices. The notice might be as innocuous as alerting the public that the named individual is not registered. Sometimes the notice goes further.
In Kamra v. Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 5685 (CanLII) the notice went a lot further. While Kamra was a registered real estate salesperson, he was not licensed to conduct mortgage brokering activities. In a posting on its website, the regulator said that it: “is warning consumers not to do business with” Kamra. The notice also said: “It has also been reported that consumers have been pressured into signing illegal releases prohibiting them from approaching the regulatory authorities.” Kamra took most objection to the following paragraph:
If you believe you may have been a victim of fraud involving Kamra, please contact your local police department. If you have obtained a mortgage arranged by Kamra, you may also submit a complaint to FSRA [the regulator].
Kamra brought an application for judicial review and sought an interim order to have the public warning notice taken down pending the court hearing. In declining to do so, the Court made the following points:
- The onus was on Kamra to demonstrate the need for the interim order.
- Kamra did not present a strong case that he would succeed on his application for judicial review, which is a process for reviewing statutory decisions. The posting of the warning on the website was not a statutorily directed decision. “The decisions did not affect the legal rights, interests, property, privileges, or liberty of the applicants. Reputational damage in the circumstances of this case did not give rise to a right of judicial review.”
- The Court was concerned that the evidence of irreparable harm tendered by Kamra was vague and speculative. However, the Court was prepared to accept that there would likely be some harm to his practice as a real estate salesperson.
- On the balance of convenience, the Court noted that the essence of the notice was that Kamra was not entitled to offer mortgage products, which was accurate. However, the Court was concerned about the regulator’s delay in taking action. The Court said: “Therefore, the interest and protection of the public must be considered and given some weight under this branch of the test. However, the delay in dealing with the complaints made against Mr. Kamra and in publishing the Public Notice suggest that the public interest should not be given too much weight. In my view, the balance of convenience does not strongly favour either party because the harm on each side of the balance does not substantially outweigh the other.”
This is just an interim decision. However, it gives some indication of how courts view notices to the public of illegal practice or holding out.
