From Dupe To Reckless To Wilfull Blindness

Unfortunately, in this case, the respondent, Ms. Harrison, was not vigilant. Indeed, she ultimately was reckless and then wilfully blind to fraud. Her lender clients were involved in a scheme to defraud vulnerable homeowners of the equity in their properties, and she became complicit in their fraud.

 

At the outset, Ms. Harrison was anxious to develop her practice as a high-volume real estate practitioner, and the unscrupulous lender clients appeared to be an important means of growing her practice. The lender clients made promises of working with her on future business projects and of referring additional business to her. This appears to have caused her to let down her guard.

 

Ms. Harrison’s objectivity was further compromised because she allowed herself to act in a conflict of interest, to the detriment of her borrower clients, and for the benefit of these lender clients. Ms. Harrison appears to have acted with a singular focus on growing her residential real estate practice and the unscrupulous lender clients capitalized on her lack of diligence to help achieve their goal of taking the equity in the homes of vulnerable seniors.

 

While at first, in the early stages of her retainer by Canada’s Choice Capital (CCC), Ms. Harrison was likely an unwitting dupe of the fraudsters, we find that by mid-June 2021, there were red flags of predatory lending and potential fraud such that Ms. Harrison should have known that there were risks associated with the mortgages being advanced by her lender clients to her borrower clients that the borrowers were being defrauded.

 

By December 10, 2021, when the first of the complaints arrived from the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly (ACE), the risks of fraud associated with the mortgages of her mortgage lender client, Canada’s Choice Investments (CCI), were plainly identified to her, and Ms. Harrison was reckless in ignoring these warnings and the red flags of fraud present in the mortgage lending files.

 

By, at the latest, February 15, 2022, we find that Ms. Harrison was wilfully blind to the fraud being perpetrated by her lender clients. She suspected dishonest activity, which led to KMB refusing to take on any more CCI mortgage matters; but Ms. Harrison did not make any further inquiries to confirm if the suspicions of fraud would be borne out.

 

But then, by April 14, 2022, we find that Ms. Harrison did have actual knowledge of the lenders’ fraudulent conduct, yet she continued to act for them, facilitating further fraudulent acts.

 

 We conclude that Ms. Harrison initially failed to act to the standard of a reasonably competent lawyer practising real estate law – choosing business volume and the promise of additional work from her lender clients over competent service to her borrower clients. Eventually, she became complicit in her lender clients’ misconduct.

 

Conclusion

 

Throughout the hearing, Ms. Harrison continued to blame others and particularly tried to excuse her misconduct based on the lack of mentorship and oversight that she received at KMB. We do not accept that the blame for her misconduct lies anywhere other than with Ms. Harrison. Her conduct demonstrated a profound disregard for the interests of the senior borrowers for whom she was acting. She preferred the interests of Mr. Ayyoub and his companies and associated individuals, including Mr. Dhillon and Mr. Hudson. We find that she preferred their interests because they aligned with her own financial interests. We find that Ms. Harrison viewed Mr. Ayyoub and his associates as a source for growing her law practice, based on the work referred to her and Mr. Ayyoub’s promises of future business opportunities. This blinded Ms. Harrison to the clear and obvious red flags of fraud surrounding the transactions on which she acted.

 

The attorney has been suspended on an interim basis since May 2023. (Mike Frisch)