B.C. Realtor who took neighbours' money and bought himself a house ordered to pay $285K

The Law Courts building, which is home to B.C. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, is seen in Vancouver, B.C., on Nov. 23, 2023. (Darryl Dyck / The Canadian Press)

A B.C. Realtor has been ordered to pay more than $285,000 to his former neighbours after using money they thought they were investing with him to instead purchase a house for himself.

Alden Ashneil Chand solicited a total of $215,000 from his neighbours, Amandeep Kaur Rahil and Jagvir Singh Rahil, in 2018, according to a B.C. Supreme Court decision issued last week and published online Monday.

The decision indicates Chand told the Rahils their funds would serve as “investments” in a pair of condos – one in Surrey and one in Kelowna. The idea was that Chand would purchase the properties himself, then assign the sale contracts to other buyers at a higher price, which he would use to pay back the Rahils' investments, plus substantial profits.

Instead, Justice Francesca V. Marzari found Chand did not make an offer to purchase either of the two properties. He deposited the Rahils' money into his own personal account, then used it to complete his purchase of a home in Langley’s Aldergrove neighbourhood.

Repeated delays

Chand left the trial part-way through and did not return, according to Marzari’s decision, which notes that she determined it was “in the interests of justice” to proceed without him.

The defendant’s departure followed what the plaintiffs described as a “pattern of avoidance and delay.”

“At the required trial management conference a month before trial, Mr. Chand sought an indefinite adjournment on the basis that he was no longer able to work as a Realtor as a result of this litigation and could not afford a lawyer for trial,” Marzari’s decision reads.

At the conference, Chand was advised that he would need to apply for an adjournment and provided resources on how to make such an application, according to the decision.

“Mr. Chand did not bring an adjournment application before trial, but on the morning of trial, Mr. Chand sent the scheduling manager and counsel for the plaintiffs an email saying he ‘had fallen ill this past weekend’ and that he would ‘work to schedule a new trial date,’” the decision reads.

It goes on to note Marzari was “not satisfied with Mr. Chand’s description of symptoms, or his stated indefinite inability to proceed with the trial.”

The judge ended up granting a two-week adjournment, despite expressing doubt about the medical documentation Chand had provided in support of his request, which “did not provide a diagnosis or prognosis, acknowledge that he was required to attend trial, mention a CT scan that he said he had undergone, nor provide any prescription for the treatment of his symptoms.”

When the trial resumed and Chand again sought adjournment for medical reasons, Marzari denied the request.

The investments

The Rahils met Chand in 2018, when he was living across the street from their home in Surrey.

“They found him to be friendly, and in June 2018, he told them he had just been licensed as a Realtor, and he asked if they would help him out by letting him put a for-sale sign up on their front lawn for a week to give him some exposure,” the decision reads.

“They agreed to do so to help him out, though they had no intention of selling their home.”

A short time later, Amandeep Kaur Rahil asked Chand if he might have some driving work for her husband.

“Mr. Chand responded that, because they had helped him out by letting him put up the for-sale sign, he would help them out in return,” the decision reads.

Chand proposed that the Rahils give him $10,000 to $15,000 to “invest” in a condo on 104 Street in Surrey. He told them he would arrange an assignment of the sale contract and return their money with a profit before the sale completion date, according to the decision.

The Rahils trusted Chand and withdrew $15,000 that they had saved for their children’s education.

About a month later, he told them he had received an offer for $360,000 on the Surrey property, meaning they had earned a profit of approximately $20,000.

In reality, the decision indicates, the property sold for $346,000 in August 2018 to “unrelated third parties,” and there was no indication that Chand ever “invested” the Rahils' funds.

When the Rahils asked Chand for their supposed profits, he instead suggested they invest the money, along with an additional $200,000, in a pre-sale condo on Leon Road in Kelowna, according to the decision.

This transaction followed a similar pattern. The Rahils did not have $200,000 to invest, so they borrowed it against their existing home in Surrey, again trusting Chand and believing they would make a substantial profit.

This time, however, Chand did not come back to them claiming a successful assignment sale. Instead, he brought them “offers” of $217,000, $227,000 and $232,000, all of which were less than the $235,000 the Rahils believed they had invested.

In reality, the condo sold for $162,900 to its original buyer, though the court also saw an assignment contract for $193,000 involving a buyer named Daniel Chand, which the decision notes is the name of Alden Ashneil Chand’s uncle.

• Get more B.C. real estate news

‘A big surprise’

While the Rahils asked Chand to accept both the purported $227,000 offer and later the purported $232,000 offer, Amandeep Kaur Rahil testified that Chand “kept putting her off” instead of bringing her assignment contracts to sign.

“When Mrs. Rahil called Mr. Chand on April 5, 2019, Mr. Chand said, ‘I have a big surprise for you,’ and that he would come to their house to show them,” the decision reads.

“On April 7, 2019, he came to their house with his laptop. The Rahils were excited, believing they would be getting their investment funds returned with a good profit, and this was the surprise.”

Instead, Chand showed them photos of the Aldergrove property, which he claimed to have bought for them.

“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,” the decision reads, summarizing the Rahils' testimony.

“They demanded their money be returned. Mr. Chand implied that they were ungrateful and should be excited about the house he had bought them. He left without any agreement to return their money.”

In his submissions to the court, Chand claimed that he and the Rahils had reached a verbal agreement that he would use their money to purchase the Aldergrove property in his name, then transfer ownership to the Rahils sometime in the future.

Marzari found no documentary evidence to support this version of events, and rejected it.

The judge ruled that the Rahils believed Chand was acting as their Realtor throughout the supposed investment process. As such, he owed them certain fiduciary duties, which he breached.

Marzari also ruled that Chand’s use of the Rahils' money for his own purchase constituted unjust enrichment.

She awarded the Rahils $260,800, representing their initial $215,000 in investments, plus the interest they have paid on their line of credit and pre-judgment interest on the $15,000 they gave to Chand.

The Rahils also asked for punitive damages, which are not intended to compensate a plaintiff for losses, but rather to denounce and deter a defendant’s behaviour.

Marzari had no trouble granting such an award.

“In my view, Mr. Chand’s misconduct in this case is particularly repugnant and appropriately attracts an award of punitive damages,” her decision reads.

“Mr. Chand had the benefit of their funds, and the house it bought him, for two years, and was living in that house during part of this litigation. In my view, compensatory damages alone are insufficient to express the court’s repugnance at Mr. Chand’s misconduct.”

With the $25,000 in punitive damages included, the total amount Marzari ordered Chand to pay the Rahils was $285,800.