Real Estate Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Quebec boards file motion against FSBO

Notify me of new replies via email
Real Estate Professional | 03 Dec 2014, 12:08 PM Agree 1
In what will surely become a landmark move, the Québec Federation of Real Estate Boards (QFREB) has filed an application for authorization to institute a class action suit against a major for-sale-by-owner player in the province.
  • Bozena Falkowska | 03 Dec 2014, 12:30 PM Agree 0
    It is about time.....THANK YOU!!!
  • ras | 03 Dec 2014, 12:52 PM Agree 1
    In Ontario we need the regulator to step up and put their foot down on these frauds. Comfree has now registered a brokerage arm. Far from commission free. False premise and misleading clients into bad business. Propertyguys they con their reps into an idea and do the same as comfree. Nothing wrong with FSBO companies, if they are held accountable to misleading and false information. These companies are no different than using kijiji or google or any other online classifieds.
  • Hong | 03 Dec 2014, 01:37 PM Agree 0
    Some people have back bones!!! Way to go and I wish to see this happens in Alberta.
  • Max Fer | 03 Dec 2014, 01:41 PM Agree 0
    I'm sick and tired of hearing some FSOB companies on radio ads saying they save sellers millions of dollars in commissions.
    Yeah, right.
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 01:46 PM Agree 0
    Congrats to the Québec Federation of Real Estate Boards (QFREB). Crazy what goes on here in Ontario with false savings claims.
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 01:47 PM Agree 0
    All Real Estate associations should do the same, we 've been baffle long enough . People should realize that we can give whatever service these FSBO businesses gives out for the same price than they do, and having license representatives and MLS service as an extra value. Depending on what the client is looking for as a service, we can give out any service the public wants and what is best in his situation.
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 01:50 PM Agree 0
    Max Fer What's a FSOB?
  • Max Fer | 03 Dec 2014, 01:52 PM Agree 0
    I'm sorry that's FSBO.
  • Laura | 03 Dec 2014, 02:12 PM Agree 0
    As a Realtor I sold a FSBO home, and the client seller said they could not put my sign sold on their property or they would have to pay a fine?
    Further more how many Realtor's end up selling these properties and why doesn't that get posted?
    You don't pay if we don't sell, FSBO pays up front ! No fiduciary duty.
  • Michael Gouchie | 03 Dec 2014, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    Fantastic. I hope the lawsuit is successful and that CREA and all the boards are watching carefully. Here in Alberta we have a FSBO company doing pretty much the same thing. I would love to see a class action lawsuit launched against them.
  • Papa48 | 03 Dec 2014, 02:16 PM Agree 0
    Way to go Quebec!
  • Cathie | 03 Dec 2014, 02:29 PM Agree 0
    Let's make this happen in Ontario. You get what you pay for. When is the consumer going to realize this? Maybe when we make the public aware of the liabilities that Sellers have faced and the misrepresentation that the Buyer has confronted when working outside of a legitimate full service brokerage? That can cost much more than the 'savings' you get as a FSBO.
  • Bijan Hirji | 03 Dec 2014, 02:37 PM Agree 0
    Yes, one of my clients, who had a former grow in Markham, used FSBO service for 1.5 years, still cost him 1800 to get the posting done, and no advice as to price or how it works, he got ripped off time and money. I sold the house.
  • Bob Quinnell | 03 Dec 2014, 02:42 PM Agree 0
    About time! The consumers have been tricked for too long. Some standards of care should be embedded in the various real estate acts under legislation. eg. Status of a salesperson being part time etc, care of an offer presentation and negotiation, third party remuneration and those disguised as advertising fees have a licensing requirement.
  • D. MacCallum | 03 Dec 2014, 02:51 PM Agree 0
    Good for Quebec.
    There are lots of issues we in the real estate industry across Canada should tackle and clean up.
    FSBO companies who assist the public in any fashion, firstly should be licensed in their province.
    And any mention the concludes to deceptive advertising, example, a MLS for less, is in my opinion is
    slander if it references to any association, company or individuals.
    Rule number 1 in a Profession, (I guess this does not apply to these guys... )is don't talk about the competition...
    especially in advertising where your wiping it in the face of the competitors and
    regulators who have to do something about it sooner or later.
    Very unprofessional.
    But I see those assisting FSBO's are doing it only for the money...
    where as many Realtors are some of the finest
    Volunteers in the community and Industry who put their hearts and souls into helping
    the client find the right home or help them understand in selling the market is the market.
    I believe there are far more Givers then Takers in our organized Industry then many, many other industries.
    And the value of a great Realtor is those who
    have knowledge and experience tend to save clients time and money through
    Great Advice based on those principles.
  • Miguel | 03 Dec 2014, 02:55 PM Agree 0
    All provinces should be doing the same. Well done Quebec!!!
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 03:21 PM Agree 0
    Max Fer , you had it right the first time!
  • Tom Goebel, Realtor Emeritus | 03 Dec 2014, 03:29 PM Agree 0
    Please add that the term "-0- Commission" is also false and misleading as it implies "no cost". I have no objection to "flat fee" or other ways to express potential "discount" to the norm. As Realtors we ought to welcome the competition, but object to false and misleading names and advertisements.
  • belinda lelli - Royal LePage Toronto | 03 Dec 2014, 03:41 PM Agree 0
    Finally - these FSBOs and their representatives are charlatons - I pride myself in being a a top producing agent and professional who has had my own clients fall victim to their false advertising, poor communication or lack there of, deals falling through, deals never existing and the mess goes on. As professionals our Boards need to step up and protect us and advertise what we do, and why we are to be treated as knowledgeable professionals.
  • Agent_in_SK | 03 Dec 2014, 04:33 PM Agree 0
    RE: "As a Realtor I sold a FSBO home, and the client seller said they could not put my sign sold on their property or they would have to pay a fine?" ... That sounds fishy and even anti-competitive. Any time I sell a FSBO property and negotiate my remuneration I always include a clause in the commission agreement which states that I am permitted to put a SOLD sign up on the property when the transaction closes. (It's something I negotiate, but have never have a problem getting agreement toward) I understand that they are bound by their contract with the FSBO company that they have to put up a sold on the FSBO sign, but there shouldn't (in my opinion) be anything preventing an agent's sign to go up as well. I suppose an alternative is to wait until your buyers get possession and then get their permission to put the sold sign up at that time.
  • Ahmed Buksh | 03 Dec 2014, 04:45 PM Agree 0
    I hope it happens in all the province . Also in Mortgage Industry , the banks mortgage officer are unlicensed while ,To best of my knowledge the act says anyone who is doing more the 3 Mortgages , should be licensed
  • raj | 03 Dec 2014, 04:57 PM Agree 0
    Without Prejudice,
    These fsbo company and property guys are not doing any good to protect the consumers. they just list the house for certain amount and sit back and do nothing. if an offer comes which is the main purpose of real estate transaction and further more negotiations in the process these companies so called discount companies tell their clients to speak to their lawyers and pass on the bucket and mislead their clients by not disclosing what type of service they are providing and lock them for 60 days or longer term. The Real Estate professionals have extensive training ,professionalism, insurances etc etc to protect their clients or customers and pay hefty fees in order to protect the consumers and themselves and there is a reason behind it.The Ontario board should follow the same suit and set a precedent in protecting consumers.
  • S | 03 Dec 2014, 05:03 PM Agree 0
    I hope they win. It is about time someone took a stand against the FSBO's. They are not representing anyone. As Realtor's we have more rules and regulations than any other organization. We work hard for our commission. I wish someone would also do something about the MERE postings in Windsor.
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 05:35 PM Agree 0
    Most of the Sellers have no idea that some of these posting on MLS are with brokers out of their areas.
    Like Sellers in Durham are dealing with brokers in Hamilton or Ottawa etc.
    That can't be good for the Sellers.
  • | 03 Dec 2014, 05:39 PM Agree 1
    This is awesome news! I hope they win and that it promotes change in Alberta's industry as well!
  • Buck | 03 Dec 2014, 05:49 PM Agree 0
    wow, realtors are becoming quite desperate, I guess putting a house up that basically sells itself is some type of 'profession' according to the real estate boards. Furthermore, I don't see anything in this lawsuit that has any legs, in fact I'm playing the worlds smallest violin as I read this drivel, the concept of free choice for customers has long escaped realtors and their bosses in their ivory towers.
  • Linda | 03 Dec 2014, 05:54 PM Agree 0
    Lets see what BC can do!!~!
  • Roberta | 03 Dec 2014, 06:36 PM Agree 0
    FSBO's are fine with me ( I'll eventually get 9 out of 10 as listings anyway) but they should all be held to the same standards as licenced agents and brokerages. Lots of Buyers have figured out there are no "deals" to be had in today's market just because it's a FSBO and the risks are too high. That is one reason the sale rate is so low.
    Hope all provinces follow this lead.
  • peter barbati | 04 Dec 2014, 08:05 AM Agree 0
    If you read the article CAREFULLY, you will notice that the complaint Is about “misrepresentation concerning the propose savings by using the fsbo service as opposed to a Realtor”, not about fees charged but against the way the savings are represented (or misrepresented, alog with the second issue regarding protection for consumers). Good. Lying and “puffery” should be stopped. Also, the Realtors that charge FULL FEES (whatever they are) and claim they will give better service opposed to those FULL service brokerages that have flexible commissions are equally lying to their sellers. Commissions do not set service levels. Personal responsibility sets service levels and overhead is passed onto consumers as in ANY business models. Ergo, those FSBO sites that misrepresent savings are guilty and those brokerages that misrepresent value based on commission charged are equally just as guilty. The competition board will not argue the misrepresentation part but if it extends beyond that, they will support the FSBO site’s right to exist (citing the need for greater choices for the public) so Quebec must tread carefully. As for those amongst you that plant a sign at 5% or 6%, take a co-operative offer within 2 days and claim your FULL commission lead to a fast sale, shame on you. If you want to be more competitive, in stead of bull*** the seller, tell your Broker to stop with the shiny offices and lower your desk and transaction fees. Less cost for you means more flexibility for you during your CMA presentation.
    Will it happen? No. Brokers are greedy and many sales reps are just plain slow. It’s just a numbers game and sellers are getting smarter.
  • catherine | 04 Dec 2014, 08:08 AM Agree 0
    Great job Everyone. Maybe we will see this Happen in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
  • Peter Barbati | 04 Dec 2014, 08:21 AM Agree 0
    Buck. Re: "playing your smallest violin", it's not the competition that is the issue, it's the misrepresentation. Surely, you would not excuse lying to the conumer as a motivation for "greater" savings? The business model is changing, has been for decades. I provide FULL service from start to end and I do not charge 5% (but always offer 2.5%) because I keep my overhead low (no fancy offices) and respect the fact that 95% of the time, the co-op brings the offer. Lots os agents claiming to be "top sellers" and using that as a reason for a higher listing fee BUt as the co-op is almost the selling agent, what can they lay claim to? Optics is all-important these days and some make it a finely-tuned system, hence the plethora of "top agent" seminars out there. They teach the same thing, essentially: price tight to the market, planting a sign, when it sells place a "sold in XX days" rider, get a hokey testimonial (pre-scripted) in where the seller claims that "the agents experience and reputation helped me get a fast sale" or, my favourite, "I had my house listed for 6 months and no offers then XXX listed it and got me 2 offers in the first week!". No mention that the friggin house was over-listed at the sellers insistance, eh? What financial black-hole did the previous Realtor get into with that property and where has that lost money gone, eh? No peep from the sellers on that subject. As I said, it's a numbers game and the "top sellers" hooked into these systems know that there are plenty of gullible sellers that will take their hook, just as they take the "0 commission" hook.
    Our jobs are not as simple as many think. We are also on the hook for liability for YEARS even when we do nothing wrong. That has a cost and $250 isn't it. FSBO services, if done properly and not run by lyers, will have a large inpact on the industry whether the "top producers" like it or not. Then again, a FULL service brokerage run by shamsters will will have a more negative impact on us that FSBO ever will.
  • Don | 04 Dec 2014, 09:35 AM Agree 1
    Everyone has a right to run their own business model. The problem I have with FSBO companies is that they are in my opinion "trading in real estate" which in NB, by law, would mean that they fall under the real estate act and should be licensed and be subject to the same rules and regulations as licensed real estate professionals. This would include adhering to the "standards of business practice" we all live by. I congratulate Quebec for at least taking a "first" step in challenging these companies and holding them accountable for the false claims they make at our expense. And believe me, it is at our expense!
  • Paula | 04 Dec 2014, 11:09 AM Agree 0
    Thank you Quebec Board. Finally a board that is willing to Make It Right. Step Up and Say Hey Consumers Are Losing here.....
    Misrepresentation, Lies, Unethical Advertising, and Slander.
    There is a a huge New Opportunity Here... Huge. Buyer Lawsuits... $$$$$$$
    Board needs to step up and put a stop to this Profitable MisRepresentation of Basements Containing APARTMENT When they are not legal. Buyers are losing Big Cash on there purchase with no chance of legally collecting it from there tenent because there illegal...
    And Sellers FSBO's, Non Licensed Sales taking no responsibility for the misrepresentation as per their documents signed by the seller. And Sellers collecting HuGE Increase on the Value of their Home for what is basically a blatant admitted LiE .. Not right. Certainly not ethical.
    We do not have that clause in our Documents, we have replaced it with INSURANCE, along with Honesty and Integrity.
    Good Luck Quebec.
    I am available to provide services for the benefit of my Clients Customers and Consumers.
    Should the board, the city, have an opening in By law enforcement Give me a Call.
  • Paula | 04 Dec 2014, 11:09 AM Agree 1
    Thank you Quebec Board. Finally a board that is willing to Make It Right. Step Up and Say Hey Consumers Are Losing here.....
    Misrepresentation, Lies, Unethical Advertising, and Slander.
    There is a a huge New Opportunity Here... Huge. Buyer Lawsuits... $$$$$$$
    Board needs to step up and put a stop to this Profitable MisRepresentation of Basements Containing APARTMENT When they are not legal. Buyers are losing Big Cash on there purchase with no chance of legally collecting it from there tenent because there illegal...
    And Sellers FSBO's, Non Licensed Sales taking no responsibility for the misrepresentation as per their documents signed by the seller. And Sellers collecting HuGE Increase on the Value of their Home for what is basically a blatant admitted LiE .. Not right. Certainly not ethical.
    We do not have that clause in our Documents, we have replaced it with INSURANCE, along with Honesty and Integrity.
    Good Luck Quebec.
    I am available to provide services for the benefit of my Clients Customers and Consumers.
    Should the board, the city, have an opening in By law enforcement Give me a Call.
  • Deepak Jain (Remax Gold) Ontario | 04 Dec 2014, 11:41 PM Agree 0
    This maybe entirely my personal opinion but if there was a perfect world having the commissions prefixed to a certain level and implemented all across Canada....... Life would be a lot better cause right now, the price of incompetence has to be (willingly or unwillingly) paid by dedication, experience, knowledge, capability..... and so much more.....
  • Point One | 06 Dec 2014, 02:42 PM Agree 1
    Hats off to QFREB.

    Dear TREB Board of Directors, please follow the QFREB and clean up all these FSBO Brokerages. If you let the Consumer's do our Job, then why we have to work so hard to get the Realtor Licence and pay so much on membership fee to you. End of the day the consumers become penny savers and pound loosers except very few, that too if the market is too good to dictate. Regardless to the sale of each FSBO property, the FSBO brokerages get their money regardless the consumer sell or not. But in our case, we get paid only after closing. Consumer doesn't understand this FSBO brokerage pitfalls. So, please do take some action to clean the weeds off the Real Estate Industry.
  • GOLH | 07 Dec 2014, 03:58 PM Agree 1
    I'm a licensed realtor in the GTA area. The FSBO companies are allowed to continually engage in massive deceptive and misleading advertising. If I do it, RECO will strip me of my license. FSBO companies do not have a "Code of Ethics", they're not regulated and they're allowed to do whatever the hell they want to discredit a licensed realtor and lie to the public. Every licensed realtor has to deal with this deception every day. I'm in disbelief at the extent of the OVERWHELMING HYPOCRISY that exists within real estate governing bodies. I'd like to challenge anyone of these salaried government employees to get a real estate license and go out and try and make a living.

    I'm calling on every licensed realtor and brokerage in Canada to launch the largest petition this country has every seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • | 07 Dec 2014, 05:47 PM Agree 0
    Peter, I am fine with the model that you have chosen to operate your business under! However, not because you don't like the full service concept that most franchise brokerages use, means that it is a bad way of doing business for the consumer. My clients are happy to pay more to use my services! It is not because I over-promise on my abilities to get the job done; it is because they know, that by trusting me with their most valuable possession, they are confident that I would do a much better job than a discount brokerage would! People know that; "You do get what you pay for"! I on the other hand, am happy to walk away from the business if it's anything less that "full" service. Just my mode of doing business. I have too much to loose trying selling my 25 years of experience at a discount, especially when "everyone" of clients receives the same "full-quality" of service! The old adage still reigns; "Pay peanuts, you get monkeys!" I am very selective with with whom my clientele can be. Also, I'd ignore the "Buck's" of the world if I we you!
  • old Broker | 10 Dec 2014, 10:53 AM Agree 0
    It s about time that this happened. Comfree, since day one has survived on lies and misconceptions. We urge all agents to take stock of companies that Power Corp own and boycott them. There is strength in numbers. Lets stop turning the other cheek and fight back.
  • Dan | 17 Dec 2014, 10:13 PM Agree 0
    Duproprio has definitely showed deceptive ads when the REAL cost of using a FSBO is often more then what it would have been with a license Professional Realtor (i.e. dealing with non qualifying buyers, cheap buyers that expect the house for less then a good Realtor would have negotiated for, less protection and services, etc.). Not mentioning the extra time to reach your goal that is priceless and impossible to put value on. Same here in the East Provinces, Property Guys are misleading their Clients. You get what you pay for and the cheap services will cost you more long run. Thumbs Up for Quebec !!!
  • Jack | 24 Dec 2014, 10:24 AM Agree 0
    Sometimes i wonder if the regulator has teeth to bite, or just one hand that slaps someone with a fine for a minor infraction.
  • JackofAllTradesMasterofNone | 02 Feb 2015, 09:45 PM Agree 0
    Realtors and FSBO sites both have a place. Having bought and sold properties on an ongoing basis, I used both.
    I have come across agents that were not worth their salt, and I had to sell the condo to the buyer myself. Many of my friends and associates are relators, each with their own special niche, and they do work hard for me. Where realtors truly excel is bringing off market properties to me. Where they fail is posting properties on MLS, and pretty much nothing else. I even had a realtor fail to notify me of "The perfect property" I was looking for that came up for sale through his branch office! It was even on the street of an example I had given him to keep an eye on.

    In the end, Kijiji, and FSBO sites are currently outselling several realtors in my area. The best way marketing by far, is still a for sale sign on the front yard. I have yet to see a sale come from open houses. Open houses are beneficial to the realtors, and the curious neighbors...

    DuProprio and other FSBO sites, will not go away, and should not go away. They serve a purpose. Instead of bringing them to court, focus on providing a better service, with a faster close, and bringing qualified buyers to view the home. Offer more services, than just listing and marketing the property. Have a rehab crew you can depend on, with reasonable pricing, to come into a home and evaluate the little touches that will bring so much more to the seller. It is a question of time before the likes of the big USA FSBO sites come to Canada... The same thing will happen with Mortgage Brokers vs Online brokers vs the banks. Just look at lending tree in the USA...
  • LiveTheFSBO! | 02 Feb 2015, 09:51 PM Agree 0
    Cheaper to pay a real estate lawyer to review, protect, and help negotiate the offers... even if it costs you 2-3-5K$. That is much better than paying 1-6% (Plus your still going to have to pay your lawyer for closing in any case...
  • SDW | 04 Feb 2015, 09:32 PM Agree 0
    Are all these replies from REA's certainly sounds that way they have a vested interest in getting rid of FSBO if they aren't getting paid well enough. Realistically 6%, 5% 4% is still way too high. 5% on a $500,000.00 sale = $25,000.00 in commission ...seriously!
  • SDW | 04 Feb 2015, 09:41 PM Agree 0
    As JackofAllTradesMasterofNone wrote above, more people are turning to online brokers to get their financing banks are BS the way they treat people. Watch for the US way of doing business coming to a city near you. Realtors have way too much power. I know some REA's that earn their money, but many don't.... right place right time. The biggest thing about REA's is the amount of liability they bear, home inspectors get paid peanuts and get pawned off the biggest amount of liability. This Gov't needs to wake up and stop making monopoly's and catering to special interest groups! JMO
  • Montreal Broker | 12 Feb 2015, 09:14 AM Agree 0
    In Quebec Buyer's are left holding the bag with vendors if they don't use a realtor. Questions..How much money would be lost in the Canadian economy if realtors didn't exists? Further more how many jobs would lost considering the broad spectrum of the industry?
  • | 25 Feb 2015, 11:05 AM Agree 0
    Bank mortgage reps are selling only the bank's product, Ahmed, so they don't require a license. That's clear in the Act.
  • John L | 03 Mar 2015, 12:24 PM Agree 0
    Lets have this happen all across North America. I am sick and tired of these companies with their deceptive tactics.
  • Claudette From Century 21 | 16 Mar 2015, 09:28 AM Agree 0
    I was under the impression that nobody is allowed to talk Real Estate unless you hold a valid license, what about Comm Free and other FSBO site people talking on the phone with prospect buyers & sellers, do they have a valid license?? who knows how does company works behind close doors, If they want to use MLS system then they should obey and operate like everyone else . Buyers should be aware of beware of doing business by them self, lack of information given to both buyers & sellers, lawyers & bank are getting fed up with these listing and often cause a problem at the last minute, I believe that both buyers & sellers should be made aware of the extra caution and paper work that needs to be completed before going to lawyers, surprise your cost just double up not counting the unexpected, now where is the saving after being done with frustration & stress. Buying & Selling a home is the biggest item that most people will by in they life time, and should be taken very seriously with qualified Agents. Why do we need a license? if it's that easy to get away with it without one and putting people investment in danger and not being kept responsible. It's time to get Comm Free, Du Proprio and other FSBO out of our MLS system, nothing stop them to have they own web site like Grapevine and other site but don't mix FSBO & Realtor
  • FED UP With FSBO Crap | 19 Mar 2015, 02:45 PM Agree 0
    "DuProprio and other FSBO sites, will not go away, and should not go away. They serve a purpose. Instead of bringing them to court, focus on providing a better service, with a faster close, and bringing qualified buyers to view the home. Offer more services, than just listing and marketing the property. Have a rehab crew you can depend on, with reasonable pricing, to come into a home and evaluate the little touches that will bring so much more to the seller. "

    Then they would have higher costs to perform these services which would would in turn cost the seller more, which ultimately would make them a discount brokerage and not a FSBO.
  • suz | 26 Mar 2015, 03:17 PM Agree 0
    A seller who purchased their home 2 yrs ago through Property Guys were very surprised to find out they had over paid by 100,000 at the time. Being from out of town and not knowing the area, purchasing a property with a Realtor could of saved them lots. Who is out there protecting the buyers from these type of companies?
  • TS | 02 Apr 2015, 11:58 AM Agree 0
    In our area, those "other dudes" do use a licensed realtor to post their listings on the MLS. This agent actually belongs to our board, however, is living and working in an entirely different area. So, what does he know about the product? Nothing. What does he know about this area? Nothing. Part of our ethical obligation as agents is to know our area and product. Further, the public is demanding that we change; Big style brokerages are definitely on the way out unless they adapt soon. Just think about how much money they spend on awards alone! These are useless in the grand scheme of things. I agree with another earlier post. Reduce my fees and let me do my job! Would it surprise anyone that I haven't seen a paycheck in six months? And it's not because I'm not working my butt off every day. It is market condition in our area. Several other agents in my area are suffering the same thing. I just don't think the public is made aware that commission strategies can be flexible. In our market, one out of 12 houses is selling every month. For the past 5 years this number had been 1 out of 3 or 4. I would love to mirror the FSBO companies and charge up front. Seems like the public is ready for that model anyway.
  • AZ | 05 May 2015, 07:07 PM Agree 0
    24 x 15 Degres Corp, 30 rue de la Rive,
    Saint - Philippe, QC, J0L 2K0 - defendant


    1. Mr Mykhaylo Marunchak has died in 2002 in Montreal ………….. Exhibit 1
    and left succession (intestate) to 3 heirs, residing abroad in Ukraine.
    The succession consisted from cash in bank and immovable property,
    the land and 3-level building with apartments, named Estate herein.

    2. On Sep 9, 2002 the heirs appointed Ms Humchak from the city of Montreal
    to act as administrator and liquidator for the succession. For that purpose they issued to her the mandate, named “Power of attorney”………... Exhibit 2

    3. In July 2003 Humchak has received another document from Ukraine, named “To whom it may concern” - the mandate to sell the Estate…….. Exhibit 3

    a. Though, the mandate was not legalized in Ukraine because the heirs were not the owners yet. So they did not have a right yet to sell the property or to issue the mandate (3). Thus, the notary in Ukraine has exceeded his power under law.
    b. Both mandates became terminated under article 2175 CCQ
    after the death of the mandator Ilnytska Mariya, on 11 Aug 2003.

    4. Humchak was advised by notary that her power is invalid because of (3b); that she needed a new mandate to sell the Estate - with the signature of the heir, designated after the death of Ilnytska. (the fact is connected to 6 and 7).

    a. Mr Oleh Marunchak acted after the death of his mother Ilnytska, as her sole successor. He requested an official evaluation of the market value of the Estate with pictures of the building. But Humchak had failed to produce the proof. As result:
    b. The heirs did not give to Humchak a new mandate to sell Estate.

    5. Ms Humchak had a plan to illegally enrich herself from the succession, in particular to become an owner of the estate in her administration.
    For that purpose she made up the stories in order to deceive the heirs:

    Page 1 of 5

    a. That the price of the estate is no more than $150 000 since the property is located at the “village” of Saint Jean Baptist, (line 21 from top of the document (3) and the extract from the land register). …………… Exhibit 5a

    b. That nobody wants to buy because of its poor technical condition.
    The price was confirmed by the letter of Mr Bardosh, the accountant for the estate, who has prepared the succession’s inventory……... Exhibit 5b

    6. Humchak did not ask anymore for power to sell, but instead she asked for permission to buy the Estate for herself. Finally, on 10 March, 2004 she had received the consent from heirs to buy, but not to sell the Estate……………… Exhibit 6

    7. On 2 Apr 2004, her friend notary Racki has executed ... the “Declaration of transmission” of the succession, wherein he stated an absurd, … that the late Ilnytska “appeared before him”. ……………………………………. … Exhibits 7

    a. The truth was, of course, that only Humchak did appear and acted on behalf of the heirs, but already under invalid mandate (2).
    b. Because her mandate was terminated on the death of mandator Ilnytska (3b), Humchak did not have the right to act as liquidator of succession.

    8. At this point Me Racky has stopped to proceed with the next notarial acts because he realized (2c) and (3). That is why a gap of 1 year has occurred (9).

    a. At this period of time, Humchak tried to obtain a new mandate (4)
    to sell the Estate - instead of the terminated mandates (3b).
    b. She was looking also for the way as to not pay money to heirs. That confirms the illegal document, prepared by Mr Bardosh on July 13, 2004…………… Exhibit 8b

    9. After hesitation of 1year, on 11 Febr 2005, notary Racki had executed
    the 2-th notarial act of absolute nullity, “Declaration of transmission” of the succession, from late Ilnytska to her son Oleh, wherein Humchak represented both parties, but already without any right to do so because of the death of the mandator (2c) and without any mandate from new heir Mr Oleh Marunchak….......................... Exhibit 9

    10. Also on 11 Febr, 2005 notary Racki had executed the 3-th notarial act, deed of sale of the estate, (named contract-1 ), wherein the only Humchak appeared before notary and had signed it on behalf of 3 heirs – “the seller” and herself – “the buyer”, but again without legal power to sell (2c)……… Exhibit 10

    11. On Apr 25, 2005 Humchak again “sold” the estate to herself, this time to her 9138-9825 Inc. Thereby she used legal help both of her friends – Me Racki and the lawyer John Hykawy - Exhibit 11. Later she took 3 loans under hypothec and eventually lost the estate to a last creditor Barry Ellis, (9183-0760 Inc).
    Page 2 of 5

    12. Humchak did not tell the heirs that the estate was alienated. Instead she told the story that she is looking for contractors to renovate the building in order to sell it later. The fact is confirmed by her letters to heirs … Exhibit 12

    13. The money from the “sale” was not paid to heirs, nor deposited on a trust account. Humchak did a false oath before notary Racky that she paid the money for the “contract -1”; the notary did not request a proof of the payment.


    14. The infringement of the heir’s rights became possible as result of actions of Me Racki, who executed wrong “Declaration of transmission of succession” and contracts of absolute nullity. Other notaries contributed to the damages.

    15. Notary Me Chapleau, had published the notarial acts executed by notary Racki (who quit his job from March 1, 2005 to become advocate ), without checking all the documents (9) to meet the civil law of Quebec.

    16. The other notaries, who executed notarial acts after Racki and Chapleau, also neglected to search the title and find out, that the estate was illegally alienated and belongs to the succession. The list of the initial contracts:

    a). Francis – Pierre Remillard, (Verdun), loan-hypothec $112,500 on 14 June 2005.
    b). Luc Sigouin, (Laval), loan-hypothec $175,000 on 14 Dec 2006.
    c). Sandor Stainberg, (Montreal), loan-hypothec $ 231,000 on 15 Feb 2007.
    d). Sandor Stainberg, (Montreal), deed of sale ... $ 231,000 on 16 Aug 2007,
    Humchak 9138-9825Inc. sold the estate to the creditor Barry Ellis. 9183-0760 Inc.
    e). Sandor Stainberg, (Montreal), deed of sale … $ 700,000 on 07 Dec 2009.
    Barry Ellis. 9183-0760 Inc. sold the estate to 24 x 15 Degres Corp.
    f). Robert Williamson, (Montreal), hypothec $ 1 100,000 on 19 Oct 2011.
    (please consult the Land Register for the complete list of transactions)


    17. Pursuant to articles 628 and 627 Civil Code of Quebec,
    (628). Any person who is unworthy of inheriting and who has received property
    from the succession is deemed to be an apparent heir in bad faith.
    (627). An apparent heir is obliged, by the recognition of the heirship of the successor,
    to restore everything he has received from the succession without being entitled to it, in accordance with the rules in the Book on Obligations relating to restitution of prestations.

    18. Therefore Ms Humchak, other illegal owners - possessors after her,
    24 x 15 Degres Corp, should be deemed to be apparent heirs in bad faith.
    Pursuant to article 2907 Civil Code of Quebec, prescription does not run
    against an heir with respect to his claims against the succession.

    Page 3 of 5

    19. The cause of Contract-1 is absolutely contrary to public order for
    sale of property of another, set up in Civil Code of Quebec, Book 5, Title 2 and
    contrary to public order for liquidation of succession, set up in Book 3.
    (1713). The sale of property by a person other than the owner, or a person
    charged with its sale or authorized to sell it, may be declared null.
    (1411). A contract whose cause is prohibited by law or contrary to public order is null.

    20. Moreover, contract-1 falls under rules of absolute nullity, because the liquidation of succession and sale of residential immovable is the very important part of the general interest, which should be securely instrumented by law, protected by government and effectively enforced by the judicial power.

    (1417). A contract is absolutely null where the condition of formation
    sanctioned by its nullity is necessary for the protection of the general interest.
    (1422). A contract that is null is deemed never to have existed. In such a case,
    each party is bound to restore to the other the prestations it has received.

    21. Notaries are subject to the provisions of the Professional Code
    (chapter C-26) and the Notaries Act. Pursuant to article 10 of the NA:
    (10). A notary is a public officer and takes part in the administration of justice.
    The profession of notary is important for protection of general interest and public order in society. Therefore, if notarial acts are executed contrary to provision of the law,
    the rules of absolute nullity should be applied to them.

    22. In addition (under rules of interpretation), contract 1 - invented “deed of sale in one person” - does not posses the necessary quality for nominate contract of sale because it contravenes the all provisions, set up in Book 5, CCQ,
    its bilateral nature in particular and lack of payment for the “contract”.
    (1708). Sale is a contract by which a person, the seller, transfers ownership of property to another person, the buyer, for a price in money which the latter obligates himself to pay.

    23. Even if Humchak had a valid mandate from heirs, there is prohibition:
    (1709). A person charged with the sale of property of another may not acquire such property, even through an intermediary; the same applies to a person charged with administration of property of another or with supervision of its administration, subject,
    for the administrator, to article 1312.
    (1312). No administrator may, in the course of his administration, become a party to a contract affecting the administered property or acquire otherwise than by succession any right in the property or against the beneficiary.
    It may be expressly authorized by the beneficiary or, in his absence or impediment of a specific recipient, by the court.

    24. No doubts, the phrase “It may be expressly authorized” – means the advise for a beneficiary to put the wording in the mandate for the administrator in order to worn him about the law; so, it means the same prohibition, stated in part 1 art 1312 of the CCQ. Otherwise the part of Civil Code doesn’t make a sense.
    Page 4 of 5


    25. On Dec 4, 2014, Mr Andrukhiv consulted the Land Register to receive the certified copies of the - “Declarations of transmission” (7 and 9) in order to examine them and to find out the substantial violation of the law, which also identifies the documents as notarial acts of absolute nullity.

    26. Therefore, all the acts executed by other notaries after the breach of law by notary Racki, also should be annulled, and vindication of the estate from the illegal possession of “24 x 15 Degres Corp.” should be applied.

    a. Otherwise, it can further a negligence of notaries, serve interest of dishonest individuals, who will benefit (in particular) from illegal sales.
    b. It will wreak a chaos in civil relationship; it will undermine
    the principle of Justice and the Rule of Law in Canada.

    27. The application is well founded in facts and the civil law of Quebec.
    All the evidences are well documented by notaries and published.

    28. For the reasons stated above, we ask the court to apply rules of absolute nullity to the mentioned in 7, 9, 10 notarial acts and next contracts. Therefore


    A). To recognize the status of the estate, located at 4050-4056 Laval Street, 227-229 Duluth Avenue, Montreal, cadastral lot # 1 202 980,
    as the succession after late Mychaylo Marunchak, including the condos:
    the lots under cadastral numbers: 4 964 125, 4 964 126, 4 964 127, 4 964 128, 4 964 129, 4 964 130, 4 964 131, 4 964 132.

    B). ORDER to recognize the ownership of the estate in the parts:
    Micula Mariya Vasylivna – ½ of the estate;
    Shkabara Olha Vasylivna – ¼ of the estate;
    Marunchak Oleh Mykolayovych – ¼ of the estate;

    C). ORDER to vindicate the estate from the illegal possession
    (detention) of defendant, 24 x 15 Degres Corp.

    D). ORDER to release the estate from all the hypothecs, illegally attached to by the notarial acts of absolute nullity.

    Montreal, April 25, 2015
  • Laura | 21 Sep 2015, 05:59 PM Agree 0
    I have sold a few Property Guys and Comfree properties, and was told buy the seller that they would have to pay a fine if I put sold by realtor sign up or my own sign. Good suggestion here, if your buyers agree after closing put up your sign as exclusive and sold by realtor for a week.
    Are these advertising firms suppose to submit sold data or conditional sold? Had one lady have their legal service review the offer on a Friday night and they removed the legal description of the the property ??? WTH?

    Get what you pay for or should I say, pay in advance for the possibility of selling without a realtor or more likely still having a selling Realtor.
    Please post this percentage.
    I requested this information from these sites without a response?

Post a reply