Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) has announced that Mississauga-based iPro Realty Ltd., one of the province’s largest brokerages, will permanently close all 17 of its locations effective Aug. 19.
The closure follows the discovery of a $10 million shortfall in the company’s consumer deposit and commission trust accounts during a scheduled inspection. The amount has since declined to less than $8 million, RECO confirmed.
RECO’s registrar Joseph Richer told Real Estate Magazine that the council has not yet confirmed the number of consumers or agents affected.
Co-founders Rui Alves and Fedele Colucci are “no longer eligible to trade in real estate when the brokerage is closed, nor can they reapply for registration in the future,” said Richer.
RECO says it has finalized an undertaking with iPro to wind down operations. The agreement allows for the completion of current transactions under close oversight by RECO, a qualified broker of record, and a chartered public accountant.
iPro regarded itself as one of the fastest-growing brokerages in Ontario, and one of the province’s largest by agent count.
For 23 years, iPro operated as a franchised brand before going independent in 2010.
Upon acquiring three locations and 600 offices in 2019, Alves said they were moving toward an industry trend of becoming a “mega-brokerage,” which “offers competitive rates and improved services to salespeople.”
Impact on agents
The shutdown will affect approximately 2,400 agents working out of iPro’s 17 branches, including offices in Mississauga, Toronto, Orangeville, Georgetown, Milton, North York, Bradford, Baysville, Burlington, Woodbridge, Scarborough, Brampton, Brantford, and Pickering.
To help agents maintain their RECO registration, iPro has arranged for iCloud Realty Ltd. to assume all branch locations. Agents wishing to transfer to iCloud must notify iPro by noon on Aug. 18 to facilitate a no-interruption transfer.
Agents opting for other brokerages must initiate the change through MyWeb before Aug. 19, with a $25 transfer fee payable by either the new brokerage or the agent. Those who fail to transfer by the deadline will have their RECO registration terminated.
Details about iCloud
“RECO can confirm that iCloud is registered as a brokerage with RECO, with different owners from iPro, and has purchased some of iPro’s assets and assumed some of its leases,” said Richer. “There has been no transfer of ownership from iPro to iCloud.”
A search of RECO’s registrants shows iCloud’s broker of record is Christopher Regimbal, who was a broker/manager with iPro.
Guidance for active transactions
When iPro closes, all active representation agreements with the brokerage will become void.
Agents must discuss with their clients whether to sign new agreements under their new brokerage or allow clients to choose another representative.
Brokerages that owe commissions to iPro are instructed to disburse funds as usual during the wind-up period.
Agents who have earned commissions not yet paid by iPro are urged to submit a Commission Protection claim through RECO’s claims adjuster.
(Update: Aug 18. This story was updated at 10:30 a.m EST to include that Rui Alves and Fedele Colucci are permanently barred from trading real estate in Ontario).
iCloud Realty – who has been arranged to assume the iPro Realty locations is the likely the same 2 crooks that caused the shortfall to iPro- this feel like corruption at it’s worst.
These two should not be allowed to be involved in the industry at all!
How is it even possible to have trust funds missing? Doesn’t the fact they’re held in trust mean the brokerage can’t use them?
The housing market frenzy of the past decade enabled unqualified entities to not only survive but create the optics of thriving in the real estate industry.
Now that the times are changing, it becomes clear who was merely riding the waive and who actually has the substance to succeed.
How do you blow this with 2,400 agents?!
More corruption just like the government.
What about investors money who invested for 8% gain in the ipro?
RECO has some explaining to do, the industry as a whole and maybe iPro too.
There is a lot of speculation mixed in among facts and questions flying around social media in answer to questions such as, why did RECO allow a brokerage registered the same day as the announcement to take over the 17 locations and purportedly invite iPros’ members to join this new brokerage which some presume has no brick and mortar location and no assets while supposedly infringing on Apple’s icloud copyright? A prominent member of a large group who loves to have an answer for everything, is throwing out a huge amount as being the shortfall in the trust account without a shred of evidence offered. Another claimed iPro had not been audited by RECO in 5 years.
On August 12, Better Dwelling reported that Remax Ontario- Atlantic Canada “became the first brokerage( sic) to setlle the Sunderland class action suit “targeting the industry’s commission rules and board’s structure,” with a $7.5 million settlement. In even bigger news, the settlement requires Remax OAC to cooperate, “in the ongoing prosecution of the class actions against the non-settling defendants and to end ‘its mandatory board membership for its agents and franchisees.”
iPro is a defendant as are many large brokerages (some are also in one other class action suit), as are the CREA and the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board.
That is a very costly settlement not to the mention legal fees.
On August 14, iPro sent out an email to its members just a before RECO put out the consumer advisory announcing that its two founders were retiring, a new and better company was started. An invitation to attend a virtual meeting later in the day to get the lowdown was included.
Also on the same day, icloud realty was listed on RECO as a registered brokerage with two employees from iPro, one being named the new broker of record. The company’s one named shareholder does not appear to be a RECO registrant.
It’s obvious that new brokerage had already applied to RECO some time ago for brokerage status. That RECO’s audit was either well underway by the time icloud was registered as a business and a brokerage. That the owners of iPro didn’t just wake up yesterday morning and decide to retire but had to have negotiated the transfer of assets to the new brokerage. More importantly, the new brokerage should have had knowledge of the trust account shortfall having done due diligence and of RECO’s intended action.
With iPro being defunct and supposedly in the red, their defendant status in the lawsuit probably disappears.
The news about Remax OAC which is even bigger news within the industry, isn’t.
How and why did the iPro issue happen and, what does this mean for the survival? Queue the news about the international mls summit and we have the three most important questions the industry should be concerning itself with.
well said, fishy smell all over this whole situation!
Totally agree RECO should have investigated earlier. They were delaying commission payouts for quite a while. The silent partner is a best friend of Rui Alves. Seems a front ? Putting their loyal agents in a very hard position with little time to make a decision
The two companies newly formed by iPro managers/brokers are 30 days old. They knew this ship was sinking fo 30 days. Registration on July 17th and July 18th. They knew….
Fantastic insight. RECO is such a flawed body. Who audits RECO? Also just the name icloud is already a copyright infringement so the crookedness already started
Get this: the former iPro agents are looking to join brokerages with a similar fee and split structure.
Like that’s going to play out better.
This is a sobering reminder of the importance of due diligence when choosing a brokerage. While iCloud Realty is stepping in to assume iPro’s locations to help agents maintain RECO registration, I’d strongly encourage anyone considering the move to thoroughly evaluate the strength and reputation of that name. The similarity to Apple’s “iCloud” could raise trademark concerns—and possible confusion in the market—so it’s worth asking whether that could become a distraction or liability down the line.
For agents seeking stability and long‑term brand credibility, particularly in uncertain times, aligning with a larger, well‑established brokerage might offer stronger peace of mind. Just something to think about before hitting “transfer” on the MyWeb portal.
There has been no mention from RECO regarding charges or discipline for the broker / owners under the Act, or criminal charges in this matter, which appears on the surface to be a massive fraud.
Is RECO waiting until after the 19th to disclose more details?
Because right now there is absolutely no transparency as to what actually transpired.
Agreed. Where is the money, where is the accountability. It’s this kind of massive misappropriation of funds with apparently no mention of consequences that leads to mistrust in the industry. How could they just allow ICloud to take over like that. Not impressed by RECO right now. I feel for the agents, having this sprung on them with only a few days’ notice, and them having to sort out their business and that of their clients in such short notice when the owners obviously had a lot more time to sort themselves out. I’m just shaking my head here.
The shutdown of iPro Realty has left deposits and commissions in limbo — with consumer protection capped at \$200,000 per claim and \$4 million total. That means not everyone will be made whole.
The bigger question is: **how did RECO let a shortfall of this size grow for so long?
Here’s the reality:
* RECO’s inspection system is *periodic*, not continuous. A large brokerage like iPro could go years without a deep review.
* The Auditor General has already flagged gaps in RECO’s oversight: long delays between inspections, weak follow-up, and heavy reliance on self-reporting.
* Only a recent inspection triggered the discovery — by then, the shortfall was in the millions.
Meanwhile, REALTORS have been buried under **13 pages of new RECO guidelines** under TRESA, supposedly to “protect the public from REALTORS.”
Those rules have:
* Changed how we represent clients,
* Reshaped advertising and disclosures,
* And cost REALTORS thousands of dollars in compliance and training.
**The irony?** While REALTORS were forced to overhaul the way we work, RECO failed to catch — or warn the public about — a massive trust account shortfall that puts both consumers and agents at risk.
Bottom line: If RECO wants to protect the public, it must first fix its own house. That means:
* More frequent inspections of large brokerages,
* Real-time monitoring of trust accounts,
* And transparency about its own oversight — not just ours.
Until then, REALTORS will keep carrying the cost of compliance, while the public remains vulnerable where it matters most: their money in trust.
Re comments from Rosemarie Wallace, well said.
Replying to a comment above that references the stupid Better Dwelling article…. this is a great example of how the media screws things up – there’s a whole bunch in that comment that isn’t accurate because you’ve assumed something written on a website is factual. Firstly, REMAX OAC isn’t a brokerage. It’s a franchisor. A franchisor can’t just decide to end the three-way agreement governed by CREA when they aren’t even a part of that agreement. Leaving the board, the province or CREA means you’re not a Realtor and don’t have MLS access, though you’re still licensed to trade without any of those services and tools if you want. You should do more reading on Sunderland and McFall and the settlement.
Secondly, back to iPro, audits take months. If Rui and Fedele didn’t know about what was happening in their trust account (unlikely), they would have when RECO first started asking questions as their audit began. It’s not abnormal for business owners to plan to sell tangible assets (Realtor ICAs) once they figure out the magnitude of what’s happening. RECO takes a few months to move through these processes. iPro will want to try to make as much as they can on their way out of the sector. The restitution owed here (hopefully) will be significant. I’m hopeful that this iCloud brokerage (who no doubt is going to have to change their name soon enough) will be heavily scrutinized by years to come by RECO in case there is any connection to the owners with whatever shady business happened at iPro.
Lastly, while we’re all angry at the blemish, we should really try to keep our fist-wagging to internal directions. Let’s show the consumer how glad we are that this bad apple is out, because good realtors have great opportunity to shine in the face of this bull. And there will be more, and lets celebrate all of them leaving, and keep our feelings on how screwed up RECO is to ourselves. We need to instil confidence in the consumer, not validate their feelings that we’re royally messed up.
If you have other errors on the Better Dwelling’s article, you failed to share them. The only one you mentioned in the “stupid Better Dwelling’s” article was callling Remax OAC a brokerage. I assumed nothing since I specifically placed (sic) in my post noting that error, which you missed.
You seem to be of the assumption that Remax OAC is somehow deciding to end the three way agreement. In fact they are not. The article points out that Remax OAC will not impose a requirement on it’s member agents to belong to a board where currently all of them are members of the CREA. That is a franchisor’s right to do and what makes that the third piece of significant news. That release would specifically place the burden of liability for any related MLS lawsuits onto the brokerages and its members. By releasing the brokerages from having to belong to such a board, the brokerages now have to decide what to do with that. The implications going forward are significant and will have an impact upon organized real estate and how it delivers services to the consumer.
Do you have any insights not mentioned in the article to offer?
Of course iPro’s owners would have known well before RECO’s notice of the shortfall, even if they are not the one responsible for the misappropriation of the funds. It would seem an obvious move to retire in the face of the allegation in an attempt to limit criminal and or civil backlash. It’s also quite possible that the price they negotiated from the buyer was intended to offset the shortfall either wholly or partially another reason it would be an asset purchase only as the company would be in the red.
What is also escaping people is the most troubling aspect of it all in that RECO supposedly first stated the shortfall was reduced to 8 million from 10 without giving any reason why. Neither did they comment as they should have about actions taken against the owners, but rather they glossed over it which made it seem as though it was an amicable agreement.
It’s not a “blemish” as you put it and should not be covered up. Keeping agents feelings on how screwed up RECO is to themselves is not the answer, Clamming up tells the general consumer who already ranks the industry at the bottom of the ladder that they are not wrong. That secrecy is as wrong-headed as the one advanced for agents funding the shortfall which when the dust settles is very likely to show commissions make up the majority of the loss then deposits then buyer rebates.
As we are all independent business owners, we should all be making the enquiries of our brokerages concerning their RECO reviews. If we feel that RECO needs fixing, why are we all waiting for things like this to happen so that we can point fingers? Real estate is a business like all other businesses which attracts the dreamers and get rich idealists. You need to know how your brokerage operates for you just like you need to know how you bank, lawyer, and accountant operate. It is your business and livelihood.
As of 2024 the government made a sudden and right decision to reverse the very top-heavy industry member board, from 9 of the 12 to 3 of 9. That was a problem begging for such change given that many of these industry directors made a career warming director seats within the industry associations. But the reforms didn’t go far enough and that too is a product of this same top-heavy leadership guiding the reform. iPro’s co-founder, Rui Alves was at the time a director and an advisor on the restructuring.
Agents everywhere are blaming RECO as though it was/is an entity separate from the industry when it is clear the board makeup caused RECO to cast a blind eye toward proper financial oversight of at least iPro. Directors being elected by the agents can manage to serve multiple terms totalling close to 10 years. IT DOES NOT HELP that the reform casts a blind eye to the fact that the immediate past-president, having already served 5 years was re-elected as a director for another term and her husband and co-owner with her of their brokerage is a director an incoming president for the largest board in Ontario. They may be as honest and as ethically pristine as any humans can be but in light of this news, it highlights the fact that the multiple terms and cross-control creates the impression of a conflict of interest.
When was their brokerage last audited? Did RECO set out to audit the brokerages of ex-directors only after they left? Did some insider initiate the audit? Was there bad blood somewhere?
Real Estate oversight under the direction of the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement needs to either take a lesson from the FSRA which oversees the insurance brokerage industry or be placed under its oversight.
The insurance brokerage industry MUST file a trust position monthly with the FSRA, MUST file a return twice per year and MUST report any trust shortfall immediately. That none of that is a requirement speaks to the protectionist nature of RECO’s past board of directors.
Obviously the ministry saw something that called for the sudden change to the director makeup, but it did not go far enough when it allows an influential advisory board entirely made up of agents and potential conflicts of interest.
All those who blame RECO for this, need to point to their own disinterest whereby less than 500 agents cast a ballot in RECO’s director elections where most assuredly it’s a popularity contest where he who knows the voters, wins. It’s the same disinterest shown when it comes to election directors in all of real estate’s member organizations.
I agree with you on one important point: REALTORS should not be held responsible for who sits on RECO’s board. That’s precisely the problem. RECO is a regulator with a legislated mandate to protect the public, and it answers to the Ministry — not to registrants. Blaming REALTORS for not voting in popularity-contest elections misses the point entirely.
Here’s the real issue: RECO holds every registrant accountable for every action we take — every offer signed, every ad we publish, every disclosure we make. Yet RECO itself fails at the most fundamental part of its job: financial oversight of brokerages and safeguarding consumer trust funds. They enforce relentlessly on individual REALTORS while looking the other way on systemic failures until it’s too late.
You’re right that conflicts of interest are baked into the board’s structure, but let’s not pretend the 2024 reforms solved the problem. As of today, the Chair of RECO’s board, Katie Steinfeld, is also the Broker of Record of her own brokerage. Other directors have similar ties. How can anyone argue that’s not a conflict? Regulators in other industries would never allow active operators to govern the watchdog.
And when REALTORS do speak out — whether it’s about conflicts, board structure, or even the health plan that was forced on us — we’re ignored. Hundreds of dollars are now siphoned off for a benefit package many of us didn’t want, while RECO claims to act in our best interest. That’s not listening; that’s imposing.
Finally, look at FSRA’s model in the insurance industry: mandatory monthly trust reporting, semi-annual returns, and immediate disclosure of any shortfall. That’s true consumer protection. RECO could have implemented this years ago, but didn’t — and now thousands of deposits are in jeopardy because of its negligence.
So yes, REALTORS didn’t create this mess — but we’re forced to fund it, live under it, and pay the price when RECO fails. Until the Ministry forces true oversight, bans active BORs from sitting on the board, and imposes FSRA-level reporting standards, this cycle will repeat.
Interesting perspective. I agree with you. The conflicts of interest in this industry are massive and so many consumers simply aren’t aware. But I disagree with your statement that RECO holds realtors to account; in my experience, they also realtors on the wrist
Not surprised. Real estate agents and their brokerage hold a tremendous amount of information, money and control; it doesn’t appear that the current oversight is overly effective. In protecting consumers