What is the penalty for “unwitting” mortgage fraud?

Rather, the appropriate penalty must be derived from “carefully examining all of the circumstances, including the precise misconduct involved.”[2] The appeal panel listed a series of considerations, set out in the precedential case Law Society of Upper Canada v. Fazio,[3] which should inform penalty in “unwitting” mortgage fraud cases. These considerations include: • The extent to which the licensee neglected or abdicated his or her professional responsibilities • The duration of such neglect or abdication • Whether the neglect or abdication was accompanied by other ethical breaches • Its importance in facilitating the client’s criminality • The size or quantum of the facilitated criminality • Whether the licensee personally benefitted • The extent of remorse • Whether misconduct was admitted and the need for proof obviated • Whether the misconduct was out of character, or isolated, or explained in whole or in part by medical factors • The existence or lack of a prior disciplinary record.