The real estate broker star of the show Numéros 1 à Casa, Christine Girouard, and her partner, Jonathan Dauphinais-Fortin, would have had no reason to develop an alleged phony offer scheme aimed at creating outbidding. This is what their lawyer argued on Wednesday during this second week of disciplinary hearings.
“There is no motivation otherwise for the scheme. What motivation would she have? We could do a calculation together. […] But it’s pinottes. Let me express myself this way, but it was nonsense,” declared Christine Girouard’s lawyer, Me Martin Courville, before the disciplinary committee.
One of the properties in the bogus bid complaint sold for $40,000 more because the buyers believed there was a second offer on the property they were eyeing.
During her interrogation last Thursday, Christine Girouard indicated that she had made 150 real estate transactions in 2022 and 89 in 2021. She was also rewarded by RE/MAX in February 2023 at the MAXX/IMM Gala, because she had a turnover of more than $1 million in 2022. The star broker worked at RE/MAX before the agency showed her the door last May following the investigation by The Press.
Wednesday, in the offices of the Organisme d’autoréglementation du courtageimmobilier du Québec (OACIQ), the lawyers of both parties deployed their arguments to convince the members of the disciplinary committee of the guilt or not guilty of the two accused .
The OACIQ lawyer, Me Isabelle Martel, wanted to demonstrate the alleged fraudulent scheme using documents and testimonies. According to her, the proof has been made.
The offers are “100%” bogus, according to Me Martel. They were constructed to ensure that they would not be accepted. “Ms. Girouard knows the rules for achieving the recipe for outbidding,” she argued.
On the contrary, Mr. Martin Courville maintained that there was nothing to indicate the development of such a stratagem.
“Where is this proof of elaboration? he asked. How we execute the verb elaborate, we don’t see it anywhere. »
According to the lawyer, Mr. Dauphinais-Fortin had discussed with his close friend the possibility of making a promise to purchase a property sold by Ms. Girouard the day before the offers were submitted. Proof that the offer was not bogus.
Mr. Courville also maintains that the Dauphinais-Fortin broker did not know that there was another offer before submitting his own.
“Mr. Dauphinais was not informed of the broker’s offer because he did not visit the building. It is not in the Immocontact chain [the brokers’ communication system]. It has been established and we have seen it multiple times. “He’s not on the list,” he said.
President Pierre R. Sicotte was quick to clarify: “But he is Ms. Girouard’s associate. »
“Yes,” Mr. Courville agreed, “but you can’t jump to conclusions. »
“I’m not jumping to conclusions. I am simply telling you that one fact remains. […] Mr. Dauphinais is still Ms. Girouard’s associate,” the committee president put into context.
Me Courville also indicated that Ms. Girouard did not need to create bidding wars to reach a price of $450,000, the amount her clients said they wanted to obtain. The broker could have simply made a counter-offer of $450,000 to buyers who had submitted the promise to purchase at $410,000.
“Ms. Girouard knew of the counter-proposal and nothing prevented her from using it,” he explained.
Witnesses recounted during the hearing the pressure they felt upon learning of the existence of another offer.
As for the second house for which Mr. Dauphinais-Fortin allegedly made a bogus offer with his long-time friend, Mr. Courville argued that the broker had spoken on the phone with his friend before making the offer.
He added, with supporting telephone records, that Mr. Dauphinais-Fortin had not spoken to Ms. Girouard on the telephone that day.
“If there was a scheme, they would have talked to each other. But there are no incoming calls,” he says.
Christine Girouard and Jonathan Dauphinais-Fortin face permanent license suspensions and fines ranging from $2,000 to $50,000 for each offense – Ms. Girouard has six and Mr. Dauphinais-Fortin has two .
Pending the decision, the two brokers are prohibited from practicing their profession.
A publication ban prevents media outlets from publishing any information that could identify the witnesses.
