Citation  
Decision Date:  
Reporting Date:  
BONWICK (Re), 2022 ABRECA 022  
February 24, 2022  
March 31, 2022  
Case 006025, 007825, 008395, 008556  
THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ALBERTA  
IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing under Part 3 of the REAL ESTATE ACT, R.S.A. 2000, c.R-5  
(the “Real Estate Act”)  
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing regarding the conduct of SHELLEY BONWICK,  
Real Estate Associate, currently not registered, previously registered with 1853147 Alberta  
Ltd. o/a Engel & Volkers Calgary; 2008863 Alberta Ltd. o/a The Alberta Collection; The  
Alberta Collection Inc.; Grand Realty & Management Ltd. o/a Grand Realty; Discover Real  
Estate Ltd.  
Hearing Panel Members:  
Appearances:  
[K.K], Chair (Public Member)  
[S.P] (Industry Member)  
[B.R] (Industry Member)  
Tracy Leonardo, Case Presenter on behalf of the Executive  
Director of the Real Estate Council of Alberta  
Shelley Bonwick, on her own behalf  
March 2nd - March 13th, 2020  
Hearing Date:  
Location:  
Real Estate Council of Alberta  
1506 – 11 Avenue SW, Calgary, Alberta T3C 0M9  
DECISION ON CONDUCT DESERVING OF SANCTION  
INTRODUCTION  
1.  
2.  
Pursuant to the Real Estate Act, RSA 2000, c. R-5 and its Regulations and Rules, the  
powers of the Real Estate Council of Alberta (“RECA”) include setting and enforcing  
standards for the real estate industry and the business of real estate industry members in  
Alberta as RECA determines necessary to promote the integrity of the industry, and to  
protect consumers affected by the industry.  
In this capacity the RECA Executive Director (“ED”) issued a Notice of Hearing dated  
January 16, 2020 to Shelley Bonwick. The Notice of Hearing alleges conduct deserving of  
sanction for breaches of the Real Estate Act and the Real Estate Act Rules.  
1
3.  
4.  
This hearing involves Ms. Bonwick’s alleged conduct in connection with the proposed  
purchase and sale of [Address 1] and [Address 2] beginning in approximately February  
2014, and such other conduct of Ms. Bonwick which is described further in this decision.  
Ms. Bonwick is currently not licenced or registered with the Real Estate Council of Alberta  
(“RECA”). She ceased being registered on September 30, 2018. She was previously  
registered with 1853147 Alberta Ltd. o/a Engel & Volkers Calgary, 2008863 Alberta Ltd.  
o/a The Alberta Collection, The Alberta Collection Inc., Grand Realty & Management Ltd.  
o/a Grand Realty, and Discover Real Estate Ltd.  
5.  
6.  
The parties did not object to the composition of the Hearing Panel.  
Ms. Bonwick was not represented by legal counsel nor anyone else at the hearing. In  
response to specific questions from the Hearing Panel about her being unrepresented, Ms.  
Bonwick confirmed she is aware of her right to legal counsel. When asked if she wished to  
proceed with the hearing unrepresented, she stated she did not wish to proceed, then asked  
for the hearing to be adjourned or to have this hearing discontinued.  
7.  
8.  
The ED and Ms. Bonwick submitted substantial amounts of documentary evidence and  
exhibits in this hearing. The ED also called 12 witnesses who provided viva voce evidence.  
Ms. Bonwick testified on her behalf. All witnesses were affirmed prior to giving evidence.  
The parties also made several applications during the hearing. The Hearing Panel has  
considered all submissions, evidence and applications in making its decision.  
The Hearing Panel notes that on or around December 1, 2020 the Real Estate Act and Real  
Estate Act Rules have replaced “industry member” with “licensee”. The majority of this  
decision was written prior to that change taking effect. Accordingly, this decision refers to  
persons licensed through RECA as an “industry member” or “industry members”.  
EVIDENCE  
9.  
In making its decision, the Hearing Panel considered and weighed all evidence and  
submissions provided by the ED and Ms. Bonwick, including:  
a.  
b.  
c.  
opening statements and closing arguments made by the ED and Ms. Bonwick;  
all documents and records entered as Exhibits;  
all submissions, supporting documents, records and legal authorities in connection  
with all applications the parties made during and after the 10 day hearing;  
d.  
affirmed viva voce testimony from the following witnesses:  
Holly Childs, a RECA investigator since 2015; she investigated cases  
006025, 007825, 008395, and 008556 in relation to Ms. Bonwick;  
2
Anthony Merah, a lawyer retained by JN and NN in 2017 in connection with  
their proposed sale of [Address 2] to MB;  
Rey Umbalin, a residential real estate associate;  
Kristine Semrau, a broker who worked with Ms. Bonwick;  
Cheryl Rumpel, who assisted Holly Childs during the RECA investigation;  
HR, named as buyer in a Residential Purchase Contract involving [Address  
1];  
CE, co-owner of [Address 1];  
AE, co-owner of [Address 1];  
SF, named as buyer in a Residential Purchase Contract involving [Address  
2];  
James Porter, RECA Professional Conduct Review Manager;  
David Lem, broker;  
William Osunde, realtor who represented JN and NN when they purchased  
[Address 2] in 2014;  
RB, HR’s wife and formerly Ms. Bonwick’s assistant;  
Shelley Bonwick;  
(individually and collectively the “evidence”).  
APPLICATION TO ADJOURN THIS HEARING  
10.  
11.  
Ms. Bonwick made an application to adjourn the hearing, and the Case Presenter opposed  
the application.  
The Case Presenter submitted that it would be prejudicial to the ED to adjourn the hearing.  
Ms. Bonwick had legal counsel for several months beginning in or around March 2019.  
She also filed several applications in the Court of Queen’s Bench, including for judicial  
review of her licence suspension, and to direct RECA to proceed with the hearing against  
her. Multiple applications were made to move the hearing along.  
12.  
The Case Presenter also produced emails between RECA and Ms. Bonwick, wherein Ms.  
Bonwick confirmed she was available from January to May 2019, and she asked RECA to  
book her hearing at the earliest possible time. Ms. Bonwick already possessed many of the  
3
documents relating to the conduct hearing due to the litigation she was involved in. The  
Case Presenter submitted that Ms. Bonwick had displayed a pattern of trying to push  
matters forward, and blaming RECA on not moving them forward.  
13.  
The Case Presenter further submitted that this conduct hearing is a complex matter, and it  
will be very lengthy with many witnesses and challenges to reschedule the hearing. Ms.  
Bonwick had legal counsel until December 2019, she had seen RECA’s disclosure  
materials, and she had ample time to find new legal counsel, and she had been referred to a  
self-referral program. Ms. Bonwick only asked the Case Presenter for an adjournment  
approximately one week before the hearing when she saw the ED’s disclosure materials.  
Granting the adjournment request now will have an effect on the conduct proceedings, and  
on the witnesses and complainants.  
14.  
15.  
Ms. Bonwick submitted in response that the Alberta Real Estate Association (“AREA”)  
had provided legal counsel for her a year ago. She was willing and able to proceed with the  
conduct proceedings at that time. However, being unable to work for all this time, and the  
effect this had on her name and reputation, wore her down.  
Ms. Bonwick filed an application with the Court of Queen’s Bench in December 2019,  
seeking, among other remedies, a stay of the RECA Notice of Suspension or a dismissal of  
the cases that form the subject matter of this hearing, or alternatively, direction regarding  
judicial review. She also sought an order for RECA to cease and desist from stating that  
Ms. Bonwick is responsible for putting up and taking down advertisements featuring  
pornography.  
16.  
Ms. Bonwick submitted that she did not renew her licence with RECA in September 2018,  
and she emailed RECA investigators to inform them that her mental health has been  
affected and she is seeking medical attention. RECA then issued a suspension in October or  
November 2018. RECA is seeking information from Ms. Bonwick more often and they are  
giving her shorter timelines to comply. She further submitted that she was hospitalized at  
some point. When she had legal counsel, she sought a stay of her suspension so that she  
could work so that she would be able to mount a defence to the conduct proceedings. She  
ran out of money after the AREA funds for her legal representation had been used up. The  
Alberta Government determined she had a disability. She believes Calgary Legal Guidance  
will provide legal counsel for her and it would be easier for a lawyer to articulate her case.  
17.  
The Hearing Panel considered the submissions and evidence of both parties regarding the  
Industry Member’s application to adjourn the hearing. The Hearing Panel finds that Ms.  
Bonwick confirmed with RECA when she would be available to proceed with the hearing,  
and she asked RECA to book the hearing at the earliest possible time. It also finds that she  
had sufficient time to seek new legal counsel. Also, she only requested an adjournment a  
short time prior to the scheduled hearing date and also on the opening day of the hearing.  
The Hearing Panel finds from the parties’ submissions and evidence that the ED provided  
Ms. Bonwick with notice of the hearing and with the ED’s disclosure well in advance of  
the hearing date. The ED also disclosed well in advance the 14 witnesses it intends to call  
at the hearing. The Hearing Panel accepts the ED’s submissions that adjourning the hearing  
would be prejudicial to the ED, as well as causing unnecessary scheduling challenges. For  
4
the reasons given, Ms. Bonwick’s application to adjourn the hearing is dismissed, and the  
hearing will proceed as scheduled.  
ISSUES  
A.  
Did Ms. Bonwick participate in fraudulent or unlawful activities in connection with the  
provision of services or in any dealings, contrary to section 42(b) of the Real Estate Act  
Rules?  
B.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to disclose to her clients, RB and HR at the earliest practical  
opportunity, any conflict of interest she may have in the course of providing services to or  
in her dealings with a client, contrary to section 41(f) of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
C.  
D.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to provide competent service, contrary to section 41(b) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules?  
Did Ms. Bonwick accept a commission or other remuneration, directly or indirectly,  
outside the brokerage with which she was registered, contrary to section 54(1) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules?  
E.  
Did Ms. Bonwick deal as a mortgage broker between February 2014 and February 2016  
without holding the appropriate authorization for that purpose issued by RECA, contrary to  
section 17(b) of the Real Estate Act?  
F.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to fulfil her fiduciary obligations to her client, contrary to section  
41(d) of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
G.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to disclose to her client, SF at the earliest practical opportunity any  
conflict of interest she may have in the course of providing services to, or in  
her dealings with a client, contrary to section 41(f) of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
H.  
I.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to disclose in a timely manner to the buyer all relevant facts known  
to Ms. Bonwick affecting a property or transaction, contrary to section 58(j) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules?  
Did Ms. Bonwick deal as a mortgage broker between February 2017 and October 2017  
without holding the appropriate authorization for that purpose issued by RECA, contrary to  
section 17(b) of the Real Estate Act?  
J.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to cooperate with the RECA investigator, contrary to section 38(4.1)  
of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
K.  
Did Ms. Bonwick make representations or carry on conduct that was reckless or intentional  
and that misled or deceived any person or was likely to do so, contrary to section 42(a) of  
the Real Estate Act Rules?  
5
L.  
Did Ms. Bonwick trade in real estate in the name of the brokerage with which she was not  
registered, contrary to section 53(a) of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
M.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to hold the appropriate authorization from October 1, 2018 to present  
to trade in real estate as a real estate broker or to advertise herself, or in any way hold  
herself out as, a real estate broker, contrary to section 17(a) and (d) of the Real Estate Act?  
N.  
O.  
Did Ms. Bonwick fail to cooperate with the RECA investigator, contrary to section 38(4)(a)  
of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
Did Ms. Bonwick engage in conduct that undermines public confidence in the industry,  
harms the integrity of the industry, or brings the industry into disrepute, contrary to section  
42(g) of the Real Estate Act Rules?  
FACTS AND EVIDENCE  
18. The ED makes several allegations against Ms. Bonwick in the Notice of Hearing and  
entered as exhibits five binders to support its allegations. The Hearing Panel has reviewed  
and summarized key evidence for each allegation in the order they are made.  
File 006025:  
a)  
You participated in fraudulent or unlawful activities in connection with the provision of  
services or in any dealings, contrary to section 42(b) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i.  
You created a scheme that you represented as “seller financing”, in which buyers  
believed they were buying a home, but they were only tenants, did not acquire  
equity in the property, and the property remained at risk of foreclosure if the owner  
defaulted on the original mortgage.  
19.  
Holly Childs testified that during the course of the RECA investigation against Ms.  
Bonwick, RECA discovered 28 advertisements posted on Kijiji where Ms. Bonwick offers  
seller financing services. Ms. Childs said that seller financing traditionally means that the  
seller provides financing to the buyer to facilitate the transfer of the property. The  
complainants were directed to the properties as a result of these types of advertisements.  
RECA was concerned that the two properties in the complaints against Ms. Bonwick had  
mortgages registered on title, and one of the properties had a high ratio mortgage, and the  
seller would need the lender’s approval to facilitate this type of transaction. Mortgage  
associates, not realtors, would determine the financing terms. Ms. Bonwick does not have a  
mortgage associate licence. RECA takes seller financing seriously, because mortgagees’  
rights need to be protected.  
20.  
Anthony Merah testified that he was retained by JN and NN in 2017 in connection with  
their proposed sale of [Address 2] to MB. Prior to retaining Mr. Merah, they had signed an  
Agreement for Sale with MB. JN and NN indicated to Mr. Merah that MB had taken  
possession of [Address 2] as a tenant and had breached the Agreement for Sale by failing to  
6
make the monthly payments when due. Mr. Merah had never dealt with seller financing in  
residential real estate before this transaction.  
21.  
Realtor Rey Umbalin testified that HR and RB approached him in December 2015 to list  
and sell their house located at [Address 1]. Mr. Umbalin did a title search and discovered  
that HR and RB were not the registered owners of [Address 1], and the actual owners were  
CE and AE. HR and RB showed him the real estate contract and the Agreement for Sale of  
Land that contained seller financing terms. Mr. Umbalin told HR and RB that a seller can  
only finance a property when they have clear title, with no mortgages registered on title. He  
discovered that The Toronto-Dominion Bank had a mortgage registered on title. He  
perused the Agreement for Sale, which he interpreted as being illegal. Mr. Umbalin’s  
understanding of seller financing is that it can only be done when there is clear title. He  
told RB that she had no right to sell the property and this proposed transaction was a  
“sham”. He encouraged HR and RB to speak to a lawyer. Mr. Umbalin made a complaint  
to RECA against Ms. Bonwick on May 16, 2016, because realtors are licenced to protect  
the public, and he felt he had to do something about it.  
22.  
23.  
Kristine Semrau, an associate broker at Engel & Volkers, has never done a seller financing  
deal. She understands seller financing to be where the seller is financing rather than a  
financial institution, and title to a property would only transfer to the buyer when the  
purchase price was paid in full, unless there was an Agreement for Sale. She would hope  
and expect that Ms. Bonwick would explain seller financing to her clients, and that the  
clients should get legal approval.  
David Lem, an associate broker/manager with Engel & Volkers, was never involved in  
seller financing transactions. Seller financing is where a seller of a property would hold the  
mortgage rather than the bank. He believes that with seller financing, the mortgage in  
favour of a bank would be discharged from title and the seller’s mortgage would then  
become the first mortgage. Another term he would use for seller financing is a vendor take  
back mortgage. He believes that he and Ms. Bonwick only had general discussions about  
seller financing, but they never discussed specific details on seller financing transactions.  
He also said that industry members should give the proper amount of advice regarding  
seller financing, and they should not step outside their area of expertise.  
24.  
25.  
CE testified that he understood seller financing to mean that he and his wife, AE would  
carry the mortgage until the purchasers could qualify for their own mortgage. AE testified  
that seller financing is the Agreement for Sale. Ms. Bonwick explained to her that in an  
Agreement for Sale, title does not transfer until the purchasers have made the required  
payments.  
RECA sent Ms. Bonwick a Notification of a Professional Conduct Review dated July 7,  
2016. In that document, RECA asked her to explain her “experience with seller financing  
and practical considerations when dealing with these types of transactions.” Ms. Bonwick’s  
written response dated July 7, 2016 (Binder 3, Tab 21) provided her detailed explanation of  
seller financing. The majority of her explanation is reproduced here:  
7
“Seller financing transactions are difficult and time consuming to execute. Not always, but  
often, seller financing attracts desperate people in difficult situations-sellers who  
desperately need to sell (often to avoid foreclosure of extreme financial loss) or buyers who  
are desperate to purchase but can't at the moment often due to being newly divorced, newly  
self-employed or new to the province.  
“Sellers understand Seller Financing is a sale and that the buyers are not simply glorified  
renters. Sellers are still responsible for paying the bank, taxes and insurance, even if the  
Buyers default, because the contract is between the Sellers and the Buyers and does not  
affect contracts between the Sellers and other parties. Sellers have no problem  
understanding this, and are usually concerned with ensuring that the Buyers honour their  
payment obligations. If they have questions of a legal nature I direct them to consult with  
their lawyer. I also consider if the property I'm Seller Financing has a CMHC insured  
mortgage. If it does, I look at how long ago the mortgage was acquired and whether or not  
the Seller actually resided on the property.  
“CMHC borrowers generally sign a declaration at the time the mortgage is placed,  
indicating the property is intended for their personal residence and not investment  
purposes. Buyers that acquire a property are at risk if the Seller collects a Buyer's monthly  
payment without making the bank payment and allowing the mortgage to go into default. I  
am happy to report that bank fraud and fraudulent Sellers like I just described don't happen  
now (in my experience) but I used to hear of it occurring around 2009 (before they changed  
the mortgage rules).  
“A very small percentage of buyers will default on their contractual obligations and lose  
the property and their deposit. The nature of Seller Financing under Agreements for Sale is  
that the Buyer acquires equity during the term of the agreement, provided that they are not  
default. This is very important to Sellers, as it gives them assurances that the Buyers will  
honour their ongoing payment obligations. In my experience, the smaller the deposit, the  
greater the chance this will happen. I won't consider 0 down or $5,000 down buyers. I will  
tell them they are not quite ready to purchase but I encourage them to come back when they  
have saved more of a down payment. This is neither a law or brokerage policy I am aware  
of, but a guideline I use because I want positive outcomes for all parties involved in my  
transactions.  
“In my experience, even if the buyers swear they can make higher payments or balloon  
payments, buyers with low down payments are often what I call "train wrecks". They will  
go into default every other month, damage the property and cause all sorts of trouble for the  
seller (who maintains his position on title in most cases). I initially advise buyers they will  
need to consider a minimum down payment of 5% down of the purchase price. If they are  
not at 5%, but they can demonstrate they have the financial capability, I may discuss  
scheduled balloon payments.  
“I want all buyers to succeed in successfully transferring title into their own names. All  
seller financing buyers understand that the responsibility to maintain their payments, fix  
their credit and maintain the property is theirs. I want everyone to succeed but if the buyer  
continuously defaults on payments and makes no arrangements to remedy the situation  
8
with the Seller by bringing the arrears of the seller financing account into good standing,  
then the terms of the contract govern and the Seller may exercise their remedies, in the  
same way that a mortgagee can. There is no money back guarantee if they change their  
minds after a few months. In general, there are forfeiture provisions providing that serious  
or repeated default of the Buyers leads to the property reverting back to the Sellers along  
with any equity they would have built up. This is the trade-off that Buyers make, and the  
benefit they receive for this is that they have obtained the property for a set price rather  
than speculating on what the value might be at the end of the contract's term. RB and HR  
were fully aware of this.”  
ii.  
You advertised your services and specialization in seller financing to your buyer  
clients, HR and his wife, RB and to your seller clients, AE and CE [(“the E.’s”)].  
26.  
HR met Ms. Bonwick through his wife, RB. She might have found Ms. Bonwick on Kijiji.  
HR and RB made a Complaint to RECA against Ms. Bonwick with a supporting written  
statement on May 31, 2016 (Binder 3, Tab 3, page 838). In that statement, RB states that  
HR bought [Address 1] “as a sellers financing purchase”. They “used a licenced realtor  
Shelley Bonwick and licenced lawyer [LAWYER] for the purchase of [Address 1]. Ms.  
Bonwick advised that the seller financing was RECA approved; everything’s done as a  
normal purchase would have been on MLS.” She continued that “this is extremely high risk  
to the public and all her ad’s state “RECA approved” so what is the public to think when a  
licence agent has this on her ads. I was CREB certified assistant and fell for it too so  
anyone else can fall victim as I did.”  
27.  
28.  
CE testified that his wife, AE found out about Ms. Bonwick through internet searches.  
They used Ms. Bonwick to sell their property [Address 1]. AE testified that she was  
seeking ways to sell [Address 1] and she saw Ms. Bonwick’s Kijiji advertisements that  
provided sellers with options for selling their home.  
Ms. Bonwick’s written response to RECA dated July 7, 2016 (Binder 3, Tab 21) states that  
AE called her one day as she was researching seller financing on the internet and she  
wanted Ms. Bonwick to list and sell [Address 1] on MLS. “Option A was to sell the  
property conventionally, even if I had to accept a much lower offer and Option B was to  
sell the property at full price with seller financing.” Ms. Bonwick showed [Address 1] to  
RB and “explained to her how my seller financed contracts work and that I couldn’t  
represent both the seller’s (already a client) and her.”  
iii.  
In or around February 2015, you agreed to assist HR and RB with finding a “seller  
financing” arrangement for them on a property with a $10,000 down payment.  
29.  
HR testified that Ms. Bonwick brought [Address 1] to RB’s attention. RB testified that she  
found several Kijiji ads where Ms. Bonwick offered seller financing. She contacted Ms.  
Bonwick about the ads and asked Ms. Bonwick what properties she currently had for a  
$10,000 down payment.  
9
30.  
Ms. Bonwick’s written response to RECA dated July 7, 2016 states that RB told Ms.  
Bonwick she needed to see properties where she only had to pay a $10,000 down payment  
(Binder 3, Tab 21, pages 1042 - 1044). Ms. Bonwick told RB that the only property she had  
for $10,000 down was [Address 1]. Ms. Bonwick presented RB’s offer to AE and the  
parties reached an agreement. HR was in a rush and wanted go over the terms of the  
transaction quickly. This made Ms. Bonwick uncomfortable, because she had told HR and  
RB that it would take at least an hour to review everything.  
iv.  
You then approached your existing clients, [(“the E.’s”)], with the option to  
participate in “seller financing” for the sale of their property at [(“Address 1”)].  
31.  
CE testified that when their listing for [Address 1] expired in February 2015, CE and AE  
continued to have a relationship with Ms. Bonwick. They pursued a different avenue to sell  
[Address 1] by using an Agreement for Sale. Ms. Bonwick assisted them with this. Ms.  
Bonwick brought the purchaser to them. She knew of some purchasers for their property,  
and the purchasers agreed to the conditions in the Agreement for Sale.  
32.  
33.  
Ms. Bonwick confirms that she represented the E.’s in connection with [Address 1] and  
“option A was to sell the property conventionally, even if I had to accept a much lower  
offer and Option B was to sell the property at full price with seller financing.” (Binder 3,  
Tab 21, page 1042).  
AE testified that Ms. Bonwick called her and said there was a potential purchaser for  
[Address 1] and asked if the E.’s would be interested. Ms. Bonwick presented them with  
some rough details of an offer. AE and CE already had an idea of the type of options they  
wanted in an Agreement for Sale. They discussed the down payment and balloon payments  
on the phone with Ms. Bonwick. They were not happy with a $10,000 initial deposit, so  
they negotiated the balloon payments in an effort to reduce the risk.  
v.  
[(“the E.’s”)] had an outstanding high ratio mortgage and were required to reside  
in the property. You did not advise your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], to contact  
their mortgage lender to ensure that they could enter into a “seller financing”  
arrangement with a high ratio mortgage on the property.  
34.  
35.  
CE testified that he did not consult with the bank before selling [Address 1], and Ms.  
Bonwick did not tell CE to consult with the bank. AE had some phone discussions with the  
bank. CE said you don’t need to consult with the bank to sell your house. This was not a  
sale; it was an assignment of sale. He knew that he could legally engage in seller financing  
without consulting with the bank, because he had industry professionals who set up the deal  
for him. He did not know what a high ratio mortgage is.  
AE said she and CE had a mortgage registered on title to [Address 1] at the time of the  
transaction with HR and RB. A title search for [Address 1] dated May 25, 2016 confirms  
that at the time of that transaction the E.’s were the registered owners of [Address 1]  
subject to a mortgage in favour of The Toronto Dominion Bank (Binder 3, Tab 5, pages  
842 - 845). Section 7(iii) of that mortgage confirms it is a high ratio mortgage (Binder 3,  
10  
Tab 6, pages 846 - 877). The general mortgage terms that formed part of their mortgage did  
not change when they renewed the mortgage. She was not sure what a high ratio mortgage  
is. She believed their bank would have the primary interest in their house until AE and CE  
sold it.  
vi.  
You failed to advise your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], about the confidential  
information that you knew about the buyers.  
36.  
37.  
RB testified that when she and Ms. Bonwick did the walkthrough of [Address 1], Ms.  
Bonwick asked her if she wanted to be her assistant and to bring her connections with her.  
She worked as Ms. Bonwick’s assistant in 2015.  
CE testified that Ms. Bonwick did not explain much about her history with HR and RB.  
She had met them previously through some sort of real estate relationship, but he doesn’t  
recall her mentioning how long she knew them. Ms. Bonwick brought HR and RB to the  
E.’s. In addition to CE’s testimony, Ms. Bonwick states in her written response to RECA  
dated July 7, 2016 that she had already spoken with HR and RB years before March 2015  
(Binder 3, Tab 21, pages 1041 - 1044).  
vii.  
You lied to your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], about the buyer’s financial  
information, the status of the sale of their current residence, and whether the buyers  
smoked, which would affect the seller’s home insurance.  
38.  
39.  
CE testified that he and AE wanted any interested buyer to be a non-smoker, because they  
were non-smokers, their insurance didn’t cover smokers and they would get a better  
insurance premium if the buyers were non-smokers.  
AE testified that she and CE were not happy when Ms. Bonwick presented them with HR’s  
and RB’s offer of a $10,000 initial deposit. Ms. Bonwick told AE and CE that HR and RB  
were selling their property so that they could afford to pay more money in three months.  
Ms. Bonwick told AE that HR and RB had a nice property in Calgary which they hadn’t  
sold yet, but when they sold it they would be in very good financial position and would  
easily be able to make payments. AE and CE are non-smokers and they didn’t want  
smokers in their house because it would devalue their property. They also had non-smoking  
insurance on [Address 1].  
40.  
RB testified that she doesn’t know why Ms. Bonwick sent her a text indicating she told AE  
and CE that RB doesn’t smoke. RB smokes and everyone knows it, and she didn’t tell Ms.  
Bonwick to lie to AE and CE about her smoking (Binder 3, Tab 10, page 949). Ms.  
Bonwick stated to RECA that she explained to the E.’s that HR and RB didn’t smoke  
(Binder 3, Tab 21, page 1043). Ms. Bonwick also texted RB on March 10, 2015 and said  
she told the E.’s that HR and RB don’t smoke (Binder 3, Tab 10, page 949).  
viii. You advised your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], that they should inflate the purchase  
price of the property at [(“Address 1”)] because of the “seller financing” option  
available to potential buyers.  
11  
41.  
CE testified that he and AE reduced the listing price on [Address 1] three times between  
November 2014 and February 2015 because their listings weren’t generating any interest.  
They listed the property for more than the appraisal and comparative market analysis  
amounts because of the seller financing option. The MLS Feature Sheet for [Address 1]  
shows that the E.’s decreased the listing price at least three times (Binder 3, Tab 7, page  
882). A comparative market analysis dated February 24, 2016 and prepared by Trina  
Reinhart concludes that “in the current market, your property is most likely to sell for  
$419,900.” (Binder 3, Tab 26, pages 1130 - 1138)  
ix.  
You told the buyers that they had to pay an inflated purchase price for the property  
because they were entering into a “seller financing” arrangement.  
42.  
In relation to the above allegation, HR testified that he trusted and had faith in Ms.  
Bonwick as his realtor to get him the property for a reasonable price. He was not shown an  
MLS Feature Sheet for [Address 1], comparable market listings or a comparative market  
analysis (Binder 3, Tab 7, page 881). Ms. Bonwick, AE and CE had already decided the  
purchase price. Ms. Bonwick also told HR that he could not negotiate the purchase price  
because of the seller financing terms.  
43.  
44.  
Evidence entered by the ED shows an MLS Feature Sheet (Binder 3, Tab 7, page 881) and  
a comparative market analysis for [Address 1] (Binder 3, Tab 26, pages 1130 - 1138).  
CE also testified that Ms. Bonwick told him the purchase price could not be negotiated,  
because seller financing is a unique type of financing that adds value to the purchase price  
and people who can’t qualify for a mortgage could purchase the property. CE and AE  
relisted [Address 1] in February 2016, because HR and RB had not complied with the  
terms of their Agreement for Sale. Realtor Trina Reinhart did a comparative market  
analysis and arrived at a list price of $419,900. HR had lived in [Address 1] for nine  
months and had made two balloon payments. However, he did not have any equity in the  
property when he wanted to sell it. When HR wanted to sell [Address 1], he would have  
needed to sell it for $20,000 - $30,000 more than market price to make a profit. CE and AE  
decided that they were offering value to the marketplace and their property was worth  
slightly more money than comparable properties, because they were offering seller  
financing to potential buyers.  
45.  
AE testified that they lowered their list price three times between November 2014 and  
February 2015 due to market conditions at that time. She chose a list price of $456,789  
because it sounded good. Ms. Bonwick provided verbal information of properties that had  
sold in their area, however AE does not recall receiving any market analysis in writing.  
[Address 1] received some but not a lot of interest when they listed the property before  
November 2014. They listed the property in November 2014 with Ms. Bonwick at $30,000  
higher than before, because Ms. Bonwick thought [Address 1] had a lot of good value in  
the marketplace. They quickly reduced the list price when they realized that the higher  
price wasn’t going to work. They believed that seller financing might give them an  
advantage in the market, and their higher list price was due to them offering the seller  
financing option. Ms. Bonwick had said she found seller financing gave homeowners more  
options to sell their property because owners would be listing their property to the regular  
12  
market as well as to buyers who were self-employed or had credit challenges. AE, CE and  
Ms. Bonwick felt it would be okay to raise the list price to try and attract a buyer.  
x.  
You led your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], and buyer clients, RB and HR, to believe  
that they were entering into a real estate purchase and not a tenancy.  
46.  
A letter dated June 23, 2016 from HR and RB to James Porter of RECA stated that Ms.  
Bonwick described the transaction involving [Address 1] as seller’s financing, where HR  
would purchase the property and make monthly payments to AE and CE as though he was  
paying a mortgage (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 887). HR stated that “unlike a straightforward  
purchase, I would not be registered as owner of the property, but would instead have a  
caveat registered against title for the property that would list my purchaser’s interest in the  
property.” Also, the Residential Purchase Contract between the E.’s as seller and HR as  
buyer refer to the “Seller” and “Buyer” throughout the contract, as do the  
Amendment/Addendum Form, Financing Schedule and Agreement for Sale of Land. For  
example, the Amendment/Addendum Form includes terms such as “Buyer shall be entitled  
to register notice of the AFS by caveat.” (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 920). Additionally, the  
Agreement for Sale of Land between the E.’s as Sellers and HR as Buyer states in the  
recital “WHEREAS the Sellers have agreed to sell to the Buyer, and the Buyer has agreed  
to purchase from the Sellers, the lands and premises set out in this agreement for sale of  
land…” (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 934).  
47.  
RB testified that she thought she and HR could sell [Address 1] pursuant to the Agreement  
for Sale. She didn’t believe it when Rey Umbalin told her she couldn’t sell the property.  
The City of Airdrie turned off the water to [Address 1], because it determined that HR and  
RB were renters.  
48.  
49.  
CE was aware that the buyer, HR could register the Agreement for Sale as a caveat on title  
to [Address 1] to give HR a stake in the property.  
A Residential Purchase Contract names CE and AE as the sellers of [Address 1] and HR as  
the buyer (Binder 3, Tab 9, pages 899 - 933). Ms. Bonwick is named as buyer’s  
representative in that contract.  
50.  
AE testified that the seller financing is the Agreement for Sale. Ms. Bonwick explained to  
her that with seller financing, title in the property does not transfer until the buyers have  
made their required payments, and the sellers did not provide financing to the buyer. AE  
understood an Agreement for Sale to be an agreement to complete the property sale on  
certain terms, where the agreement is complete when the terms are met. She did not  
consider HR to be a tenant, because he had an agreement to purchase [Address 1].  
xi.  
You told your buyer clients that they would “own” the property if they entered into  
a seller financing arrangement and an Agreement for Sale (“AFS”).  
51.  
HR understood that AE and CE would transfer title to him if he slowly paid them the down  
payment over two years (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 887). The Agreement for Sale was an  
13  
agreement to buy the property. Ms. Bonwick explained to him that the property would be  
safe as long as he made the payments, and AE and CE could not sell the property out from  
under him. She also explained to HR that the lawyer would hold title to [Address 1] in  
trust.  
52.  
53.  
43  
AE testified that an Agreement for Sale is an agreement to complete the property sale on  
certain terms, and when the terms are met the agreement is complete. She did not consider  
HR to be a tenant, because he had an agreement to purchase [Address 1].  
The Agreement for Sale of Land signed by CE and AE as sellers and HR as buyer and  
dated March 20, 2015 states that “the Sellers agree to sell to the Buyer, and Buyer agrees to  
purchase from the Sellers, the lands and premises located at [Address 1]” (Binder 3, Tab 9,  
pages 934 - 943).  
xii.  
You drafted a purchase contract for [(“Address 1”)], with an addendum that  
included terms to be replicated in an Agreement for Sale (“AFS”) to be drafted by  
the parties’ lawyer at a later date.  
54.  
HR assumed that Ms. Bonwick drafted the Agreement for Sale. Ms. Bonwick told HR to go  
to [LAWYER]’s office to sign it. She did not provide HR with any other lawyers’ names.  
The Agreement for Sale was ready to sign when HR arrived at [LAWYER]’s office, so he  
assumes that Ms. Bonwick provided some guidance.  
55.  
56.  
57.  
CE testified that Ms. Bonwick drafted the Residential Purchase Contract and presented it to  
him.  
Ms. Bonwick states in her letter to RECA dated July 7, 2016 that she “drafted and reviewed  
all the AREA and RECA forms” (Binder 3, Tab 21, page 1047).  
A Financing Schedule that formed part of the Residential Purchase Contract includes a  
term in section 2: Other Value, which states that “The Buyer will provide the following to  
the Seller as part of the Purchase Price:…”Seller Financing, pursuant to Agreement for  
Sale of Land (“AFS”) to be formalized by the parties lawyer’s using the Lawyer’s AFS  
form (which will not contradict anything contained in this contract), further particulars of  
which are set out in the Addendums.”  
58.  
An Amendment/Addendum Form attached to the Residential Purchase Contract provides  
the following financing terms:  
“Financing Terms:  
“Seller Financing will be formalized in an Agreement for Sale of Land (“AFS”), on the  
Lawyer’s AFS Form, and will include the following terms:  
“1. Principle sum of Four Hundred and Fourty Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty  
Nine Dollars ($446,789) with interest thereon at the rate of Four Point Five Percent (4.5%)  
14  
per annum, calculated semi-annually, not in advance, from the Twentyth (20th) day of  
March 2015, and to be paid in the following manner:  
a)  
By equal monthly installments of Two Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Two  
Dollars and Eighty Six Cents ($2,472.86) to be applied semi-annually, not in  
advance, commencing on the Twentyth (20th) day of March, 2015, and continuing  
thereafter on the Twentyth (20th) day of each month up to and including the  
Twentyth (20th) day of March, 2016.  
b)  
c)  
Buyer will pay a balloon payment of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) on  
or before June 20th, 2015.  
Buyer has the option to refinance under the same financing terms for an additional  
year, provided he pay a balloon payment of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars  
($25,000) on or before the Twentyth (20th) day of March, 2016.  
2. The Buyer may pay down or pay out the entire balance owing at time without notice,  
bonus or penalty. Any existing mortgage may be replaced or modified by the Seller  
provided the amount not exceed Three Hundred and Ninety Thousand Dollars ($390,000).”  
xiii. You included a term in the purchase contract for the property located at [(“Address  
1”)] that “title will not transfer but will be held in Trust” for the buyer, which is  
not possible.  
59.  
Section 7.6 of the Residential Purchase Contract between CE, AE and HR (Binder 3, Tab 9,  
page 903) reads as follows:  
“Additional terms of sale (if any):  
*Seller will sign and agree to follow the Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement  
SELLER CUSTOMER STATUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND FEE AGREEMENT  
form between the Seller and Discover Real Estate Ltd., payable to Shelley Bonwick  
indicating a commission of 3.5% on first 1ook and 1.5% on remaining balance of sale plus  
gst (see Addenda). **Seller discloses and the Buyer acknowledges that the Seller is a  
licenced Realtor in the province of Ontario. ***This transaction will be completed as an  
Agreement for Sale (AFS) in which title will not transfer but will be held in  
Trust.****Additional terms of sale will be explained in the attached Financing Schedule  
and Addenda.”  
60.  
61.  
CE testified that section 7.6 means that title to [Address 1] would not transfer to HR until  
HR fulfilled his obligations under the agreement. CE believed that [LAWYER] would hold  
title in trust. AE testified that she doesn’t know what it means to hold a title in trust.  
xiv.  
You listed yourself as buyer’s representative on the purchase contract, but forged  
the signature of the buyer, HR, on a Customer Acknowledgement form.  
HR testified that he did not recognize the Customer Acknowledgement Form when the case  
presenter presented it to him (Binder 3, Tab 21, pages 1091 - 1092). He was not aware that  
15  
CE and AE were Ms. Bonwick’s clients and that he was a customer and not a client. The  
signature above his name, and the initials in that form, are not his. He did not receive a  
copy of that document; it was only brought to his attention afterwards.  
62.  
HR provided his signature sample to RECA pursuant to their demand (Binder 3, Tab 22).  
His signature sample is noticeably different from his purported signature found in the  
Customer Acknowledgement Form (Binder 3, Tab 21, page 1092).  
xv.  
You directed both parties to use the same lawyer, whom you had worked with  
previously, that you knew would accept the arrangement and the AFS terms that  
you drafted and inserted into the purchase contract.  
63.  
HR testified and also stated in his RECA complaint that [LAWYER] is the lawyer that Ms.  
Bonwick pointed him to and recommended he use (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 887). He had  
never heard of [LAWYER] before signing the Residential Purchase Contract. Ms. Bonwick  
told him that [LAWYER] has everything ready for HR, and she never provided him with  
any other lawyers’ names. [LAWYER]’s name was already inserted in the purchase  
contract as the buyer’s lawyer when HR signed it. The Residential Purchase Contract  
signed by the E.’s and HR shows [LAWYER]’s name typed into the document as seller’s  
and buyer’s lawyer (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 909). HR was aware that [LAWYER] was  
representing both the buyer and seller, but he didn’t think it was an issue. Ms. Bonwick did  
not explain the advantages and disadvantages of both parties using the same lawyer. Ms.  
Bonwick texted RB on March 10, 2015 that “If the lawyer can do it that quickly…Will be  
faster if there is only one…” (Binder 3, Tab 10, page 949). HR had a 10 to 15 minute  
meeting with [LAWYER], and [LAWYER] did not describe the transaction to HR and  
offered little or no explanation to him. Ms. Bonwick and [LAWYER] had everything  
drafted before HR attended [LAWYER]’s office. He only met with [LAWYER] again to  
pick up the keys to [Address 1].  
64.  
CE testified that [LAWYER]’s name was already inserted in the purchase contract as  
lawyer for the buyer and seller when CE signed it. He didn’t have any contact with  
[LAWYER] prior to signing the purchase contract. Ms. Bonwick told CE that [LAWYER]  
had experience with these types of transactions, and she had used his services in previous  
real estate transactions. CE and AE used [LAWYER] because Ms. Bonwick recommended  
him. They discussed other options and decided to use [LAWYER], based on Ms.  
Bonwick’s familiarity with him. CE and AE didn’t speak to any other lawyers.  
65  
AE testified that [LAWYER] was the lawyer that handled the transaction. His name was  
already inserted in the purchase contract when AE and CE signed it. AE and CE wanted to  
do the transaction quickly. Ms. Bonwick suggested that they seek a lawyer or she could  
recommend one, and she knew of a lawyer who was familiar with these types of  
agreements. AE and CE discussed it and decided to use [LAWYER]. They aren’t sure if  
they decided this before or after signing the purchase contract. She isn’t sure if Ms.  
Bonwick provided any other lawyers’ names.  
16  
xvi.  
You provided legal advice to your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], about enforcing the  
terms of the AFS against the buyer, without directing them to their legal counsel.  
66.  
AE testified that after RB contacted her and indicated she wanted to sell [Address 1], AE  
contacted Ms. Bonwick and asked her if RB could sell the property and list it on January 1,  
2016, and Ms. Bonwick said that yes, there is a way she could sell it. She told AE that HR  
could sell the property at any time, because it was a term of the agreement between the  
parties. Ms. Bonwick stated in her letter to RECA dated July 7, 2016 that “on or around  
January of 2016, [AE] contacted me and asked if it was true that [RB] and [HR] couldn’t  
sell the property. I told [AE] that no, [RB] and [HR] could sell the property at any time.”  
(Binder 3, Tab 21, pages 1047 - 1048).  
xvii. You used your position as representative for the seller to prejudice the buyer’s  
interest in the property at [(“Address 1”)], without the buyer’s knowledge, by  
attending at the real estate lawyer’s office to witness a withdrawal of caveat after  
the real estate transaction closed and when the “seller financing” arrangement  
between the buyers and sellers had broken down. You engaged in this conduct  
despite the following:  
You had inserted a term into the purchase contract that a withdrawal of caveat was to  
be signed at the same time as the AFS, which was to be held in “trust” in case of  
default of payment by the buyer;  
You did not discuss with your buyer client, HR, whether he was still represented by the  
lawyer, if he agreed to the withdrawal and discharge of the caveat, or if he was aware  
of the withdrawal being signed or subsequently filed with Land Titles on his behalf;  
You knew that the lawyer had been suspended by the Law Society of Alberta.  
67.  
HR testified that Ms. Bonwick told him a caveat would protect [Address 1] for him so it  
couldn’t be sold behind his back. He was not aware and didn’t see a withdrawal and  
discharge of caveat when he signed the Agreement for Sale at [LAWYER]’s office. He also  
wasn’t aware of a withdrawal and discharge of caveat being held in trust. He believes Ms.  
Bonwick said something about [LAWYER]’s suspension, and he also called [LAWYER]’s  
office to confirm. He later found out that a withdrawal and discharge of caveat had been  
signed and registered at the Land Titles Office. He did not instruct [LAWYER] to sign that  
document on his behalf or to register it at Land Titles (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 888). He was  
not aware that Ms. Bonwick had witnessed [LAWYER] signing the withdrawal and  
discharge of caveat. She did not discuss that document with HR.  
68.  
An Amendment/Addendum Form to the Residential Purchase Contract included financing  
terms which entitle the buyer “to register notice of the AFS by caveat”. This document also  
states that the “Buyer will also sign a withdrawal of the Caveat to be held in trust in the  
event of default in payment”, and if the Buyer is in default of any payment for 30 days, “the  
Seller will be entitled to recieve [sic] and register notice of a discharge of the Buyer’s  
caveat.” (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 931). The Caveat Forbidding Registration dated March 20,  
2015, signed by [LAWYER] is entered as an exhibit (Binder 3, Tab 9, page 943).  
17  
[LAWYER] was suspended by the Law Society of Alberta on June 15, 2015 (Binder 3, Tab  
9, page 945). Ms. Bonwick witnessed [LAWYER] sign the withdrawal and discharge of  
caveat on February 23, 2016, eight months after [LAWYER] was suspended (Binder 3, Tab  
21, pages 1099 - 1100).  
69.  
Ms. Bonwick detailed when she became aware of [LAWYER]’s suspension and her role as  
witness to [LAWYER]’s signature on the withdrawal and discharge of caveat in her  
response to RECA dated July 7, 2016 (Binder 3, Tab 21, pages 1049 - 1050):  
“I became aware of [LAWYER]'s suspension when I called his office one day and I heard a  
recording indicating that he was no longer practicing law.  
“I was informed that this was a replacement caveat, and that part of the lawyer's  
responsibilities were to keep a registerable discharge of caveat on file for immediate  
delivery to the Sellers in the event of a default of the Buyers that was not remedied. I acted  
only as a witness to the signature, nothing more. The disposition of the discharge was not  
anything I had any say in, and it was clear from the Buyers' abandonment of the property  
and failure to make any effort to remedy their default that they had walked away from the  
property and any interest they may have built up prior to their default.  
“[HR] knew that a default in payment would result in a forfeiture of any interest and entitle  
the Sellers to a withdrawal of caveat. Bottom line is the buyer was in serious and repeated  
default, was given notice and chose to abandon the property, so the sellers were entitled to  
a discharge and to pursue their legal remedies. If the Sellers could not obtain this discharge,  
it would be them who would be complaining, and their complaint would be completely  
justified. The only possible advantage the buyers could have after abandoning their  
occupancy would be to get tenants in and tie the property up in expensive, fruitless  
litigation.”  
She also stated that “[HR] was not my client like [AE] and [CE].”  
70.  
71.  
CE was aware that [LAWYER] was suspended but he doesn’t know when he became  
aware. AE spoke to Ms. Bonwick about the suspension. CE did not instruct [LAWYER] to  
sign the withdrawal and discharge of caveat. He doesn’t know how the withdrawal and  
discharge of caveat was held in trust if it was signed in February 2016. He doesn’t know  
who instructed [LAWYER] to sign it. Most conversations were between AE, Ms. Bonwick  
and [LAWYER]. He wasn’t aware that Ms. Bonwick witnessed [LAWYER] sign it, and he  
did not instruct her to do that.  
AE knew there was going to be a withdrawal and discharge of caveat. She told [LAWYER]  
that HR had defaulted on the agreement and had vacated [Address 1]. [LAWYER] told her  
he would do the withdrawal and discharge of caveat. She didn’t discuss that document with  
Ms. Bonwick and she did not instruct Ms. Bonwick to witness [LAWYER] sign it. She  
didn’t know Ms. Bonwick was meeting with [LAWYER] on February 23, 2016 when Ms.  
Bonwick and [LAWYER] executed the withdrawal and discharge of caveat.  
18  
72.  
73.  
Ms. Bonwick contacted RB to inform her that [LAWYER] had been suspended, right  
around the time HR’s second balloon payment was due. RB believes Ms. Bonwick knew  
about the suspension right after it happened.  
James Porter testified that Ms. Bonwick could have contacted her broker or RECA or  
obtained legal advice if she was unsure she should sign the withdrawal and discharge of  
caveat. A licensed real estate associate doesn’t necessarily always need to know what  
document they are witnessing, but they should in some circumstances. They should have  
knowledge of the document when they are signing as a witness to someone else’s signature.  
Ms. Bonwick did more than just witness a signature. She told Mr. Porter in her first phone  
discussion with him that AE told her they needed to withdraw the caveat, so he had some  
awareness of it. Audio recordings of three phone discussions Mr. Porter had with Ms.  
Bonwick on August 24, 2016 are entered as Exhibits A, B and C. Ms. Bonwick confirmed  
to Mr. Porter that she found out [LAWYER] was suspended “pretty quickly” after his  
suspension on June 15, 2015. She said that [LAWYER] signed the withdrawal and  
discharge of caveat as HR’s agent, and Ms. Bonwick witnessed his signature. She did not  
have any concerns about [LAWYER] signing the withdrawal and discharge of caveat on  
February 23, 2016, after he was suspended, because he wasn’t acting as a lawyer.  
b)  
You did not disclose to your client, at the earliest practical opportunity, any conflict  
of interest you may have in the course of providing services to, or in your dealings  
with a client, contrary to section 41(f) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i.  
You did not disclose to your buyer clients, RB and HR, that you had  
established a client relationship with the sellers, [(“the E.’s”)];  
74.  
75.  
HR testified that Ms. Bonwick did not explain to him the difference between a customer  
and a client. He didn’t know about Ms. Bonwick’s relationship with AE and CE before he  
signed the purchase contract.  
CE testified that he and AE enlisted Ms. Bonwick’s services in November 2014 to sell  
[Address 1]. He doesn’t know why he would sign a representation agreement after HR  
signed the purchase contract. He also doesn’t know the difference between a Customer  
Status Acknowledgement and a Representation Agreement.  
76.  
AE first met Ms. Bonwick in 2014, and Ms. Bonwick was her realtor in 2014 and 2015.  
She saw Ms. Bonwick’s Kijiji ads about options for selling your home. AE and CE called  
Ms. Bonwick, because [Address 1] wasn’t selling and AE and CE wanted to explore  
options. Ms. Bonwick was their realtor during November 2014 to February 2015. She  
believes she entered into a Representation Agreement with Ms. Bonwick at that time. Ms.  
Bonwick went over the Consumer Relationships Guide with her but she doesn’t believe it  
was discussed in depth. She doesn’t know the difference between a customer and a client.  
Ms. Bonwick was their agent for the [Address 1] transaction.  
ii.  
You did not disclose to your seller clients, [(“the E.’s”)], that you had established a  
client relationship with the buyers, RB and HR.  
19  
77.  
78.  
HR testified that Ms. Bonwick was his realtor ever since he lived in Elbow Valley six to  
seven years ago. She had been to his property several times.  
RB was the listing agent when she and HR listed their Elbow Valley property for sale. Ms.  
Bonwick showed the property several times and was listed as the agent on the MLS feature  
sheet.  
79.  
80.  
CE testified that Ms. Bonwick told him she had met HR and RB previously in some sort of  
real estate relationship.  
AE testified that Ms. Bonwick didn’t disclose much information about her history with HR  
and RB other than they seemed to be good clean people. She had been to their house once  
but she didn’t know in what capacity. She doesn’t know why Ms. Bonwick is listed as the  
buyers’ representative on the purchase contract, or what that means. She understood that  
Ms. Bonwick was her representative, and no one is listed as the seller’s representative. AE  
and CE had no choice but to use Ms. Bonwick as their agent, because they signed an  
Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement with Ms. Bonwick in connection with [Address  
1]. The term of that agreement was from March 11, 2015 to March 20, 2017.  
c)  
You did not provide competent service, contrary to section 41(b) of the Real Estate  
Act Rules:  
i. You drafted a purchase contract for the property at [(“Address 1”)] and did not  
explain the terms of the contract to your buyer client, HR;  
81.  
HR met with Ms. Bonwick at [Address 1] on March 11, 2015. AE and CE showed up after  
HR to sign the purchase contract. HR did a walk-through of the property with Ms.  
Bonwick. She did not provide much explanation of the purchase contract. She did not  
explain section 7.6 of the purchase contract, or what an Exclusive Seller Representation  
Agreement is. He is not sure why “Seller Customer Status Acknowledgement and Fee  
Agreement” is crossed out and replaced with “Exclusive Seller Representation Agreement”  
in section 7.6. He doesn’t know the difference between those documents. HR’s meeting  
with Ms. Bonwick at [Address 1] went from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm. She did not review all of  
the documents with him for an hour, as he first did the walk through. AE and CE signed the  
purchase agreement at 7:00 pm. Ms. Bonwick briefly reviewed the Agreement for Sale  
terms with HR, but she did not explain them in detail. Everything seemed to be in a big  
rush, because AE and CE showed up at [Address 1], and they had to complete their part of  
the purchase contract.  
ii.  
You entered the wrong date that your buyer client, HR, signed the purchase  
contract.  
82.  
HR met with Ms. Bonwick on March 11, 2015 to sign the purchase contract, not on  
February 6, 2015 as indicated in that contract.  
20  
83.  
Ms. Bonwick testified that she entered the wrong date in the purchase contract, but it was a  
typo.  
d)  
You accepted a commission or other remuneration, directly or indirectly, outside  
the brokerage with which you were registered, contrary to section 54(1) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules:  
i.  
You directed your buyer client, HR, to pay one of the balloon payments directly to  
the sellers instead of through the lawyer, as per the terms of the purchase contract.  
You further directed your client, HR, to offset your remuneration from the balloon  
payment in exchange for money owed by you to HR’s wife, RB. This remuneration  
was accepted outside your brokerage.  
84.  
85.  
HR paid the first balloon payment in the sum of $10,000 in full to [LAWYER]. Part of this  
payment was Ms. Bonwick’s commission. He went to AE’s and CE’s residence to give  
them the second balloon payment. He paid approximately $7,000 instead of $10,000  
because Ms. Bonwick owed RB some commissions for work they were doing together.  
RB testified that when she, HR and Ms. Bonwick did the walk through at [Address 1], Ms.  
Bonwick asked her if she wanted to be her assistant. RB worked as Ms. Bonwick’s  
assistant in 2015, and they verbally agreed that Ms. Bonwick would pay RB 50% of the  
deals that came in. When [LAWYER] was suspended, Ms. Bonwick told RB to tell HR to  
take the second balloon payment directly to AE and CE. The commission money Ms.  
Bonwick owed RB was paid from the second balloon payment. HR paid AE and CE $7,500  
because Ms. Bonwick owed RB $2,500 for her share of a commission.  
86.  
87.  
CE testified that HR came by his residence and paid the second balloon payment in cash.  
He believes HR did not pay him the full $10,000 because a portion of it was supposed to be  
given to Ms. Bonwick.  
AE testified that HR contacted her and CE about [LAWYER]’s suspension, because he  
didn’t know where to deliver the second balloon payment. HR brought AE and CE $7,000  
and HR dealt with Ms. Bonwick for the remainder of the second payment. AE called Ms.  
Bonwick to confirm everything was fine with the second balloon payment and to confirm  
HR had given her the money, so that Ms. Bonwick didn’t expect AE to pay her. Ms.  
Bonwick said everything was taken care of. AE thought [LAWYER] was going to collect  
all of the balloon payments.  
e)  
Between February 2014 and February 2016, you did not hold the appropriate  
authorization to deal as a mortgage broker, contrary to section 17(b) of the Real  
Estate Act:  
i.  
You negotiated the terms of a mortgage on the property at [(“Address 1”)] on  
behalf of the sellers, [(“the E.’s”)], and buyer, HR, by calculating the following:  
a) interest rate;  
b) monthly payments;  
21  
c) down payment;  
d) amortization period;  
e) financing term.  
88.  
89.  
Holly Childs testified that a mortgage associate who has a mortgage associate licence  
would determine the mortgage financing terms, not a real estate associate. Ms. Bonwick  
does not have a mortgage associate licence. The financing terms and conditions were more  
than a client asking what they could afford. They went beyond the scope of a real estate  
associate’s authority and they were within the scope of a mortgage associate’s authority.  
HR testified that Ms. Bonwick reviewed the financing schedule and all the numbers with  
him. The financing terms were already filled in the purchase contract when he signed it. He  
did not negotiate any of the financing terms, because Ms. Bonwick told him it was non-  
negotiable. HR assumed Ms. Bonwick was representing his best interests to give him the  
best terms. Ms. Bonwick explained the purpose of balloon payments to HR as forming part  
of the deposit, to break down the deposit into smaller payments that HR would have to pay  
every so often.  
90.  
91.  
CE testified that Ms. Bonwick determined the financing terms. He had no input in  
determining those terms and no negotiation with the buyer.  
AE testified that Ms. Bonwick decided on the interest rate for the [Address 1] transaction,  
and she doesn’t know who came up with the rest of the terms. She doesn’t know who  
drafted the financing schedule but the terms were already filled in the purchase contract  
when she saw it. AE and CE did not negotiate any of the financing terms with the buyer.  
AE determined the interest rate and provided it to Ms. Bonwick, but she is not sure how she  
arrived at that rate. She doesn’t know how the financing terms were in her best interest, and  
she expected that a lawyer would tell her. Ms. Bonwick did not refer her to anyone else to  
review the financing terms.  
92.  
David Lem testified that if your ads state you are a seller financing expert, it would not fall  
under real estate licencing sectors. It might fall more towards to the mortgage side.  
ii. You received compensation in the form of commission for the negotiation of the  
mortgage terms of the seller financing arrangement for [(“Address 1”)].  
93.  
94.  
To HR’s knowledge, Ms. Bonwick collected all commissions owing to her for the [Address  
1] transaction.  
CE testified that Ms. Bonwick’s commissions were supposed to come out of the balloon  
payments and it formed part of the purchase price. The lawyer kept his fees and the realtor  
commission from the first balloon payment.  
95.  
AE testified that the commission was paid to Ms. Bonwick from the balloon payments. The  
balloon payments were supposed to be paid to [LAWYER] and then he would pay Ms.  
Bonwick. For the first balloon payment, AE received a statement of account showing that  
22  
[LAWYER] took his fees and the commission. She isn’t sure if the commission was paid to  
Ms. Bonwick or the brokerage.  
96.  
The Addendum/Amendment Form to the purchase contract between the E.s’ and HR  
(Binder 3, Tab 9, page 922) includes the following wording regarding payment of realtor  
commissions:  
“Manner of Payment Continued:  
“10. Payment of the real estate commission payable to Shelley Bonwick of Discover Real  
Estate Ltd. will be Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). Payment dates of said  
commission will be as follows:  
a) Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Dollars ($3,333) upon March  
20th, 2015, the Completion Date.  
b) Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Dollars ($3,333) upon June 20th,  
2015, (the first balloon payment date) and upon the Seller being in receipt of such  
payment.  
c) Three Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Three Dollars ($3,333) upon March  
20th, 2016, (the second balloon payment date) and upon the Seller being in receipt  
of such payment.  
d) Shelley Bonwick of Discover Real Estate Ltd. reserves the right to caveat the  
property for any and all of this commission amount owing until fully paid.”  
File 007825:  
a)  
You participated in fraudulent or unlawful activities in connection with the provision of  
services or in any dealings, contrary to section 42(b) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i.  
You created a scheme that you represented as “seller financing”, in which buyers  
believed they were buying a home, but they were only tenants, did not acquire  
equity in the property, and the property remained at risk of foreclosure if the owner  
defaulted on the original mortgage;  
97.  
As summarized in paragraphs 31 – 37 of this decision, the parties in File 006025  
understood or described seller financing as follows:  
Holly Childs testified that that seller financing traditionally means that the seller  
provides financing to the buyer to facilitate the transfer of the property. The  
complainants were directed to the properties as a result of these types of  
advertisements. RECA was concerned that the two properties in the complaints  
against Ms. Bonwick had mortgages registered on title, and one of the properties  
23  
had a high ratio mortgage, and the seller would need the lender’s approval to  
facilitate this type of transaction. Mortgage associates, not realtors, would  
determine the financing terms. Ms. Bonwick does not have a mortgage associate  
licence. RECA takes seller financing seriously, because mortgagees’ rights need to  
be protected.  
Anthony Merah had never dealt with seller financing in residential real estate before  
this transaction.  
Rey Umbalin’s understanding of seller financing is that it can only be done when  
there is clear title.  
Kristine Semrau understands seller financing to be where the seller is financing  
rather than a financial institution, and title to a property would only transfer to the  
buyer when the purchase price was paid in full, unless there was an Agreement for  
Sale.  
David Lem was never involved in seller financing transactions. He described seller  
financing as where a seller of a property would hold the mortgage rather than the  
bank. He believes that with seller financing, the mortgage in favour of a bank would  
be discharged from title and the seller’s mortgage would then become the first  
mortgage. Another term he would use for seller financing is a vendor take back  
mortgage. Industry members should give the proper amount of advice regarding  
seller financing, and they should not step outside their area of expertise.  
CE understood seller financing to mean that he and his wife, AE would carry the  
mortgage until the purchasers could qualify for their own mortgage. AE testified  
that seller financing is the Agreement for Sale. Ms. Bonwick explained to her that  
in an Agreement for Sale, title does not transfer until the purchasers have made the  
required payments  
98.  
99.  
AE also testified that she understood seller financing was similar to rent to own.  
As summarized in paragraph 37, RECA sent Ms. Bonwick a Notification of a Professional  
Conduct Review dated July 7, 2016. In that document, RECA asked her to explain her  
“experience with seller financing and practical considerations when dealing with these  
types of transactions.” Ms. Bonwick’s written response dated July 7, 2016 provided her  
detailed explanation of seller financing, including:  
“Seller financing transactions are difficult and time consuming to execute. Not always, but  
often, seller financing attracts desperate people in difficult situations-sellers who  
desperately need to sell (often to avoid foreclosure of extreme financial loss) or buyers who  
are desperate to purchase but can't at the moment often due to being newly divorced, newly  
self-employed or new to the province.  
“Sellers understand Seller Financing is a sale and that the buyers are not simply glorified  
renters. Sellers are still responsible for paying the bank, taxes and insurance, even if the  
24  
Buyers default, because the contract is between the Sellers and the Buyers and does not  
affect contracts between the Sellers and other parties. Sellers have no problem  
understanding this, and are usually concerned with ensuring that the Buyers honour their  
payment obligations. If they have questions of a legal nature I direct them to consult with  
their lawyer. I also consider if the property I'm Seller Financing has a CMHC insured  
mortgage. If it does, I look at how long ago the mortgage was acquired and whether or not  
the Seller actually resided on the property.  
“The nature of Seller Financing under Agreements for Sale is that the Buyer acquires  
equity during the term of the agreement, provided that they are not default.  
“I want all buyers to succeed in successfully transferring title into their own names. All  
seller financing buyers understand that the responsibility to maintain their payments, fix  
their credit and maintain the property is theirs. I want everyone to succeed but if the buyer  
continuously defaults on payments and makes no arrangements to remedy the situation  
with the Seller by bringing the arrears of the seller financing account into good standing,  
then the terms of the contract govern and the Seller may exercise their remedies, in the  
same way that a mortgagee can. There is no money back guarantee if they change their  
minds after a few months. In general, there are forfeiture provisions providing that serious  
or repeated default of the Buyers leads to the property reverting back to the Sellers along  
with any equity they would have built up. This is the trade-off that Buyers make, and the  
benefit they receive for this is that they have obtained the property for a set price rather  
than speculating on what the value might be at the end of the contract's term. RB and HR  
were fully aware of this.”  
ii.  
You were contacted by SF because of your advertising for services and  
specialization in “seller financing”.  
100. SF replied to a Kijiji ad for [Address 2] that Ms. Bonwick had listed for sale. The listing  
offered seller financing. SF responded to the ad and received an auto reply from Ms.  
Bonwick with a link attached. The auto reply email contains a copy of this email dated July  
30, 2017. The email contains a link to a Kijiji ad with pictures of [Address 2] (Binder 1,  
Tab 14, page 358). SF only contacted Ms. Bonwick because of her advertising.  
101. RECA sent Ms. Bonwick a Notification of a Professional Conduct Review dated February  
7, 2018 regarding SF’s complaint made against Ms. Bonwick to RECA. Ms. Bonwick’s  
written response dated February 22, 2018 stated that another realtor recommended her to  
SF, and SF contacted her directly after finding her Kijiji ad (Binder 2, Tab 15, page 690).  
iii.  
In or around July 2017, you proposed a “seller financing” arrangement to your  
buyer client, SF, for the property located at [(“Address 2”)], Calgary, AB.  
102. SF spoke to Ms. Bonwick on the phone, and then Ms. Bonwick texted SF on July 30, 2017  
about [Address 2] and the terms. This text message mentions that SF “can do 5% down! No  
qualifying!” (Binder 1, Tab 13, page 343).  
25  
iv.  
The owners of the property at [(“Address 2”)] were JN and NN [(“the N.’s”)], who  
entered into a “seller financing” arrangement and signed an Agreement for Sale  
(“AFS”) with your previous client, MB.  
103. A Land Title Certificate dated December 22, 2017 confirms that JN and NN were the  
registered owners of [Address 2] when Ms. Bonwick dealt with SF about that property  
(Binder 1, Tab 7, page 55). JN and NN entered into a Residential Purchase Contract with  
MB dated February 2, 2016. The purchase contract names the N.’s as seller, MB as buyer,  
and Ms. Bonwick as the buyer’s representative (Binder 1, Tab 9, pages 116 - 122). The  
N.’s and MB also entered into an Agreement for Sale dated March 3, 2016 (Binder 1, Tab  
10, pages 140 - 151).  
v.  
You represented MB in the “purchase” of the property from [(“the N.’s”)] at  
[(“Address 2”)].  
104. The Residential Purchase Contract between the N.’s and MB names Ms. Bonwick as the  
buyer’s representative (Binder 1, Tab 9, page 120).  
vi.  
You purposely did not advise your client, SF, that you represented MB in the  
purchase of [(“Address 2”)].  
105. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick did not tell her about Ms. Bonwick’s history with [Address  
2]. When she signed the purchase agreement, she found out MB was selling [Address 2].  
She didn’t know who was representing MB but “it sounded like it was probably Ms  
Bonwick as she did state once that she was “doing a favour for a friend”. (Binder 1, Tab 13,  
page 341). SF texted Ms. Bonwick on September 5, 2017 that “…you guys all seem to have  
some kind of business/personal relationship with each other.” (Binder 1, Tab 15, pages 360  
- 361).  
vii.  
You led your client to believe that she would “own” the property at [(“Address  
2”)] if she entered into a “seller financing” arrangement and an AFS.  
106. Ms. Bonwick told SF that if she ever wanted to sell [Address 2], she could sell it at any  
time and get her equity out of the house (Binder 1, Tab 13, pages 347 - 350). SF entered  
into a Residential Purchase Contract with MB on August 1, 2017, which names MB as  
seller and SF as buyer. Ms. Bonwick is named as the buyer’s representative in that contract  
(Binder 2, Tab 9, pages 597 - 604). Also, The Notice Re: Waiver/Satisfaction of Conditions  
dated August 9, 2017 and bearing the “seller” MB’s electronic signature states “Seller  
unilaterally waives all conditions and is thereby giving notice to the Buyer THIS IS NOW  
A FIRM SALE!” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 618).  
viii. You led your client, SF, to believe that she was entering into a legitimate real estate  
purchase, rather than a tenancy.  
107. Ms. Bonwick’s text messages with SF from July 30 to August 2, 2017 indicate SF could  
buy [Address 2] for a 5% down payment without having to qualify for a mortgage, and she  
had spoken with the owner who is willing to finance for two years or SF could get  
26  
financing for a third year “only if another balloon payment of $10,000 is made at the end of  
the second year”. SF sought confirmation that she needed to pay an additional $5,000 in 9  
months and another $10,000 within 24 months, and Ms. Bonwick said “yes…or sell at any  
time” (Binder 1, Tab 13, pages 343 - 357). Also, The Notice Re: Waiver/Satisfaction of  
Conditions dated August 9, 2017 and bearing the “seller” MB’s electronic signature states  
“Seller unilaterally waives all conditions and is thereby giving notice to the Buyer THIS IS  
NOW A FIRM SALE!” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 618).  
108. SF was further led to believe she was buying [Address 2], as indicated by her signing the  
Residential Purchase Contract with MB on August 1, 2017, which names MB as seller and  
SF as buyer (Binder 2, Tab 9, pages 597 - 604).  
ix.  
You drafted a purchase contract for [(“Address 2”)], with an addendum that  
included terms to be replicated in an AFS to be drafted by the parties’ lawyer at a  
later date.  
109. Ms. Bonwick drafted the Agreement for Sale and SF paid her $300 to draft that document.  
An Addendum to the Residential Purchase Contract added additional terms of sale which,  
among other things, indicates that “Seller Financing will be formalized as an Agreement  
for Sale of Land ((“AFS”), on the Buyers lawyers AFS form, to be formalized by the  
parties lawyers…” (Binder 2, Tab 9, pages 607 - 608). SF understood an Agreement for  
Sale to be a sale contract to buy [Address 2], and she is not sure if it is a separate document  
from the Residential Purchase Contract. She doesn’t recall any discussion about the  
lawyers finalizing the terms of the Agreement for Sale.  
x.  
You crossed out the term in the purchase contract that ensures that title to the  
property is free of encumbrances, liens, and interests. This was done in an effort to  
avoid your obligation to show the land title to SF and to conceal the true owner of  
the property.  
110. Kristine Semrau testified that it was standard procedure that her associates were required to  
provide their buyer clients with a copy of the land title. Associates were obligated to  
provide a land title to their buyer clients so the buyer is aware and can determine if the title  
would indicate any red flags. Section 5.1 of the Residential Purchase Contract between MB  
and SF is crossed out and the deletion is initialed by MB and SF. Before being crossed out,  
section 5.1 read that  
“Title to the Property will free of all encumbrances, liens and interests except for  
(a) those implied by law;  
(b) non-financial obligations now on title, such as easements, utility rights of way,  
covenants and conditions that are normally found registered against property of this  
nature;  
(c) homeowner association caveats, encumbrances and similar registrations; and  
(d) items the buyer agrees to assume in this contract.” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 598).  
27  
111. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick told her section 5.1 was crossed out because the parties were  
doing seller financing. SF would not get title to [Address 2] until she got her own financing  
the property would remain in MB’s name. SF didn’t know anything about land titles and  
she doesn’t know what they contain. She didn’t know that MB had registered a Caveat on  
title to [Address 2], and Ms. Bonwick did not tell her about priority of interests on title. SF  
believed that MB owned [Address 2].  
xi.  
You included a term in the purchase contract for the property located at [(“Address  
2”)] that “title will not transfer but will be held in Trust”, which is not possible.  
112. Kristine Semrau doesn’t know how title would be held in trust, and the Land Titles Office  
won’t hold title in trust. Section 9.2 of the Residential Purchase Contract states that “this  
transaction will be completed as an Agreement for Sale (AFS) in which property will not  
transfer but will be held in Trust.” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 600).  
xii.  
You directed your client, SF, to contact lawyers that you had previously worked  
with in “seller financing” agreements and that you knew would accept the terms  
that you inserted into the purchase contract.  
113. SF testified that at first Ms. Bonwick provided the name of one lawyer that she had  
previously worked with. Eventually, Ms. Bonwick gave SF another lawyer’s name, but  
neither lawyer called her back.  
xiii. You inserted a term in the exclusive buyer representation agreement that your  
buyer client, SF, must hire a lawyer with previous experience with your “seller  
financing” contracts.  
114. Section 12 of the Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreement contained an additional term  
that SF “must agree to hire a lawyer with previous experience and knowledge of creative  
financing contracts such as Seller Financed Agreements for Sale. In addition, the lawyer  
you retain should have previous experience in dealing directly with my contracts.” (Binder  
2, Tab 9, page 595). Kristine Semrau testified that associates should recommend at least  
one, but probably three lawyers to a client to give them a choice. SF confirmed with Holly  
Childs in a May 31, 2018 email that she never met with a lawyer to sign an Agreement for  
Sale, and she never met with a lawyer to sign any documents in connection with her  
attempted purchase of [Address 2] (Binder 1, Tab 19, page 419).  
xiv.  
You inserted a term in the exclusive buyer representation agreement that if your  
buyer client, SF, did not hire a lawyer with previous experience with your seller  
financing contracts, she must arrange for a telephone consultation between you and  
the lawyer.  
115. Section 12 of the Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreement also stated that “if you wish  
to use a lawyer I haven’t worked with, you must arrange for a telephone consultation with  
between your lawyer and I, before I start work on your contract.” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page  
595).  
28  
xv.  
After your client, SF, was unable to hire one of your recommended lawyers, you  
drafted an amendment to the purchase contract to redirect her $15,000 deposit  
from her lawyer to your brokerage.  
116. In a series of texts, Ms. Bonwick told SF she would prepare an amendment to the  
Residential Purchase Contract, directing SF to transfer $15,000 to The Alberta Collection’s  
trust account (Binder 1, Tab 15, pages 362 - 369). SF told Holly Childs in an email dated  
May 31, 2018 that she doesn’t know why she was told to pay the $15,000 deposit to The  
Alberta Collection instead of the buyer’s lawyer (Binder 1, Tab 19, page 419). The Real  
Estate Purchase Contract was amended so that SF had to pay an additional $15,000 deposit  
to The Alberta Collection instead of to the buyer’s lawyer (Binder 1, Tab 12, page 340).  
xvi.  
You proceeded with the sale transaction, despite the fact that your buyer client, SF,  
did not hire a lawyer and an AFS was not drafted or signed between the parties, as  
per the terms of the purchase contract.  
117. Kristine Semrau testified that neither the buyer nor the seller could meet the condition to  
have the Agreement for Sale drafted by a lawyer if neither of them were represented by a  
lawyer. If a client refused to get a lawyer, it would have to be stated in writing. The  
brokerage file didn’t indicate anywhere that SF refused to get a lawyer. To Ms. Semrau’s  
knowledge, an Agreement for Sale was not drafted for this transaction. She would have  
been aware if there was a lawyer because the brokerage file would have included  
documentation confirming that. The brokerage file did not contain an amendment to the  
term that required the Agreement for Sale to be drafted and reviewed by a lawyer. SF  
reviewed the Residential Purchase Contract with a lawyer at the courthouse. She  
understood that the Residential Purchase Contract was also the Agreement for Sale.  
118. In a text exchange with Kristine Semrau on or about January 26, 2018, Ms. Bonwick said  
SF “was given legal council [sic] before she signed her waiver”. She then said SF  
explicitly went against her advice by not hiring a lawyer to complete the transaction “and  
then she LIED to me saying she did.” (Exhibit I). However, SF told Ms. Bonwick in a text  
dated August 9, 2017 that she didn’t think she would hear back from a lawyer that day, and  
she asked if that would affect anything. Ms. Bonwick did not reply to that text (Binder 1,  
Tab 20, page 430). SF didn’t recall any discussion about the Agreement for Sale terms  
being finalized by lawyers. Neither she nor MB had lawyers, so nothing was finalized. Ms.  
Bonwick acted like it was okay to not hire a lawyer, as long as SF was okay with buying  
[Address 2]. An Agreement for Sale formalized on a standard form. Ms. Bonwick didn’t  
ask her if an Agreement for Sale had been formalized on her lawyer’s standard form. SF  
did not give Ms. Bonwick a formalized Agreement for Sale before she waived conditions.  
xvii. You proceeded with the sale transaction, despite knowing that the owners of the  
property at [(“Address 2”)] had initiated litigation against your seller client, MB.  
119. Anthony Merah sent a letter to The Alberta Collection to Ms. Bonwick’s attention in  
September 2017. He used the contact information given in the Residential Purchase  
Contract and did not receive a response to his letter. He then called Ms. Bonwick and she  
29  
confirmed she received his letter. She told him to read the contract between the N.’s and  
MB, and she said maybe Mr. Merah didn’t understand the contract. He was advised that the  
contract between the N.’s and MB was in order. His conversation with Ms. Bonwick was  
brief, but she wanted him to read the contract, and he didn’t get a sense that she wanted to  
discuss the matter further.  
120. Kristine Semrau assumes the fax number Mr. Merah sent the letter to was an i-fax number  
and she assumed it was Ms. Bonwick’s number. I-fax messages go straight to email. The  
fax number in Mr. Merah’s letter does not belong to the brokerage or Ms. Semrau. Cheryl  
Rumpel testified that Ms. Semrau stated to RECA during an interview that the fax number  
belongs to Ms. Bonwick. Ms. Semrau put that number in her phone during that interview  
and the fax number came back to Ms. Bonwick. She stated during the interview that the  
brokerage did not have a physical fax machine or general fax number, and each person in  
the brokerage had their own i-fax number.  
121. The Financing Schedule that forms part of the Residential Purchase Contract between the  
N.’s as seller and MB as buyer states that “Where there is Seller Financing, the Seller must  
approve any assignment of this Contract by the Buyer” (Binder 1, Tab 11, page 192). There  
is no evidence to indicate that the N.’s approved of MB assigning the Residential Purchase  
Contract to anyone.  
xviii. You were aware that SF’s deposit of $15,000 was released to the seller, MB, prior  
to the closing of the transaction for [(“Address 2”)], without an amendment to the  
purchase contract.  
122. Kristine Semrau told Holly Childs in some emails that she would have received direction  
from Ms. Bonwick or SF to release the deposit. The contract should have been amended if  
the deposit was released before the closing date. The brokerage file did not contain an  
amendment to change the closing date (Binder 2, Tab 10, pages 656 - 657). SF stated she  
didn’t know the $15,000 deposit had been released to MB before the closing date. She did  
not instruct Ms. Bonwick or the brokerage to release the deposit before the closing date.  
xix.  
You failed to meet several fiduciary duties owed to your client, SF, throughout the  
transaction to further the fraudulent scheme.  
123. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick reviewed the Consumer Relationships Guide with her. She  
understood it to mean Ms. Bonwick was her real estate agent and she had to adhere to its  
terms. SF does not believe Ms. Bonwick upheld her responsibilities that the Consumer  
Relationships Guide placed on her. There seemed to be several conflicts of interest that SF  
didn’t find out about until after the transaction had transpired. She assumed that the  
financing terms were in her best interests because Ms. Bonwick was her real estate agent.  
No terms were ever discussed or negotiated. SF does not recall any conversations with Ms.  
Bonwick about waiving conditions, and she doesn’t know if there was an amendment to  
change the condition about the need for a lawyer’s approval. She never felt Ms. Bonwick  
gave her undivided loyalty, full disclosure, reasonable care and skill or full accounting.  
30  
124. Kristine Semrau stated that it was standard procedure for associates to give their buyer  
client a land title, and they were obligated to do so. This is required so that the buyer is  
aware and can see if there are any red flags. It should have been brokerage policy to  
provide a land title. Nothing in the brokerage file indicated SF refused to get a lawyer; she  
just waived the condition. Neither the buyer nor the seller could satisfy the condition to  
have the Agreement for Sale reviewed by their lawyer if they didn’t have lawyers. They  
would have to waive the condition or amend the contract. She would advise her own client  
for their protection that they should have the Agreement for Sale reviewed by their lawyer.  
If they refused to follow her advice, that would be their prerogative, but Ms. Semrau would  
get that in writing. The brokerage file did not contain an amendment to the term that the  
Agreement for Sale had to be reviewed by a lawyer. An amendment should have been  
made if the $15,000 deposit was released before the closing date, and she did not see an  
amendment on the brokerage file.  
b)  
You did not fulfil your fiduciary obligations to your client, contrary to section 41(d)  
of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i. You established an agency relationship with SF.  
125. SF signed a Consumer Relationships Guide (Binder 1, Tab 12, pages 316 - 317). SF and  
Ms. Bonwick also signed an Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreement (Binder 1, Tab 12,  
pages 318 - 321). The Residential Purchase Contract between MB and SF lists SF as buyer  
and Ms. Bonwick as the buyer’s representative (Binder 1, Tab 12, pages 328 - 333).  
ii. You had a fiduciary duty to represent the true value of the property at [(“Address 2”)]  
to your client, SF.  
126. Kristine Semrau stated that a real estate associate is obligated to provide a property’s MLS  
history to buyer clients. The brokerage file should contain a comparative market analysis to  
show how the associate arrived at the numbers, such as a property’s estimated value.  
127. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick did not provide her with a comparative market analysis or  
comparable listings for [Address 2]. She believed that Ms. Bonwick, as her real estate  
agent, was looking out for SF’s best interests, but she wasn’t allowed to negotiate on the  
purchase price. Ms. Bonwick did not inform her that the listing price for [Address 2]  
decreased twice since she was provided with the MLS feature sheet. Ms. Bonwick didn’t  
make her aware that [Address 2] sold for $492,000 in February 2016. However, Ms.  
Bonwick stated that the market value was higher than $492,000 because of the seller  
financing.  
iii. You did not provide your buyer client, SF, with a comparative market analysis for the  
property at [(“Address 2”)].  
128. As stated above, Kristine Semrau stated that a real estate associate is obligated to provide a  
property’s MLS history to buyer clients. The brokerage file should contain a comparative  
market analysis to show how the associate arrived at the numbers, such as a property’s  
31  
estimated value. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick did not provide her with a comparative market  
analysis or comparable listings for [Address 2].  
iv. You provided your buyer client, SF, with an outdated feature sheet from a 2015 MLS  
listing that showed a higher value for the property at [(“Address 2”)], without  
bringing to your client’s attention that it was outdated.  
129. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick gave her an MLS feature sheet with all other documents she  
received when she signed the documents for the purchase, but she doesn’t know why it was  
given to her. Ms. Bonwick didn’t explain to her that the MLS feature sheet was from 2015.  
130. Kristine Semrau stated that the MLS sheet provided to SF is different than the copies in the  
brokerage file. For example, the listing price in the MLS sheet that SF received was  
$524,888. She doesn’t know why SF received an MLS sheet from 2015.  
v. You advised your client, SF, that the purchase price for [(“Address 2”)] was a  
reasonable price and did not attempt to negotiate a lower purchase price on her  
behalf.  
131. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick determined the purchase price, and she told SF that was the  
price. There were no negotiations on the purchase price. Ms. Bonwick told her that the  
market value was higher because of the seller financing.  
vi. You did not pull a certificate of title for the property at [(“Address 2”)] until after your  
client, SF, had signed the purchase contract.  
132. SF testified that she did not receive a copy of the land title certificate before she signed the  
Residential Purchase Contract.  
133. The evidence provided in this hearing shows that SF signed the Residential Purchase  
Contract on August 1, 2017 with Ms. Bonwick as her witness (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 602).  
The brokerage file contained a land title certificate dated August 3, 2017 (Binder 2, Tab 9,  
pages 585 - 587).  
vii. You did not show the certificate of title for [(“Address 2”)] to your client, SF.  
134. SF testified that she did not receive a copy of the land title certificate before she signed the  
Residential Purchase Contract on August 1, 2017. She expected that Ms. Bonwick would  
provide it to her. She believed that MB owned [Address 2].  
135. The N.’s were the registered owners of [Address 2] when SF signed the Residential  
Purchase Contract, as shown on the land title certificate dated August 3, 2017 (Binder 2,  
Tab 9, pages 585 - 587).  
32  
viii. You inserted a term in the purchase contract that your commission would be  
releasable upon removal of the conditions, not upon closing of the transaction, which  
put SF’s money at risk if the transaction did not close.  
136. Kristine Semrau stated that realtor commissions are generally paid after a transaction  
closes.  
137. The Residential Purchase Contract contained an added term in section 9.2 which states that  
“this transaction will be completed as an Agreement for Sale (AFS) in which property will  
not transfer but will be held in Trust. **Commission for the sale of this transaction will be  
$2,000 and will be fully payable upon removal of Conditions (August 7th, 2017).  
***Additional Terms of Sale will be explained in the attached Financing Schedule and  
Agenda. ***Buyer will take possession of the property on or before September 1st, 2017 as  
a tenant at will. Initial $5,000 deposit fully releasable to Seller upon removal of  
Conditions.” (Binder 2, Tab 9, page 600).  
138. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick did not explain why the commission would be paid when the  
conditions were removed. She didn’t know when a commission generally gets paid in a real  
estate transaction.  
ix. You did not fully explain the risks associated with the term added by the buyer to the  
purchase contract that directed SF’s $5000 initial deposit to be released upon removal  
of conditions, putting SF’s money at risk if the transaction did not close;  
139. Kristine Semrau testified that releasing the commission before the possession date would  
not protect the buyer. The seller would be protected because they would receive the deposit  
funds. If the transaction didn’t close, the buyer would have to involve a lawyer to recover  
the buyer’s deposit.  
140. SF testified that she doesn’t know why the additional term for the $5,000 deposit was  
added to the Residential Purchase Contract. She received no other explanation, other than a  
text from Ms. Bonwick asking her to initial the changes, and to “…just text or email me  
something like you acknowledge and agree to both” (Binder 1, Tab 13, pages 352 – 356).  
There were no further discussions about those changes other than Ms. Bonwick’s text. SF  
doesn’t recall Ms. Bonwick explaining the risks associated with releasing the commission  
or the $5,000 deposit upon removal of conditions. SF didn’t know of the risks because she  
had never done this before.  
x.  
When your client, SF, discovered that MB did not own the property and that he was  
subject to litigation by the [(“the N.’s”)], you did not take steps to rectify the  
situation for your client even though she asked you to return her deposits and to  
nullify the sale.  
141. SF testified that she tried to contact Ms. Bonwick and MB, but Ms. Bonwick told her that  
no one could do anything but everything was fine. Ms. Bonwick told her that MB had her  
money, however, MB told SF that Ms. Bonwick had her money. Ms. Bonwick was not  
responding to SF and eventually stopped talking to her.  
33  
142. A series of texts between SF and Ms. Bonwick starting on October 13, 2017 indicate SF  
had discovered that MB did not own [Address 2] when the N.’s showed up. SF demanded  
the return of the $20,000 she had paid towards purchasing [Address 2] (Binder 1, Tab 15,  
pages 374 – 386). Some of Ms. Bonwick’s responses to SF’s texts include: MB is working  
things out with the N.’s and he’ll keep SF updated; lawyers have told Ms. Bonwick that the  
N.’s won’t be successful, and SF needs to “just work things out with [MB]”; SF demanded  
her money be returned or she’ll start legal proceedings, and Ms. Bonwick replied “doesn’t  
matter if the contract says they can shoot you after 30 days it’s not legal”; “you have to  
follow the law. [MB] tells me he is paying them back or the [N.’s] will have to give him his  
money back (but that’s not likely to happen) and their actions have clearly resulted in  
damages. If he gets money back and they mutually decide to reverse the deal then he will  
have to give that money to you. Do you want to sell? I have someone looking in [area  
where [Address 2] is located] with 25k down. They have a lawyer and he knows about  
AFS.”  
c)  
You did not disclose to your client, at the earliest practical opportunity, any conflict of  
interest you may have in the course of providing services to, or in  
your dealings with a client, contrary to section 41(f) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i. You did not disclose to your client, SF, that you had a client relationship with the seller,  
MB.  
143. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick:  
a) did not discuss any conflicts of interest with her;  
b) told her that MB was her friend and she was doing him a favour;  
c) did not tell her she was representing MB as a client.  
144. Kristine Semrau testified that an associate must disclose in writing to their client if they  
previously assisted a seller. In her response to RECA dated February 22, 2018, Ms.  
Bonwick confirms that she has sold properties for MB in the past (Binder 2, Tab 15, page  
689).  
ii. You did not disclose to your client, SF, that you had previously represented MB in the  
purchase of the property at [(“Address 2”)] nor did you disclose all of the details  
regarding that transaction.  
145. Kristine Semrau testified that:  
a) an associate must disclose in writing to their client if they previously assisted a seller;  
b) it would be difficult for a previous client to become a customer;  
c) if a conflict of interest exists, the associate should advise the brokerage and the client in  
writing;  
d) she has now learned that a conflict of interest arose in the [Address 2] transaction;  
e) the brokerage file does not contain any written notice of the conflict of interest.  
34  
146. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick did not tell her anything about MB. If she had known Ms.  
Bonwick had a history with MB, she would have stayed far away from the [Address 2]  
transaction.  
d)  
You did not disclose, in a timely manner, to the buyer all relevant facts known to  
you about affecting a property or transaction, contrary to section 58(j) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules:  
i. You did not disclose to your client, SF, that the seller, MB, had entered into a  
“seller financing” arrangement and an AFS on the property at [(“Address 2”)].  
147. SF testified that she only learned the N.’s owned [Address 2] when they came to the house.  
She never saw the Agreement for Sale between the N.’s and MB (Binder 1, Tab 10, pages  
140 – 151) in January 2018, and Ms. Bonwick did not tell her anything about it, or that MB  
bought [Address 2] from the N.’s with an agreement that was identical to the agreement SF  
and MB signed.  
ii.  
You did not disclose to your client, SF, that the seller, MB, had not made his  
monthly payments, as per his AFS with the original owners, for the property at  
[(“Address 2”)].  
148. SF testified that after the N.’s showed up at [Address 2], Ms. Bonwick was talking to MB  
but not to SF. It seemed to SF that Ms. Bonwick already know what was going on because  
she mentioned to MB that he had already made payment arrangements. SF stated in her  
RECA complaint that neither Ms. Bonwick nor MB informed her that MB had defaulted on  
his purchase agreement with the N.’s or of “any court dealings or anything that could be a  
problem at all. When I speak to each person they say the other should have informed me.  
But no one at all informed me at the time I signed my agreement with [MB] or I would not  
have entered into an agreement with him.” (Binder 1, Tab 12, page 273).  
iii.  
You did not disclose to your client, SF, that the owners of the property at  
[(“Address 2”)] had initiated litigation against MB in an effort to recoup their  
missed payments and, further, to prevent the future sale of the property to your  
client, SF.  
149. Anthony Merah faxed a letter to Ms. Bonwick informing her of the N.’s lawsuit against  
MB. That letter was received by Ms. Bonwick on September 6, 2017 and it states that the  
N.’s “instruction is to oppose the purported sale of their property by [MB], who appears to  
be trying to dispose of an interest he does not have over the subject property.” (Binder 2,  
Tab 28, pages 804 - 805).  
150. Kristine Semrau testified that that Ms. Bonwick had a fiduciary duty to SF as her client to  
notify her of the litigation, because they were still under the terms of the Exclusive Buyer  
Representation Agreement.  
35  
151. SF stated that Ms. Bonwick did not tell her about Mr. Merah’s letter.  
iv. You did not disclose to your client, SF that the tenants living at the property located  
at [(“Address 2”)] had not been provided proper notice or vacated the property  
prior to the date of SF’s possession.  
152. SF testified that when she arrived at [Address 2] on September 1, 2017 to take possession,  
the tenants had not moved out. She wasn’t sure how Ms. Bonwick knew how many tenants  
were at [Address 2]. She believes Ms. Bonwick was speaking to a tenant. Ms. Bonwick told  
her that the tenants send things to Africa for charity, but she doesn’t know how she knew  
that. Ms. Bonwick seemed to know the tenants personally, and they moved their  
possessions to Ms. Bonwick’s residence. Ms. Bonwick told SF that she was the property  
manager for [Address 2].  
e)  
Between February 2017 and October 2017, you did not hold the appropriate  
authorization to deal as a mortgage broker, contrary to section 17(b) of the Real  
Estate Act:  
i. You negotiated the terms of a mortgage on the property at [(“Address 2”)] on  
behalf of your seller client, MB, and your buyer client, SF, by calculating the  
following:  
a) interest rate;  
b) monthly payments;  
c) down payment;  
d) amortization period;  
e) financing term.  
153. Holly Childs testified that a mortgage associate, not a real estate associate, would determine  
the mortgage terms in a transaction. A person would require a mortgage licence to  
determine the mortgage terms. Ms. Bonwick does not have a mortgage associate licence.  
The financing terms and conditions were more than a client simply asking what they could  
afford, and they went beyond the scope of a real estate associate. It is within the scope of a  
mortgage associate.  
154. Kristine Semrau testified that real estate associates don’t get education about calculating  
and creating financing terms. A mortgage associate would get the appropriate education  
and they would also require a mortgage associate licence.  
155. SF testified that Ms. Bonwick proposed the financing terms for the [Address 2] transaction.  
She doesn’t know if MB had any input in the financing terms for this transaction. SF didn’t  
negotiate any of the financing terms because they were already inserted in the Residential  
Purchase Contract when she signed it. Ms. Bonwick did not really discuss the financing  
terms with her. She told SF to speak with a mortgage broker but not to solidify the purchase  
contract, and SF would have to get financing when the Agreement for Sale term ended. Ms.  
Bonwick showed SF how she did mortgage calculations with her mortgage calculator.  
36  
156. David Lem testified that if your advertisements state you are a seller financing expert, it  
would not fall under real estate licencing sectors, and it might fall more into the mortgage  
sector. SF was not referred to a financing professional or expert.  
ii.  
You received compensation in the form of commission for the negotiation of the  
mortgage terms of the seller financing arrangement for [(“Address 2”)].  
157. Kristine Semrau’s records show that Ms. Bonwick received a $2,000 commission from the  
[Address 2] transaction (Binder 2, Tab 25, page 799). $2,000 was deducted from the  
$15,000 deposit SF paid and was released to MB. She assumes it was Ms. Bonwick’s  
commission. The commission was paid even though the transaction did not complete.  
f)  
You did not cooperate with the investigator, contrary to section 38(4.1) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules:  
i. You did not provide a copy of a comparative market analysis for the property  
located at [(“Address 2”)], as requested by the investigator.  
158. Holly Childs sent Ms. Bonwick a Professional Conduct Review: Request for Information  
dated October 4, 2018. She asked Ms. Bonwick to provide a copy of the market analysis  
and city tax assessment she prepared and provided to SF. Ms. Bonwick did not respond to  
RECA’s request. David Lem confirmed with Ms. Childs that his office received the  
Professional Conduct Review: Request for Information and emailed it to Ms. Bonwick  
(Binder 2, Tab 17, page 764).  
159. SF stated that she did not receive a comparative market analysis or market listings. Kristine  
Semrau testified that the brokerage file did not contain a comparative market analysis.  
ii.  
You did not provide your phone records for the period of May 2017 to November  
2017, as requested by the investigator.  
160. Holly Childs requested Ms. Bonwick’s phone records for the period of May 2017 to  
November 2017 (Binder 2, Tab 21, page 782). She testified that she did not receive those  
records from Ms. Bonwick or her lawyer.  
iii.  
You did not provide a copy of the lease agreement between you and MB for your  
residence located at [(“Address 3”)] Calgary, AB, as requested by the investigator.  
161. Holly Childs requested a copy of that lease agreement (Binder 2, Tab 21, page 782).  
[Address 3] is listed as Ms. Bonwick’s address on her licence history and the CRM system.  
Ms. Childs obtained a land title search on [Address 3] and discovered that MB owns it. She  
sent Ms. Bonwick and Jonathan Denis an email to remind them that Ms. Childs required  
the lease agreement. She testified that she did not receive it.  
File 008395  
37  
a)  
You made representations or carried on conduct that was reckless or intentional  
and that misled or deceived any person or was likely to do so, contrary to section  
42(a) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i.  
You represented yourself as an “expert” in seller financing in your online  
advertisements.  
162. The ED’s evidence included RECA’s Advertising Guidelines (Binder 4, Tab 7, pages 1208  
- 1239). Page 1219 discusses industry professionals’ stated experience. “Industry  
professionals often advertise that they have special qualifications, experience or expertise  
in specific industry sectors or in certain geographic areas. Consumers often rely on these  
claims. When making these claims, industry professionals must ensure they are in a  
position to demonstrate the qualification or experience they are claiming. If an industry  
professional advertises special qualifications or expertise, the Courts and RECA typically  
hold them to a higher standard.”  
163. Holly Childs testified that RECA made several requests to Ms. Bonwick for information  
about her advertising because she wasn’t complying or responding to those requests. The  
ED provided several of Ms. Bonwick’s advertisements containing wording where Ms.  
Bonwick mentions she can help buyers and sellers with seller financing. Several of her ads  
contained the following wording: “If you’re looking for a Seller Financed Property I can  
help. As a licensed real estate agent I can offer you the security of knowing your  
investment is in the hands of a qualified professional.” (Binder 4, Tab 1, page 1191; Binder  
4, Tab 2, page 1195; Binder 4, Tab 4, page 1200; Binder 4, Tab 5, page 1203; Binder 4,  
Tab 17, page 1339).  
164. Kristine Semrau testified that she had heard about Ms. Bonwick in the industry prior to  
working with her, and she knew Ms. Bonwick specialized in seller financing. She saw  
some of Ms. Bonwick’s advertisements prior to working with her and based her opinion of  
Ms. Bonwick specializing in seller financing somewhat from those ads. David Lem  
testified that if an industry professional’s advertisements state someone is a seller financing  
expert, it would not fall under real estate licencing sectors but might fall more towards the  
mortgage side.  
165. Ms. Bonwick’s August 24, 2018 response letter to RECA’s Notification of a Professional  
Conduct Review (Binder 4, Tab 16, pages 1332 - 1335) states that  
“I have been a realtor specializing in Seller Financing for many, many years and most  
realtors already know and respect what I do.”  
“If you would like to find out more about Seller Financing, I suggest you hire a lawyer and  
get one of them to explain it to you. Most of the people participating in Seller Financed  
Agreement for Sales do not have the benefit of working with a licensed realtor. It's not in  
the best interest of the public for this legitimate and 100% legal type of sale transaction to  
be completely relegated to those individuals or companies that are doing it without a  
license.  
38  
“Also, please do not contact or harass any of the buyers, sellers or lawyers involved with  
any of the addresses I provided to you. That would be entirely inappropriate and unacceptable.  
I can assure you, there is nothing wrong, morally or legally with Seller Financed Agreement  
for Sales and I am very proud of the work I do.”  
ii.  
Your online advertisements stated that real estate transactions are monitored by the  
Real Estate Council of Alberta.  
166. Holly Childs testified that RECA made several requests to Ms. Bonwick for information  
about her advertising because she wasn’t complying or responding to those requests. RECA  
would not have asked Ms. Bonwick about the word “monitored” in her advertisements if  
RECA didn’t want her to change the wording of her ads. This was brought up when RECA  
investigated Ms. Bonwick in 2016 and again in 2018 in case 008395 with Mr. Lem,  
because the brokerage is ultimately responsible for advertising.  
167. Several of Ms. Bonwick’s advertisements contain the following wording: “Every real estate  
transaction facilitated by a Real Estate Associate is monitored to insure that it conforms to  
legal and ethical standards set out by the Real Estate Council.” (Binder 4, Tab 1, page  
1191; Binder 4, Tab 2, page 1196; Binder 4, Tab 3, page 1198; Binder 4, Tab 4, page 1200;  
Binder 4, Tab 5, pages 1202 and 1203).  
168. David Lem testified, and stated in his August 24, 2018 response to RECA’s August 2, 2018  
letter (Binder 4, Tab 15, page 1272), that when looking at those advertisements, it sounds  
like RECA would look at every real estate transaction. Mr. Lem and Ms. Bonwick were in  
continuous discussions regarding any seller financing initiatives and transactions. He  
advised her to ensure she consults him on such matters as they occur. He thinks there was  
some confusion with the wording of Ms. Bonwick’s ads, and maybe she didn’t intend to  
show that every transaction was being monitored, but he can see in a literal sense that  
consumers could interpret the ads that way. Ms. Bonwick told him she would remove that  
wording to ensure it does not confuse consumers. He discussed with her about possibly  
changing the wording to state that RECA monitors industry members’ behaviour so it  
would not be confusing. He doesn’t recall if he called her to ask if she had changed her  
advertisements. Realtors know that not every transaction would be monitored, however,  
“monitored” could have a different meaning to consumers. If RECA told him his  
advertising was misleading, he would take a serious look at it and change it so it wasn’t  
confusing. He would not consider Ms. Bonwick was confused about the wording of her  
advertisements if he knew the same issue was also raised in 2016.  
169. Ms. Bonwick’s August 24, 2018 response letter to RECA’s Notification of a Professional  
Conduct Review states that “it is ridiculous to suggest by underlining the word “monitored”  
that it somehow implies the real estate industry is going to check in every month to see  
whether an individual’s monthly payments are made every month. The statement clearly is  
meant to provide the public with assurances that the practice of real estate in Alberta is  
regulated and that realtors are held to a high standard.” (Binder 4, Tab 16, page 1331).  
39  
b)  
You traded in real estate in the name of the brokerage in which you were not  
registered, contrary to section 53(a) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i. You advertised properties online using either your previous brokerage’s name or no  
brokerage name.  
170. Some of Ms. Bonwick’s Kijiji advertisement name Ms. Bonwick as an Associate, or  
Associate, Commercial/Residential/Property Management, or an Affiliate, with The  
Alberta Collection / Christie’s International while she was registered with Engel & Volkers  
(Binder 4, Tab 1, page 1189; Binder 4, Tab 3, page 1197; Binder 4, Tab 4, page 1199).  
Holly Childs testified that Christie’s International is a luxury real estate organization, not a  
brokerage. RECA industry members must comply with regulations and legislations and  
advertising guidelines. Ms. Bonwick’s May 18, 2018 Kijiji advertisement names Ms.  
Bonwick as an Advisor with The Alberta Collection / Engel & Volkers Calgary while she  
was registered with Engel & Volkers (Binder 4, Tab 2, page 1194). Ms. Childs testified that  
RECA made several requests for information to Ms. Bonwick about her advertising  
because she wasn’t complying or responding. She added that an industry member is  
obligated to update their advertising, regardless of how many times they change  
brokerages. Ms. Bonwick posted a Kijiji advertisement on September 5, 2018 which names  
her as an Associate, Commercial/Residential/Property Management with The Alberta  
Collection / Engel & Volkers Calgary.  
171. Ms. Bonwick posted this ad after she had received RECA’s Notification of a Professional  
Conduct Review and after her written response to RECA where she stated she would  
change her advertising. In that written response, she states she had to change brokerages in  
the past three years, due to brokerages closing. She states further that “understand there is  
there is absolutely zero advantage for me to be advertising properties under the name of a  
brokerage I am not registered to. I have had to redo all of my advertising and materials at a  
considerable cost of money and time spent. Information on the internet cannot always be  
updated immediately and it may take years before all of my content advertising Discover  
Real Estate and The Alberta Collection disappears. Any advertisement still appearing as  
The Alberta Collection is obviously because I have just recently changed brokerages. I am  
perfectly aware that my website needs updating, along with all of my advertising materials.  
It really is a slap in the face to bring this up while simultaneously requiring me to waste a  
bunch of my time when I should be concentrating on restoring my business to its full  
capacity.” (Binder 4, Tab 16, page 1132). Ms. Bonwick indicated she is aware that the  
brokerage is ultimately responsible for advertising. In her August 24, 2018 response letter  
to RECA’s Notification of a Professional Conduct Review (Binder 4, Tab 16, at page 1330)  
“My standard Kijiji ad write up has been approved by my broker, Graham Mayne, the  
Calgary Real Estate Board, and RECA. The wording was adapted from one of RECA’s or  
CREB’s own publications.  
“Not only was my ad approved by Graham, he said it was “very good”. The exact wording  
was also on the front page of my website (shelleybonwick.com) which the brokerage  
helped me set up and maintain.”  
40  
172. David Lem stated that Ms. Bonwick used the brokerage team name The Alberta Collection  
while she was registered with Engel & Volkers. He did not try to refresh the advertisements  
when he looked at them. Ms. Bonwick sent him nothing to show that it was only a problem  
related to refreshing the browser.  
File #008856  
a) From October 1, 2018 to present, you did not hold the appropriate authorization to  
trade in real estate as a real estate broker or to advertise yourself, or in any way hold  
yourself out as, a real estate broker, contrary to section 17(a) and (d) of the Real Estate  
Act:  
i.  
You failed to renew your registration with RECA as a real estate associate by  
the annual deadline on September 30, 2018.  
173. Holly Childs testified that David Lem told her Ms. Bonwick didn’t renew her real estate  
associate licence because she wanted to take a break from real estate. Also, Ms. Bonwick’s  
Licence History dated February 4, 2020 (Binder 1, Tab 3, pages 44 – 45) indicated that Ms.  
Bonwick has not been licenced with RECA after September 30, 2018.  
ii.  
You advertised property listings on Kijiji, while unauthorized, with your name  
and phone number as a contact.  
174. Holly Childs testified that she pulled screenshots from the Engel & Volkers website around  
October 2018 to determine if Ms. Bonwick was still advertising on that site. She also  
searched Ms. Bonwick’s cell phone number on Google to make sure it still belonged to her.  
That phone number appeared in the Kijiji ads. Ms. Childs pulled 28 Kijiji ads after Ms.  
Bonwick did not renew her licence. She searched for seller financing to see what ads  
appeared. When Ms. Childs interviewed her, Ms. Bonwick stated she had an arrangement  
and a service agreement with the owners of the Canals property who didn’t want to use a  
real estate agent. Ms. Bonwick said she wasn’t trading in real estate but was marketing  
properties for sale. Ms. Childs testified that marketing properties is considered trading real  
estate according to the legislation. She asked Ms. Bonwick for a copy of the service  
agreement but did not receive it.  
175. The ED produced documents to support Ms. Childs’ evidence that Ms. Bonwick’s cell  
phone number had not changed, and that she continued to advertise, while unauthorized:  
Google search of Ms. Bonwick’s cell phone number (Binder 4, Tab 34, pages 1413 - 1414);  
Ms. Bonwick’s Kijiji ads posted while she was unauthorized (Binder 4, Tab 35, pages 1415  
– 1418; Binder 4, Tab 36, page 1419; Binder 4, Tab 37, pages 1420 – 1422; Binder 4, Tab  
38, pages 1423 – 1424).  
176. David Lem confirmed that the screenshots contained at Binder 4, Tab 33, pages 1409 –  
1412 are from the Engel & Volkers website. He saw a Heritage Lake property on the Engel  
& Volkers website and in a Kijiji advertisement. To his knowledge, this property was not  
being listed through seller financing. When he reached out to Ms. Bonwick after she didn’t  
41  
renew her licence, she told him she only had advertisements on Facebook. He didn’t try to  
refresh the advertisements when he looked at them. Ms. Bonwick sent him nothing to show  
that it was only a problem related to refreshing the browser (Binder 4, Tab 46, pages 1442 –  
1445: David Lem’s November 14, 2018 written response to RECA).  
177. RECA interviewed Ms. Bonwick on December 6, 2018. Ms. Bonwick seemed confused  
about the difference between marketing and advertising (Exhibit S, transcript of Holly  
Childs and Cheryl Rumpel interviewing Ms. Bonwick, at pages 53, 54, 56, 57).  
iii.  
You promoted “seller financing” in advertisements while unauthorized.  
178. The ED’s evidence included Ms. Bonwick’s Kijiji advertisements that were posted while  
she was unauthorized as a real estate associate (Binder 4, Tab 37, page 1421; Binder 4, Tab  
38, pages 1423 - 1424).  
iv.  
You promoted the benefits of not using an authorized real estate associate in real  
estate transactions in your advertisements.  
179. Ms. Bonwick testified she was not sure if promoting the benefits of not using a licenced  
real estate agent brings positivity to the industry. People have the right to choose and they  
don’t have to use an agent. For some people, not using an agent is a benefit according to  
their level of expertise. Some people don’t want to be associated with realtors or RECA.  
Ms. Bonwick thinks it’s fair to give people options and to let them make their own  
decisions about whether or not they want an agent or whether they would be better off  
representing themselves. She believes it is better to work with a realtor, but it is not her  
manner to state that to someone else. She chooses to present the information in such a way  
that people can draw their own conclusion. If presented properly, a person should be able to  
conclude that a professional is their best option, however, some people may not want to do  
that.  
v.  
When you were notified by RECA that you cannot trade in real estate while  
unauthorized, you altered the Kijiji advertisements to hide your identity.  
180. Holly Childs testified that screenshots of some Kijiji advertisements from around October  
2018 show the same ads with “Kelli” as the user. The only difference between these ads  
and Ms. Bonwick’s ads is the posting date and user name. When Ms. Childs interviewed  
her, Ms. Bonwick stated that Kelli was her cousin. Ms. Childs confirmed some Kijiji  
advertisements posted by “Kelli” (Binder 4, Tab 41, pages 1434 – 1435; Binder 4, Tab 43,  
pages 1439) were the same as some Kijiji advertisements posted by “Kijiji User”, which  
Ms. Childs stated is Ms. Bonwick (Binder 4, Tab 35, pages 1415 – 1418; Binder 4, Tab 36,  
pages 1420 – 1422). The only difference between those advertisements is the posting date  
and user name. RECA requested Kelli’s contact information, but Ms. Bonwick did not  
provide it.  
181. Ms. Bonwick stated that Kelli is her cousin, and they had worked together in the past. At  
first Ms. Bonwick thought Kelli was posting the advertisements. She didn’t want to provide  
Kelli’s contact information to RECA because she didn’t want to drag her into the  
42  
investigation. Since that time, Ms. Bonwick thinks that RB was trying to set her up. She  
believes it was RB because she heard an audio recording where RB said she saw several  
Kijiji ads online belonging to Ms. Bonwick. She doesn’t know if RB would change the  
name to “Kelli” if she was trying to set her up. Ms. Bonwick wouldn’t benefit from the ads  
if RB posted them with Ms. Bonwick’s phone number because it could be illegitimate calls  
or people set up by RB to call her.  
b) You did not cooperate with the investigator, contrary to section 38(4)(a) of the Real  
Estate Act Rules:  
i. You did not respond to the questions posed by the investigator in a Notification of a  
Real Estate Investigation dated October 19, 2018.  
182.  
Holly Childs testified that a Notification of and Investigation Under the Real Estate Act  
was sent to both of Ms. Bonwick’s addresses listed in CRM (Binder 4, Tab 39, pages  
1425 – 1429) and by email (Binder 4, Tab 40, pages 1430 – 1433). A Canada Post  
notification shows the Notification was signed for and successfully delivered to Ms.  
Bonwick. Ms. Bonwick did not respond to that RECA Notification.  
ii.  
You did not provide the contact information for the individual that assumed your  
Kijiji ads, as requested by the investigator.  
183. Holly Childs testified that on December 6, 2018 she emailed Ms. Bonwick and requested  
her to provide Kelli’s contact information as part of RECA’s investigation (Binder 4, Tab  
47, page 1446). Ms. Bonwick did not provide Kelli’s contact information.  
c)  
You engaged in conduct that undermines public confidence in the industry, harms  
the integrity of the industry, or brings the industry into disrepute, contrary to  
section 42(g) of the Real Estate Act Rules:  
i. Throughout the investigation process, you exhibited clear contempt for the  
governance of your regulator.  
184. David Lem testified that he was not happy about receiving correspondence from RECA  
regarding Ms. Bonwick. He discussed it with Ms. Bonwick and they were both confused  
about what RECA wanted her to do. The sentiment during his discussions with her was that  
the investigations were frivolous, and Ms. Bonwick has better things to do with her time.  
185. Ms. Bonwick testified that RECA alleged she was advertising on pornography websites.  
After the pornography video, the attacks by RECA did not stop. Their notifications came  
with greater intensity. All she was doing was responding to their investigations. RECA’s  
questions were irrelevant, particularly with a civil court action involving Ms. Bonwick. She  
suggested that RECA staff were watching pornography because there was no other reason  
why RECA staff would be looking at age 18-plus websites. She doesn’t think it’s  
professional for RECA to send her pornography. RECA never came up with any other  
reason for why they found the link to the OMG Youtube website. The only logical  
explanation was that RECA staff were watching pornography. Ms. Bonwick believed at the  
43  
time of her interview that perhaps the RECA investigators were supplying RB and HR with  
information about how to further their complaint. RECA needs multiple complaints to take  
something seriously. Ms. Bonwick responded to James Porter’s August 13, 2018 email by  
sending him an article about how to check your computer for pornography, as “it may help  
you to avoid any future embarrassment for you or other the RECA investigators.” (Binder  
4, Tab 12, pages 1259 – 1261).  
186. On October 15, 2018 Holly Childs emailed Ms. Bonwick a Demand for Information  
Relevant to an Investigation. Ms. Bonwick replied on October 23, 2018, stating she may  
consider a date when she can attend a meeting, but she is “taking a leave of absence from  
real estate due to health issues related to extreme emotional distress.” (Binder 2, Tab 19,  
pages 771 – 776). Ms. Bonwick said that in order to prepare for a potential meeting, she  
would require, among other things, the code of conduct for RECA investigators and  
industry members in an investigation, list of meeting attendees, and the questions Ms.  
Childs would be asking so Ms. Bonwick could prepare for the meeting.  
187. On October 2, 2018 Ms. Childs replied to Ms. Bonwick’s email and provided a link, Guide  
to a Professional Conduct Review for Industry Professionals”, which Ms. Childs said had  
previously been provided to Ms. Bonwick. On October 26, 2018 Ms. Bonwick replied that  
she is “still traumatized by recent events, such as “the recent inflammatory accusations of  
James Porter, who accused me of advertising on porn sites and then sent me and my broker  
a link to pornography. His actions deeply affected me and I will probably have trust issues  
with RECA for some time.” She repeated that she would need a list of questions RECA  
would ask her and names of interview attendees. (Tab 2, Tab 20, pages 777 – 781). Ms.  
Bonwick considered RECA’s professional conduct review to be harassment (Binder 4, Tab  
16, page 1329: Ms. Bonwick’s August 24, 2018 response to RECA).  
ii.  
You have persistently shown that you are not governable as a real estate  
professional.  
188. Holly Childs testified that an industry member is obligated to update their contact  
information in the CRM system. RECA needs industry members’ most current information  
so that it can contact them. A lot of times with advertising complaints, RECA contacts the  
broker, the advertisements get changed, and RECA closes the investigation file without  
sanction. An industry member can discuss with their broker or RECA if they are confused  
about their advertisements. Ms. Bonwick did not contact RECA to indicate she was  
confused about the concerns regarding her ads.  
189. RECA suspended Ms. Bonwick’s authorization to trade in real estate under section 53(1)(1)  
of the Real Estate Act on November 13, 2018 (Binder 4, Tab 45, page 1441).  
190. James Porter testified that Ms. Bonwick filed a court application within a week of his  
phone call with her, even though he told her he expected to complete RECA’s investigation  
the following month. The basis for governability is having respect for your regulator and  
following the rules.  
44  
SHELLEY BONWICK’S TESTIMONY  
191. After the ED closed his case, the Hearing Panel informed Ms. Bonwick that she now has  
the opportunity to respond to the ED’s case against her and to present evidence she feels  
the Hearing Panel needs to hear in support of her response. The independent legal counsel  
explained to Ms. Bonwick that this is her one and only chance to present her case. Ms.  
Bonwick confirmed she understood the Hearing Panel’s and the independent legal  
counsel’s explanations. She believed she will call herself as a witness, and possibly one  
other witness (MB), whom she did not produce to testify at this hearing. She was told:  
a. she may or may not include herself as a witness;  
b. if she chooses to testify, she will take the witness stand and be affirmed, present her  
testimony, be subject to cross-examination, then provide additional testimony to clarify  
any evidence that arises in cross-examination; and  
c. then the Hearing Panel may ask her questions.  
Ms. Bonwick confirmed that she understands the above explanation, and she chooses to  
testify. Ms. Bonwick was affirmed and testified on her own behalf.  
192. Ms. Bonwick testified and wrote in her responses to RECA that RECA abused other people  
involved in the investigations of her. When it suits RECA, there is an investigation of Ms.  
Bonwick. It affects her because there is always someone next, and she wondered who will  
be next. RECA cast a wide net to isolate Ms. Bonwick from all of her friends and  
associates. She questioned why she would cooperate with an investigation if RECA is  
going to get what they want. RECA asking her to provide screenshots of the OMG website  
and cat videos came up. To show she was watching cat videos is an example of gaslighting.  
James Porter uses the word “kitties” in his email to Ms. Bonwick, and she wanted to clarify  
that she did not use that word; only Mr. Porter did. It is harassment, and a person is out to  
abuse you, if they send you pornography, especially if you haven’t asked for it. She is not  
sure if RECA was putting realtors on pornography sites to try to entrap them. Ms. Bonwick  
cannot do real estate anymore because she’s sick of it. She can’t be at a job where the  
authority think it’s alright to send her pornography. If she stays in real estate, that would  
make her a prostitute.  
193. Ms. Bonwick has made some calls, she tried to call the minister, and she tried to figure out  
the code of conduct to discover whether there were any circumstances where pornography  
can be sent. The RECA investigators encouraged HR and RB to contact REIX (Real Estate  
Insurance Exchange) and to pursue lawsuits against Ms. Bonwick. RECA wanted to let  
them know they could make some money. If RECA has concerns about Ms. Bonwick’s  
practice of real estate, bring them forward in a timely manner so she can learn from them  
and not repeat them. RECA shouldn’t keep their concerns on the back burner and then see  
how much garbage they can collect on a person. She calls it garbage because she questions  
why Cheryl Rumpel was in a back room digging up internet porn on her.  
194. The pornography is not relevant to the charges against Ms Bonwick. She doesn’t know how  
she is supposed to speak appropriately to someone that sends her pornography. She doesn’t  
have any respect for them, and she questioned how she can respect someone that comes up  
45  
with spurious arguments. She doesn’t care if she ever practices real estate again. She  
doesn’t know how she can work for someone that has done this to her, because it is  
abusive. She is sorry that the witnesses lost money in real estate, but that was not because  
of her. If the market had been different, HR, RB and SF would not have complained against  
her. They wanted these transactions, but they didn’t work out, and as a result HR, RB and  
SF have personally attacked Ms. Bonwick. It is not good for RECA to encourage RB to  
pursue vexatious lawsuits that the general public has to be exposed to.  
195. As far as she is concerned, everyone has wasted their time at this hearing. She does not  
understand how someone can be in a back room digging up dirt just to get a kick and see  
what power they have. The only way to respond to a RECA investigation is to admit to  
what you did, say sorry, and ask how much money they want you to pay. If you try to fight  
it, you are obviously a bad person. She would rather RECA not inform her of listings on  
sites with a pornographic website. She doesn’t care what is on the dark web, and she would  
never look at what her computer blocks. She doesn’t think her clients would care if their  
listings were on a site with pornographic content. If they are visiting a site like that, they  
will not be offended watching real estate videos.  
196. If other people other than clients are looking on the OMG website, then they have already  
agreed to click on an age 18-plus website that has objectionable content. She doesn’t think  
that it reflects negatively on the industry to have real estate listings on a website containing  
pornographic advertising. She believes her suspension was retaliatory, and not because of  
her conduct, because she objected to the allegations that she was willingly advertising on  
pornographic pop up websites.  
197. This matter has been very upsetting for Ms. Bonwick. Before January and February 2016,  
she had not had any unfair dealings with RECA. She called RECA to let them know about  
agents not receiving their commissions. RECA told her it is not a public concern, and she  
can change brokerages. RECA very sternly warned her to never speak of this matter again  
or there might be repercussions. This is around the time the [Address 2] transaction  
occurred. RECA was very angry at Ms. Bonwick and she was not allowed to do anything.  
A few months later RECA sent her notification of her first complaint, which RB made.  
Maybe in hindsight she would have responded differently and not use such strong language  
in her response.  
198. Ms. Bonwick said documents her former broker, Graham Mayne of Discover Real Estate  
had preserved some emails relating to RB and her complaint. The case presenter objected to  
Ms. Bonwick submitting these documents into evidence on the grounds that the  
relationship between Ms. Bonwick and RB are not relevant to this hearing, and stated that  
the Hearing Panel had previously ruled on those emails and did not allow them to be  
admitted into evidence due to lack of relevance. Ms. Bonwick took the position that RB’s  
complaint is based on a vendetta by RB, and the emails are relevant because they were  
attached to the first complaint which was sent to Graham Mayne. They were contained in  
an Additional Information folder: Email Supporting Documents that Ms. Bonwick had  
provided to the RECA Hearings Administrator in the evening of March 5, 2020. The  
Hearing Panel heard submissions from Ms. Bonwick and the case presenter and deliberated  
to consider the objection and the emails Ms. Bonwick sought to enter into evidence. After  
46  
considering the parties’ submissions, the Hearing Panel concluded that the emails were not  
relevant to this hearing and they will not be entered into evidence.  
199. Ms. Bonwick relayed to the RECA investigators a written report she wrote about the  
personal issues she had with RB, and said RB’s testimony should be taken with a very fine  
grain of sand, because RB’s memory would not be reliable due to medication she  
mentioned to Ms. Bonwick, and RB had a dependence on drugs. The case presenter  
objected to this testimony being allowed into evidence on the grounds that it was not  
relevant to this hearing. The Hearing Panel considered the parties’ positions on the case  
presenter’s objection. After considering the parties’ positions, the Hearing Panel sustained  
the case presenter’s objection and informed the parties that it would consider each witness’s  
evidence individually.  
200. RB proposed a working relationship with Ms. Bonwick. Ms. Bonwick told RECA about it  
and discussed it with Graham Mayne. Mr. Mayne said he was familiar with RB and said  
she is trouble. RB was advertising in Ms. Bonwick’s name. When Ms. Bonwick confronted  
RB about this, RB became very angry and said Ms. Bonwick was trying to kill her and she  
was the reason why RB would die on the operating table. RECA ignored Ms. Bonwick’s  
concerns.  
201. Ryan Deluca and Graham Mayne told Ms. Bonwick not to change anything about her  
online ads and they approved her ads.  
202. Ms. Bonwick thought everything was okay, and then she had big issues with SF. The  
biggest issue was that SF might have thought the tenants in [Address 2] were Ms.  
Bonwick’s tenants, but they were MB’s tenants. Ms. Bonwick was always licenced for  
property management and she took all required education but she didn’t do much property  
management. The tenants were not moving out of [Address 2] and Ms. Bonwick and MB  
were trying to help SF by trying to figure out how to remove the tenants’ belongings. Ms.  
Bonwick said she and MB obtained a Restraining Order from Alberta Court of Queen’s  
Bench against two of the tenants, OB and SB (as mentioned in Ms. Bonwick’s Affidavit in  
a civil action she commenced against RECA (Binder 5, Tab 8, pages 1591 – 1592). Ms.  
Bonwick said OB was a violent individual who basically kidnapped MB, forced him into a  
car and assaulted MB.  
203. Ms. Bonwick referred to a transcript where RECA interviewed Kristine Semrau. The case  
presenter objected to the transcript being entered as evidence on the grounds that it is not  
relevant to this hearing. The Hearing Panel allowed Ms. Bonwick to identify the document  
and Ms. Bonwick was allowed to go into detail regarding the contents of the transcript, to  
enable the Hearing Panel to consider its potential relevance. Ms. Bonwick stated that the  
transcript made reference to a specific individual. The Hearing Panel listened to Ms.  
Bonwick’s statements about the transcript and then reviewed the transcript to determine  
whether it was relevant to this hearing. The Hearing Panel allowed the case presenter’s  
objection. The Hearing Panel considered the excerpts Ms. Bonwick brought to the Hearing  
Panel’s attention, and concluded that the Kristine Semrau transcript was not relevant to this  
hearing.  
47  
204. Ms. Bonwick asked James Porter for a month extension to respond to RECA’s Notification  
of a Professional Conduct Review. Mr. Porter only allowed her to have a one-week  
extension. She acknowledged that one of her Kijiji advertisements contained a  
pornographic pop up, and she did not know how it appeared in that advertisement. She also  
said Mr. Porter called her unprofessional for allowing that to happen.  
205. Responding to RECA’s investigation requests and demands in a timely manner is more  
important to RECA than Ms. Bonwick’s mental health. She referenced her mental health to  
Holly Childs many times and no one from RECA ever considered her mental health.  
RECA was only interested in asking her to send them more documents. She found it  
thoroughly humiliating and disgusting that she was sent pornography. She had been asking  
since 2018 who found the pornography pop up, and she did not find out until this hearing.  
206. It was a difficult decision to not renew her licence. She spoke to the Alberta Real Estate  
Association about her situation, and they provided a lawyer and some funding.  
207. She did a comparative market analysis for [Address 2], but she doesn’t keep them and she  
is not required to keep copies. She explained everything to her lawyer, and he told her to he  
would respond to RECA and she didn’t have to do anything. He said he would attend the  
RECA meeting, and she felt like she had someone on her side. Her lawyer for REIX is not  
communicating with her at all. She asked her lawyer to respond and let her know what is  
going on. She feels like she has no one helping her. Broker Graham Mayne, and  
[LAWYER], the lawyer she used in her seller financing transactions, passed away and is  
not here to speak to this matter. They are both very relevant to these proceedings.  
208. She felt that the meeting with her lawyer would get everything done. Then all of a sudden  
RECA suspended her licence without given any reasons. You have to ask them to provide  
reasons. Then after her licence was suspended, HR and RB added Ms. Bonwick to their  
lawsuit. The RECA investigators were not speaking respectfully to Ms. Bonwick, and they  
were yelling at her. She said RECA encouraged HR, RB and SF many times to add Ms.  
Bonwick as a party to their lawsuits arising from the [Address 1] and [Address 2]  
transactions. RB and SF are making personal attacks against Ms. Bonwick.  
209. RECA should have brought forth its concerns about Ms. Bonwick in a timely manner. They  
are covering up the fact that they sent her pornography and defending their actions against  
Ms. Bonwick’s actions. She believes that by sending her pornography, RECA is calling her  
a loose woman. RECA has been able to decide for itself throughout the investigation  
against her what RECA feels is or is not relevant. RECA decided to suspend Ms.  
Bonwick’s licence before she received a hearing. This experience has caused huge distress  
to Ms. Bonwick, and the process is abusive.  
210. She thought this hearing would be the same as the RECA investigations, and she is very  
thankful that it has not been the same. She apologized for being late on the first day of this  
hearing, and she thought the Hearing Panel would be screaming at her and that it would not  
be fair. Even though she does not agree with the process, she appreciated that the Hearing  
Panel has been asking her questions and giving her a chance to state her case and to be  
heard.  
48  
211. Ms. Bonwick’s life, reputation and social life has been a mess due to the RECA  
investigation, and she contemplated suicide. A career is not worth it, and the truth is not  
worth it. She is not going to lie and say that she did the things she is accused of. If she did  
something wrong, tell her in sensitive manner. She doesn’t see the value in these  
proceedings. She has been waiting four years for the opportunity to state her case. It is not  
even about her case, but rather the abuse she has endured throughout the investigation  
process.  
212. The Hearing Panel asked Ms. Bonwick if she had provided all of her evidence in relation to  
her application for procedural fairness (which will be discussed later in this decision) and in  
answer to the case against her. She could not think of anything else at that time, and she  
mentioned:  
a. the length of time it took for the investigation and to hold this hearing;  
b. witnesses not being treated fairly;  
c. evidence from [LAWYER] and Graham Mayne, and her emails (due to her email being  
shut down), not being preserved;  
d. RECA had made its decision against Ms. Bonwick from the start;  
e. harsh treatment towards her;  
f. an Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (“AISH”) hearing panel concluded  
she has a severe handicap and is eligible for AISH benefits.  
213. The Hearing Panel again asked Ms. Bonwick if she has completed her case, and she  
confirmed that she had.  
214. The case presenter cross-examined Ms. Bonwick. She testified that she did not make a  
formal complaint to RECA against RB, because Graham Mayne said he would do it. When  
asked if she followed up, she said other issues arose shortly afterward, such as Discover  
Real Estate not paying its agents, and Graham Mayne not being available. When asked  
what the tenants in the SF transaction have to do with Ms. Bonwick’s conduct as real estate  
associate, she answered they were an issue, and relevant for many reasons, all of which she  
has already said. OB and SB moved in as tenants at the property where Ms. Bonwick was  
living, which she believed MB owned. Ms. Bonwick later obtained a Restraining Order  
against OB and SB. SF and OB were working against Ms. Bonwick in connection with the  
RECA investigation.  
215. James Porter never came up with a logical or plausible explanation why the pornographic  
links appeared in Ms. Bonwick’s online advertisements. So many untrue allegations were  
made against Ms. Bonwick that she could not respond to all of them. Ms. Bonwick will  
take some time to decide if she will practice real estate again if RECA drops its charges  
against her.  
216. The Hearing Panel gave Ms. Bonwick an opportunity to present her case, which is not what  
she experienced throughout the RECA investigations. She believes the Hearing Panel has  
given her more procedural fairness than she had expected.  
49  
217. The case presenter said Ms. Bonwick did not provide RECA with her cousin Kelli’s contact  
information, which means she is subject to sanction for not complying with RECA’s  
investigation. Ms. Bonwick responded that she has a distant cousin named Kelli, and she  
believes RB might have posted an online advertisement with Kelli’s name as contact  
person. RB was trying to set up Ms. Bonwick by posting online ads under Kelli’s name.  
218. Ms. Bonwick understands what agency is, but she is unclear about the difference between  
advertising and marketing. She thinks it is fair to give people options on whether they want  
to use an agent or whether they would be better off representing themselves.  
219. During her re-examination, Ms. Bonwick testified that she asked RECA for the source of a  
complaint made against her and RECA did not provide it to her. She believes RECA was  
trying to show complainants like HR how to make a complaint, because RECA needs  
multiple complaints to take something seriously.  
220. Ms. Bonwick did research to determine her mistaken belief about what she was not allowed  
to do in relation to advertising. RECA was asking her to explain things she didn’t know.  
The RECA investigators continually cut off Ms. Bonwick when she tried to respond, which  
she found quite harsh.  
221. The ED recalled James Porter as a rebuttal witness. The pornographic links were from  
OhMyGodYouTube.net, which Mr. Porter never sent to Ms. Bonwick. Cheryl Rumpel sent  
Mr. Porter a video on August 2, 2018. Cheryl Rumpel recorded the video, which show a  
computer searching Shelley Bonwick and clicking on several of Ms. Bonwick’s videos of  
properties. The same pornographic link appears at the bottom of each of Ms. Bonwick’s  
videos. Mr. Porter emailed the link to Ms. Bonwick on August 14, 2018 but he did not view  
it before sending it. He does not know if he sent the identical link to Ms. Bonwick on  
August 14, 2018 or if the link’s content may have been identical to the link that he received  
on August 2, 2018. He does not know the date when Ms. Bonwick’s link was no longer  
active. RECA would record the videos as a matter of process. The recording was done on a  
program called LINK, which records the user’s actions.  
222. After all witnesses had testified, Ms. Bonwick and the case presenter stated their preference  
to provide written closing arguments. Prior to receiving the parties’ closing arguments, the  
parties initiated several applications after the final day of the hearing.  
POST-HEARING APPLICATIONS  
MS. BONWICK’S APPLICATION ON PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS  
50  
223. Ms. Bonwick made an application on the grounds that procedural fairness was not applied  
to the investigation and RECA’s decision to suspend her license. She had a reasonable  
expectation that RECA will follow standardized processes in managing the complaints filed  
against her. She provides several examples where she believes RECA acted without the  
impartiality and fairness that is expected in its role as investigator. These examples include:  
a) Right to receive notice: she received notice of her suspension to trade in real estate via  
email on November 14, 2018, but the RECA Chair signed the suspension on November  
13, 2018.  
b) Right to a timely hearing: she “was not provided with swift justice and justice delayed  
is justice denied.” RECA began its investigation of her conduct as a realtor in 2015 and  
received her first written notice in 2016. She was suspended for more than one year  
without receiving a hearing.