Case information

Administrative law — Permits and licences — Law of professions — Criminal history — Application for issue of residential real estate broker’s licence refused — Right to hearing de novo before Court of Québec — Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in its interpretation of s. 43 of Real Estate Brokerage Act and s. 83.1 of Courts of Justice Act, in finding that it was not appropriate to proceed under Book II of Code of Civil Procedure of Quebec or de novo — Whether Court of Appeal erroneously applied principle of consistency between professional and quasi-professional orders set out in Lebel v. Kanafani, 2013 QCCA 200 — Whether Court of Appeal correctly assessed scope of argument that concerned denial of justice — Real Estate Brokerage Act, CQLR, c. C-73.2, s. 43 — Courts of Justice Act, CQLR, c. T-16, s. 83.1.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

In November 2022, Éliza Rossi received a decision from the Licence Issue and Maintenance Committee (“LIMC”) of the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec refusing to issue her a residential real estate broker’s licence. The LIMC found that the criminal offences she committed in the past were related to brokerage activities. Ms. Rossi contested that decision before the Court of Québec, applying for, in particular, the holding of a trial de novo in order to adduce evidence of good conduct and good character. The Court of Québec dismissed that application, finding that the legislative scheme instead provides for a review on the record. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the contestation had to be resolved from the evidence produced before the LIMC. Hans Shelso, an intervenor before the Court of Appeal as a friend of the court and a real estate broker whose licence had been revoked, now seeks leave to be substituted as applicant in order to appeal the decision to the Court.