Consumer Advisory Council

Location
Online (Microsoft Teams)

Present
Jeff Donnelly, Chair
Austin Spademan, Vice-Chair
Dan Fleming
Rahul Malhotra
Ashish Patel
Jennifer Quaglietta
Irene Karys
Adam Harvey
Laurie Macdonald
SS Rishad

RECO Staff
Brenda Buchanan, CEO
Kym Robertson, Director, Stakeholder Relations 
Sandra Gibney, Manager, Policy
Emily Abrahams, Senior Stakeholder Relations Advisor

Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement observer
Karin Eisen, Senior Policy Advisor

1. Call to order

The chair called the meeting to order at 9:30 a.m.

2. Welcome

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and noted that the discussion would focus on the recent matter involving trust account money inappropriately disbursed by a large brokerage. The chair reminded members that the CAC acts in an advisory capacity to RECO’s board and management and do not have fiduciary responsibilities.

3. iPro update

RECO’s CEO provided an update on the trust account matter, noting that:

• The majority of professionals in this industry act with integrity and in support of their clients.
• RECO has taken important steps in this matter, including freezing the brokerage’s accounts, commissioning an independent and comprehensive audit conducted by Dentons LLP, and undertaking legal action aimed to recover trust money that was inappropriately disbursed.
• Consumer deposit insurance claims have continued to be paid out, as of August 29, 2025.
• The insurer is conducting its investigation related to commission protection claims.  This process is complex and is taking time. It is solely a decision of the insurer to determine when they have enough information on the total amount of claims prior to making a determination on the claims process. 
• As directed by the Minister, upon receipt of the final comprehensive audit report on October 30, 2025, and after the Ministry and the Minister have had the opportunity to review the final report, the findings of the audit will be communicated with the public.

It was also shared that, prior to the current matter, RECO surveyed consumers and registrants in June 2025 on their trust in real estate agents. Of note, both consumer and registrants ranked real estate agents with relatively low trust (approximately 30%) when compared against other professions. With the recent event, it is even more critical to focus on elevating trust within the profession.

4. Roundtable discussion

The chair facilitated a roundtable discussion. Topic areas included:

• The importance of transparency in rebuilding consumer trust.
• More awareness on the unique role of the Registrar and in the regulator’s enforcement activities. 
• Opportunities for learning and areas to improve, including helping consumers understand regulatory processes.
• Misconceptions around whether brokerages can access trust accounts or whether they are inaccessible to brokerages. 
• The efforts of RECO leadership and staff to maintain stakeholder engagement during a difficult period. 

5. Wrap up

The chair shared that RECO plans to hold a more fulsome meeting of the CAC in November or December, and an additional meeting in the first quarter of 2026.

Location
Online (Microsoft Teams)

Present
Jeff Donnelly, Chair
Austin Spademan, Vice-Chair
Dan Fleming
Rahul Malhotra
Ashish Patel
Jennifer Quaglietta
Irene Karys
Adam Harvey
Laurie Macdonald

Regrets
SS Rishad

RECO Staff
Brenda Buchanan, Interim CEO
Joseph Richer, Registrar
Lisa Key, Deputy Registrar
Kym Robertson, Director, Stakeholder Relations
Sandra Gibney, Manager, Regulatory Policy 
Emily Abrahams, Senior Stakeholder Relations Advisor

MPBSDP observer
Karin Eisen

1. Call to order

The chair called the meeting to order at 1 p.m.

2. Welcome and introduction of new members

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting. 

3. Unsolicited offers (cash for homes)

Some companies or individuals promote themselves as willing to purchase a home without the use of a registrant. Often, these are unsolicited offers delivered to property owners by mail or promoted in a community in efforts to entice someone to sell their home. They might be builders, developers or even individuals looking to find willing sellers without having to compete with other buyers, in hopes of getting a property at a good price. Of particular concern is buyers looking to persuade a seller to sell their property and the buyer tries to sell it for a higher price, before they ever take possession. 

RECO staff outlined some of the challenges with unsolicited offers: notably that there is no regulatory authority that oversees this activity if the buyer is not a registrant or represented by a registrant, as TRESA specifically excludes the parties to the sale (the buyer and the seller) under its regulations and thus the conduct is not under RECO’s purview.

RECO sought feedback from council members about the prevalence of unsolicited offers and where RECO might be able to guide consumers despite not having regulatory authority over the practice. Council members shared the following input:

• RECO should consider whether it is worth investing significant resources into an area it has no purview over; however, there may be a need for a fact sheet or checklist for consumers on these types of transactions. 
• Consumers should understand that a buyer or seller in a transaction is exempt from TRESA regulations.
• Guidance could focus on what consumers should expect in terms of professional conduct and conflicts of interest.

4. Deposits in a real estate transaction

RECO provided details around the process for obtaining deposits in a transaction and how they are disbursed if the transaction fails. RECO also provided information about RECO’s insurance program, which is mandatory for registrants at no cost to the consumer. 

RECO sought feedback from council members about whether the process for deposits is clear and easy to understand. Council members shared that consumers need to understand what market factors influence a deposit and would benefit from more guidance on waiving conditions and what this means in terms of a deposit dispute situation. 

Members also indicated some concerns with the fact that deposits are often determined by a brokerage’s fees, and that a larger deposit may indicate a more serious offer even though it is more likely to be intended to ensure payment to the brokerage. 

5. Enforcement activities for website

By the end of 2025, RECO will be expanding its website to shift its presentation of enforcement activities on its website to provide an additional summary of all enforcement action. RECO sought feedback from council members on their understanding of RECO’s enforcement actions and how they might be presented in future. Members shared the input below:

• Generally, the currently available enforcement information is well-received.
• When working towards the expanded format, the goal should be consistency with other available information and transparency. 
• For registrants, highlighting disciplinary actions should be a good deterrent from unprofessional behaviour. 

RECO staff noted that the current law requires disciplinary action to be published for five years, but there has been robust discussion on expanding the time to ten years. RECO intends to consult with the sector on a move to publish disciplinary action for ten years.

6. RECO Information Guide

RECO is considering adjustments to the RECO Information Guide (“the guide”) in 2025 and sought feedback from council members as it considers refining the guide to be most helpful for its intended audience. RECO staff noted that since the guide’s launch in December 2023, it has been generally well-received by registrants. Members shared the following input:

• The guide is well laid out and easy to read. However, it is not necessarily being widely used as intended. 
• Consumers should understand what services real estate agents should be expected to provide or offer, particularly from a marketing perspective. 
• A general fee schedule would be helpful to consumers given current market fluctuations and would build a sense of transparency and equity. 
  • RECO staff noted that this is a fairly contentious issue that has been explored by entities such as the Competition Bureau, but at present, commissions are up to the market to determine.
• The self-represented party section is very thorough, but consumers would benefit from a more detailed explanation of designated and brokerage representation. 
• There needs to be more clarity that HST is charged on commissions. 
• Key questions to ask an agent would be a welcome addition to the guide, including examples.

RECO staff also agreed that the guide should be more effective at communicating the value proposition of real estate agents and highlighting the work that goes into buying and/or selling a property, which would mitigate some of the concerns around fees. 

7. RECO operations update

RECO staff provided an update on key operations initiatives within the organization.

• RECO has shifted from a single education provider (NIIT Canada in partnership with Humber Polytechnic) to four institutions being authorized to provide real estate education in Ontario and noted that some institutions may choose to offer value-add opportunities in addition to the standard curriculum. 
• RECO has also moved to a single exam provider, Meazure Learning, to ensure consistency in assessments for real estate licensing in Ontario.
• RECO has launched a new brand, which includes a new mission, vision and logo. RECO staff thanked the members for their input into the new brand initiative.

Location
Online (Microsoft Teams)

Present
Jeff Donnelly, Chair
Austin Spademan, Vice-Chair
Dan Fleming
Rahul Malhotra
Ashish Patel
SS Rishad
Jennifer Quaglietta
Irene Karys
Adam Harvey
Laurie Macdonald

RECO Staff
Michael Beard, CEO
Brenda Buchanan, COO
Joseph Richer, Registrar
Lisa Key, Deputy Registrar
Kym Robertson, Director, Stakeholder Relations
Sandra Gibney, Manager, Regulatory Policy 
Emily Abrahams, Senior Stakeholder Relations Advisor

MPBSDP observer
Karin Eisen

1. Call to order

The chair called the meeting to order at 1 p.m.

2. Welcome and introduction of new members

The chair welcomed CAC members and thanked them for joining the meeting, noting that the council had four new members. Participants, including RECO staff, introduced themselves. 
The chair also noted that Michael Beard, RECO’s CEO, will be retiring in February and thanked Michael for his contributions, and advised that interim CEO Brenda Buchanan will work with the council going forward. 

3. Consumer survey results

RECO staff shared an overview of the results of the annual consumer survey which was conducted by Ipsos in the spring of 2024. 

Highlights included:

• Consumers do not have a strong awareness of RECO, and in some cases are confused about which of the many organizations in the sector regulates activities. 
• Most consumers interact with RECO via email or other online methods and those who do interact with RECO report a high level of satisfaction. The primary reason for contacting RECO, as identified in the survey, is to obtain general real estate information.
• Most consumers (86%) said they are represented by real estate agents in their transactions.
• Consumers surveyed report that their confidence in understanding the real estate processes is mixed: 32% feel either very or extremely confident, while 30% feel only slightly confident or not confident at all.

Council members shared their feedback, including that low awareness and varying confidence levels can likely be attributed to the fact that people are not involved in real estate transactions on a regular basis, and that the complexities of the market change frequently.

4. Seller representation forms

RECO explained the general purpose of the seller representation agreements (agreement between seller and brokerage) and the three samples were the comparable agreement from Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario. The Alberta and Nova Scotia forms are produced by their respective regulators, while in Ontario the forms are produced by the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA), whose membership is voluntary.

Council members were asked to provide a consumer perspective on each of the forms in the following areas:

• ease of understanding, 
• plain language, 
• comprehensibility, 
• reasonableness, 
• purpose, 
• intention, and 
• audience.

There was agreement that consumers would benefit from the forms including clear information on the name and contact information of the regulator responsible for compliance. 

There was consensus that the Nova Scotia and Alberta forms shared strengths, including plain language and limited jargon and a clear and easy-to-read layout. Conversely, the Ontario form was difficult for consumers to interpret as it contained legal language and complex terminology. Council members also identified that the Ontario form appeared to contain far more protection for agents than for the clients.

5. Dealing with rental transactions

This item was raised as a potential agenda item at the CAC’s first meeting. As part of the meeting materials, RECO shared a recent For the RECOrd article directed to registrants regarding their obligations when acting for a client in a rental transaction. RECO sought feedback from council on this issue from a consumer perspective. 

Council members discussed the article, expressing that there is a need for clarity and transparency on agents’ scope of work and fees, as well as on the distinction between the Agreement to Lease form (OREA Form 400) and the standard Ontario lease agreement.

6. Board reporting process

The chair reaffirmed the process of reporting to the board, as set out in the council’s terms of reference. He noted that the report will be delivered by the chair and will capture the activities and recommendations of the CAC.

The chair also noted the terms of reference establish the CAC as having an advisory mandate, and that it remains at the discretion of RECO and its board as to whether recommendations are implemented in full or in part. 

7. Closing remarks and adjournment

The chair noted that the next meeting will take place in March 2025 and will be virtual. The chair thanked all members for their active participation and closed the meeting at 3:23 p.m.

Location
Online (Microsoft Teams)

Present
Jeff Donnelly, Chair
Austin Spademan, Vice-chair
Dan Fleming
Rahul Malhotra
Ashish Patel
SS Rishad

RECO Staff
Michael Beard, CEO
Kym Robertson, Director, Stakeholder Relations (minutes)

MPBSDP observer
Karin Eisen

1. Call to order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.

2. Welcome and roundtable introductions

The Chair welcomed CAC members and thanked them for their interest in participating in the CAC. 

RECO’s CEO provided some background on the creation of the CAC and the evolution from the Consumer and Industry Advisory Group (now dissolved) into the new Consumer Advisory Council and Industry Advisory Council.  

Participants introduced themselves and shared an overview of their current roles and experience.

3. Kickoff

Administrative items
RECO’s CEO referred council members to the advance materials shared, including the CAC Terms of Reference and the process for providing remuneration to CAC members. council remuneration. He further offered a high-level overview of the applicable Conflict of Interest Policy and confidentiality requirements, as well as requirements under RECO’s social media policy.

4. Initial Q&A and impressions of CAC/Industry issues for potential IAC consideration
The Chair led a round-table discussion seeking initial impressions from members about their participation in the CAC. RECO management provided a brief summary of key consumer protection components of the recent legislative and regulatory updates that came in force in December 2023 under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 (TRESA), including:

• The RECO Information Guide (a copy of which was provided to council members), which provides a plain language explanation to consumers of their rights and responsibilities, and those of a real estate agent.
• The elimination of the complex customer/client relationship structure into a much clearer definition in that the consumer is either represented by a real estate agent, or self-represented.

The CAC noted that, given the challenges in the housing market, there is a greater and potentially increasing involvement of real estate agents in the rental market; the council was supportive of greater information to be made available to consumers to help them understand their rights and responsibilities when working with a real estate agent in the rental of real estate. 

Other issues for potential future discussion include:

• greater clarity in some of the forms provided to consumers in transactions;
• specific disclosures in forms about fees and taxes (particularly taxes on commissions) and whether this is made sufficiently clear to consumers;
• information for consumers about “cash for homes” offers, taking into account the limits of RECO’s mandate when dealing with developers or other non-registrants looking to purchase properties for development or renovation; and
• clarity about what happens to consumer deposits when a transaction fails.

5. RECO brand positioning strategy

RECO’s CEO kicked off a discussion about the importance of RECO differentiating itself as the regulator from among the many different organizations that exist in the real estate services industry in Ontario. 

The Director of Stakeholder Relations briefly recapped RECO’s work to date on a branding initiative. A consulting company was engaged, the firm conducted interviews with key stakeholders, and recommended a refined brand positioning. This recommendation was to shift RECO’s positioning closer toward, but not exclusively for, consumers – clarifying its important role in consumer protection for those engaging in the sale or purchase of real estate.

Key portions of the narrative to support the brand positioning were presented to the CAC for discussion. There was strong support among CAC members for the overall direction of the brand narrative. The particular elements that stood out to members were: the specific language “we protect consumers” along with an emphasis on clarity, transparency, and fairness. 

The council noted that registrants have multiple bodies to support their interests and agendas – such as real estate associations including OREA – so the importance of RECO as the regulator supporting consumers is important.  

Feedback from the CAC included that RECO should consider that the shift in language does not push expectations of RECO beyond its regulatory mandate. While there was further discussion of personalizing the brand narrative to speak exclusively to consumers (what you can expect from RECO), RECO management noted that it has multiple stakeholders and is unable to speak exclusively to one of them at the expense of others. Further CAC feedback was that the brand narrative merits a greater public profile, and RECO management noted that this is the intended goal of this process. 

6. Determine next meeting date

Members were asked about their interest in meeting in person, however there was consensus the next meeting to take place virtually. 

One member expressed a desire for a greater understanding of RECO’s Board’s expectations of the council. The council was reminded that the CAC’s role is advisory, and the process of that advice flowing to the board through the CAC Chair is set out in the CAC Terms of Reference. For certainty, the CAC is not a committee of RECO’s board of directors. The Chair confirmed his intention to involve the council in finalizing his report to RECO’s Board. The Chair and RECO staff agreed to discuss and follow-up on this item at the next CAC meeting. 

7. Closing remarks and adjournment

The Chair thanked all for their active participation and closed the meeting at 11:45 a.m. 

ACTION: RECO management will notify members of the next meeting date.