Ontario’s new real estate act, if passed, will give the Real Estate Council of Ontario broader powers to crack down on bad conduct and to consider factors such as past conduct and the public interest when determining registration eligibility. It will allow real estate professionals to incorporate. During the negotiations for a sale, it will permit salespeople to disclose details of competing offers if the seller agrees.

Nearly 20 years after it was passed, the act governing Ontario’s real estate industry is getting an update. The government introduced the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2019 in the Ontario legislature on Tuesday.



“This bill has been a long time coming and we’re thrilled to see the Ontario Government is determined to put buyers and sellers first, while ensuring Realtors have the tools and training needed to do the best job for their clients in today’s modern marketplace,” says Karen Cox, Ontario Real Estate Association president.

Among the proposed amendments are regulatory changes to streamline and modernize the code of ethics that real estate professionals and brokerages must follow.

RECO will be given authority to levy financial penalties (also known as administrative penalties) for failure to comply with a legal requirement (such as filing a document late) specified in regulations, the government says.

It would also allow RECO’s discipline committee “to consider a broader range of issues and provide it with the authority to revoke or suspend a real estate professional’s or brokerage’s registration or impose conditions on a registration. Discipline committee decisions may be appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal,” the government says.

Fines for rule breakers would increase, to a maximum penalty of $50,000 for salespeople and up to $100,000 for brokerages.

The proposals would also give RECO’s registrar “the authority to require that real estate brokerages and professionals provide data about real estate transactions to support risk-based enforcement.”

A specialist certification program would be developed by government or by RECO to ensure that real estate brokerages and professionals holding themselves out as specialists in a particular type of real estate (such as commercial real estate or waterfront properties) are certified as specialists.

The government also says it will reduce regulatory burden by simplifying “brokerage procedures by aligning the time that brokerages must hold unclaimed trust money in various circumstances.”

In a statement, Ontario Real Estate Association CEO Tim Hudak says, “For years, Ontario Realtors have advocated for higher professional standards, stronger consumer protections and better enforcement of the rules governing real estate practices.”

He says, “This bill will modernize the rules governing real estate practices and ensure that the Realtor at your side during the biggest transaction of your life has the highest professional standards, training and modern tools in North America.”

John DiMichele, CEO of the Toronto Real Estate Board, says, “We are pleased to see business fairness being addressed by allowing all Realtors to run their businesses more efficiently by forming personal real estate corporations, if they so choose – a tool that’s available to Realtors in six other provinces and many industries in Ontario. TREB’s Board of Directors started to formally tackle the ability to form personal corporations as a business fairness issue dating back to 2005 and is pleased to see our efforts come to fruition with the help of OREA.”

43 COMMENTS

  1. I am enjoying your replies. I was merely using other professions and opportunities as examples of individuals earning high wages with not much effort. As you suggested, it does not take much effort for a Realtor to earn $100,000 other then two one million dollar sales. Maybe they were not the best examples to use. To suggest a home flipper is a gambler could not be further from the facts. Most are highly skilled with a wealth of knowledge to be successful. Have you seen the price of real estate? I do not know many people that would want to gamble over half a million dollars a shot. Yes most of the registrants work in the Toronto area. The other cities are not applicable as the article in discussion is about the updating of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act 2002 which only applies to the Province of Ontario. However there are approximately 20,000 registrants in Ontario that do not work in the Toronto area. Are these people not taken under any consideration? If you were working with Buyer’s under a BRA then you not only owed your Seller fiduciary duty you also owed your Buyer fiduciary duty. Unless there was not a BRA then in that case you would not be representing your Buyer as a client but rather a customer not entitled to the same level of fiduciary duty. Either way it should be the consumer’s choice as to how they want to be represented not the Sales Representative. I have represented many Buyer’s under a Customer Service Agreement to negotiate a transaction and have referred many Buyer’s to another sales representative to avoid any conflicts of interest. In over twenty years as a realtor I have never felt a draw to double end a deal and have only focused on the client or the customer. Not on the money. And I have never heard of the “wink, wink, nudge, nudge ” technique you refer to. There are no set commission rates and there never has been set commission rate. When RECO does an audit on a Brokerage they specifically look at commission rates to ensure there is an acceptable variation of rates being charged.

    As for suggesting an argument I only reflect on what you yourself have written I do not regard this exchange as an argument. And yes the times have been changing for the past twenty five years and it seems that the Real Estate Industry and Realtor’s have kept themselves relevant. There have been outsiders thinking they can do things better then Realtor’s including Bell back in the 1990’s. I have attended meetings and presentations where a new technology was going to be a game changer and most never caught on and have since disappeared. Still others will try and may achieve success. And that is fine. I agree regarding your comments about the business models of real estate Brokerages. It has morphed to a model of getting people on the billing plan with no concern if they are suitable sales representatives or not. I have sent those comments to the Ministry while they were in the review stages of REBBA 2002.

    Keep in mind the article here is not about commissions or double ending a sale. It is about the Act being updated, which is long over due. And maybe the updated Act, when finalized, will address the concerns you are voicing in this exchange.

    • Seriously, why are some Realtors so damn eager to protect double-ending, so much so that they misrepresent and obfuscate what it actually is?

      Maybe you just don’t know that customer service is not representation as you’ve touted thus far.

      We are not better than the lawyers figured it out – they are to whom we defer in law.

      And maybe you also don’t know about how lawyers deal with the issue of conflict of interest in small towns it as I stated in my Nov. 28 post which clearly said: “It’s a spurious argument to protect multiple representation as it stands when the legal profession in Ontario , many years ago figured out how to do it and gave us the model.”

      To be more precise, this is the Ont. Law Societies. dictum and we Realtors are not so special that the same shouldn’t apply:

      Sec 3.4:

      “An individual lawyer cannot act for or otherwise represent both the transferor and the transferee with respect to a transfer of title to real property except in certain limited defined circumstances and only if the lawyer is able to comply with the rules in Section 3.4 of the Rules of Professional Conduct regarding conflicts of interest [Rules 3.4-16.7 and 3.4-16.9]. These limited circumstances are:

      a transfer where the transferor and the transferee are the same and the change is being made to effect a change in legal tenure [ Rule 3.4-16.9(a) and subsection 5(2) of Ontario Regulation 19/99, Land Registration Reform Act]

      a transfer where the transferor and the transferee are one and the same and the transfer is being made to effect a severance of land [Rule 3.4-16.9(a) and subsection 5(2) of Ontario Regulation 19/99, Land Registration Reform Act]

      a transfer from an estate trustee, executor or administrator to a person who is beneficially entitled to a share in the estate [Rule 3.4-16.9(a) and subsection 5(2) of Ontario Regulation 19/99, Land Registration Reform Act]

      a transfer where the transferor or the transferee is a government body including the Crown in Right of Canada, the Crown in Right of Ontario, a Crown corporation, an agency, board or commission of the Crown or a municipal corporation [Rule 3.4-16.9(a) and subsection 5(3) of Ontario Regulation 19/99, Land Registration Reform Act.

      No compliance with law statement is required to register this document to comply with the two lawyer requirement for transfers of title to real property]

      a transfer that is being made to effect the transfer of an easement [Rule 3.4-16.9(a) and subsection 5(3) of Ontario Regulation 19/99, Land Registration Reform Act.

      No compliance with law statement is required to register this document to comply with the two lawyer requirement for transfers of title to real property]

      a transfer where the transferor and the transferee are “related persons” as defined in section 251 of the Income Tax Act (Canada) [Rule 3.4-16.9(b). When registering the transfer the lawyer will make a compliance with law statement indicating that the transfer is being completed in accordance with the solicitor’s professional standards]

      a transfer where the lawyer practices law in a remote location where there are no other lawyers that either the transferor or the transferee could without undue inconvenience retain for the transfer [Rule 3.4-16.9(c). When registering the transfer the lawyer will make a compliance with law statement indicating that the transfer is being completed in accordance with the solicitor’s professional standards].

      Where the Rules permit an individual lawyer to act for both the transferor and the transferee in the transfer of title to real property, the lawyer must ensure that he or she complies with the rules in Section 3.4 on conflicts of interest including obligations with respect to joint retainers.”

  2. It is very easy to criticize an industry and paint everyone with the same brush. However there are many industries where people are making millions of dollars without doing much. Did you know a teenager playing video games on line can earn in excess of one million dollars? Well some are doing exactly that. A home flipper can easily make in excess of $100,000 on one deal. I play tennis with an orthodontist he makes at least 2 million a year and works maybe 2 days a week. And by work I mean goes into one of his clinics for a couple of hours. And not every realtor in Canada works in Toronto or Vancouver. And to suggest commissions are set at a standard rate is anti competitive. There is no set standards for commissions. By your response I can only assume that you felt you were being dishonest with people and that you brought no value to them by what have written. Hopefully your studies in psychology have helped you deal with those issues.

    • David Zalepa:

      A teen age video game player is not in the same class as a Realtor, unless you think a Realtor is worth only as much as a teenaged game player.

      A home flipper is a gambler of sorts as well. Do you think Realtors are simply gamblers?

      An orthodontist is much more highly educated and skilled vs a Realtor, unless the similarly highly educated and highly skilled Realtor is a former orthodontist.

      The vast majority of Realtors ‘do’ work in the Toronto (GTA),Vancouver, Montreal and Quebec City markets.

      Commissions somehow almost always seem to end up at 5%, unless a brokerage advertises itself as a discount brokerage or simply advertises its commissions at less than 5%. It’s a wink, wink, nudge, nudge kinda unwritten rule.

      I was never dishonest with people, but I did feel the pull of the double ender, and had to fight against it. I only transacted one double ender (my first)—without giving any thought to the pull—until after the fact. When I closed out my working career working again as a Realtor, from 2008 until December 2011, I always showed customers through my sellers’ properties, then advised them that they were free to hire another Realtor to continue the buying process if they so desired. I explained that my fiduciary duty was to my seller, first and foremost. Even so, some decided to stay with me, after I had advised them that they were on their own re offers and follow-up negotiations etc. I have never had a complaint from any client or customer.

      You are not very good at reading between the lines, David.

      My observation of human nature has revealed an interesting phenomenon: When someone feels that he is losing an argument, or thinks, wrongly or rightly, that his opponent might somehow be seen to be holding sway over his own position, especially in the public sphere (like here on REM), that someone often resorts to levying personal attacks against he whom is now regarded as an enemy. Tsk, tsk David. This behavior does not reflect well of you. I’m sure you are better than that.

      My psychological studies have taught me many things, but one thing that is of paramount importance is this: People do not like to be challenged by outsiders, even if said outsiders were once insiders. It’s the age-old problem of cultural tribalism. Tribalism causes members of the tribe to be blind to reality oftentimes, especially when times are a’ changin”. And times are a’ changing regarding the transition of real estate sales from a sales hack job to a bona fide profession…which it should be. It’s just a matter of time and outside the box thinking. If you want to get to the moon, aim for the sun.

      • We all have opinions, especially Realtors that have been passionate about our industry careers.
        Note: it’s always been ” a bona fide profession” for most and myself since 1973.” so.. ” And times are a’ changing regarding the transition of real estate sales from a sales hack job to a bona fide profession? This is not a true representative of professional real estate sales people. Rarely do we see “sales hack jobs” a dim overview of our industry peers and ourselves writing or reading this column.

        • Hi Jackie:

          Unfortunately, I have to disagree with you when you say real estate sales (being a Realtor) has “…always been a bona fide profession…”. No profession that I know of would put up with an eighty percent newbie failure rate within the first four years of being licensed. When being a Realtor results in an eighty percent ‘success’ rate under the same terms, then a professional designation might be in order. I accept that ‘you’ might be a professional, just as I regarded myself as being a professional when I was in the business, but that does not make everyone else a professional by dint of association…far from it. True professional real estate people are in the minority within Organized Real Estate, and I think many (most?) of them operate in small communities wherein they cannot afford to have their names smeared, as can be tolerated in highly populated places like Toronto where there are always new marks to be mined amongst the hundreds of thousands by the unethical, non professionals.

          As for your “Rarely do we see…” comment, I hereby plead guilty to being a rare bird herein. The minute one automatically agrees to go with the flow, to tow the party line, then group-think gets a toe-hold on one’s brain, and no outside-the-box thinking is accepted as potentially being plausible. Change never seems to occur easily…especially from the inside.

  3. Yes Carolyn you are correct regarding the BRA. And any short fall in commission between a listing agreement and a BRA would be made up by the Buyer paying their representative any difference. The difference would not be paid by the Seller. If refer to the Confirmation of Co-operation and Representation how the Co-operating Brokerage gets paid is spelled out.

    • Unless David the buyers insisted that a clause be inserted in their BRA that stated that if the fee offered by the seller to the buyer’s agent was lower than the fee in the BRA that the buyer’s agent would accept the lower fee as payment in full and the buyer would not be required to make up the difference. Buyers can amend the BRA and insert additional clauses to protect their interests. The BRA is a contract and it can be amended provided both parties agree to the changes. How about a cancellation clause that states that either party can cancel the ABR within X days. Are Realtors informing buyers of their options?

  4. Here is the thing. There are no regulations regarding commissions. There is no standard rate nor is there any standard split. This would be anti competitive. RECO nor the ministry has any jurisdiction over commissions. There would be many ways a realtor’s could work a deal. This is about representation. But good ideas.

  5. Exactly. The alternative may be that the Government mandate that all multiple offer situations to be an open process. How would you like that for choice. Auctions have been going on for centuries. When there is only one offer on any property all parties involved know all details of the offer. What should be the difference if there are two offers? I feel this conversation is slipping into a multiple offer discussion and not a conversation about a realtor representing both a seller and a buyer in a transaction. Not every transaction in Ontario is a multiple offer situation. And not every listing agent get their own offer in multiple offer situations. And with Brokerages having many agents and different offices in different locations it is not uncommon for the listing agent and selling agent to be from the same brokerage. That is dual agency situation. So you are saying a selling agent that has been working with a buyer for months to find a property would now have to let their client be represented by another sales representative from another brokerage should that buyer want to buy a property that is listed by the same brokerage? Two different sales reps but one brokerage is double ending as it is the Brokerage getting both sides of the sale.

    • “So you are saying a selling agent that has been working with a buyer for months to find a property would now have to let their client be represented by another sales representative from another brokerage should that buyer want to buy a property that is listed by the same brokerage? ”

      Are you arguing with the registrar? Unsure as to the rules? Don’t know that either the seller or buyer can decline multiple representation?

      “In situations where a client refuses to consent to multiple representation, the brokerage must release one or more of its clients to seek alternate representation with another brokerage. The brokerage cannot represent more than one party to a trade without the written consent of all parties it is representing in that transaction.”

  6. All the commission goes to the listing brokerage. It is the home owner and listing brokerage that decides how much to pay any co-operating brokerage. There is no law or regulation that dictates a commission is a 50/50 split. A listing Brokerage could charge 5% and offer 2% to a co-operating Brokerage. I am not sure why the conversation has been reduced to an argument over commissions. And why would a home seller forfeit any commission to a buyer? Commission comes out of the sale price of the property. Any excess should go to the home seller. Some of these comments reflect the lack of knowledge in the industry , maybe this is where most of the problems come from.

    • Where is it written that what you say is correct, please. Because it simply isn’t so. The co-op will be paid according to his BRA wherein it must be stated clearly how he will be paid and if the seller’s offer to pay does not meet the buyer agent signed agreement, the BRA contract will overrule.

      Under no circumstances does a buyer agent (as the co-op) have to agree to be paid as you describe.

      Surely your interpretation as stated is at the root of buyer agency misunderstandings?

      And an excellent example of why buyer agency (representation/ fiduciary duty to the buyer consumer) needs to be addressed and carved in stone at least as a regulated topic in the new Act.

      Respectfully
      Carolyne L 🍁

    • David:

      If there were to be a regulation that dictates a commission 50/50 split, there could also be a regulation that dictates the 50% buyer side, in the case of a double ender, be returned equally on a 50/50 basis to the buyer and seller. This would put dollars in the buyer’s pocket, and serve as an additional incentive to purchase. It would also return dollars to the seller’s pocket and serve as an additional incentive to sell. Out of the box thinking? Absolutely.

      Commissions are at the root of the problem. That’s why I reduced the conversation to commissions. If this business wasn’t commission driven, I don’t think these particular problems wouldn’t exist.

      • Brian: Do you think the root of the problem could also be the MLS system and the cooperation amongst all Realtors in setting of fees to satisfy their personal interests. Are the fees artificially high to accommodate the thousands of agents working the system?

        • David Davidson:

          Speaking as a former Realtor, I can categorically say that I have felt the pull of the double ender. Like an out of alignment car one is driving, the pull to the right, or left, is all pervasive. The driver has to keep a firm hold on the steering wheel to stay in the center of the lane. A Realtor has to keep a firm hold of his/her conscience when driving a deal, least he/she be pulled into the weeds of greed…that is, if he/she has a functioning conscience that works. Some drivers have a better grip on the steering wheels of their cars than do others. Ditto for Realtors and their ethics…read consciences. There are some seasoned pros who can double end all day, and not be pulled by the money. There are many, many more who cannot do this. Not only is that a problem, it ‘is’ the problem with the real estate sales culture.

          When I first entered the real estate sales business in 1980, I was a wet-behind-the-ears-worshipper-of-the-glitter-of-commissioned-sales, especially double enders. Being a former tradesman, I had not been in the business of making money hand over fist by way of what I said to people or how I said it. The lure of earning big bucks by way of simply influencing people to do what I would do if I were in their shoes was truly intoxicating. Then it happened; I began selling like a seasoned pro, only two months in the saddle. A double ender soon turned me from being an honest tradesman, paid hourly, into a very persuasive commission chaser. I always looked out for the interests of my clients, but my gaze was also on the leader board. Three months in I was number one in the office with seven deals in thirty dasys. My first double ender (a farm deal) put me over the top. I was hooked. Success was sweet indeed. I quit eighteen months later. I was uncomfortable with what I had become. I was not the honest hourly paid tradesman I had been just eighteen months earlier. I respected myself more as the tradesman than as the commissioned salesman. I took three years off and went full time to university, earning a degree in Politics, with heavy emphasis on Psychology. I wanted to know what made me, and people in general, tick. So, what’s my point?

          We have to look at ourselves in the mirror every day. Either we like what we see, or we don’t. If we make a lot of money, it is easier to ignore what we see looking back at us, because we don’t look any more at what is beneath the image in the mirror. We only acknowledge the smiling face, the surface of the being looking back, the superficial.

          Any time a salesperson can make a year’s income (according to what he/she made at one’s old job) by double ending a single residential sale in Toronto, or Vancouver, or Montreal, or Quebec City, for examples, something’s wrong. I know of no other profession whereby any professional can create a year’s income by completing a few days work, if that many. This is why so many are attracted to the lure of big bucks, hopefully quickly generated, by being able to influence others to do what they want them to do…by signing right here, my pretty. A double ender is icing on the cake for those absolutely needing the cash…now.

          Most all brokers ‘suggest’ what commission percentages their salespeople should influence their customers/clients to agree to. Five percent seems to be the mark on average. Five percent of one million dollars is fifty thousand dollars. Two double enders per year in this price range produces one hundred thousand dollars in commissions. My doctor does not make one hundred thousand dollars off my two visits to his office. My surgeon does not make one hundred thousand dollars off my two shoulder surgeries. My dentist does not make one hundred thousand dollars off my two fillings, or four fillings, or a whole mouth full of fillings. They train for their certificates for years and years, ‘after’ completing years and years of post secondary education. I think the readers get my point.

          There are too many Realtors, and often not enough doctors, surgeons, or dentists. I wonder why? The answer, my friend, is not blowing in the wind. The answer, my friend, is blowing in slick recruitment ads as Organized Real Estate continues to scrape the bottom of the barrel in search of replacements for the never-ending parade of failures in waiting…always dues in hand, at the ready, of course. And of course, every once in awhile, a few really good professional personalities slip into the mix, and end up wondering what the hell they got themselves into, having to work with all the turkeys… but the money’s too good to opt out.

          Where else can one slide into the bucking bronco saddle of potentially earning big bucks for so little input if one can hang on for the required eight seconds, relatively speaking?

          And that, my friend, is my excruciatingly long answer to your simple, but very valid, question.

          • Brian a few more thoughts

            I am a retired Realtor and like you loved double ending deals in the past. Now back in the 1970’s real estate commissions were fixed. 5% for an exclusive and 6% for MLS. So in many companies when a salesperson listed a A+++ home they would take an exclusive listing because they knew that the odds of a double end within the brokerage was very high, while on the MLS the odds of double ending a transaction was low. Why help your competitors! Back in the 1970’s & 80’s most real estate salespeople were on a 50/50 split or if they were really good the split would increase to 60/40 or even 70/30. However, the Broker covered all the expenses from their 50% of the commission. So what happened to the non productive agents? They were let go. To keep a non productive salesperson on staff would cost the Broker money since they were paying for all the costs and taking time to train the salesperson. Things changed in the 80’s when the rent a desk companies started up. The salespeople today pay for everything and the brokers collect their small desk fees. The system will only work with a large number of salespeople per office since the brokers only receive a small slice of the commission as a desk fee and the salespeople receive the total commission less expenses. They are like a discount real estate company that requires more listings to make a reasonable profit. Brokers need agents. Today there are 100’s or in some cases 1000’s of salespeople working in RE offices. Is this good for the consumers? So what happens today to the non productive agents? Probably nothing provided they keep making their rent a desk payments.

            Today dual agency is running rampant throughout the real estate industry. With the large companies it is impossible to sign up a buyer under a BRA and not get into a dual agency situation. If agents refuse to show the buyers their company listings to avoid dual agency & double ending they are not acting in the seller or buyer’s best interests. So what is the answer. Maybe RECO has it right. Self-Representation for the BUYERS could be a good step forward. Now I am all in favour of EXCLUSIVE BUYER BROKERAGE OFFICES that will represent buyer clients 100% of the time, but where are they. As a retired real estate agent I would never sign a BRA, but there are buyers that would be wise to find an honest real estate agent in a smaller brokerage office to work in their best interests. Working with a buyer’s agent in a large office with many agents and listings will not work to the buyer’s advantage since dual agency is guaranteed. On the other hand not all buyers (self-representation) need a buyer’s agent and might find it to their advantage to deal directly with the listing agent. The listing agent might even share / reduce the commission and get you a better price because they love double ending.

      • There isn’t any problems in ” commissions”. The Seller makes the decision what he wants to pay the Listing Agent and what he will pay the Co-Operating Agent. If there is only one agency, yes, he’s earned the commission on the listing side and the selling side. Why is the focus on what the amount of the commission is? It’s written in black and white the Seller’s intent and signed contract is.
        I’ve been in the business for over four decades, and there’s never been any issues of this magnitude of unsettling views within our Industry with Reco until they became the Governing Authority from the Ministry.

        It’s not clear as mud..it’s clear in the contract the Seller signs. Many other professions do not have their commissions or fees dictate of how much they earn, so litigating or dictating what a set commission is for a sale of real estate “seems out of touch and reality on the ground”. If our fees are deemed to be too high, the Seller surely will not agree to our signed mandates. Simple.

        • Jackie you state “The Seller makes the decision what he wants to pay the Listing Agent and what he will pay the Co-Operating Agent.” The problem is Jackie that many agents mislead the sellers and buyers regarding commissions. A few quotes from Realtor websites –

          “According to the industry standard in Ontario, the seller typically pays 5% commission on the final sale price of a property to the listing and buyer’s agents. (Copy paste to see what Realtors say about fees on the internet)

          Commission is usually evenly split between the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent – typically 2.5% to the seller’s agent and 2.5% to the buyer’s agent.

          Commission / Fee disclosures need to be implemented so consumers can make an informed decision about their selling costs. D

  7. Excellent comments Brian. I agree 100%. Since there is a reduction in the level of service with dual agency then there should be a reduction in the level of fees paid. 50% seems fair since the buyers and sellers are not being represented 100%. RECO now says Customers are to be referred to as “Self-Represented” buyers. If a “Self – Represented” buyer goes directly through the listing agent should the fees paid by the seller be reduced say 50% since there is no buyer agent involved in the sale. Just a few thoughts. Not ever buyer needs to be represented by a buyer’s agent and perhaps dual agency could be turned into something positive if commissions could be reduced 50% saving sellers and buyers money.

  8. Wow what a response. However you are missing the point. The new regulations are to give the consumer choice and control. A seller can request an open negotiations if they want that. Which means by law all offers would be known by all parties. If a Consumer does not want their listing realtor to represent them during an offer negotiation they will have that Choice. If they are okay with their realtor representing both buyer and seller then that is okay as well. You are making assumptions that all double ended sales take place in multiple offer situations , and that is not the case. This new legislation is to give the consumer choice and control rather then having a government dictate how they do business or a realtor for that matter. As for Tim he is CEO of OREA and No longer a politician.

    • And you are missing the point which is that as laid out here, the seller decides for all buyers that their offers can be disclosed. That, by no stretch of the imagination is consumer protection! It’s one-sided and since when is consumer protection supposed to be one-sided? There’s no choice there for a buyer except to not participate if they don’t want their bid paraded in front of their competitors.

      Anyone who supports this for the seller would literally support selling their buyer down the river.

      It’s a spurious argument to protect multiple representation as it stands when the legal profession in Ontario , many years ago figured out how to do it and gave us the model.

      • When double-ending is in play, is not the fiduciary duty and precise representation obligation of the rep, on behalf of the brokerage Corp that the agent’s first duty is to (?) to perform at one’s best not doubled also?

        As has been addressed abundantly in REM comments, double-ending is not just bringing an offer from a would-be buyer, to purchase a rep’s own listing, but any listing (owned by the Corp as a whole…) meaning inter-office, inter-branch, inter-domicile???

        If so, then using as an example no Re/Max rep could ever sell another RE/Max listing anyplace. Likewise RLP or any other real estate company. THAT is the issue that needs to be addressed in the new act in a fashion through which everyone involved is treated fairly.

        It’s a hornets nest no matter which way the topic is evaluated. And commission has really nothing to do with it. It’s ALL about representation.

        The legal and technical needs must be met and somehow some way privacy protected on all sides. The safest way is to let the paperwork do the talking.

        And the new Act must address convoluted reported sale prices as regards commission involved.

        Appraisers, bankers and mortgage brokers are put in the position of providing misleading information, as sometimes the commissions are included in the reported sale price and sometimes not, particularly when buyer agency is involved.

        Maybe the Net sold price is what should be reported as the LRO figure (the bricks and mortar price ONLY).

        Since only lawyers can register closings it would be a simple matter for the Net sale price to be the LRO recorded price and that would solve the true “value” price that someone was willing to pay on the open market. Just a thought.

        Carolyne L. 🍁

  9. It is realy about giving the consumer the choice. Every situation is different and every market is not Toronto.

  10. I am proud of OREA today as they have fully delivered on my OREA dues paid to better the income of my business. Today OREA has delivered even a better set of business owning rules than we were able to fool Tim Hudak himself into accepting almost 20 years ago.

    -Removal of the word Commission from legislation and replaced with Remuneration
    (as an honest and ethical salesman I always hated the public being reminded I relied on commissions)

    -Allowing my MLS to continue to publish false, misleading and factually incorrect monthly stats on my behalf
    without our Board of Directors being held legally accountable under the act.
    (as an honest and ethical salesman being allowed to cite my MLS as source is a great legal out with RECO)

    -Making it harder for Buyers to gain the required information needed to understand the expectations and limits of the services I actually deliver
    (as an honest and ethical salesman having legislation changed to get me off the hook legally is great)

    -Ensuring I get no financial benefit from getting my Buyers the Lowest Price Possible
    (as an honest and ethical salesman all Buyers should know they cannot reward me for getting them a lower price in the same way Sellers can reward me for getting them a higher one.)

    I could go on and on but why bother. We have Tim at the helm. My business is protected and I can hide behind the new legislation to run my ethical and honest sales business.

    ND

  11. “During the negotiations for a sale, it will permit salespeople to disclose details of competing offers if the seller agrees.” What buyer in their right mind will want the details of their offer disclosed to competing buyers.

    • I agree, what buyer indeed?

      I quickly read through the proposed Act and I actually didn’t see that language anywhere. I did see the registrar may make regulations as to listings, offers and such but it’s downright scary that it might very well be a foregone conclusion that this is exactly what it will say. leaves a one-sided consumer policy that allows sellers to share the private information of buyers.

      Maybe I missed the language and if not, I hope whomever wrote this article is incorrect.

      I also notice the big one fought so diligently to be maintained by Hudak – multiple representation, is in fact maintained.

      Apart from the size of fines being a deterrent, this is no win for consumers.

      • Looks like just a way to grab more cash if you make a mistake. We all know clients are way more demanding and ready to crucify you if they get caught doing wrong. What about lying sellers? Something goes wrong of course let’s slap a 50k fine on the agent. Hmmm always some “protection” policy in order to gain more money. Size of the fines are already outlandish. Yes if the agent has done malicious deeds intentionally, yes fine them and cancel their license.

  12. OREA nor RECO have any authority regarding real estate values and laws governing home ownership programs. If this is an issue you feel passionate about then get involved with your local association government relations committee, OREA or CREA to lobby the powers that be to do something about home ownership.

    • The Seller that may want the process to be open and above board. The importance is to give the consumer the options of how the consumer wants to deal with a transaction and not the realtors.

  13. Thank you .you have not changed the Real Estate Business, you may have improved it for the smarter ones. The marketing business will not slow down. all this work will not help a family to have a home big enough to rise a family in. to day young people are buying home at 550.00 dollars a square foot. Single family homes are a dream. Real Estate Brokerages are part of this life style today. What has OREA & RECO going to do about this. Hiding behind Education and bigger Finds is not going to help the Public

    • Buyers have to buy what they can afford. No one has an entitlement to homeowner, it has to be earned. I bought my first home many years ago, and it was a spacious 4 bedroom townhouse approx 1,100 soft with a garage.

  14. Tim Hudak left out one very important adjective within his statement: “For years, Ontario Realtors have advocated for higher professional standards, stronger professional standards…etc.”. That word is “SOME”, as in “…SOME Ontario Realtors have advocated for higher standards…” etc

    Only a very few Realtors have advocated for higher standards etc., ‘they’ being the true professionals operating within the shark tank who in turn are tarred with the same brush as the slick, personable “Won’t you be my friend?” out-of-work actor-mercenary scum bags, and/or incompetents, who pollute the waters…which is why, finally, ‘professionalism’ is becoming a thing to be valued most, vs high-flying assembly-line wheeler-dealer personalities and their insatiable quest for quick turnaround mega-bucks.

    The good ship lollipop is finally being turned in the right direction.

    • Further to my earlier post: If dual agency/multiple representation remains intact under the new “professional standards”, that would blow the consumer protection aspect right out of the water, at the very least for one side of a negotiation, if not both sides, in the case of an unscrupulous Realtor looking to make a deal any which way he/she can…for his/her own bank account’s benefit.

      Tim should know all about that kind of back room dealing seeing as he has experience working within one of the most un transparent businesses going…party politics. It’s what did him in as his party’s leader.

      C’mon Tim…do the right thing. Rise above lobbying efforts within Organized Real estate. You still have a chance to really turn corruption within the ranks on its head. You will know you did a good job—in the public interest—if the benefactors of multiple representation put a hate on you.

      • Brian, I am all for putting an end to “double ending”. I just have a hard time understanding how this would work in “real life”. What about real estate “teams” ? Agents working within the same brokerage? Small brokerage with “just” a husband/wife team ? At the end of the day, the agents who want to bypass the rules probably still would. Do you have any further thoughts about this ? Thanks

        • Hi Sabine:

          I agree; agents/registrants who want to bypass rules will find ways to do so. They are the ones who should be fired right out of the business. They would be classed as criminals vis a vis rules and regs., lawbreakers, so to speak, once found guilty. But how to ferret them out?

          Professional Realtors like to think of themselves as “honest brokers”, and well they should. But not all agents/registrants are professionals, as you well know. An honest broker ideally works on behalf of both parties, striving to make both sides happy with an outcome suggested by the broker, culminating in a closed transaction with no second guessing afterward on the parts of the participating parties. The problem with double ending is that one or both parties to a transaction may not (likely will not) know what went on behind the scenes between the broker and the opposing parties and, visa versa. No human who desperately relies on a commission to survive until the commission hopefully materializes, who is hanging on for dear life financially in the first place, can be expected to work against one’s own financial interest to benefit others’ financial interests. Self interest nearly always trumps others’ interests in a commission environment. Therefore, only those who are not financially constrained over the short or medium term can realistically be expected to act professionally. How to solve this dilemma?

          If an individual listing/selling Realtor conducts a double ender, the other end of the commission should be returned to each of the opposing parties on a 50/50 basis. The Realtor in question would simply collect 50% of the total commission agreed to by the seller on the listing. The seller for whom the Realtor in question is working could then realistically assume that the Realtor is indeed working in his/her best interest, and the buyer who agreed to work with the said Realtor as a secondary party to the transaction could reasonably assume that the Realtor is again working for the best interests of the primary party…the seller. It would be kind of like going to a new car dealership and dealing with a salesperson to buy a new car. The buyer would know, or ought to know, where he or she stands in the grand scheme of things. The real estate buyer would have to know the selling Realtor personally to agree to be treated this way…if he/she was smart.

          Double dealing will always be with us as long as humans populate the earth. The problem with the continuation of same in real estate lies at the feet of the powers that be who drive the Organized Real Estate Brinks trucks. Because so many fail at making big bucks as a Realtor, or even just enough to survive, the hook of making big bucks via double ending looms large in the minds of the public persona, those wannabes who dream of big commissions, being the total commissions stipulated on listing agreements. Take that hook away, and few would try out for the big time. Dues would plummet. Thus, double ending will live on until someone in power with real guts takes the bull by the horns and forces O.R.E to man up and actually become a profession worthy of the title “Professional Realtor”.

          To that end it should be extremely difficult to obtain a real estate sales person license. One should not be allowed to enter the gambling casino of real estate sales just because he/she is a Canadian citizen, is of age, has not gone bankrupt and, has no criminal record…and has completed grade twelve…which nowadays seems to be equal to grade eight when I went to school. We get crooks operating in the legal profession, in the medical professions etc., professions which demand much more of its wannabes than the real estate business. Why ‘wouldn’t’ real estate sales attracts too many of the wrong kind?

          Until real estate sales becomes a respected profession amongst the population at large, double ending will go on.

          Tim Hudak is a politician at heart. Politicians do what politicians do; they cave to the most influential lobbyists, whilst speaking out of the other side of their mouths.

          Statesmen/stateswomen do what is right for the public interest, often to the detriment of their own interest. That’s what makes them statesmen/stateswomen, which is why they are few and far between.

          Sorry I couldn’t answer your question, because under current overseers, there is no answer.

          • Hudak’s OREA, after initially email blasting all registrants with a “WE DID IT!” headline, is selling the public one thing while championing another.

            and they have the audacity to rename it The Trust in Real Estate Services Act.

            In the latest email OREA/he is asking all registrants to contact their MPP to pass the bill – a quick link that provides your MPP’s email address and voila! all done for you. I ignored that link, contacted my MPP via their official page and asked that this Act be amended to actually protect consumers.

            If everyone here who agrees will do the same and asap as the bill has now passed 2nd reading and is in standing committee, proper consumer standards can still have a voice. Here’s the relevant snippet from Hudak’s email where there is not one word about consumer protection. Fancy that!

            It should not go without saying that Hudak was Minister of Consumer Services at the time REBBA, 2002 was formulated.

            “We need to make this happen and we can’t do it without you.

            The introduction of Bill 145, the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2019 is an exciting and crucial step toward new modern rules for Ontario REALTORS®. If passed, Bill 145 will:

            • Permit personal real estate corporations;
            • Protect multiple representation; and,
            • Enable specialist certification.

            To get this Bill passed we need you to email your MPP asking them to vote ‘yes’ in support of this important legislation.”

Leave a Reply