Max Realty Solutions Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)

Max Realty Solutions Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Court applied the reasonableness standard and concluded the Director's factual and mixed‑fact‑and‑law findings that Max Realty had not, at the time of the FINTRAC examination, appointed a compliance officer, maintained approved written compliance policies and procedures, completed and documented a risk...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2014 FC 656
Parties
Appellant: Max Realty Solutions Ltd.; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review/appeal Under Subsection 73.21 of the Proceeds of Crime (money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Decision Following Hearing and Judicial Review of FINTRAC Director's October 7, 2009 Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: Director's findings of four violations confirmed; penalty vacated and remitted for redetermination with reasons
Legal Topics
FINTRAC Compliance Program Requirements, Administrative Monetary Penalties, Standard of Review Reasonableness, Due Diligence Defence, Reasoning and Intelligibility of Administrative Decisions, Remittal for Sentence/fine Redetermination
Source Language
english
Administrative Law Regulatory Enforcement Money Laundering / Terrorist Financing Law Administrative Penalties FINTRAC Compliance Program Requirements Administrative Monetary Penalties Standard of Review Reasonableness Due Diligence Defence +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Max Realty Solutions Ltd.

Appellant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review/appeal Under Subsection 73.21 of the Proceeds of Crime (money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act / Decision Following Hearing and Judicial Review of FINTRAC Director's October 7, 2009 Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper standard of review for a Director decision under s.73.15(2) of the Act?
  2. 2 Did the Director err in finding Max Realty committed four violations and in imposing a $27,000 administrative monetary penalty?
  3. 3 Whether the Director provided intelligible reasons for the quantum of the penalty and considered mitigating/aggravating factors and compliance alternatives

Ratio Decidendi

The Court applied the reasonableness standard and concluded the Director's factual and mixed‑fact‑and‑law findings that Max Realty had not, at the time of the FINTRAC examination, appointed a compliance officer, maintained approved written compliance policies and procedures, completed and documented a risk assessment, or developed and maintained a written ongoing compliance training program were within a range of reasonable outcomes on the evidence; Max Realty did not establish the due diligence defence. However, the Director failed to provide intelligible reasons for the quantum of the administrative monetary penalty (no explanation of factors, mitigation, aggravation or consideration of...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part: Director's findings of four violations confirmed; penalty vacated and remitted for redetermination with reasons

Orders

  • Application for judicial review denied with respect to the findings that Max Realty committed the four violations
  • The decision is returned to the Director for redetermination of the quantum of the fine and provision of reasons for any fine imposed