You can see it in the systems we log into, the rules they embed and the rituals that follow. It governs without ever being named; a living document we inherit but no longer author. 

Over the past several years, new technologies, leadership shifts and branding debates have revealed just how far that constitution has drifted from its original intent.  

What follows isn’t a history – it’s an excavation and, I hope, the beginning of a rewrite. 

I. The illusion of control 

Every morning, Realtors log into the systems that decide what they can say, how they can say it and how visible their work will be. 

We call it technology, but it’s governance by another name; a rulebook written in code instead of bylaws. 

This is about power, and how quietly it moved out of reach. 

Each field, validation rule, and search filter enforces policy in ways few members ever see. 

We think we’re entering data; we’re actually performing compliance. 

The platforms we use don’t just reflect the profession; they define it, and somewhere between the first upload and the latest system migration, control slipped. 

Organized real estate still speaks the language of democracy, but its constitution has already been rewritten inside the software. 

II. From representation to ritual 

Boards were never meant to be monuments. They were tools built by practitioners to solve shared problems. But over time, the procedure became the product. 

Today, most boards operate less like professional communities and more like small parliaments. Quorums small enough to fit in a classroom can amend bylaws for tens of thousands of members. Proxy stacking concentrates control. Consultations are staged after decisions are made. 

This isn’t malice; it’s muscle memory. Every cycle inherits the same playbook: stability first, scrutiny second. “Continuity” becomes “competence.” “Dissent” becomes “disloyalty.” 

And soon, the process itself becomes proof of purpose. 

When power becomes insulated, accountability fades. What follows is a ritual in the absence of reform. 

The ritual looks busy: new logos, new task forces, new vendor contracts. 

But motion isn’t evolution.

Outside, the species looks unchanged.  

III. From bylaw to backend 

Governance didn’t die; it migrated into software. 

Every time a listing rejects an input because a field doesn’t exist, that’s regulation. 

Every time Realtor.ca decides which properties rise to the top of a search, that’s policy. 

Every automatic warning, every hard stop, every required field, every “invalid value” message is a digital descendant of a forgotten committee motion. 

But unlike those committees, code doesn’t interpret intent. It enforces outcomes. 

When a provincial prop-tech collective expanded its MLS infrastructure through subscription agreements in 2024 (a shift that brought most Ontario boards into a unified subscription framework), decisions about listing standards and data structure effectively moved from volunteer committees to contract clauses. 

And when its leadership quietly changed earlier this year through an internal governance realignment, oversight of Ontario’s core MLS infrastructure shifted again. 

No member referendum. No public notice. Just a new slate, appointed internally.   

That’s not scandal. It’s system design. 

Governance didn’t fail; it changed medium.   

Realtors still carry the liability for every misstep the system allows or forbids. 

If an input error misrepresents a property, the board doesn’t face the client. The agent does. The brokerage shoulders the risk. Yet neither has meaningful authority over the infrastructure that defines compliance. 

That’s the quiet inversion of power: the governed held accountable for rules they no longer write. 

IV. Paying to be governed

Membership used to buy representation. Now it buys access. 

Realtors pay dues to boards. Boards pay vendors to manage the systems. Vendors, in turn, enforce compliance frameworks that determine how Realtors work. 

It’s a closed loop of authority without ownership. 

At the national level, the same pattern repeats. CREA licenses the trademarks and operates Realtor.ca; the public face of the profession. 

Yet the listings feeding it come from local systems governed by independent contracts, each with its own structure and rules. 

The result is a federation of dependencies: members finance everything but control nothing. 

Sold as modernization, this consolidation resembles enclosure more than efficiency. 

When Realtor.ca was restructured into a for-profit subsidiary, the move was practical but symbolic. 

It marked the moment the profession’s most visible asset became a product. 

Belonging turned into a business model and representation became a side effect. 

We stopped belonging to the system when the system learned to bill us for belonging. 

V. The relevance test: What is a board for? 

If access to data is all we value, then the question isn’t whether boards are broken; it’s whether they’re still necessary at all. 

Only one board in Ontario owns the technology. The rest are tenants, licensing the systems they claim to govern. 

They administer dues, hold meetings, and issue statements, but their primary role is custodial: collecting money on behalf of platforms they don’t control. 

As a couple of writers have recently debated, the Realtor identity itself is under review. 

Some call the name baggage, tied to NAR’s scandals and American dysfunction. 

Others defend it as a badge of honour, a symbol of professionalism and trust hard-won over decades. 

I would argue that both sides miss the point. The word isn’t the issue. The structure beneath it is. 

If governance and accountability collapse, even the most sacred title loses meaning. 

The brand can survive scandal; it cannot survive structural irrelevance. 

The Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA)-led call for Ombudsman oversight of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) exposed that hollowness. 

It sounded bold, but misunderstood the law it invoked. 

The Ombudsman Act excludes self-regulating professions. 

If boards truly want to end self-regulation, they should say so. 

If they don’t, then the campaign misled the very members who fund it. 

Realtors didn’t connect with that letter because it wasn’t written for them. 

It was written to look responsive. It was a performance of relevance, not an act of it. 

VI. The ROI of representation 

If advocacy is the last defense of organized real estate’s layered structure, then it’s fair to ask: what’s the return? 

Every Realtor measures productivity and cost-per-lead.  

But the organizations that preach professionalism can’t quantify their own value. 

OREA’s own disclosures show millions spent annually on advocacy and communications, yet no member-facing metrics explain outcomes or savings. 

In business, unmeasured value isn’t value. It’s overhead. 

The loss of the OREA College exposed that vacuum. 

Education once gave OREA purpose: a tangible service tied to competence. 

When that mandate moved to the regulator, what remained was advocacy without measurement. 

And advocacy without measurement is faith, not strategy. 

Would we, knowing what we know now, voluntarily build a system that compels every Realtor to join an association, fund mandatory insurance and underwrite lobbying whose outcomes we can’t audit? 

If this system didn’t already exist, could you convince anyone to invent it? 

If we built a system today, we would not build this system. 

VII. The case for a controlled burn 

That doesn’t mean demolition. It means renewal. 

The first boards were grassroots cooperatives: small, voluntary networks built on trust and reciprocity. 

They created order before law. Their purpose was cooperation, not control. 

Over time, that cooperative impulse hardened into hierarchy. 

What began as a network of peers became a lattice of dues, committees and closed sessions. 

We now call that professionalism, but is it? 

The future doesn’t need to abolish boards; it needs to release them. 

As one industry commentator recently wrote, even Microsoft now behaves like a startup, forced by AI to relearn how to innovate. 

Real estate could do the same, not by chasing disruption but by rediscovering ownership. 

Innovation without consent isn’t transformation. 

Sunsetting legacy structures isn’t destruction; it’s hygiene. 

A controlled burn clears what it is that protects structure over service. 

The replacement need not be ideological. 

Imagine a platform cooperative: a Realtor-owned, technology-driven utility where brokerages and agents hold real stakes. 

Policy would be ratified by digital referendum. 

Vendor contracts would expire automatically unless renewed by member vote. 

Data standards and governance would be transparent by design. 

Boards that survived such a transformation wouldn’t have to defend their relevance. 

They have already proven it. 

VIII. The constitutional moment 

Every profession has a constitution: an unwritten agreement about who decides what. 

Ours has been rewritten without consent. 

Control migrated from members to boards, from boards to associations, and from associations to vendors. 

Elections continue, meetings occur, minutes are approved, but democracy isn’t procedure. 

It’s consent. 

When governance moves into code, consent becomes a checkbox. 

When advocacy drifts into performance, representation becomes branding. 

When boards mistake data for trust, the profession loses both.   

This isn’t a technical crisis, it’s constitutional.  

The choice ahead is stark but simple:   

1. Continue the drift and let governance consolidate in the hands of those who own the tools. Or;  
2. Reclaim authorship and rebuild from the ground up, guided by the same cooperative instinct that once defined the Realtor. 

If we built organized real estate today, we wouldn’t replicate the layers. 

We’d design a single, accountable, member-governed institution: transparent, data-competent and morally literate. 

IX. The path back to purpose 

Boards were never meant to be monuments. They were instruments built to serve those who work in the field, not to rule over them. 

We still need cooperation. We still need shared data, clear standards and public trust. 

But those don’t require the architecture we’ve inherited. 

They require will, imagination and consent.   

If organized real estate still believes it exists to put members first, it must prove it. Not with statements, but with structure. 

If access is all that defines membership, the public will soon ask what defines the Realtor. 

Our constitution isn’t in Ottawa or Toronto. It lives in the collective consent of those who practice. 

The system won’t rewrite itself. 

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post Reay: The hidden constitution of real estate appeared first on REM.

Recent public statements from association leadership have echoed this outrage, calling the scandal “deplorable” and pledging to do everything possible to prevent a repeat. In the same breath, however, those statements concede that associations lack authority to intervene directly. That contradiction, angry but powerless, deserves scrutiny.

What almost no one has covered is the irony of what followed: boards and associations rushing into the spotlight to demand change.

The letter

On Sept. 3, nine of Ontario’s largest boards joined the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) in a public letter calling for the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) to be placed under the Ontario Ombudsman. The letter reads, “Make RECO subject to independent oversight by the Ontario Ombudsman.”

It sounds bold.

It isn’t.

The Ombudsman’s own statute is explicit. Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act bars complaints about self-regulating professions such as lawyers, doctors, or nurses. RECO is a delegated administrative authority, funded by industry but operating at arm’s length, and therefore outside its jurisdiction.

If what boards really mean is that Ontario should legislate RECO into a fully public agency subject to Ombudsman oversight, then they should say so. Instead, they imply the Ombudsman already has that power. That is not advocacy. It misstates the effect of the statute.

Which leaves two explanations:

• Boards may not fully appreciate the limits of the Ombudsman’s role; or
• They do, but have not been fully clear with members about what their ask really means, which is the end of self-regulation.

Either way, Realtors deserve clarity from organizations funded by their dues.

Compliance vs. regulation

This distinction matters. 

Boards enforce MLS rules and the Realtor Code. That is compliance. Compliance means setting professional standards for how members interact with one another, how listings are input and displayed, and how disputes within the membership are handled. At its best, compliance keeps the MLS orderly and the professional culture consistent. It is inward-facing, designed to manage the conduct of members within an association.

Regulation is different. Regulation belongs to the state. RECO audits trust accounts, suspends registrations, and prosecutes misconduct under TRESA. Regulation is outward-facing, with the authority to protect consumers, safeguard deposits, and impose penalties that go well beyond membership discipline. Unlike compliance, regulation carries the force of law.

The two roles are not interchangeable. A board can fine a member for breaching MLS policy, but it cannot seize a trust account or revoke a license. RECO can. A board can enforce courtesy and accuracy in listing data, but it cannot investigate fraud or order restitution to a consumer. RECO can.

Conflating the two is not advocacy, it is overreach. And if we acted outside of our competence the way boards are attempting to, they would face RECO discipline.

Precedent they will not say out loud

The ask for Ombudsman oversight is not an abstract gesture. There is precedent, and it tells us exactly what this would mean.

In British Columbia, self-regulation collapsed after a 2016 investigation into shadow flipping and assignment fraud. The provincial government acted swiftly. The Real Estate Council of B.C., once the industry’s self-regulator, was stripped of authority. Oversight was shifted to the Superintendent of Real Estate. By 2021, regulation was fully consolidated under the B.C. Financial Services Authority (BCFSA).

The industry’s self-governing experiment was over.

In Québec, the same outcome arrived earlier. In 1994, the government created the OACIQ, a statutory regulator reporting directly to the Ministry of Finance. The move followed years of concern about weak enforcement by the industry’s predecessor body, the ACAIQ. The province concluded that consumer protection required a public regulator.

These are not tweaks. They are full structural shifts away from self-regulation.

So, if Ontario boards understand these precedents, they are quietly asking to end self-regulation without saying so outright. If they do not, then they are making an ask without appreciating its true implications. Either way, Realtors are left in the dark.

Ontario’s pattern of failure

This is not the first time governance in Ontario real estate has failed the public.

RECO has long been criticized for being reactive rather than proactive: slow to audit, slow to respond to complaints, and often opaque in its processes. The iPro scandal is the latest headline, but it is not an isolated event.

Boards have their own pattern. As of September 2025, RECO’s public discipline database lists decisions involving some sitting directors of Ontario real estate boards. These are breaches of the same statute that boards now want to advise on. 

A body led in part by individuals sanctioned under the very law they seek to shape cannot credibly position itself as an authority on regulatory reform. That tension should matter to every Realtor asked to fund these advocacy efforts.

That alone should give pause before positioning boards as credible voices on regulation.

Authority without liability

Brokerages carry liability. They hold trust accounts. They manage compliance systems. They face consumers when deals collapse. Registrants carry personal liability under TRESA.

Boards carry none of that risk. They can make public statements, lobby governments, and issue demands without ever sharing the burden of liability.

That is authority without liability. It is not advocacy. If it’s anything, it’s performance without consequence.

Advocacy failure

Boards defend their role by pointing to advocacy as part of their mandate.

Sure, but advocacy without accuracy is malpractice.

If the Ombudsman cannot, under statute, take jurisdiction over RECO today, then telling the public otherwise is misleading.

If boards actually mean that self-regulation should end, then failing to tell their members directly is not transparent.

And if boards acknowledge they cannot directly intervene in the very scandal prompting these calls, then how can they claim authority in reshaping the rules of regulation itself?

Either way, Realtors are paying for advocacy that fails the test of accuracy.

From symptom to system

The Ombudsman letter is not an isolated misstep. It is a symptom of a deeper imbalance in organized real estate: boards exercise authority without liability. They lobby on regulation while carrying no regulatory risk. They control essential infrastructure while carrying no ownership duty.

If we want oversight that works, it is not enough to fix RECO. We need to fix the system that empowers boards to misstate and overreach in the first place.

A structural fix

Members fund the show, yet they never vote on the script. If boards want to call for external oversight, they should accept internal oversight first. That requires structural reform.

A share-capital model is not radical. It is alignment. It means that those who carry the liability, being registrants and brokerages, also carry the authority.

Here’s how it could work:

Shares would be issued to brokerages and individual Realtors. Votes could be capped to prevent dominance by any single firm, with limits on how many votes one shareholder can hold. Major decisions (structural mergers, policy positions, advocacy campaigns, large financial commitments) would require shareholder approval. Directors would answer to owners, not just to each other. With modern platforms, registrants could cast those votes electronically in days, faster than boards now move behind closed doors.

And we already have a precedent set.

Associations behave like corporations by outsourcing essentials into for-profit subsidiaries. MLS systems are the clearest example. Ontario’s MLS infrastructure has consolidated onto a dominant, board-controlled platform used by most Realtors in the province. The sole shareholder is one board. Other associations subscribe, but they do not govern. In corporate law, directors owe their duty to the corporation. When that corporation’s sole shareholder is one board, governance incentives align with that board. Subscriber associations are counterparties, not owners.

That matters.

Contract rights are not control rights. Advisory councils advise; they do not govern. Exiting a province-wide MLS is theoretically possible and practically punitive. The most important tool Realtors have is controlled by an entity that owes them no ownership duty and where they hold no votes.

What should be for us and by us is neither.

And yet associations still applauded this arrangement. By subscribing, they subordinated their members’ governance voice to a competitor’s corporate control. That is not collaboration. It is a surrender of member sovereignty.

A share-capital model flips the script. Instead of boards owning the corporation Realtors rely on, Realtors would own the corporation boards rely on. It makes ownership explicit. It gives Realtors direct votes on advocacy. It forces disclosure of lobbying. It requires governance frameworks to expire on a fixed cycle unless renewed. And it ensures that when boards speak, they do so with a mandate earned from those who carry the liability.

The MLS precedent proves the door is open. Essentials can be corporatized. The only unresolved question is whether Realtors will remain disenfranchised subscribers or become owners. This is the natural endpoint of trends boards themselves have set in motion.

Conclusion

There are only two explanations for the Ombudsman ask. Either boards do not fully understand the system, or they do, and are not telling members the truth. Neither is acceptable.

If Ontario is moving toward the B.C. and Québec model, then say it plainly. Admit what is really on the table. And put the people who actually carry liability at the center of the conversation.

Oversight without liability is theatre, and the play has gone on long enough.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post Reay: Why the Ontario boards’ call for Ombudsman oversight of RECO falls flat appeared first on REM.

Finches with thick beaks cracked seeds none of their cousins could touch; slim beaks reached nectar that others couldn’t access. The insight wasn’t that birds grew bigger or tried harder. It was that form and function changed together; a new trait for a new reality. 

That is evolution.

But if those birds were boards, Darwin’s experience would have been very different. He’d find lots of motion: new logos, fresh committees, tech programs, even mergers. That’s growth, getting bigger, and adaptation, tweaking to survive. But would he see evolution, a durable change in governance DNA that shifts who holds power, how decisions are made, and how accountability works? 

I’d argue he would not.

Further, did the finches know that they’d evolved? 

Probably not; they were busy surviving. 

It took an observer to contrast what came before with what existed now and say, “This is different.” Boards can be the same: inside the system, small moves feel like progress; outside, the species looks unchanged. That is to say: it isn’t for the species to determine that it has evolved.

Survival of the fittest… bylaws

It is worth saying out loud that growth and adaptation are not bad. They often keep systems responsive in the short term. But evolution is different. It creates traits that survive turnover at the board table and do not depend on personalities. Those traits pass to the next generation. That is the bar if we care about what is better for the profession.

Boards exist to serve the profession, not to perpetuate themselves. By that measure, evolution is the work.

The habitat has changed (and no, a new logo isn’t camouflage)

The landscape is already nudging boards toward new traits. In Canada, the proposed settlement in the Sunderland and McFall class actions would have Re/Max adopt changes that include ending the practice of requiring its franchisees and their affiliated brokers and agents to join a defendant board or association or to follow the rules alleged to give rise to damages. 

The settlement requires court approval, but the signal is plain: assumptions about mandatory membership are no longer fixed. 

In the United States, the Phoenix Association of Realtors (PAR) offers a non-member MLS access path that uncouples platform access from traditional association membership. Following discussions with NAR in February of this year, PAR adjusted its program to comply with national bylaws while continuing non-member access to the Arizona Regional MLS (ARMLS), a practice NAR acknowledged has existed in Phoenix since the 1990s. ARMLS’ current rules also recognize both Realtor and non-member participants. 

The sky didn’t fall. It’s just another beak in a different habitat.

A different beak for a different feed

Darwin’s finches survived because their beaks evolved to fit their environment. Boards need the same kind of change. Four traits, carried forward across leadership cycles, would make boards measurably fitter and the profession stronger.

The first beak: member referendums

A trait matters only if it persists. Governance is the same. Structural decisions that bind the profession for years should not rest solely with a handful of directors. Binding member referendums make authority heritable. Mergers, long contracts, and bylaw rewrites that alter rights should go to the members with plain-language summaries of costs, benefits, and alternatives. In Ontario, the Not-for-Profit Corporations Act already allows members to remove directors by ordinary resolution, which lowers the practical threshold of accountability. Building referendums into bylaws takes the next step and ensures power remains with the profession itself. Professional associations from credit unions to universities already use binding referendums for major structural questions. Realtors should expect no less

The upside here is ownership: members feel the system is theirs, not something done to them.

The second beak: sunset clauses

In nature, unhelpful traits fade. In boards, outdated contracts linger. Sunset clauses create selection pressure. Major policies and multi-year agreements should expire by default, five years at most, with shorter horizons for volatile technology. Renewal must be justified in daylight, with outcomes, costs, and alternatives on the table, and member consent where impact is significant. Sunset clauses aren’t radical; they exist in legislation, in corporate debt covenants, even in tech vendor licensing. Their purpose is simple: to force daylight reviews and prevent bad contracts from becoming permanent fixtures.

The upside is agility: boards stay nimble, avoid vendor lock-in, and keep only what still serves the profession.

The third beak: brokerage centrality

Finches didn’t evolve their beaks to beautify nests. They evolved them to reach food.

 Brokerages carry the regulatory burden and answer to provincial regulators for compliance and consumer protection. Boards do not. That reality suggests a different division of labour. Boards are strongest when they focus on the commons, advocacy, professional standards, and data integrity, while brokerages take the lead on training, tools, and culture. That’s not a cutback for boards; it’s alignment with where accountability already lives in regulation. When roles are clear, duplication fades and members see better value on both sides. 

The fourth beak: a share-capital lens

New traits must withstand pressure. For boards, that means scrutiny. 

Publish director attendance and voting records. Tie long-term contracts to measurable outcomes and report them in member-facing dashboards. Commission independent value audits and treat external critique as feedback for improvement. This is not demutualization or privatization (though I find myself drawn to the potential upside of these). Boards would remain not-for-profit. What I’m suggesting is importing the accountability norms share-capital corporations already live under: director attendance and voting records, contract performance tied to measurable outcomes, and independent audits. It’s not about changing the structure; it’s about raising the standard.

The upside is trust earned through proof rather than slogans.

Extinction events: board edition

How can members tell whether a board has evolved or merely adapted? 

Ask whether the change survives a leadership transition or vanishes when faces change. Ask whether power, accountability, and transparency moved toward members or retreated behind closed doors. Ask whether Realtors are tangibly stronger, faster, and more credible in their markets because of it. 

If the answers line up with durability, redistribution of power, and professional fitness, the beak has changed.

Duty over drift

Growth is impressive and adaptation is often necessary, but neither change what an organism is. Boards are not ends in themselves. They are stewards of a profession. The duty is to strengthen the environment in which Realtors thrive.

That duty is fulfilled when boards evolve. Member referendums embed consent. Sunset clauses stop dead weight from calcifying. Brokerage centrality aligns responsibility with accountability. A share-capital lens proves value in daylight.

The profession deserves boards that evolve as surely as Darwin’s finches did, reshaped to thrive in their environment and stronger for the generation that follows.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post Reay: What Darwin can teach us about real estate board evolution appeared first on REM.

According to Altus Group, this ongoing sales collapse threatens to stall Toronto’s housing pipeline and wipe out over 40,000 construction-related jobs if conditions don’t improve.

Released in late June by Altus Group and BILD, the May figures represent the most current full-month snapshot of new home sales (and one of the most seasonally significant periods in the housing calendar).

That’s the story. But if you looked to organized real estate for answers, you’d never know it.

Instead of urgency, members got optics. Boards that were built to support Realtors through difficult markets have become fixated on protecting their own narrative.

In the middle of the worst new home sales slump in decades, some boards offered commentary on crime and bail reform (yes, in a housing update) while others painted a sunshine-and-rainbows picture of a market building momentum when, in fact, it barely regained its footing amidst trade tensions and election uncertainty.

While Realtors were trying to explain to clients why nothing was moving, their representative bodies were preserving image instead of delivering insight.

The quieter the market gets, the louder some boards become. Because when your value proposition fades, overreach starts to look like relevance.

What boards could have said (but didn’t)

A board serious about member service would have used this moment to speak directly to the economic fundamentals reshaping the market:

Canadians need to deleverage. Household debt is still hovering at 173.9 per cent of disposable income. According to the Bank of Canada’s May 2025 Financial Stability Report, 60 per cent of mortgages in Canada will renew in 2025 or 2026. Even after seven rate cuts, most borrowers will face payment increases. OSFI continues to warn that structural debt exposure remains high. 

Boards could have helped members prepare their clients and themselves for that reality. They didn’t.

Cap rates are flashing yellow. Altus Group’s Q1 2025 Investment Trends Survey shows capitalization rates trending upward across several asset classes. Suburban multi-unit residential rose to 4.65 per cent. Single-tenant industrial reached 5.93 per cent. On paper, these shifts may seem small. But they translate into five to 15 per cent headline valuation losses; enough to reset investment expectations and weaken the price floor in residential markets.

It should have been the front-page story of every board update. Instead, we got distraction.

And the consequences? Builders can’t make projects pencil. Equity partners are waiting. Lenders are cautious. Land deals are stalling. The risk-free rate is no longer a rounding error. Realtors are in the middle of this. Boards could have helped them understand it. They didn’t.

But the warning signs weren’t limited to cap rates and debt loads. Purpose-built rental completions may be near record highs, but new starts have cratered, down 60 per cent year-over-year, and the pipeline is thinning fast. Vacancy is rising, incentives are back, and investor confidence is softening. Still, boards said nothing.

They also stayed quiet on Ontario’s growing outmigration, on OSFI’s proposed replacement for the mortgage stress test, and on CMHC’s quiet retreat from its affordability benchmark. These aren’t footnotes. They’re flashing signals. The story is playing out across every part of the housing system and boards could have helped members make sense of it.

They didn’t. 

Whether it was neglect, confusion, or incapacity, the result is the same: silence when members needed clarity.

The agency problem, made personal

And the silence isn’t accidental. It’s structural.

Boards didn’t just miss these signals. They were never required to address them. Because when power becomes insulated, accountability fades. The problem isn’t just what wasn’t said. It’s why no one had to say it. And that brings us to how real estate governance actually works, and who it works for.

The agency problem happens when people who are supposed to act in your best interest start acting in their own. It creeps in slowly. In governance, it happens when directors and executives stop speaking for members and start managing around them.

This isn’t another article about disengagement. It’s about representation.

Directors begin to equate dissent with disloyalty. Executives start to believe that continuity equals leadership. And over time, boards stop responding to members and start protecting themselves.

That’s how we end up with multi-year tech contracts. Education programs launched without regulator or even stakeholder input. Conduct policies applied retroactively. And when challenged, the response is always procedural: “We followed the process.”

Disenfranchisement by design

Of course they followed the process, because the process was built to protect them from you.

Quorum thresholds are alarmingly low. At some boards, just a handful of votes in an organization of thousands, or even tens of thousands, are enough to pass sweeping by-law changes. As REM has previously published, TRREB’s most recent AGM saw a record turnout. Just over 1,000 members voted, including proxies, out of a membership of more than 70,000. One of the most controversial votes in years failed by fewer than 250 ballots.

This isn’t oversight. It’s insulation.

Through proxy stacking, a handful of insiders can quietly collect voting rights from disengaged members and consolidate control without resistance. Floor motions are ruled out of order. Consultations happen after decisions are finalized. Procedural legitimacy is performed, not earned.

Members don’t just feel shut out. They are.

What Realtors get instead

While agents are trying to keep deals alive and guide uncertain clients through turbulent financing, their boards are delivering generic talking points and irrelevant press releases.

They need data. Insight. Perspective.

Instead, they get messaging. Crime commentary. Boilerplate optimism. Statements no one asked for, released on their behalf.

You can’t fix this with a vote

This isn’t about better personalities. It’s about power.

Major by-law changes and dues increases should require a referendum. Programs introduced without a vote should sunset unless reaffirmed. Governance audits should be routine, not radical. And a national standard for board transparency and accountability should already exist.

In every other sector, these are baseline expectations.

In real estate, they’re treated as revolutionary.

The bottom line

Boards are not regulators. They are service providers. Their power flows from Realtors, not to them. If they’ve forgotten that, remind them.

As I argued in a previous article, the problem isn’t disengagement. It’s disenfranchisement.

You’re not just a member. You’re the owner. Act like it. Ask harder questions. Demand transparency. Refuse silence as an answer.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post Reay: Boards lost the plot. Realtors are paying for it. appeared first on REM.

When listings are incomplete or misleading, it isn’t just agents who lose. It’s the consumers who make life-changing decisions based on flawed information. It’s time we stop pretending the system works. The tools that power our listings are riddled with gaps that force even the most diligent Realtors into impossible positions.

Brokerages carry the risk, yet boards retain control. That misalignment is eroding public trust and the Realtor brand along with it.

Systems that undercut service

Realtors are not just working within flawed systems; they are compelled to. 

Under CREA’s Realtor Cooperation Policy, agents who publicly advertise a property are required to post it on the MLS. There is no true opt-out. That means if an agent markets a listing on social media, in print, or even by putting a sign on the lawn, they are obligated to input it into a system that may not be capable of capturing the full picture. 

In practice, we are forced to shoehorn listings into rigid platforms, regardless of whether the data fields reflect the property accurately.

In many regions, agents are working within platforms that do not allow them to input basic details of a property. One common issue is the restriction on the number of rooms or features that can be uniquely defined. Some systems limit descriptors, cap room types, or omit fields entirely. These gaps seem trivial until you list a $3-million custom home and find you cannot properly describe it. Not because of negligence, but because the system itself makes full disclosure impossible.

It’s a Hobson’s choice: either comply with systems that cannot reflect the full truth of the listing or violate the policy by withholding it entirely. In either case, the agent loses, and the client is underserved.

That listing then feeds into Realtor.ca, our most visible and trusted public-facing platform. The consumer sees incomplete information on a website that claims to be powered by Realtors. They expect that it is accurate.

Who takes the hit?

Not the system vendor. Not the board. Not the national platform.

The Realtor does.

The brokerage is on the legal hook, but the agent is the face beside the listing, and the one the public holds responsible. When the data is wrong, that trust is shaken, even if every rule was followed.

The fragmented foundation

This is not hypothetical. It’s happening right now, in real markets, with real listings that bear real consequences. 

In some cases, agents are told to work around limitations. They are advised to put key details in the remarks, fudge the structure of the property, or leave important aspects unlisted. This creates a troubling contradiction. Realtors are held to the highest standard but asked to compromise accuracy because of technical limits they cannot control.

At the heart of this issue is a contradiction in organized real estate. 

We promote ourselves as a unified national profession but operate in a fragmented data ecosystem. There is no single MLS system in Canada. Each local board or regional association negotiates with its own vendor and sets out its own rules. 

The result is a patchwork of differing input fields, inconsistent property categories, and minimal national oversight.

Even Realtor.ca, which is often treated as our national standard, is not a national MLS. It is a reflection of data feeds from boards across the country, each shaped by different priorities and limitations.

Risk without authority

Who owns the data? And more importantly, who is accountable for it?

Listing data may originate with Realtors, but in practice, it’s governed by boards, housed by vendors, and syndicated nationally by CREA. Boards license its use, enforce its rules, and in some cases, restrict how it can be accessed. CREA promotes the listings and brands them with Realtor trust.

At no point does the individual Realtor retain full control over the dataset. Agents pay dues to three levels of organized real estate but often cannot access their own listing history without going through approval processes or paying additional fees. That is not sustainable. Especially when the stakes are high.

Because what boards and CREA do not carry is risk. Brokerages do.

It is the brokerage that takes on vicarious liability. It is the brokerage that ensures accuracy and compliance, that trains, audits, and disciplines its agents. It is the brokerage that absorbs reputational and legal fallout when listings go wrong, regardless of whether the error began in a system it cannot access or control.

A misalignment of power

So why are the most accountable actors given the least control?

Today, boards control the platforms that manage the most visible and valuable real estate data in the country, while brokerages, the entities legally responsible for much of what happens with that data, are often left out of governance conversations entirely. This is not a question of internal politics. It is a fundamental misalignment between responsibility and authority.

And this isn’t a governance quirk. It’s a cultural flaw that distances decision-makers from responsibility, and one that is often hardcoded into board-level vendor contracts that entrench limitations, delay reform, and prevent innovation. In many ways, Realtors have become service users of their own listing platforms, with limited ability to shape or challenge the architecture of the systems they fund. That disconnect reinforces disengagement. It limits innovation. And it weakens the voice of those doing the work on the ground.

The erosion of trust

This is a problem because data is trust. The Realtor brand is not just a logo or a code of conduct. It is a promise. When the listing platform shows incomplete or misleading information, it reflects poorly on the brand that is supposed to represent integrity and accuracy. And if the national platform cannot distinguish between a system constraint and an agent oversight, then the public sees no difference.

The result is that consumers blame the Realtor. Not the board. Not the system. Not the national feed.

This guarantees reputational risk. It also undermines the value of being a Realtor rather than a registrant. If a consumer sees inaccurate or missing information on a Realtor listing, they may ask what value the designation truly offers. If a custom home cannot be accurately marketed on Realtor.ca, why would a seller choose a Realtor when the system is built to fail them?

From awareness to action

Organized real estate has been aware of platform limitations for years, but progress toward national data standards has been slow, cautious, and largely invisible to members. The result is that frontline agents and brokerages are left to fill the gap, absorbing reputational risk while systems inch forward behind closed doors. That silence is no longer defensible.

If brokerages are held accountable by law, then they must have standing in the governance of the systems that define their risk.

If brokerages are to remain accountable, they must also be empowered. Platform governance should include brokerage representation. Data policy must be co-designed with those who shoulder the liability. Anything less is regulatory negligence by design.

CREA does not own MLS systems, but it does own the Realtor trademarks and operates Realtor.ca. That comes with responsibility. CREA should not micromanage boards, but it must set national expectations for what Realtor-level data integrity looks like. That might include minimum input standards, public disclaimers when known system limitations exist, and tools for agents and brokerages to preview how their listings will appear.

It also means working collaboratively with boards and vendors to modernize platforms in ways that reflect how real estate is practiced today. This includes eliminating arbitrary field caps, improving cross-board interoperability, and giving brokerages and Realtors more agency over the data they are responsible for.

A seat at the table

When there is no accountability for the system, the accountability falls to the agent and their brokerage. This is not just unjust; it’s structurally indefensible.

We’re at an inflection point. Consumers are more data-savvy than ever. Alternative platforms are gaining traction. Realtors cannot afford to be trapped in outdated systems governed by legacy contracts or institutional politics. If we want to maintain our place as the most trusted advisors in real estate, our tools must reflect the standards we uphold.

Right now, the message to consumers is this: trust the Realtor, but not the data they are forced to work with.

That contradiction cannot stand. If we want the Realtor brand to thrive, we must stop outsourcing control and start aligning authority with accountability.

Brokerages carry the risk. It is time they had a seat at the table.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post OPINION: Agents risk reputation while broken listing systems undermine trust appeared first on REM.

And not because they don’t care, but because their boards stopped being relevant. What we’re witnessing isn’t an engagement problem. It’s a structural failure decades in the making.

In a recent column, BCREA CEO, Trevor Koot, offered a thoughtful reflection on Realtor engagement, calling on boards to move beyond measuring likes and email opens and to focus instead on building confidence through accountability. It is a worthwhile perspective and one that many in organized real estate will find familiar.

But in 2025, it does not go far enough.

Disengagement is no longer just a communications challenge or a cultural issue. It is the result of a decades-long shift in power, purpose and accountability. Realtor disengagement is not apathy. It is a rational response to institutional drift, and increasingly, to disenfranchisement. 

Many boards no longer reflect the interests or realities of those they were designed to serve. As brokerages step in to fill the gap, the industry is witnessing not an engagement crisis, but a governance reckoning.

From shared purpose to structural drift: A timeline of disengagement

To understand this shift, we need to revisit how real estate boards in Ontario—and across North America—came to be.

Early 1900s: Local brokerages voluntarily share listing information, laying the groundwork for the MLS. Real estate boards emerge to formalize and manage this cooperation.

Mid-1900s: Boards provide essential services: access to listings, rules for cooperation, ethics enforcement, and education. Engagement is high because the board is indispensable to doing business.

1980s–2000s: Boards expand in size and scope. Education is centralized through provincial and national associations. Brokerages begin developing in-house training, marketing, and business systems. Member reliance on boards begins to decline.

2010–present: Technology platforms (Realtor.ca, Zillow, CRM tools, and transaction software) begin to replace board services. Engagement erodes. Boards respond with more communications, while doubling down on governance structures that often exclude meaningful member input.

This evolution did not occur maliciously, but its consequences are undeniable. The relationship between Realtors and boards has shifted from mutual dependency to administrative obligation. And many Realtors have taken note.

When the board becomes the barrier

The modern Realtor operates in a brokerage-first, tech-enabled environment. Today’s successful agents rely on CRM systems, internal coaching, national brand networks and private mastermind groups to drive their business. The board is no longer the center of professional development or collaboration.

Yet many boards continue to operate as if they are. They expand offerings, replicate services already available through brokerages and tightly control access to critical data and platforms. The result is not greater engagement. It is confusion, duplication and growing frustration with the cost and value of membership.

Control over data has become especially contentious. Realtors generate listing and transaction data. Brokerages carry the legal and operational risk. But boards maintain proprietary control over the MLS infrastructure and access rights, often without offering reciprocal business value. That tension is now driving brokerages to create their own exclusive listing networks, rebuilding the original function of the MLS, without the board as intermediary.

This movement is not about pre-marketing. It is about market control, built on data leverage. Brokerages are no longer waiting for boards to evolve. They are building their own ecosystems, with their own rules, governance, and strategy.

Boards did not lose engagement. They lost trust.

Koot is right—but not enough

Koot rightly argues that engagement should not be measured by metrics but by the confidence members have in their leadership. On this, we agree.

Where we differ is in the nature of the solution. Koot suggests we refine the meaning of engagement. I believe we must restructure the foundation that made engagement necessary in the first place. The problem is not that members aren’t participating. It is that they have been systematically excluded from power, decision-making and meaningful influence over the institutions that claim to represent them.

Boards were designed to serve practitioners. Increasingly, they serve themselves: defending process, legacy governance and institutional preservation at the expense of responsiveness and relevance.

Rebuilding legitimacy

The solution is not to “win back engagement.” It is to restore legitimacy. That will not be achieved through videos or newsletters. It will require:

• Returning the board to its core purpose: facilitating cooperation, not controlling it
• Sharing data governance with brokerages and practitioners who generate and are accountable for it
• Ending redundancy in services and refocusing on infrastructure and integrity
• Reforming board governance structures to allow direct REALTOR® influence in strategic decisions

Until this happens, Realtors will continue to seek out structures that better reflect their business needs. Some of these will be built by brokerages. Others may emerge through national consolidation or private enterprise. But they will not wait for legacy institutions to change on their own timeline.

The path forward

This is not a rejection of boards. It is a challenge to them. Those who acknowledge the need for structural reform will find themselves reinvigorated by members who want to participate in shaping the future. 

Those that do not will gradually become optional; kept in place by bylaws, but outpaced by innovation and excluded from strategic relevance.

Koot ends his column by encouraging boards to think of engagement as a measure of confidence. I agree. But the truth is starker: Realtors are disengaging because their boards have made themselves unworthy of confidence.

The question now is not whether Realtors will return to their boards. The question is whether boards are willing to return to Realtors.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post OPINION: Realtors aren’t disengaged—they’re disenfranchised appeared first on REM.

Brandon Reay

Brandon Reay brings a multifaceted background in real estate practice, policy, and governance. Before stepping into brokerage leadership, Brandon spent several years in organized real estate, contributing to strategic initiatives and advocacy efforts with CREA and OREA, and various Chambers of Commerce. His work has included shaping housing policy, supporting regulatory reform, and improving REALTOR® engagement across the country.

Brandon’s approach blends hands-on brokerage experience with a systems-level understanding of how policy, market forces, and professional standards intersect. He is known for helping professionals navigate evolving market conditions and advocating for higher standards within the industry. In addition to his leadership role at RE/MAX Hallmark Realty Group, he remains an active REALTOR® focused on agent development, business strategy, and client service.

Brandon regularly contributes commentary on market trends to media outlets and industry publications and has served as a spokesperson on housing issues in Ottawa. He is also a frequent speaker at real estate events, offering data-driven insights on brokerage strategy, professionalism, and the future of the industry.

He holds a Master of Business Administration from the Sprott School of Business. Brandon lives in Ottawa, where he remains closely involved in local policy discussions on housing affordability and real estate governance.

The post OPINION: Ontario’s real estate boards must evolve or step aside appeared first on REM.