A prominent Hobart realtor and reality TV star lost his real estate agent’s license after a magistrate ruled he was not a fit and appropriate person to practice in the industry.
- Conor Canning was struck off by Real Estate Court last year after he stole a client database from his former employer
- He appealed the ruling to Hobart Magistrates’ Court, but the ruling was upheld
- Magistrate said Mr Canning was “not an honest person” and was unfit to practice in the real estate industry
Heaven’s baccalaureate candidate Conor Canning was struck off by the real estate court last year after he stole a client database from his former employer and then repeatedly lied about it in legal documents.
Mr. Canning is the manager of three real estate offices under the PRD franchise.
In his biography he describes himself as one of Hobart’s best-known agents, writing that he left the Australian Army in 2013 “with a desire to change the face of Hobart’s real estate industry through hard work. , honesty, integrity and pleasure “. .
This is a description he has since conceded in court may no longer apply.
“The Golden List”
According to court documents, in November 2020, the court found that while Mr. Canning was at Ray White Real Estate, he accessed and copied his former employer Ant Manton’s database without permission and then exported the confidential information. .
He then “misused the confidential information” by contacting the people on the database and providing the information to a mortgage broker, writing, “The Gold List, my man. It’s highly confidential but I trust you.
When reported to the board by Mr. Manton, he “provided a false and misleading statement to the board investigator” claiming that it was not possible to export content from the Ray White systems Hobart, the information came from a different system and he had now been removed from his new employer’s system.
He then gave the investigator two false statutory declarations – the first stating that he had not exported the database or asked someone else to do so, and the second stating that the information was not found. on Harcourt’s systems, where he worked at the time, or under the control of himself or his associates.
The court found him guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and revoked his license and ordered him to pay a fine of $ 30,000.
Shortly thereafter, Mr Canning appealed the decision to Hobart Magistrates’ Court and was granted leave to practice until a decision was made.
Magistrate finds “considerable planning” to gain financial benefit
Magistrate Chris Webster upheld the court’s ruling on Wednesday, concluding that Mr Canning was not an honest person and that the public should be protected from him.
“The allegations proven and admitted against the plaintiff were serious and a finding by the court that the plaintiff was guilty of unprofessional conduct was appropriate,” he wrote.
In his ruling, Magistrate Webster wrote that the actions involved “considerable planning” and were done so that Mr. Canning could gain a financial advantage in his new job, although he wrote that it appeared to be “any advantage. obtained was minimal “.
Magistrate Webster said in court that Mr Canning conceded that his submission to council was “full of elaborate details, falsehoods and misleading information.”
“An aggravating feature of his lies to the council and to his investigator was that he had tried to attack the credibility of Mr. Manton whose documents he had appropriated,” he wrote.
“He tried to blame Mr. Manton, the victim, for reporting [Mr Canning’s] unlawful acts.
“Rather than accepting responsibility for his actions, he chose to go after someone making a legitimate complaint to the professional council.”
He wrote that the fact that these lies were contained in statutory declarations made them even more aggravating.
A “dishonest person” should not be employed in real estate
Magistrate Webster wrote that Mr. Canning continued to downplay his actions in court.
“It also appeared that instead of taking full responsibility for his previous actions, in his testimony in court, he was always trying to avoid or minimize his responsibility,” he said.
He also pointed out that Mr Canning’s character witnesses in court appeared to know only about the theft and not his lies to the commission and in court.
“I attach little credibility to character witnesses who know so little about the offenses alleged against the person for whom they are giving character evidence,” he wrote.
In his conclusion, Magistrate Webster confirmed the court’s decision, writing that “[Mr Canning] demonstrated by his actions… that he is not an honest person ”.
“There are many opportunities for a dishonest person working in this industry to gain a financial advantage for themselves or their clients by making a false statement or a misrepresentation or by putting others at a financial disadvantage,” he wrote. .
Finally, he wrote that Mr. Canning was “not a suitable and appropriate person to practice in the real estate industry” and that the “need to protect the public” demanded that he not participate in the industry until he was in the business. would not have convinced the governing body that he could be readmitted.