The Inspector Spouse and the Undisclosed Referral Fee
Nadia is a salesperson with Cedar Realty in Moose Jaw. She is helping buyer Marcus purchase a 1960s bungalow. Nadia's spouse, Eli, is a licensed home inspector. Nadia recommends Eli and tells Marcus, 'My husband is an inspector, but you can choose anyone.' Marcus hires Eli. Nadia also has an arrangement with a mortgage broker, Tanya: Tanya pays Nadia a $500 'marketing fee' for each client Nadia refers who closes a mortgage. Nadia does not disclose the fee to Marcus. Marcus uses Tanya. Eli's inspection report notes 'some cracking in the foundation, monitor.' After closing, Marcus discovers a major foundation problem and complains. He says he would have negotiated differently if he had known about the $500 and that Nadia's husband did the inspection.
1. What conflicts of interest should Nadia have disclosed to Marcus?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: Nadia should have disclosed both her spouse's role as inspector and the $500 referral arrangement with Tanya, in writing and before Marcus made his choices.
Reasoning: A salesperson must act in the client's best interest and avoid undisclosed conflicts. Recommending a spouse is not automatically prohibited, but it is a close personal and financial relationship that could affect Nadia's judgment and Marcus's trust. Nadia did mention the relationship, which is a start, but she should have gone further: explain that Marcus was free to choose any inspector, provide alternatives, and confirm the choice in writing. The casual comment 'you can choose anyone' may not be enough to show informed consent, especially if Nadia's recommendation carried weight.
Referral fee: The $500 payment from Tanya is a separate conflict. Even if referral fees between licensed professionals are permitted in some circumstances, an undisclosed fee is a secret benefit. Marcus was entitled to know that Nadia would receive money if he used Tanya, so he could judge whether the recommendation was based on his needs or on Nadia's compensation. The brokerage's policy and the Real Estate Act rules on fees and conflicts should be checked, but the safe course is full written disclosure and consent.
2. Does the undisclosed referral fee breach Nadia's professional duties?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: Yes. At minimum, it is an undisclosed conflict and a potential secret commission; depending on the brokerage's policy and the regulator's rules, it may also be a prohibited payment.
Reasoning: Clients are entitled to know who is being paid, by whom, and for what. An undisclosed $500 payment tied to Marcus's mortgage creates an incentive for Nadia to recommend Tanya regardless of whether Tanya is the best fit. That undermines the duty of loyalty and the duty to disclose conflicts. The fact that Tanya may be licensed does not make the payment secret; licensing changes the regulatory category, not the need for disclosure. If the payment is not permitted at all, Nadia should not have accepted it.
Correct approach: Nadia should have disclosed the arrangement in writing before making the referral, explained that Marcus could use any mortgage broker, and obtained his informed consent if the brokerage permitted the fee. If the brokerage prohibits such payments, she should decline the fee and stop the arrangement. She should also review whether the fee must be returned or reported. The key point is that Marcus should not have learned about the payment only after a problem arose.
3. What should Nadia and her broker do now that Marcus has complained?
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: They should investigate promptly, disclose the full facts, and avoid blaming the client or the inspector before the facts are known.
Reasoning: Marcus has raised two linked concerns: the inspection by Nadia's spouse and the undisclosed $500 fee. Nadia should preserve all records, including the inspection report, the referral communications, and any disclosure documents. She should not tell Marcus that the foundation issue is 'just cracking' or that he has no remedy. The broker should review the transaction, confirm what was disclosed and when, and determine whether the brokerage's conflict-of-interest and referral policies were followed. If disclosure was missing, the broker should acknowledge it and explain corrective steps.
Further steps: Marcus should be advised to obtain independent advice about the foundation issue and any remedies against the inspector. The broker should consider whether the matter must be reported to the regulator and whether the insurer should be notified. Nadia should not contact Tanya or Eli in a way that pressures them to change their accounts. The brokerage should also review how spouse relationships and referral fees are disclosed in future transactions. A prompt, documented response is both an ethical duty and the best way to limit liability.