Select Page

Judge to rule on TRREB lawsuit against ORWP opponents

The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board’s lawsuit against the leaders of an online opposition to the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program was heard in court last week, with both sides of the controversial decision going before a judge.~ 

On Thursday, the case against Sandra Maher and Penny Dutkowski, both Realtors, along with two unknown individuals, was heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Toronto. 

A decision from the judge is pending. 

TRREB launched a lawsuit against Maher, Dutkowski, Jane and John Doe in 2024 for allegedly using TRREB’s confidential or proprietary information to communicate with TRREB members. This includes via websites like nomandatoryorwp.ca and change.org/p/urgent-all-trreb-members.

“As this matter involves private legal proceedings, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board does not provide comment on litigation matters out of respect to the judicial process and the parties involved,” said TRREB CEO John DiMichele in a statement to Real Estate Magazine.

Dutkowski declined to comment, citing the nature of the case.

 

History of the case

 

In its statement of claim, TRREB states the defendants “used TRREB content without authorization, including links to TRREB’s proprietary and confidential material.”

The claim alleges the defendants “opposed ORWP and engaged in efforts to stop the implementation of ORWP applying to all Ontario realtors.”

The defendants, and others, created a Meta Facebook page called OROMOO, an acronym for: Ontario Realtors Opposed to Mandatory OREA ORWP.

“The OROMOO Meta Facebook page became a forum for libelous, slanderous and defamatory posts about TRREB, its officers, directors, employees and suppliers,” reads TRREB’s claim.

Among other things, TRREB is claiming “$1 million for civil conspiracy, wrongful interference with economic relations, tortious interference and wrongful interference with contractual relations,” and, “In relation to any defendants who are former TRREB members, damages in the amount of $1 million for breach of contract, and breaches of their membership obligations.”

 

Dutkowski and Maher’s defence 

 

In their defence, Dutkowski and Maher claim that TRREB and the Ontario Real Estate Association are trade associations operating on democratic principles.

“This lawsuit is about that democratic process. TRREB takes issue with the fact that the Defendants sought to influence OREA policy in a manner that the TRREB Board of Directors did not like,” reads their defence.

Specifically, Dutkowski and Maher opposed the introduction of a mandatory health benefits plan that they felt would harm them and other more senior members of the profession.

The pair claim they focused their efforts on TRREB because it is the largest board in Ontario, with 49% of the vote at OREA.

Their efforts took several forms. With two other Realtors, they administered the Facebook page which grew to 9,500 members. They promoted new board members at TRREB’s annual elections, and tried to force TRREB to hold a special general meeting to put the issue to a vote.

 

Anti-SLAPP motion 

 

According to the factum filed by Maher and Dutkowski’s lawyers at ADAIR GOLDBLATT BIEBER LLP, TRREB “lashed out” against them and their campaign with cease-and-desist orders. 

Most recently, Dutkowski and Maher brought an “Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation)” motion against TRREB, claiming board brought the lawsuit to silence them.

In an April 25th filing, their motion states TRREB “brought this action to silence two Realtors who were publicly advocating for the change of TRREB’s position with respect to health care coverage affecting nearly 100,000 Realtors across Ontario.”

The filing describes Dutkowski and Maher as “two ordinary Realtors” who are both in their 60s. 

“Through the course of 2023 they, along with thousands of other Realtors, spoke out against a program being implemented at (OREA) that would force all Ontario Realtors to pay for health benefits insurance. They felt, among other things, that the coverage for senior citizens was inadequate and too expensive,” reads the court document.

Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story included an incorrect web address to the Change.org page. It has since been updated.

Share this article: