What is the penalty for misconduct short of knowing participation or assistance in mortgage fraud cases?

In Cunningham, the appeal panel confirmed the series of considerations identified in Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fazio[4] that should inform the appropriate penalty in mortgage fraud cases involving misconduct short of knowing participation or assistance. It added two others: the steps taken before or during the misconduct to alert the profession as to the very fraudulent activity that the licensee facilitated, and the licensee’s level of experience. In relation to the first consideration, the appeal panel noted, among other things, at paragraph 31 that “licensees who fail to read any of the specific warnings provided to them by their governing body or insurer about the very conduct that they subsequently facilitate, proceed at their peril. Their failure to read what their regulator or insurer repeatedly conveys to them about mortgage fraud constitutes a significant aggravating factor on penalty.”