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.

Let me be clear: that line of thinking is not progressive, it’s dismissive.

The word Realtor isn’t a stain. It’s a standard. It’s a title that represents professionalism, accountability and a shared code of ethics that countless dedicated agents have spent decades defending and improving.

Yes, our industry has had its share of bad actors. So has medicine, law and every other respected profession. But you don’t fix integrity by erasing the identity that was built to protect it. You fix it by upholding the principles behind that identity.

When people hear “Realtor,” they should think of someone who knows their market, their clients and their community — not just someone who sells homes, but someone who represents trust in one of life’s biggest decisions.

This isn’t about nostalgia; it’s about credibility.

The Realtor designation wasn’t handed to us, it was earned, through licensing, education, late nights, early mornings, missed recitals, ethics and a commitment to doing right by the public. It’s a mark that separates professionals from opportunists, and that’s something worth defending.

Those of us who have been around long enough to remember when “real estate agent” carried less respect know exactly how much work went into changing that. We fought to clean up the industry, to raise the bar, to ensure that clients knew they were in capable, trustworthy hands when they saw that little ® beside our title.

So, when someone says the word Realtor is “baggage,” I say:

No! It’s the badge of professionalism.

It’s the reason clients come back. It’s the reason the public still believes there’s such a thing as a trusted advisor in this business.

To the next generation of Realtors, learn the history before you try to rewrite it. You’re not starting from scratch; you’re standing on the shoulders of those who worked tirelessly to make this profession respected again. Build on that. Don’t tear it down.

The Realtor name isn’t what’s broken. It’s what keeps us accountable, connected and credible.

And as far as I’m concerned, it still stands for everything that’s right about the profession. 

Jason Steele

Jason Steele is a broker at RE/MAX Four Seasons Realty Limited in Port Elgin, Saugeen Shores and Bruce County.

The post Letter to the Editor: The Realtor name deserves respect – not rebranding appeared first on REM.

Today, the word feels less like a badge of honour and more like a brand you’d whisper about at a cocktail party before someone asks, “Oh, are you one of those?”

A shared word with split reputations

Canada’s real estate professionals use the word Realtor by permission. It is not ours. The trademark is co-owned by the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) and the National Association of Realtors (NAR) in the United States. CREA’s financial statements show no money changing hands through their joint company, Realtor Canada Inc., but the symbolic connection is undeniable.

And lately, that connection has been a problem.

Over the past two years, NAR has been mired in scandal, not the petty variety, but the kind that burns trust to the ground. Multiple U.S. class-action lawsuits have accused NAR of price-fixing and collusion around commission structures, culminating in a massive settlement that could reshape how real estate is practiced across America. 

While those legal battles play out, an even darker story has emerged: the sexual harassment and workplace abuse scandal that forced NAR president Kenny Parcell to resign in 2023.

When leadership fails

The New York Times investigation that broke the story read like something out of a corporate horror novel. Former employees described a culture of fear and silence, where senior executives faced repeated accusations of harassment and retaliation. Parcell allegedly sent explicit messages to subordinates, made unwanted advances, and fostered what insiders called a “boys’-club environment.” NAR apologized, launched internal reviews, and promised reform. But the damage was done. The organization built to uphold ethics could not even uphold its own.

For Canadian agents watching from across the border, the embarrassment is hard to ignore. The public does not parse the difference between CREA and NAR. To most consumers, a Realtor is a Realtor. When NAR sinks, the whole fleet lists with it.

When allies walk away

Redfin’s decision to cut ties with NAR in 2023 was a turning point. CEO Glenn Kelman had tried for years to reform the organization from within, pushing for transparency and modernization. Instead, he was met with resistance, outdated commission policies, and, as he said, “a pattern of alleged sexual harassment that betrayed the ideals the association was founded on.”

So Redfin left. Not quietly, not diplomatically, but with a statement that echoed across the industry: “Enough is enough.”

It was not just about money or antitrust risk. It was about integrity. If one of the largest, most visible brokerages in America could no longer stomach the association, what does that say about the health of the brand itself?

Control without independence is not freedom

Here in Canada, CREA controls the trademark rights to the word Realtor, but not the narrative. We carry a name that is not truly ours, tied to an organization in another country that keeps proving it cannot manage its own moral compass.

We do not pay dues to NAR, but we pay something harder to measure — reputational cost. Every time another headline breaks, Canadian agents brace for the fallout. Conversations with clients shift from home values to ethics. The word that once distinguished us now puts us on the defensive.

Who am I to say so?

I am a new agent. My licence cuts me if I turn around too fast. I have not worn off the corners or creased it into the soft parchment that comes with a dozen years in the field. I came into this industry through being an assistant in the aughts, then a real estate photographer in this decade. Three generations of my family have worked in real estate. My grandfather was a bit of a shark in the Lower Mainland, back when women did not do this job.

I debated getting my licence for a long time because, to be honest, this profession has baggage. Maybe it was getting licensed through the NAR lawsuit era, or maybe it was the public perception of what we do, but it gave me pause. 

I’m passionate about finding people homes, but I’m not passionate about the wince that sometimes comes with the word Realtor. You will not find Realtor in my branding, and I do not use it with clients. That is my choice. I am not asking every agent to redo their signs and billboards — that expense in this market!? But what I want to do is plant a seed.

It is time to build our own brand

The easy answer is to say “it is just a word.” But language matters. Words carry reputation, and reputation builds trust or erodes it. When the word Realtor drags behind it lawsuits, harassment scandals, and tone-deaf apologies, maybe it is time to ask if we still need it. The word Realtor ties us to NAR’s shenanigans, and if 2025 has taught us anything, it is that a strong Canadian identity is important.

Imagine rebranding the profession under a distinctly Canadian identity — one that does not require shared custody with an organization still trying to find its moral footing. A name that signals independence, modern ethics, and national pride. Something that says, “We represent our clients and our communities, not another country’s baggage.”

The word Realtor once stood for something bigger. But words can lose their meaning. Maybe the most professional thing we can do now is outgrow it.

After all, integrity is not trademarked. And maybe, finally, it’s time Canadians stopped renting their professional identity from the United States of America.

Lauren Towers

Lauren has lived in Canada, Germany, Italy, France, Mexico, Belize and Thailand—an eclectic résumé that includes time as a frustrated architectural photographer and a business English educator (really… the intellectual equivalent of a ski instructor). Now based in the South Okanagan, she channels her lifelong curiosity and eye for design into real estate, helping clients see the beauty and potential in every property. She loves alternative forms of housing, and even more, helping people with furry friends find the perfect place. Equal parts pragmatist and dreamer, she believes that finding the right home isn’t just a transaction—it’s an act of translation between space and soul.

The post OPINION: Does the word ‘Realtor’ still belong in Canada? appeared first on REM.

QUICK HITS

• Buyer refused $1.8-million farm purchase, alleging unlicensed gas wells breached environmental warranty in APS.
  
• The court ruled the warranty covered environmental matters, not gas wells; seller was entitled to $250,000 deposit plus damages.
  
• Real estate agent’s sloppy paperwork led to RECO warning, but conduct did not constitute legal negligence, the judge decided.
  
• Case highlights the distinction between professional conduct rules and negligence law; imperfect work isn’t always actionable negligence.

In disputes between a buyer and seller arising from an aborted transaction, the real estate professionals involved may be dragged into the dispute for their roles in the circumstances at issue. 

Real estate agents have a duty to act in accordance with the applicable standard of care and may be liable for damages when their conduct fails to meet this requirement. However, conduct may be imperfect or sloppy without amounting to negligence, as demonstrated by the trial decision in Duad Inc. v. Shi, 2025 ONSC 5258 (CanLII).

Failed farm sale

The litigation arose from the aborted sale of a farm property in Hamilton, Ont., which the buyer had agreed to purchase for $1.8 million pursuant to the terms of an “as is, where is” Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”). The buyer claimed that two gas wells located on the property were not licenced and could not be legally operated. The buyer refused to complete the purchase, taking the position that the seller had breached an environmental warranty in the APS.

The seller sued the buyer for forfeiture of the deposit of $250,000 and consequential damages. The seller’s position was that the environmental warranty in the APS did not cover the gas wells and that the buyer was simply looking for an excuse to refuse to complete the transaction. Even after the transaction failed to close, the seller offered to address any issues with the gas wells, but the buyer refused to revive the deal.

Disputes involving the agent

The buyer and the seller also sued the real estate brokerage and agent, who had represented both parties in the transaction. The buyer claimed that the agent breached his duties as a Realtor by failing to follow instructions in respect of the wording of the APS and failing to disclose that he was also the agent for the seller, whose interests the agent was alleged to have preferred. Among other things, the buyer claimed that the agent inserted the “as it is, where it is” clause without his consent and misled him about the status of the wells. In turn, the seller sought contribution and indemnity from the agent for any liability to the buyer.

At trial, the court found in favour of the seller. The trial judge reviewed the wording of the warranty and found that it was intended to address “environmental matters” and not the gas wells. Immediately below the environmental warranty in the APS was a clause obliging the seller “To terminate all free use of well gas for neighbor houses”. Below this clause, both sides agreed that the property would be sold “as it is, where it is”.

While there was a specific term in the APS that addressed disconnecting gas to the neighbouring properties, there was no reference in the environmental warranty to the gas wells. Further, in the trial judge’s view, there was no evidence that the seller had breached any warranty regarding the state of the gas wells.

The seller was therefore entitled to the deposit and was awarded consequential damages relating to the costs of $287,296.57 incurred before re-selling the property, to which the deposit would be credited. The seller did not incur a loss from having to sell the property at a lower price, but rather incurred significant costs to carry and maintain the property before the resale.

Regulatory warning

As for the claim against the real estate agent, the trial judge noted that the agent had been subject to a disciplinary warning decision by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO), arising from the transaction. RECO found that the agent erroneously used outdated forms from a previous transaction of the subject property to produce the offer, and he had forgotten to delete a name from an earlier Confirmation and Co-operation form, which he had used as a precedent. The warning also noted that while the brokerage was identified as both the listing and the co-operating brokerage in the APS, he failed to provide a written disclosure of the nature of his relationship to each party prior to the offer.

This did not amount to negligence, however. The trial judge accepted the opinion of a standard of care expert for the agent, who opined that the RECO decision was essentially a “slap on the wrist” for sloppy paperwork.

In the circumstances, there was no indication that the buyer was misled by the agent’s role in representing both parties to the transaction, and the buyer failed to substantiate his claims concerning the terms in the APS. Among other things, the court noted that the buyer continued to work with the agent to try to complete the deal after it initially failed to close. In the trial judge’s view, the agent’s conduct, “while clearly imperfect, did not fall below the relevant standard of care.”

The difference between sloppiness and negligence 

The trial judge referred to Charter-York Ltd v. Hurst (1978) 2 R.P.R 272 (Ont. H.C.), where a vendor’s real estate agent incorrectly advised a purchaser that the acreage being sold was contiguous. The purchaser was allowed out of the transaction, and the agent was liable to the vendor for the loss of an opportunity to sell the land prior to a decline in market value caused by the introduction of land speculation legislation. The misrepresentation in that case was a consequence of the agent’s failure to make adequate inquiries about the land. The buyer failed to establish that the agent in this matter had breached the standard of care by failing to make any required inquiries about the farm property when acting for the parties.

Of note, the issue of the gas well licences was only raised by the buyer for the first time at closing, which supported the agent’s position that the buyer either did not have the funds to close or he had a change of heart about the purchase. Further, the buyer did not adduce any expert evidence that the agent fell below the standard of care required of a Realtor to refute the expert evidence that the agent fulfilled his duty to his respective clients.  There was no indication that the buyer was misled by the agent’s role. The agent tried to make the deal work for both parties, preparing four amendments to the original APS.

The claims of the buyer and seller against the agent were therefore dismissed.

The case underscores the fact that imperfect or sloppy conduct may not amount to professional negligence, even where a formal regulatory warning has been made. The Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that there is an important distinction between the rules governing professional conduct and the law of negligence as breach of one does not necessarily involve breach of the other: Galambos v. Perez, 2009 SCC 48, at paragraph 29. What could have been a narrow dispute between a buyer and seller over a deposit was complicated by the additional claims made against the professional involved, which may result in cost consequences for the parties who pursued those allegations through trial. 

James R.G. Cook

James Cook is a partner at Gardiner Roberts in Toronto and has been with the firm since he articled there in 2002. As a litigator in the firm’s Dispute Resolution Group, he has experience in a broad range of commercial, real estate and professional liability litigation. Phone 416-865-6628; email jcook@grllp.com. This article is provided for educational purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the views of Gardiner Roberts LLP.

The post Agent’s work was sloppy – but not negligent, Ontario judge rules appeared first on REM.

Designed to securely store keys and facilitate scheduled showings, lockboxes are being misused by some agents who share access codes with clients or third parties—violating professional rules and exposing sellers to serious risks, including theft, privacy invasion, and property damage.

The problem is more than anecdotal. In Ontario, the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) has received 20 to 40 complaints annually over the last five years about agents providing unauthorized access to listed properties.

According to RECO registrar Joe Richer, nearly all substantiated complaints led to disciplinary action, with fines starting at $5,500 and reaching as high as $9,500 for repeat or contested violations.

“You’re giving somebody a key with no idea what they’re going to do with it,” said Richer. “That’s a major breach of trust.”

Efforts to find a solution

The consequences for Realtors go beyond monetary penalties. Industry leaders say misuse of lockboxes erodes public confidence in the profession and can result in legal liability for agents and brokerages.

In response, many brokerages and real estate boards are turning to electronic lockboxes that offer time-restricted access and real-time tracking. Still, the problem persists, with some agents ignoring protocols for the sake of speed or convenience.

 “It’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous,” said prominent Toronto Realtor Frank Leo, who replaced traditional lockboxes years ago after incidents involving unauthorized reentry into client homes.

Responsibility lies with seller’s agent

Richer said the lockbox is used to simplify the process. It’s a convenience for Realtors, allowing for easier access with the least amount of intrusion possible. But, ultimately, the seller must be comfortable with using a lockbox, and they need to understand the risks.

The seller’s representative is responsible, first and foremost, for protecting the property on the seller’s behalf. They’re expected to be at the showing—unless the seller has specifically instructed that they don’t need to be there.

The agents have a legal obligation to ensure the property isn’t damaged, that nothing is stolen, and that the seller’s privacy isn’t breached.

The lockbox should only be accessed by licensed agents—unless the seller explicitly instructs otherwise, said Richer.

“It’s a very serious issue for us. We have a number of complaints about this annually. And virtually everybody that we receive a complaint about, if it’s supported by evidence that they actually did provide unauthorized access to a property, every single one of those agents has been referred to discipline.”

The case for electronic lockboxes

Richer said the technology has come a long way, and electronic lockboxes are a much better option. The more advanced systems only provide access codes that are valid for a specific time slot, and sometimes they won’t even allow entry a few minutes early. Others work through Bluetooth and mobile apps, meaning the access is tied directly to the agent’s phone—so you can’t just pass along a code.

There are huge benefits: the listing agent knows exactly when someone enters and leaves. Overlapping showings are avoided, and unauthorized re-entry isn’t possible without a new code.

Richer said there’s no provincial law about which lockbox system to use. That’s determined by the local real estate boards. Members of each board must use the systems authorized by that board.

“The good thing, too, is that the profession as a whole is seeing the importance of it and they’re sick and tired of it, of the people that are doing it (breaking the rules) and so they’re filing complaints about it,” added Richer.

Leo, with Frank Leo & Associates, part of the Re/Max team in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area, said he’s very concerned about the traditional lockboxes. 

The difference is in the control and accountability, he said, adding he’s always taken client safety seriously.

“As soon as the technology became available, I made it a strict policy in my business to stop using traditional lockboxes. We use electronic lockboxes only,” he said.

Changes coming this fall, says TRREB

In a statement, John DiMichele, CEO of the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, said: “As the real estate profession continues to advance, so too do the tools and technologies we rely on to serve clients and uphold professional standards. At TRREB, we are committed to leading that evolution, and this fall, we will introduce a new electronic lockbox solution for our members to enhance both security and accountability.

“The system will provide each (Realtor) with individual access credentials, enable real-time tracking of property visits, restrict access outside of scheduled appointments, and integrate directly with TRREB’s showing management system. This initiative reflects our broader commitment to delivering innovative solutions that support our members’ success and protect the interests of their clients.”

DiMichele said every Realtor has a legal and ethical obligation to follow the rules, especially when it comes to property access and security. 

Lockbox codes must never be shared, and no buyer, appraiser, inspector, or service provider may enter a property unless they are accompanied by a Realtor or have written consent from the seller. 

He said the board’s MLS rules clearly state that a Realtor must be physically present for the entire duration of a visit.

“Breaches of these rules are taken seriously. Complaints submitted to TRREB are reviewed by our Professional Standards Hearing Panel, and violations may result in significant penalties, including fines and mandatory training. Members are also encouraged to report serious infractions to the RECO, the regulator responsible for enforcing the profession’s Code of Ethics,” explained DiMichele.

 “At TRREB, we take our role in supporting member professionalism seriously. We continue to communicate regularly with members about their responsibilities, including best practices for managing property access and ensuring the safety and security of clients and their homes.”

No issues reported in Calgary

Alan Tennant, CEO of the Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB), said the use of lockboxes is very clearly spelled out. The purpose of access is strictly for showings. It’s a Realtor-to-Realtor environment. Any exceptions need to be approved by the listing agent.

“It’s a major demonstration of consumers’ trust  . . . they’re essentially handing over the keys to their home, expecting that it will be used solely to help get the property sold. So access is intended specifically for Realtors,” he said.

Tennant said CREB has had no reports or issues regarding abuse of the process.

Mario Toneguzzi

Mario Toneguzzi is a contributing writer for REM. He has more than 40 years of experience as a daily newspaper writer, columnist, and editor. He worked for 35 years at the Calgary Herald, covering sports, crime, politics, health, faith, city and breaking news, and business. He now works on his own as a freelance writer for several national publications and consultant in communications and media relations/training. Mario was named in 2021 as one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the World by PR News – the only Canadian to make the list.

The post Unauthorized lockbox use triggers action and reform by real estate authorities appeared first on REM.

When administrative demands began taking her away from the most important part of her business – her clients – Elli Davis knew it was time to take action.

Davis, sales representative and senior vice-president of sales at Sotheby’s International Realty Canada, hired licensed assistant Linda Burford 22 years ago, and everything changed. 

Toronto-based Davis says, “I was spending more time managing paperwork and logistics than guiding buyers and sellers through what is often one of the biggest decisions of their lives. I knew I needed someone behind the scenes to help keep things running smoothly so I could stay client-focused and this is (still) true today.”

Davis had been in real estate for several years and had built a database.

“At one point in the late 1980s, I had over 70 listings and realized I couldn’t give my clients the level of attention they deserved without help. That is when the term ‘dedicated real estate assistant’ was coined,” she said.

“I walked into my branch manager’s office to ask if the young lady at the front desk could work for me. That decision shaped the way I have worked ever since, managing a support team of licensed and non-licensed assistants along with a dedicated buyer agent.”

Her first assistant became licensed after a few years in the early 1990s, followed by another licensed assistant in the late 1990s. Burford was the longest-serving team member in this position from 2003.

Davis says she was looking for someone with “strong organizational skills, and ideally, someone who was licensed.”

Education was important, she said, but more than that, she was looking for someone with initiative, discretion and a calm, capable presence under pressure. 

Burford brought all of that, along with a willingness to grow alongside the business.

“My assistant must be intuitive, with a strong rapport that allows them to anticipate how I would respond or what I might need in any given situation. They must also be technologically adept, capable of navigating industry platforms with ease, conducting market research and ensuring all practices align with (Real Estate Council of Ontario) guidelines.”

Evolution of the role

At first, the role focused on paperwork, scheduling, preparing marketing materials and organizing listing details. 

As the business evolved, so did Burford’s role, expanding to include direct communication with clients and cooperating agents, managing deal flow and timelines, and ultimately assuming licensed responsibilities in client care, Davis says. 

“The position naturally grew in scope to meet the increasing demands of the business.”

What exactly do licensed assistants do? 

“A licensed assistant can do almost everything I can in terms of transactions, marketing and client communication. A non-licensed assistant cannot provide real estate advice. It’s important to understand the boundaries and ensure the assistant works within them,” Davis says.

“Having a licensed assistant allows for greater flexibility and responsiveness. They can discuss listings and market trends, attend showings and access visits, and help manage transactions in a way that a non-licensed assistant cannot. It also allows them to grow professionally, which leads to greater job satisfaction and longevity in the role.”

If you’re thinking of hiring a licensed assistant, Davis says, start by identifying what is pulling you away from client service.

How to get what you need from hiring a licensed assistant 

According to Davis, these are the top things to keep in mind when hiring:

• Do not wait until you’re overwhelmed.
• Hire with a clear sense of what you need today and how that might evolve tomorrow. 
• Invest in someone you can train and grow with.
• Look for someone who complements your strengths and who values your business as if it were their own.
• Look for someone with integrity, attention to detail and emotional intelligence. “They need to be calm under pressure, skilled in using real estate technology platforms and aligned with your work ethic. You can train someone on systems, but you can’t train attitude or intuition. I always trust my gut when it comes to hiring,” Davis says.
• Personality and compatibility are “absolutely critical.” “My assistants are often the first point of contact for clients and their demeanor reflects my brand. I have always chosen people who are kind, intelligent and empathetic, people who share my commitment to high-touch service. Compatibility is just as important behind the scenes. A strong working relationship built on trust and mutual respect allows everything to flow more smoothly.”

Saying goodbye

After more than two decades working with Davis, Burford recently retired. Learning to work without her took thoughtful planning, patience and communication, Davis says. 

“Transitions are never easy, especially when you’ve worked with someone for many years, but we approached it openly and collaboratively. Linda was instrumental in training and sharing everything from process flow to client preferences.”

Julie Ambachtsheer, her new licensed client care specialist, was given a chance to learn gradually. Davis also made sure she felt supported.

“Linda’s professionalism and Julie’s enthusiasm made it a smooth handoff.”

When hiring Ambachtsheer, Davis says she looked “for many of the same qualities — dependability, warmth, intelligence. But Julie also brings her own strengths to the role. Every hire is an opportunity to enhance the business in a new way.”

Fitting the role to current needs

As a licensed client care specialist, the difference is mostly in the title and the focus, she says. “A client care specialist is more outward-facing, focused on communication, service and client experience, whereas a licensed assistant may focus more heavily on transaction coordination.

“Both Linda and Julie’s primary focus was and continues to be client service, ensuring we provide consistent, high-level support throughout the buying and selling process. That said, there is also a level of flexibility in the team to assist with market research, database management and other behind-the-scenes tasks as needed,” Davis says.

“Since Julie joined, we have slightly pivoted as she is also actively working with buyers, which has been a natural extension of her role.”

Davis decided against a virtual assistant, she says, because “real estate is a personal business. My clients value connection and so do I. I wanted someone who could meet clients face-to-face, walk through a property and pick up on the nuances that don’t always come across over email or phone. You just can’t replace that kind of presence with a virtual assistant.”

Closing thoughts

 “Looking back, hiring that first assistant was a turning point in my career,” Davis says. 

“It allowed me to elevate the level of service I offer and build lasting client relationships. Since then, I have had the privilege of working with a team of loyal, dedicated professionals who share my values. Behind every successful agent is a strong support system.”

Connie Adair

Connie Adair is a contributing writer for REM.

The post Tips from Sotheby’s VP: Hiring an assistant that lasts appeared first on REM.

McLachlan told Real Estate Magazine that TRREB is “not operating according to its purposes.”

“In the last year, it has gradually turned into a training board for the Realtors, providing services which are frankly the job of brokerages,” he said in an email to REM.

“More and more broker-owners are now relying on the board for their training platform. In my opinion, brokerages that have invested heavily in training and education are at an extreme disadvantage to broker owners who do not invest but have the board as their training platform.”

Interfering with competition

McLachlan’s comments have opened a debate over the role real estate boards should play in the industry. 

Re/Max Hallmark agent Brandon Reay told REM that other boards, not just TRREB, have been overstepping their jurisdiction for years now. 

“We’re subsidizing education for brokerages that don’t provide what we provide, but we keep them in competition,” he said.

Reay argued that by relying on boards for training and education, standards are being lowered in the industry to the “lowest common denominator,” which has raised some alarms. He warned that Re/Max could lose out on talent since its heavy investment in education may no longer be seen as a competitive advantage.

He noted boards carry no liability and are not in a position to determine what should be taught since they are insulated from market signals and bear no risk.

 Education, instead, should be the responsibility of brokerages, as it has in the past, according to Reay. 

He added that boards are distorting the marketplace by expanding their offerings to not only education, but also to tools.

“It’s really shifted how we have to compete because we’ve never had to compete with real estate boards historically until the last 20 or 30 years,” he said.

Reay said RE/Max is now at a crossroads and must decide whether it wants to continue to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in education.

TRREB CEO responds

In a statement to REM, TRREB CEO John DiMichele said that the board has a mandate to “elevate professionalism and support all Members in delivering consumer value,” and that the board’s courses complement the training brokerages offer.

“Our offerings are developed in collaboration with industry experts and provide timely, practical, and accessible learning,” he said. “TRREB continuously evaluates and streamlines the education and training programs we offer, adjusting based on members’ needs and the ever-evolving real estate landscape.”

In favour of board-provided education

Not all real estate agents are opposed to boards offering more education. Dorian Rodrigues, a broker and partner for PSR Brokerage and one of the founders of education platform The Listing Academy, told REM that he believes more education is better, regardless of where it comes from. 

“At the end of the day, the more educated the sales representative is, the better the experience (the customer) is going to get and the less issues that will arise further down the road when you’re dealing with them,” he said.

Rodrigues said that receiving education from the board means all sales representatives will have the same messaging, which he thinks is a good way to avoid discrepancies. 

He said that brokerages are still free to delve a little deeper into certain topics that boards don’t cover, and that the different sources of education will complement each other. 

He said his agents on his team are more self-sufficient now due to more education and can look up answers to questions themselves rather than relying on the broker. 

“If there’s a lot more education and the consumer and the client knows that we’re getting educated not just once but multiple times and we’re continuing to learn, I think it only benefits us as an industry,” he said.

Eric Stober

Eric Stober has over 10 years experience as a journalist and writer at publications big and small, including Global News, Toronto Life, Post City Magazine, Greencamp.com, the Toronto Star and The Grid.

The post McLachlan challenges TRREB’s expanding role in Realtor education appeared first on REM.

This new recognition sets itself apart by being a designation of distinction rather than an educational program.

Awarded only to Realtors in good standing with demonstrated experience serving Canada’s senior demographic, eligibility for SREA requires completion of either the former Accredited Senior Agent (ASA) or Seniors Real Estate Specialist (SRES) programs, and a minimum of five years in the industry. 

Alternatively, Realtors can qualify by documenting five successful transactions involving seniors or hoarders.

Already, 35 Realtors from across Canada have been named as founding members.

“The idea is simple: SREA is a focused group of experienced professionals. We collaborate via video conferencing, sharing what works—and what doesn’t—in our marketing efforts. Our mission is to make SREA members the go-to experts for the public, lawyers, estate trustees, and the courts when it comes to senior real estate, hoarders and estates,” said Lebow.

Membership is maintained through an annual fee of $100. 

The Society for Senior Real Estate operates as a not-for-profit organization, with all proceeds dedicated to public outreach and awareness.

To maintain exclusivity and value, the SREA limits the number of members by trading area.

The post New Realtor designation launches for excellence in serving seniors appeared first on REM.

Every month, Kate Teves, HR consultant, recruiter and founder of The HR Pro, answers Realtors’ questions about anything and everything related to human resources. Have a question for Kate? Send her an email.

Question: Our team was recently approached by someone looking to build their experience. We aren’t hiring, but can they volunteer? They offered to volunteer in the first place.

Kate: Extra help is always welcome—especially during the busy season, marketing blitzes, or when that new CRM system isn’t quite setting itself up. Whether you’re a brokerage, a growing real estate team, or a solo agent juggling everything from listings to lockboxes, bringing on a student, intern, or “volunteer” can sound like a win-win. 

There are uncompensated, time-bound and otherwise non-committed arrangements.  But if you’re not careful, that “helpful extra set of hands” can land you in hot water with the Ministry of Labour.

Let’s explore the dos and don’ts of hiring interns, co-op students, field placement students, and volunteers in real estate and other businesses and why that “free help” might not be so free after all.

A cautionary tale: The curious case of the office volunteer

Once upon a Tuesday, a real estate team brought in a university student named Alex* who “just wanted to learn” and offered to volunteer for the summer. Alex organized marketing materials, booked stagers and photographers for listings, put CMAs together, and even managed the agents’ calendars. One afternoon, while carrying a stack of signs down a narrow staircase, Alex slipped, fell, and broke his ankle.  While Alex was hesitant to take action, his parents were not.

Cue the paperwork parade: the ​​Workplace Safety and Insurance Board got involved. The Ministry of Labour was called. Questions were asked: “Was Alex paid? Was he officially employed? Was this part of a school program?” 

The business had no documentation, no formal agreement, and no insurance coverage for “volunteers.” Suddenly, that free help became a very costly oversight, including potential fines, back pay, and liability.

For-profit businesses can’t use volunteers–here’s why.

Let’s be clear: if you’re running a for-profit real estate business (or any other for-profit business), you cannot engage volunteers in the way non-profits or charities do. In most provinces, including Ontario, volunteers are only legally recognized when working for non-profit or community-based organizations. If someone is doing work that benefits your business, and you’re not paying them, you may be violating employment standards, even if they insist they “don’t need pay.”

If they’re doing real work (filing, cold calling, managing your CRM, assisting at events), they’re likely considered an employee under the Employment Standards Act and must be paid at least minimum wage. The Ministry won’t be swayed by “but they offered”; it’s your responsibility as a business owner to know your obligations and restrictions.

Interns, co-op students, and field placements: The legal path

Now, here’s the right way to get help and provide a valuable learning opportunity: through structured, school-approved placements.

Teaching at Humber College’s Longo’s School of Business for the last two years has given me the immense pleasure of meeting countless talented, dedicated and incredibly intelligent people looking to hone their skills and offer their already substantial expertise to a potential employer for one to two semesters at a time.

If you’re working with a co-op student or field placement intern through a recognized academic institution, the student may legally work unpaid and is not considered an employee under employment law if the placement is:

• part of their formal curriculum,
• supervised and time-bound,
• governed by a written agreement between your business and the school.

But here’s where it gets tricky: educational institutions have their own criteria for approving employers. Not every real estate business qualifies.

Brokerages are often seen as more structured, with HR policies, supervision, and a consistent work environment. Real estate teams may qualify depending on their size and operational setup (e.g., a team with a dedicated office, admin support, and mentorship structure).

Solo agents, on the other hand, may struggle to get approval. Schools want to ensure the student has supervision, a safe environment, and a learning plan. If you’re working out of your car, kitchen, or showing properties solo all day, they may (understandably) say “thanks, but no thanks.”

Best practices (So you don’t end up in a WSIB report)

• Never bring on a volunteer in a for-profit real estate business. Full stop.
• Only accept unpaid interns or students through a formal partnership with a high school, college, or university.
• Get it in writing. Use the school’s placement agreement. Define the role, responsibilities, schedule, and supervision.
• Don’t treat students like employees. They’re there to learn, not to replace your admin.
• Check your insurance. Many schools cover students under their policies, but if they don’t, you must ensure your business is covered, especially if they’ll be attending open houses or driving for signage.
• Offer a positive, structured learning environment. It’s not just about liability—it’s about reputation and future talent.

Cutting corners can cost you more than you saved. Whether you’re running a brokerage with 50 agents, managing a top-producing team, or hustling as a solo agent, the rules around interns and students are protection for everyone involved.

Kate Teves

Kate Teves is the founder and COO of the HR Pro, a recruiter and a Human Resources Professional who focuses on the real estate industry by finding incredible people to support solopreneurs, teams and brokerages.  She also helps leaders and managers build HR processes and design a culture and mindset that facilitate business growth and employee development.

The post Ask Kate: Am I allowed to accept unpaid help? appeared first on REM.

Alberta’s real estate regulator has revoked the licence of Calgary agent John William Wade following serious misconduct findings. 

The Real Estate Council of Alberta (RECA) announced this week that Wade’s licence to trade in real estate was cancelled effective June 11, and he is barred from reapplying for two years.

A RECA hearing panel made the decision after it found Wade violated multiple sections of the province’s Real Estate Act Rules. 

In addition to the cancellation, Wade was ordered to pay four fines totaling $25,000 and $12,070 to cover investigation costs. He must also complete required educational courses before he can apply for a licence again, no sooner than June 11, 2027.

“The vast majority of RECA licensees adhere to high standards of professionalism and integrity,” said RECA in a statement.

“The panel recognized Wade’s very serious unprofessional conduct and breach of the rules on multiple occasions. It is of the utmost importance to RECA that the public has confidence in our regulated professionals, as a profession’s most valuable asset is its collective reputation and the confidence it inspires.”

Wade was found to have breached four rules:

• He violated his fiduciary duties to clients;
• Discouraged a client from seeking expert advice;
• Took part in fraudulent activities connected to his services;
• And failed to enter into a written service agreement with clients.

At the time the misconduct occurred, Wade was registered with Irealty Calgary Inc., operating as Re/Max Irealty Innovations. When his licence was cancelled, he was working as a real estate associate with Greater Property Group Inc.

The full written decision from the panel will be posted publicly at reca.ca once available.

Consumers are reminded to verify the licensing status of real estate professionals through RECA’s online database.

Courtney Zwicker

Courtney Zwicker is a digital reporter and associate editor for REM. Based in Atlantic Canada, she has over a decade of experience covering daily business news.

The post Alberta Realtor loses licence, fined $37,070 for misconduct appeared first on REM.