The couple gave Alden Chand $215,000 to purchase investment properties. He used the money to buy himself a house.
A B.C. realtor has been ordered to pay a Surrey couple more than $285,000 after a B.C. Supreme Court judge found he used the couple’s money to buy property for himself.
Alden Ashneil Chand took a total of $215,000 from Amandeep Kaur Rahil and Jagvir Singh Rahil in 2018, purportedly to invest in condos in Surrey and Kelowna. Instead, he used the money as a down payment for a property in Aldergrove in his name.
“Chand’s misconduct in this case is particularly repugnant and appropriately attracts an award of punitive damages,” Justice Francesca V. Marzari wrote in her decision, released Friday.
According to the decision, the Rahils lived in Surrey and met Chand, who lived across from them, in 2018.
When Chand became licensed as a realtor, he asked if he could display a for-sale sign on the Rahils’ front lawn for a week to give him exposure. The couple agreed even though they had no intention of selling their house.
Later, Amandeep Rahil asked Chand if he might have work for her husband, who was a driver for a window factory. Chand said he would help them out by investing their money in a Surrey property he planned to sell on assignment and giving them the profit.
The couple took out a bank draft for $15,000 from savings toward their children’s education. In July, they signed documents that said they were “buyers” of the property and they had given Chand $15,000 “for a deposit” toward the $340,000 property.
About a month later, Chand said he had an offer on the Surrey condo for $360,000, which he said netted the couple a $20,000 profit.
Land title documents indicate the property was sold in August to unrelated third parties for $346,000.
When the Rahils asked for the $15,000 plus the $20,000 profit, Chand suggested they invest the funds, along with an additional $200,000, into a presale condo in Kelowna, which he said he planned to assign to another buyer within a month.
At Chand’s suggestion, they took out a line of credit against their home. He reassured them they won’t have to pay that much interest because they would get their money back within a month.
About a week later, Chand used the funds to buy an Aldergrove property in his name and that of his uncle, Daniel Chand.
The Rahils testified Chand led them on for the next few months, claiming he had received offers on the Kelowna property. Struggling to pay the interest on their line of credit, the couple agreed to a purported offer in January, but at a loss. Chand failed to give them their money back.
In April, Chand told the Rahils he had a “big surprise” for them. The Rahils were excited, thinking they would get their investment back plus a profit, said the decision. Instead, Chand showed them photographs of the Aldergrove property, which he said he had bought for them under his name.
“They were shocked because they had repeatedly told him they could not afford to sustain their line of credit, and had not asked him to purchase this house,” said Marzari.
When they demanded their money, Chand implied they were ungrateful and left. He did not return the funds.
The Rahils took Chand and his real estate firm, Century 21 Coastal Realty, to court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Chand said the Rahils told him to use the funds to buy the Aldergrove property, claiming he had an oral agreement where the Rahils would own 50 per cent of the property for an unstated period of time.
The judge rejected Chand’s version of events, noting the Rahils could not afford an indefinite investment.
The couple filed a complaint with the Real Estate Council of B.C., now the B.C. Financial Services Authority, which regulates realtors in the province. Chand isn’t currently a licensed real estate agent in the province, confirmed the BCFSA, which said Tuesday it’s reviewing the trial judge’s decision to determine any appropriate regulatory action.
The Rahils also filed a certificate of pending litigation, similar to a lien, against the Aldergrove property. They allowed the lien to be lifted when Chand put the property up for sale, on the condition Chand’s lawyers hold $275,000 in their trust account from the proceeds of the sale. Instead, after the sale, only $87,656 was held in trust.
In her decision, Marzari described some of the impact of Chand’s actions on the Rahils.
“Mrs. Rahil blames herself for the loss of the family’s savings for their children’s education, and the burden they have carried since 2018 paying interest of over $1,000 per month for the $190,000 line of credit,” she wrote. “She says her husband also blames her in this regard. She has struggled with depression and anxiety, and is on leave from work due to this condition.”
The judge found Chand failed in his fiduciary duties, breached agreements he had with them and used their money to “substantially enrich” himself at their expense.
She ordered Chand to pay $285,000 to the couple, including the $215,000 they gave Chand, $45,800 in interest and $25,000 in punitive damages.
The judge noted that Chand tried several times to adjourn his trial, claiming he was ill, among other reasons, although he was not able to provide medical documentation. He also failed to appear during parts of the trial, held over four days last November and December.
Reached by email, Chand said he plans to appeal the decision, calling it a “one-sided default judgment as I was not in capacity to defend my case at trial.”
The Rahils’ counsel, Amila Paranagama, said Chand had wanted to settle before the case proceeded to trial but her clients wanted the matter to proceed to court in the interest of fairness.
“This judgment affirms the importance of ethical conduct in real estate transactions,” she said.
The couple will be able to access the $87,656 held in trust from the sale of the Aldergrove property, she added. Getting the rest from Chand, who told the court he was not able to work as a realtor because of the litigation, will be a challenge.
“Recovery is not going to be easy,” Paranagama said.