Mortgage Broker

Summer 2014

Mortgage Broker is the magazine of the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association and showcases the multi-billion dollar mortgage-broking industry to all levels of government, associated organizations and other interested individuals.

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 13 of 47

14 | summer 2014 MORTGAGEBROKER letters Witness signatures I'm encountering an issue more and more frequently that would be better turf for the MBABC to venture into. e core theme is witness signatures on contracts. It seems that with increasing frequency realtors, rather than actually meeting with clients, are emailing purchase contracts to the sellers and potential buyers. e parties involved are either adding digital signatures, or oen signing, dating, scanning, and emailing the document back – oen with no witness signature. Many realtors have been told by their office, and sometimes the local Board, that if there is no witness signature, one cannot be added. Also that if the realtor is actually present during signing, they should witness the signatures. e challenge for brokers is that the lender's underwriting staff are not familiar with this spreading practice and making witness signatures a pre-funding condition of the mortgage financing. Brokers are stuck in the middle! Rick Robertson MMI Mortgage Mentor Inc. Reply: We consulted a number of realtors and the Real Estate Council Practice Standards for clarification on this issue. Realtors are quite clear that it would be inappropriate for them to witness a signature if they were not physically present to see the client put pen to paper. In addition, it seems to be a growing practice for transactions to be concluded by email with attached documents going back and forth. e Real Estate Council Practice Standards provide the following: e person who signs a document as a witness to the signature of a party to the contract is attesting that he or she was present and saw the signing. While the signatures of the parties to a Contract of Purchase and Sale do not have to be witnessed in order to make the contract legally binding, some financial institutions, as part of their due diligence in considering whether to provide financing, are insisting the parties' signatures be witnessed. In order to witness a signature, a person must be present at the time the party, whose signature is to be witnessed, is signing the contract. If a licensee is not present when the party is signing the contract, that licensee must not witness the signature aer the fact. If a licensee knows he or she will not be present when a contract is going to be signed, he or she should tell the party to ensure that someone is present to witness the signature. Telling the parties the reason for this will hopefully help them understand the importance of this from the financial institution's perspective. Realtors should therefore ensure that, if they are unable to witness a client's signature on a contract, they should advise the client to have his or her signature witnessed by a third party. We have advised the Real Estate Council of these concerns, so that they can address them. – Samantha Gale No limits I am writing to comment on NI-45-106, in particular, the proposed annual investment limits for non- accredited investors. It seems that government has already regulated my life enough. Further intrusions of this sort and others must be stopped. I understand that there are risks in investing. I believe any person investing realizes there is risk. We do not need government imposing limits. We are not rich, but comfortable financially and we have done this on doing our homework on investing. We do not need limits imposed that are arbitrary. Regards, MIC Investor Killing innovation I am writing regarding the proposed annual investment limits for non-accredited investors proposed by the Ontario Securities Commission. e discriminatory proposal to limit the amount certain individuals (based on wealth) may choose of their own free will to invest their own hard earned money by an overseeing paternalistic bureaucracy is utterly disgusting and offensive at best. is only serves to entrench the two-class society the bureaucracy of this country seems bent on pursuing; those that rule (including the very wealthy whom you serve) and the rest of us that are ruled. e OSC's only roles are; to set common standards of presentation and reporting that entities may choose to follow; educate the public about these standards they should be looking for and what they should expect to see and how to possibly detect fraud thereby allowing individuals the opportunity to protect themselves; and to impose harsh penalties on those who would intentionally fraud, deceive and cheat others for their own gain. e OSC is not here to control and manipulate. Unfortunately bad things happen to good people and without question it is impossible to legislate against greed, stupidity or criminal activity – someone with no regard for the well being of others will never, ever follow the rules and regulations you impose on honest, hardworking people – only the fear of being put away for a long time if caught will stop some and then only some from taking that path. Over regulation, such as we already have and that which the OSC is proposing to add to, misdirects valuable resources in the form of increased costs taking returns away from the individuals purport to protect causing existing small operations and start ups to fail. is then entrenches power into the few largest of entities killing innovation and creativity and along with power ultimately comes corruption. Craig Williams Okanagan Approval Corp.& Sierra Mortgage Fund Ltd. OSC Cap Proposal Creates Shock Waves by Samantha Gale on page 29. Please send letters to the editor to: letters to the editor MBABC MEMBERS' VIEWS

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Mortgage Broker - Summer 2014