QUICK HITS

 

• On Jan. 16, BCFSA confirmed B.C. Realtor, Ismail Jamal Jinnah, lost his license and was fined $10,000 after investigators found he manipulated a “vulnerable” client into selling her home.
• The investigation revealed Jinnah exploited a close personal relationship, pressured the client against her wishes and misled regulators about the nature of their relationship.
• In addition to the fines and license cancellation, Jinnah has been ordered to pay $67,000 in enforcement expenses.

A B.C. Realtor has lost his license and is facing a $10,000 fine after the province’s regulator found he manipulated a client into selling their home.

Ismail Jamal Jinnah behaved in a “predatory” manner when he took advantage of his personal relationship with a client to convince her to sell her home and earn an “above-market” commission, according to a December decision from the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA).

Summary of misconduct

The case centred on two real estate transactions in 2015. Jinnah established a “close, personal relationship” with a client who owned a detached home and despite her opposition, repeatedly pressured her to sell it, advising her it was a smart financial move. Jinnah failed to disclose his personal relationship with the client and convinced her to switch properties with another individual.

According to hearing documents, Jinnah’s client “trusted him, relied upon him, and was reasonably left with the impression that Mr. Jinnah was looking out for her best interests. Rather than looking out for her best interest, Mr. Jinnah refused to accept that (she) did not want to sell her house. He pressured and manipulated her to essentially switch properties…”

Hearing Officer Thelma O’Grady says the former Realtor took advantage of his client, “who, because she was in a close relationship with him and trusted him, was vulnerable. This type of behaviour can only be described as predatory.”

The decision also highlighted Jinnah’s financial gains, which totalled $39,000 in commissions. Additionally, he charged above-market fees without sufficient explanation and failed to adequately market the property, instead selling it directly to the second individual involved.

Investigation and regulatory violations

During a subsequent investigation in 2021, Jinnah attempted to mislead the regulator by mischaracterizing his relationship with the client. The decision emphasized the deliberate nature of his deception, “Mr. Jinnah’s statements… were a deliberate attempt… to mislead the investigative process.”

Jinnah was found guilty of breaching multiple sections of the Real Estate Services Rules and the Real Estate Services Act (RESA).

Impact on client 

The misconduct, described by O’Grady as “very serious,” involved Jinnah’s failure to act in the best interests of his client, a breach of conflict-of-interest rules and a deliberate attempt to mislead regulators during the investigation. “Taking advantage of a vulnerable client who is relying on you to act in their best interest is one of the most serious types of misconduct for a real estate licensee,” the decision states.

The decision also noted the emotional and financial harm caused to the client, who suffered anxiety, depression and embarrassment “for letting herself be coerced by Mr. Jinnah.”

“The actions of Jinnah to use a close personal relationship to manipulate a client into selling their home is unacceptable and demonstrates a clear disregard for the established ethical expectations for licensees and the regulatory regime that is designed to protect consumers,” said Jon Vandall, senior vice president of compliance and enforcement at BCFSA. “This behaviour was so predatory and egregious, BCFSA is issuing the maximum penalty available.”

Fines and penalties 

In addition to cancelling Jinnah’s licence and the $10,000 penalty, Jinnah was also ordered to pay more than $67,000 in enforcement expenses.

“Sanctions should be both protective and preventative,” O’Grady wrote. “They should be aimed first and foremost at achieving compliance and secondly at deterring repeat offences… and by others in the industry or by those considering entering the industry.”

Although Jinnah hasn’t practiced real estate since March 2024, BCFSA confirmed his license had been cancelled on Jan. 16. and that the misconduct would be reflected in his professional record.

Implications for the real estate industry

“Public interest is served by setting a penalty that communicates to Mr. Jinnah, the public, and other licensees that it is unacceptable for licensees to take advantage of clients and to mislead the regulator during an investigation,” O’Grady concluded.

Jinnah has the right to appeal the decision within 30 days.

Alan Hu/pacificevergreenrealty.com

The Supreme Court of British Columbia has ordered Alan Hu, a Surrey-based Realtor, to surrender his profits from the sale of a $3.35-million property after breaching his fiduciary duty to a client.

According to a court decision published on Jan. 10, Pei Hua Zhong, a Chinese immigrant of “modest means,” hired Hu to sell his South Surrey, B.C. home and purchase a new property in Surrey in 2017. Zhong signed a contract to buy a property listed for $2.1-million, conditional on securing the down payment by selling his current home.

When his home failed to sell by the subject removal deadline, Zhong decided to pursue bridge financing, planning to use the equity in his existing property to secure the down payment.

While Zhong prepared a second offer of $2.05-million, Hu referred his friend Lingxia Tao, who was vacationing with him in Las Vegas, to another real estate agent to compete for the same property. Zhong was not made aware of the referral. Tao’s offer, submitted with Hu’s assistance, included a clause allowing her to assign the contract to a third party.

In January 2018, the seller accepted Tao’s bid of nearly $2.1-million, cutting Zhong out of the deal. According to court findings, Hu later acquired the property through an assignment from Tao and in 2021, sold the property for $3.35-million— a profit of more than $1.2-million. 

2038 174 St., Surrey B.C., Image source: homesbyalan.ca 2017

In her decision, Judge Amy Francis wrote that Hu “intentionally undermined Mr. Zhong’s bid to purchase the 2038 (174 Street) Property so that he could take an interest in the 2038 Property for himself,” describing his actions as a “marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behaviour,” and “deceptive and underhanded.”

Hu’s failure to act in client’s best interests

She emphasized that a Realtor’s core responsibility is to act loyally and transparently in the client’s best interests. Hu violated this duty when he shared Zhong’s bid with Tao, facilitated her competing offer and ultimately acquired the property through a contract assignment.

Justice Francis found that Tao relied on Hu for instructions and she was not held legally liable.

While litigation regarding the profit split from the sale between Hu and Tao is ongoing, the court has ordered Hu to disgorge all “ill-gotten gains” from the sale​.

Insurance and regulatory implications

In February 2022, Hu submitted statements to the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation, though intentional misconduct like fraud typically falls outside the scope of coverage. The B.C. Financial Services Authority, which oversees real estate agents in the province, is reviewing the judgment and considering regulatory action.

In addition to surrendering profits, Mr. Hu must also repay the $19,000 referral feed he took for the original purchase of the Surrey property. 

A B.C. Realtor has been fined $10,000 for allowing her clients to view a home unsupervised in Maple Ridge.

Nan (Nancy) Wang, a representative with Metro Edge Realty, was disciplined by the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) following an investigation into the 2021 incident. Wang was found to have committed professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a licensee under the province’s Real Estate Services Act, according to a consent order issued on Nov. 6, 2024.

What happened?

The misconduct stemmed from a property viewing on Jul. 17, 2021. Rather than attending the showing with her client, Wang gave the client her Sentrilock access card, which allowed them to view the home alone.

After the viewing, the sellers found that both the front and back doors had been left unlocked. When the listing agent confronted Wang about the situation, she initially claimed that the client had been accompanied by an unlicensed assistant who had used the access card. She later admitted this wasn’t true, apologized to the listing agent and sellers and accepted responsibility for her actions.

In a written statement to BCFSA investigators, Wang confirmed the details of the incident, acknowledging that she had allowed the client to view the home without her supervision and apologized for her misconduct.

Professional standards breached

In the consent order, Wang admitted she failed to act in the best interest of her clients by “failing to attend the viewing of the Property to provide her knowledge and advice about the proposed purchase transaction,” failed to act honestly by misleading the listing agent and endangered “the safety of the Property by not being there to ensure it was secured after the viewing.”

Why the fine was reduced

The initial penalty for Wang’s misconduct was $20,000; BCFSA ultimately reduced it to $10,000. This decision took into account several mitigating factors, including her early acknowledgment of the misconduct, her apologies to those involved and her cooperation throughout the investigation. She also completed remedial education.

Wang has been a licensed real estate agent since 2012 and has no record of disciplinary action, according to the consent order. She has three months to pay the fine, and failure to comply could result in her license being suspended or cancelled. 

It’s no secret, REALTORS® are trusted experts in their communities. With this expertise often comes an understanding of a community’s needs, and REALTORS® across Canada are taking action to meet these needs. Now’s your opportunity to recognize someone whose actions have created an outstanding, positive impact on their community.

The Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) is now accepting nominations for the Canadian REALTORS Care® Award 2025 Proudly Presented by REALTOR.ca. Since 2016, this national award has been recognizing REALTORS® whose volunteerism has created lasting change in the lives of others. In celebration of 10 years celebrating REALTOR® impact, the donation that this year’s recipient’s charity of choice will receive has been doubled to $10,000.

CREA is asking nominators to send in the inspiring stories of REALTORS® who go above and beyond to make an impact. Nominators will need to complete a nomination form, providing the history of the REALTOR®’s charitable work and highlighting the positive difference the nominee is making in their community.

Alongside the nomination form, nominators need to submit at least one letter of recommendation, obtained in the past year, from a representative of a registered charity supported by the nominee. They will also need to include at least one piece of supporting documentation showing their nominee making an impact. This can be but is not limited to, media coverage, photographs, video or social media posts.

Since its inception, ten REALTORS® across five provinces have been honoured with the Canadian REALTORS Care® Award. From rallying their fellow REALTORS® for good, to game-changing philanthropy and creating critical resources for local non-profits, each of the past recipients has embodied the REALTORS Care® spirit in their own unique way.

Last year’s recipient, Kelly Byers, has been an inspiration to her town of Woodstock, Ontario, and the surrounding region. Byers, one of 46 REALTORS® nominated for the 2024 award, created the REALTORS Care® Food Drive, a county-wide event through which she’s rallied hundreds of her fellow REALTORS® to collect and donate more than 250,000 pounds of food for local Salvation Army food banks. Since 2011, her initiative has grown each year and has expanded into many more communities across Oxford County.

When Kelly was diagnosed with leukemia in 2023, she continued to find ways to support others and donated enough money to build a needed piece of equipment at a local elementary school. Her drive to give also lit a fire in REALTORS® and neighbours alike. Inspired by her call for blood donations, community members had the ‘Blood for Byers’ drive oversubscribed and in need of expansion within two days of its announcement.

If there’s a REALTOR® in your life whose commitment to their community reminds you of Byers, we encourage you to nominate them for the Canadian REALTORS Care® Award 2025. This year’s recipient will be announced at CREA’s Annual General Meeting, in April 2025, and their story will be shared across the country.

Nominations must be submitted by midnight EST on Sunday, December 1. For full details, and to nominate an inspirational REALTOR®, go to REALTORSCare.ca/nominate.

QUICK HITS

 

• A Realtor misrepresented the location of a new-build property to buyers, leading them to believe it was in Brampton when it was actually in Caledon, three kilometres away. 
• After discovering the mistake, the buyers sued, and the Ontario Court of Appeal held the Realtor and their brokerage liable for negligent misrepresentation.
• The court ordered them to repay the buyers’ $120,000 deposit.

In some cases, misrepresentations made prior to the signing of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), may allow a buyer to sue for damages, as demonstrated by Zhang v. Primont Homes (Caledon) Inc., in which a real estate agent was found liable to his clients for misrepresentation concerning the location of a development property.

Location mix-up in new build purchase

In February 2017, the buyers agreed to buy an investment property to be built in a new subdivision by a developer for $1.2 million, with a deposit of $120,000. The transaction was set to close in 2019.

The buyers had been told by their real estate agent that the property was located at or near a specific intersection in Brampton, Ont. However, in May 2018, the buyers drove by the intersection to check on the progress of the development and discovered that the property that they had agreed to purchase was not located at the site indicated by their agent but rather in Caledon, Ont., about three kilometres north of their expected site.  

Buyers take legal action

The buyers then took the position that they should not be required to close the transaction and commenced litigation against various parties, including their agent, his brokerage and the developer. The buyers argued that the defendants had misrepresented the location of the development and that they were entitled to refuse to complete the purchase of the property and recover their deposit. They also claimed damages for lost profits. The developer counterclaimed for damages flowing from the buyers’ repudiation of the APS.

Prior to the trial, the buyers settled with the developer and agreed that it was entitled to keep the $120,000 deposit. In exchange, the developer abandoned its counterclaim.

After a trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the real estate agent and brokerage were ordered to pay $120,000, the deposit amount, to the buyers, with interest, and costs of $30,000. The trial judge declined to award the buyers any damages for lost profits.

On appeal, the agent and brokerage argued that the trial judge erred in finding that they negligently misrepresented the property’s location or that the misrepresentation was the cause of any damages suffered by the buyers. The Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed.

The first ground of appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants negligently misrepresented the property’s location and whether the buyers relied on this misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge made findings of fact based on the divergent accounts of the parties’ interactions and communications prior to the signing of the APS. The trial judge assessed and preferred the buyers’ evidence concerning what the appellants allegedly communicated about the location of the proposed development. Further, the misrepresentation about the property’s location was a key factor in the buyers’ decision to invest their money in the development because they believed “it was in a ‘mature’ community with large houses and schools”. Had they known of the property’s actual location, the buyers would not have agreed to sign the APS or pay the deposit.

No expert evidence required

The appellants further argued that the buyers ought to have been required to adduce expert evidence on the standard of care of a real estate agent or broker to establish liability. As a general rule, expert evidence is required to support a claim against a licensed professional, such as a real estate agent.

A breach may, however, be established without the need for expert evidence concerning “non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to know to have knowledge. The trial judge found that the appellants’ representation that the property would be built near an intersection in Brampton as opposed to a completely different location three kilometres distant was an example of a “non-technical” matter. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that expert evidence was not required to find that the appellants’ misrepresentation was negligent.

Causation and legal principles 

The second ground of appeal advanced was that the trial judge erred in finding that the negligent misrepresentation was the legal cause of any loss to the buyers. The appellants argued that the buyers could not, as a matter of legal principle, recover against them without first recovering damages against the developer.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the buyers were required to prove that they had the right to repudiate the APS as a condition precedent to any recovery against the appellants. The appellants relied on a British Columbia decision which also involved a buyer’s repudiation of an agreement due to alleged misrepresentations of the property’s boundaries. However, the court in the B.C. case had concluded that the buyer was not actually entitled to repudiate the contract.

The Ontario Court of Appeal did not agree that there was a general rule established by the decision in the B.C. case that any plaintiff who agrees to buy property based on misrepresentations of any kind by a third party, such as a Realtor or lawyer, is legally foreclosed from recovering damages for that misrepresentation if they fail to complete the purchase.

In the Court of Appeal’s view, the issue of causation was distinct from a plaintiff’s entitlement to assert a separate cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. In a case where a given wrong supports an action in contract and in tort, the party may sue in either or both, except where the contract indicates that the parties intended to limit or negative the right to sue. Nothing in the APS precluded the buyers from suing their own real estate agent or broker for negligent misrepresentation, whether or not they chose to pursue a claim in contract against the developer.

Consequences of misrepresentation

Lastly, the appellants argued that the buyers were themselves the authors of the damages they claimed since the property had increased in value between the time the buyers executed the APS and the trial. Had the buyers not repudiated the APS, they would have acquired a property worth $1,800,000, or nearly $600,000 more than they would have had to pay for it. The appellants argued that the buyers could have mitigated and avoided any financial loss had they not repudiated the APS.

The Court of Appeal noted that in claims of negligent misrepresentation, courts generally focus on the date that a misrepresentation is discovered.

In this case, once the buyers discovered the misrepresentation in 2018 (months before the scheduled completion date), they had to take reasonable steps to mitigate a potential loss, which involved deciding whether to proceed with the purchase of the property. They chose to take the position that the APS was null and void, alternatively, that they were entitled to repudiate it. Ultimately, this meant they were out of pocket for $120,000 after settling the claim with the developer.

Importance of accuracy in property details

The appellants’ position turned on the argument that the buyers should have foreseen that the property would increase in value when they discovered the misrepresentation, even though the property was not as well-situated and therefore not as attractive an investment as they had been led to believe. 

However, they did not obtain a retrospective appraisal showing that the property had already increased in value at the time the buyers discovered the issue with the property’s actual location, nor was there any evidence proving that the buyers should have realized that they would not suffer damages if they proceeded with the purchase. In the Court of Appeal’s words, “(The) appellants should not be able to escape the legal consequences of their negligence because the (buyers) did not take that risk and market conditions happened to improve.”

This ground of appeal and the appeal in its entirety were therefore dismissed.

The decision shows the potential consequences of misrepresentations that are made and found to have been relied upon by a party when deciding to enter into an APS.

Editor’s notes:

Aug. 29. As reported by the Toronto Star and CTV News Toronto: York Regional Police say the Canada Border Services Agency confirmed Zhixiong Marko Hu has fled to Hong Kong. Police did not confirm when he may have left Canada.

Aug. 28. Today, York Regional Police reported its homicide unit investigators issued a national warrant on Aug. 27 for 47-year-old Markham resident Zhixiong Marko Hu, wanted for first-degree murder in connection with the disappearance and death of Mui.

Police found suspects in possession of Mui’s property and initially charged three youths with firearms and fraud-related offences. A fourth suspect has since been identified as being involved in her disappearance.

Investigators seized two vehicles associated with Hu:

• a white 2019 Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van with Ontario licence plate CWHW720
• a grey 2021 Porsche Cayenne SUV with Ontario licence plate CTZT172

(They believe the Porsche may have had a different licence plate attached to it on or before Aug. 9: CHCD989.)

Anyone with information is asked to contact the homicide unit at 1-866-876-5423 ext. 7865 or homicide@yrp.ca, call Crime Stoppers at 1-800-222-TIPS or leave an anonymous tip online at www.1800222tips.com.

Aug. 26. In response to the news of August 22, Jennifer Pearce, president of the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB), made the following statement:

“TRREB is deeply saddened by the tragic news surrounding the homicide of Yuk-Ying (Anita) Mui, a Member of our realtor community. Our thoughts and heartfelt condolences go out to her family, friends and colleagues during this incredibly difficult time.

We understand that the York Regional Police and the Ontario Provincial Police are actively investigating this matter as a criminal case. TRREB has full confidence in the police forces handling this investigation and expects that their diligent efforts will lead to a resolution that provides much-needed answers and reassures both the realtor community and the public.

At this time, TRREB has not received any information indicating an increased risk to realtors in the course of their professional activities. However, we remain vigilant and are closely monitoring the situation. We continue to emphasize the importance of safety and routinely share realtor safety tips with our members to ensure they are equipped with the best practices for their protection.

TRREB urges anyone with information relevant to this case to come forward to assist in the ongoing investigation. We remain committed to supporting our members and ensuring their safety in all aspects of their professional lives.”

Aug. 22. Today, the Toronto Star reported that on Monday in Parry Sound, York Regional police found and identified the body of Mui with the assistance of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP).

OPP officers found burned human remains near Avro Arrow Road and Highway 400, in McDougall Township on Aug. 12. The remains were confirmed as Mui. Police say three youths have been charged with weapon and fraud offences.

York Regional Police are searching for missing Markham realtor, 56-year-old Yuk-Ying (Anita) Mui, with efforts in a rural Stouffville area, the Toronto Star and CBC News reports. Mui disappeared under “suspicious” circumstances.

On Friday, Mui left her Markham home when she typically does around 9:30 a.m., her colleague, Stephen Chow, president of Century 21 Atria Realty Inc., indicated. Around 11:00 a.m. that same morning, one of her two adult sons spoke to her. She hasn’t been heard from or seen since.

A few hours later, police recovered Mui’s vehicle (a white 2024 Mercedes-Benz) in a Scarborough parking lot near Finch Avenue East and Warden Avenue.

Yesterday, Constable Lisa Moskaluk told CBC News reporters that police have no “suspicious evidence” to suggest what may have happened to her but the fact she hasn’t yet checked in with her family was enough to raise concern. Moskaluk said police don’t know where Mui was going Friday morning or why she was at the Scarborough lot, as her schedule was “all over the place.”

Constable James Dickson, York police spokesperson, told the Star that information obtained through the investigation suggests Mui may have been seen in the rural area in York Region near Kennedy and Vandorf roads in Stouffville, about 20 minutes north of where she was last seen.

Police are seeking witnesses who may have seen Mui or her vehicle. Mui is described as 5’6” tall and 130 pounds with a medium build, brown eyes and straight, shoulder-length black hair.

Photo: AnitaMuiHomes.com

The thought of retirement is daunting. As a realtor, even more so because your pay is sporadic. You have no formal work-funded pension plan and may often wonder, “When can I quit?” Ultimately, the goal is to work because you want to, not because you have to.

Each person’s retirement income is a unique puzzle. We have OAS, CPP, RRSPs, TFSAs and rental income. We or a spouse may have a work-related pension. To make it even more complicated, each income source has its own rules for when it starts and how it’s taxed. Taking time to gain and understand the information will help you get the most possible while minimizing or even eliminating worry — so don’t rush the process.

Here’s a typical example: A couple eligible for maximum Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS) at age 65 would be collecting $48,800 per annum, or a bit over $4,000 per month. My experience is that basic living — if your stuff is paid for — costs about this much. The fun is extra. Over 25 years, $48,800 per year is $1,220,004. So, I suggest that you start early and tread carefully.

How to estimate your retirement income

Retirement is about income, not net worth, and yours will likely be a mix of the following sources. Making a back-of-the-envelope list with estimates is a simple exercise:

1. Old age security (OAS)

Current base OAS pension is $8,560 per year/person. You may commence it as early as age 65. The pension increases each month that you defer, but deferring means fewer payments, and usually, longevity favours deferral. If you’ve lived in Canada as an adult for fewer than 40 years, by age 65, your pension will likely be reduced.

If your income is higher than about $91,000 for 2024, this pension will be reduced or “clawed back”. When income hits about $148,000, the pension is completely gone. (There are too many details to cover in this article, so if this scenario applies to you, please seek professional advice.)

2. Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

The 2024 maximum CPP amount is $15,840 per year. Age 65 is normal, but you can start early or late. Starting early comes with a penalty and late yields an increase, but again, you have to live long enough to make up for the missed payments. Check with Service Canada on your CPP statement for an accurate pension estimate.

If you take dividends from your personal real estate corporation (PREC), you are not paying into CPP. This reduces annual costs to your corporation, but it also means you will receive less pension.

There’s considerable discussion in the media about what age is best to draw CPP and OAS. A key issue that I rarely see considered is the survivor benefit. If a person dies, how much of his or her pension does the surviving spouse continue to receive?

Preserve capital or die broke?

With respect to the income-generating assets listed below, you have the option to spend only the income they generate and preserve the capital or spend it all and try your best to die broke. Here, we invoke the golden rule: “The one with the gold makes the rules.”

The estimates below are merely that. Fees, timing, asset quality, tax rates, inflation, longevity and other factors will affect outcomes.

3. Registered retirement savings plans (RRSPs)

How much income can they sustain? The math says about $1 for every $22 in the account, for 25 years. So, if you have half a million dollars at age 65, you can draw about $23,000 a year from it.

4. Tax-free savings accounts (TFSAs)

It’s the same idea for TFSAs — for every hundred thousand dollars, you can spend about $4,000 to $6,000 per year.

5. Personal real estate corporation (PREC)

Many of you have significant money in your corporation. What happens at retirement? You can spend the income it generates, or the income and retained earnings, eventually winding it up.

A PREC is expensive to maintain but the tax implications may suggest keeping it indefinitely. Each situation is different. I usually suggest that companies with under $1 million or so of assets slowly get wound up in a tax-efficient manner. However, you may wish to keep it for non-tax reasons. Winding up a large company early is just prepaying tax — not wise. You’re best off to get advice from a tax professional.

6. Rental properties

How much income do rentals generate after expenses? Hint: look at line 12,600 on your personal tax return. If your PREC or holding company owns the property, see the “S7 Rental” page (mine is page 47).

7. Cash savings

Maybe you have savings outside of the accounts listed above. In this case, you can spend the income they generate or the income plus principal. How much is the income? Could you redesign your portfolio to generate more? I like income because it’s predictable. Just remember that income types are taxed differently — make sure yours is the good kind.

Now that you’ve listed out all of your income sources, estimate your numbers and tally it up. Then, estimate your expenses. How do they compare? Are there ways you can reduce costs without reducing your lifestyle? (Hint: think insurance).

Retirement planning is a process, not something you solve in one meeting or discussion. If you tend to avoid this subject, bribe yourself with a treat for getting started. As you learn, your comfort level will evolve. Start early and make the most of your options, and soon you will work because you want to, not because you have to.