A B.C. Realtor who successfully appealed a regulator’s decision against her has failed in her bid to secure $1.5 million in damages from the regulator’s lawyer.
Wei “Vicky” Wang and her personal real estate corporation were found by the B.C. Financial Services Authority to have committed misconduct by loaning her client $50,000 toward a deposit on a house in Richmond.
The loan was made and repaid in 2017, and the BCFSA’s ruling against Wang was issued in May 2023.
Last year, Wang successfully appealed the ruling before the province’s Financial Services Tribunal.
Tribunal panel chair Catherine McCreary concluded that the original BCFSA decision had been unreasonable and procedurally unfair to Wang.
Specifically, McCreary ruled that BCFSA hearing officer Andrew Pendray had relied on hearsay evidence that was contradicted by Wang’s direct testimony, without adequately explaining why he found it appropriate to do so.
She also found that Pendray had failed to consider whether the terms of the home purchase contract actually gave rise to a conflict of interest in the case.
McCreary set aside the BCFSA ruling and decided it would not be in the public interest to send the matter back to the regulator for a new hearing.
The claims in the lawsuit
While she was appealing her case to the Financial Services Tribunal, Wang was also pursuing a lawsuit against Catherine Davies, the discipline lawyer who argued the BCFSA’s case during the hearing.
Earlier this week, nearly two years after the lawsuit was filed, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lisa J. Hamilton dismissed it, describing it in her decision as essentially “the plaintiffs’ highly subjective play-by-play of the BCFSA discipline proceeding” with “no actual legal basis.”
Both Wang and her PREC were listed as plaintiffs in the case, and Wang represented herself in court on the matter.
Hamilton’s decision describes Wang’s notice of civil claim as “18 pages long and repetitive,” adding that it is “prolix” – a legal term meaning unnecessarily long and trivial.
Reading Wang’s submissions in their “best light,” the judge concluded there were four allegations that the Realtor was claiming as the basis for the $1.5 million in damages she sought.
First, Davies “incorrectly named the property in the first four versions of the notices of discipline.”
Second, there were “deficiencies and problems” with Davies’ evidence that should have led her to dismiss the proceedings against Wang, rather than “aggressively” pursuing a BCFSA discipline hearing.
Third, Davies was “aggressive” in trying to reach consent agreements with Wang to resolve the misconduct allegation against her.
And fourth, Davies made “false statements” in her closing submissions.
In her defence, Davies argued that none of these claims amounted to proper causes of legal action, and that even if they did, she would have statutory immunity from such claims because of her role as a discipline lawyer for the BCFSA.
‘No reasonable prospect of success’
Hamilton dismissed the lawsuit for a variety of reasons, finding it was “plain and obvious,” that the claims had “no reasonable prospect of success.”
“It is difficult, if not impossible, to ascertain what factual issues the court is being asked to determine as they relate to the plaintiffs and Ms. Davies,” the decision reads, adding that there is also no statement of legal issues “purportedly arising from the facts” pleaded.
Regarding the allegation that Davies acted “aggressively,” the judge noted that proposing consent orders and agreed statements of facts is “obviously part of the normal course of discipline proceedings,” and potentially beneficial to the subject of such proceedings.
“Further, despite the allegations that Ms. Davies was ‘aggressive’ in this regard, neither Ms. Wang nor her PREC actually agreed to any such proposals,” the decision reads. “They did not act on Ms. Davies’ alleged behavior. There is no legal basis for claiming damages for Ms. Davies’ alleged ‘aggressive’ behaviour.”
Hamilton further found Wang’s suggestion that Davies had intentionally named the wrong property on multiple notices of discipline “absurd.”
“(Wang) cannot answer why Ms. Davies or any discipline lawyer would intentionally name the wrong property in the pursuit of a discipline proceeding,” the decision reads.
“It would certainly not be in BCFSA, Ms. Davies’ or any prosecutor’s interests to purposefully get a portion of the notice wrong. However, despite this, Ms. Wang doggedly maintains that the mistake was intentional.”
The judge was similarly dismissive of the allegation about Davies making false statements in her closing submissions to the BCFSA.
“Ms. Wang in her submissions is convinced that Ms. Davies ‘fabricated evidence’ at the hearing,” the decision reads.
“Yet when asked what she is referring to in making such serious allegations, she confirms that she is referring to some minor misstatements that Ms. Davies made during her closing arguments, which certainly would not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered objectively by anyone as ‘fabricating evidence.’ It is clear to me from the evidence and Ms. Wang’s submissions her target of blame for being disciplined at all is Ms. Davies and she wants Ms. Davies to pay.”
Beyond all of those reasons for dismissing the case, Hamilton also concluded that Davies had statutory immunity because of the provincial Real Estate Services Act, which says people acting on behalf of the BCFSA cannot be sued for carrying out duties under the act unless they did so in bad faith.
Despite being informed of this fact, the decision notes, Wang did not amend her pleadings to allege bad faith on Davies’ part.
The judge dismissed the case because it had no prospect of success, but she also determined that it should be dismissed as “scandalous, frivolous and vexatious” and an “abuse of process.”
Hamilton opted not to grant Wang the opportunity to amend her pleadings.
“Where a claim is brought by a self-represented litigant, the court should consider whether a self-represented litigant’s defective pleadings can be corrected by way of amendment,” the decision reads.
“However, in my view, the pleadings are so overwhelmed with difficulty that it is not possible to identify all of the specific inadequacies that exist.”
In addition to dismissing the claim, Hamilton awarded Davies “special costs,” which are typically granted in instances of “reprehensible conduct” by a party in a civil case.
