Quebec’s real-estate regulator suspended brokers Christine Girouard for 14 years and Jonathan Dauphinais-Fortin for nine years after a disciplinary proceeding found they used fictitious competing offers to push genuine buyers higher. One buyer paid C$40,000 above an initial 2022 offer.
The tactic exploited blind bidding
Buyers in a multiple-offer sale generally know that other bids exist but not their price or terms. That confidentiality can protect bidders, yet it also requires exceptional honesty from the brokers controlling information.
A fabricated offer turns uncertainty into deliberate pressure.
The regulator imposed lengthy suspensions
The Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtage immobilier du Québec, known as the OACIQ, disciplines licensed brokers. Its committee ordered Girouard out for 14 years and Dauphinais-Fortin for nine.
A professional discipline ruling is distinct from a criminal conviction or civil damages award.
A buyer suffered a measurable loss
In the highlighted transaction, an invented second bidder induced the buyer to add C$40,000. The harm was not only emotional pressure: the false representation changed the price paid and potentially the financing required.
Other affected clients could have different remedies and limitation periods.
Brokers owe duties to their clients
A listing broker must promote the seller’s interests within the law, present offers accurately and avoid misleading any party. Maximizing price does not authorize inventing market demand.
Trust is essential because consumers cannot independently observe every communication in a transaction.
Records can expose false competition
Written promises to purchase, timestamps, brokerage files and communications help regulators reconstruct a bidding process. Retention requirements make it harder to explain a fictitious participant as an informal misunderstanding.
Audits should follow anomalies such as repeated bids tied to associates.
Consumers need practical verification
Buyers can ask their broker to document the number of offers and explain which information may lawfully be disclosed. They should preserve messages and seek independent advice if pressure, unexplained deadlines or changing claims appear.
Confidentiality rules do not prevent a complaint to the regulator.
Sellers can also be harmed
A seller may face litigation, a failed transaction or reputational damage even if a dishonest tactic produces a higher price. Clients should never assume a broker’s unlawful conduct is harmless because it seems to favour them.
Instructions to mislead should be refused and documented.
Long suspensions protect the market
Removing brokers from practice can deter similar schemes and prevent immediate repetition. Enforcement is stronger when decisions clearly explain the conduct, evidence and sanction.
Brokerages also need supervision that detects misconduct before a media investigation or harmed buyer does.
Transparency must preserve legitimate privacy
Publishing every competing bid could reveal sensitive financial information or invite coordination. A better system can verify that an offer was authentic without exposing all of its terms to rivals.
The case showed why that balance matters. Buyers accept uncertainty only because licensed professionals are expected to report competition honestly. Strong recordkeeping, accessible complaints and proportionate discipline are necessary to keep a confidential process from becoming cover for manipulation.
Anyone who believed a past transaction involved a fabricated offer needed individualized legal advice and the regulator’s complaint process. The disciplinary result did not automatically recalculate a sale price, cancel a contract or compensate every possible claimant.
