By Andy MacDonald | July 17, 2025
Ensuring suitability in private mortgage investments is a legal imperative, not just a best practice. The recent downturn in real estate values across Ontario has exposed significant risks in the private lending market, particularly for investors who were placed into unsuitable mortgage products at inflated property valuations. In the years leading up to the correction, some mortgage brokers engaged in irrational exuberance, aggressively placing private mortgages without sufficient regard for borrowers’ repayment ability or the sustainability of underlying property values. As a result, many investors now face substantial losses as declining property prices erode their security, leading to an increase in litigation over broker negligence and misrepresentation. Given these market conditions, litigators in Ontario should be prepared to scrutinize these transactions closely.
Mortgage brokers play a crucial role in Ontario’s private lending market, acting as intermediaries between borrowers and private mortgage investors. While their primary function is to facilitate lending transactions, they must also ensure that any mortgage investment they recommend is suitable for the investor’s risk tolerance, experience level, and financial objectives.
Maintaining suitable standards is more critical than ever to upholding market integrity and restoring investor confidence in private mortgage lending. Failure to do so can lead to legal liability, financial losses, and professional misconduct allegations. This article examines the legal implications of mortgage brokers placing investors in unsuitable private mortgage investments, as well as the risks that litigators should be aware of when representing affected parties.
In Ontario, mortgage brokers are regulated under the Mortgage Brokerages, Lenders and Administrators Act, 2006 (MBLAA), which mandates that they operate with integrity, honesty, and in the best interests of their clients. While suitability obligations are well-established in the securities industry, they are equally relevant in private mortgage lending.
A mortgage broker must assess whether a proposed mortgage investment aligns with the investor’s:
- Risk tolerance;
- Investment knowledge and experience;
- Financial objectives and liquidity needs; and
- Ability to withstand potential losses
If a broker places an investor into a mortgage investment that does not align with these factors, they may be exposing themselves to liability for negligence, misrepresentation, or breach of fiduciary duty.
Mortgage brokers owe a duty of care to their clients, which includes conducting proper due diligence on mortgage investments before recommending them. If an investor suffers financial loss due to a broker’s failure to ensure suitability, the investor may have grounds for a negligence claim. Courts will examine whether the broker took reasonable steps to understand the investor’s risk profile and whether the investment was appropriate.
If a mortgage broker provides misleading or incomplete information about the risks associated with an investment, they may be liable for misrepresentation. This includes:
- Overstating the security of the investment;
- Failing to disclose risks such as prior encumbrances or marketability issues;
- Providing inaccurate property valuations or borrower financials;
- Suggesting an exit strategy whose chance of success is remote; and
- Fails to address GST/HST or source deduction arrears that lead to a super priority lien with CRA
In cases where intentional deceit is involved, brokers could face civil fraud claims or even criminal penalties.
While mortgage brokers do not always have a fiduciary relationship with their clients, courts may impose fiduciary duties when an investor places significant trust in the broker’s expertise. A breach of fiduciary duty can arise, for example, if a broker prioritizes their commission over the investor’s best interests or engages in conflicts of interest.
Beyond civil litigation, brokers who fail to ensure suitability may face disciplinary action from the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRAO). Sanctions can include fines, license suspensions, or revocations.
Litigators representing investors in private mortgage disputes should thoroughly investigate the broker’s role in the transaction. Key areas to scrutinize include:
- Due diligence records: Did the broker perform a proper assessment of the investor’s suitability? Did they document their assessment?;
- Disclosure documents: Were all material risks adequately disclosed?;
- Conflict of interest: Did the broker have a financial incentive to recommend the investment?;
- Regulatory compliance: Were FSRAO guidelines followed?; and
- Brokerage Policies & Procedures: Did the broker follow the policies and procedures of their own brokerage? Did the brokerage properly supervise the broker?
For defense counsel representing brokers, demonstrating that appropriate risk assessments were conducted and that investors were fully informed can be crucial in mitigating liability.
Andy MacDonald is a licensed mortgage broker, financial advisor, expert witness and songwriter with 35 years’ experience in the mortgage industry.
RELATED ARTICLES
The Real Estate Correction’s Domino Effect: Perspectives from an Expert Witness
BLG beefs up Calgary real estate group
Canadian pension funds increasingly using co-investments to diversify real estate holdings
Little-used section of Condominium Act provides process for condo corp termination