Industry Advisory Council

Location
Online (Teams)

Present
Tim Lee, Chair
Subhir Uppal, Vice-Chair
Ann Forbes Arndt
Kevin Ali
Tania Artenosi
Shenali De Mel
Sandra Lee Marques
Sandra O’Donohue
Carlo Racioppo
Lori Roberts

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

MPBSDP observer
Elaine Wong

1. Call to order

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

2. Welcome 

The chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

3. Broker of record communications

RECO is planning a regular edition of the For the RECOrd newsletter specifically for brokers of record and sought feedback from council members on topics that would be of interest and utility to this audience. 

IAC members indicated that RECO could consider: Expectations regarding trust deposits, amending agreements, audit preparation, and training and support for new agents.

Members also noted that they would like to have a greater understanding of how brokerages are inspected and more information about the risk-based assessment that determines the timing of the next inspection. 

4. Enforcement activities published through RECO website

By the end of 2025, RECO will be expanding its website to shift its presentation of enforcement activities published on the RECO website. RECO sought feedback from IAC members on their understanding of RECO’s enforcement actions and how and under what circumstances they look for information on these activities. Members shared the input below:

• Many registrants use the regulatory registry and enforcement activities information as a means of doing their due diligence about a registrant on the other side of a transaction and can be used for training for new agents as a deterrent for unprofessional behaviour. Members also noted that the Legal Corner section of For the RECOrd is a great resource.
• Some members find the current enforcement activities page cumbersome and difficult to navigate.
• Members shared that there is sentiment within the sector that RECO does not take complaints about registrants from other members seriously, or that they have lower priority than complaints from consumers. RECO staff underlined that all complaints are addressed in a consistent manner through the complaints process, which is outlined on RECO’s website.

RECO Information Guide

RECO is considering adjustments to the RECO Information Guide in 2025 and sought feedback from council members as the regulator considers refining the RECO Information Guide to be most helpful for its intended audience. Members shared the following input:

• Registrants are often unclear when it comes to holdover clauses and how they work. Members feel that this section is open to interpretation.
• Registrants are often unclear about whether the RECO Information Guide acknowledgement is required for repeat clients.
• Members would like clarification on what assistance to a self-represented party means and entails.
• Members also noted that it can be challenging to get clients’ attention when it comes to sharing the RECO Information Guide. 
• RECO also shared it will be launching a series of videos about topics related to implementing the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 (TRESA), including the RECO Information Guide.

5. 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:

• This activity has always been in the market; however, it may increase due to global factors and financial concerns.
• The key issue is when the buyer tries to sell the property for more money before they ever take possession and that they have the ability to terminate the contract if they can’t find a buyer. This is of particular concern for sellers. Sellers should do their due diligence by having a lawyer review any contracts.
• Ultimately, it is a consumer’s decision whether to participate in this activity; however, members felt that an information document or article for registrants could be helpful to assist potential clients if they come across this kind of request. 

6. 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 confirmed that the new providers will deliver TRESA updated content to learners. 
• RECO has also moved to a single exam provider, Meazure Learning, to ensure consistency in assessments for real estate licensing in Ontario.
• RECO has implemented a new process for obtaining a required Criminal Record and Judicial Matters Check (CRJMC), which will now be fully online and at a significant cost savings compared to other providers. RECO will also now require any registrant who had not obtained a CRJMC prior to it being a condition of registration in 2010 to obtain one as a condition of renewal. RECO noted that in some cases, registrants may still have to get a CRJMC in person, but that this new process will cover the vast majority of registrants. 
  • RECO staff confirmed that it would accept a current valid CRJMC where the applicant had already sought one independently. 
• RECO is launching a new brand later this month, which includes a new mission, vision and logo. RECO staff thanked the IAC for their input into the new brand initiative.

7. RECO 2024 registrant survey results

RECO staff shared results of the registrant survey, including familiarity and alignment with RECO’s efforts and strategic goals, sources of trusted information, and use of RECO’s communications materials and channels. 

8. Determine next meeting date

After a discussion regarding the next meeting, the council decided on the morning of October 21, 2025.

9. Adjournment

Tim Lee, IAC chair, advised he would be ending his term in May 2025 and that a new chair will be selected following RECO’s Annual General Meeting. RECO’s Interim CEO thanked him for his many contributions to the IAC and to RECO. The chair adjourned the meeting at 3:55 p.m.

Location
In person at RECO, 3300 Bloor Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario

Present
Tim Lee, Chair
Subhir Uppal, Vice-Chair
Ann Forbes Arndt
Kevin Ali
Sandra Lee Marques
Sandra O’Donohue
Carlo Racioppo
Lori Roberts

Regrets
Tania Artenosi
Shenali De Mel

RECO Staff
Michael Beard, CEO
Brenda Buchanan, COO
Joseph Richer, Registrar
Kym Robertson, Director, Stakeholder Relations 
Emily Abrahams, Senior Stakeholder Relations Advisor

MPBSDP observer
Eamonn Gaffney (virtual)

1. Call to order

The chair called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m.

2. Welcome 

The chair welcomed IAC members and thanked them for joining the meeting.

3. Dealing with rental transactions

As part of the meeting materials, RECO shared a recent For the RECOrd article to registrants regarding their obligations when acting for a client in a rental transaction. RECO sought feedback from council members, noting that some real estate boards have indicated that rental transactions will overtake sales in 2025 in terms of transaction volume. Members noted several challenges including the complexities involved with rental transactions and concerns around the validity and clarity of the Agreement to Lease form (OREA Form 400).

4. TRESA update course 

Council members discussed the course completion rates, which are not appreciably higher than that would normally be completed by registrants during their registration cycle, which means that all registrants would complete the course in the next year. When asked what RECO could do to enhance the completion rate, one suggestion was to encourage brokers of record to inquire of RECO which of their employees had not yet completed the course.

5. 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 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.

Members of the council provided their perspectives on one finding in the survey: that the perception of real estate agents was significantly lower than other professions and indicated a trust gap. Members discussed whether this trust gap could be attributed to the negative connotations associated with professions that operate on a commission model, a lack of awareness on how real estate agents are trained and educated, or the large number of real estate agents in the province compared to other professions.

6. Adjudication of complaints

At the previous meeting, members expressed an interest in learning more about RECO’s complaints process. RECO staff explained the process, which is available on RECO’s website, documents the requirements for a complaint to be considered by RECO, including meeting three criteria: the substance of the complaint must fall within RECO’s scope and authority to regulate; the conduct would have to represent a breach of the law; and the complaint must be supported by evidence. If a complaint falls outside of RECO’s scope, RECO would advise the complainant of the relevant organization or agency that could address it. For instance, some advertising concerns are a violation of the multiple listing service (MLS) rules rather than TRESA. 

RECO noted that complaints must be submitted in writing, which ensures proper and fulsome documentation of the process. On average, complaints are typically resolved within 110 days, although involved or complex cases could take longer. Serious breaches are typically referred to the Discipline Committee (change resulting from TRESA updates).

RECO staff advised that enforcement resources must be utilized effectively for consumer protection, which is why RECO introduced a requirement that advertising complaints must be supported by a broker of record.

There was general agreement that registrants who have experienced the complaints process believe it is thorough; however, social media or other commentary can amplify some voices, which can contribute to a more negative perception of the process.

7. Closing remarks and adjournment

The chair noted that the council would meet virtually in March 2025. There will also be a meeting in September 2025. 

The chair thanked everyone for attending and for sharing feedback. The meeting concluded at 1:09 p.m.

Location
Online (Microsoft Teams)

Present
Tim Lee, Chair
Subhir Uppal, Vice-chair
Ann Forbes Arndt
Kevin Ali
Tania Artenosi
Shenali De Mel
Sandra O’Donohue
Carlo Racioppo
Lori Roberts

Regrets
Sandra Lee Marques

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

MPBSDP observer
Eamonn Gaffney

1. Call to order

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m.

2. Welcome and roundtable introductions

The Chair welcomed IAC members and thanked them for their interest in participating in the IAC. Participants introduced themselves and shared an overview of their current roles and experience.

3. Kickoff

Administrative items
RECO’s CEO referred members to the advance materials shared and provided an overview of the IAC Terms of Reference and the process for providing remuneration to IAC members. He further outlined the applicable Conflict of Interest Policy and confidentiality requirements as well as the requirements under RECO’s social media policy.

Initial Q&A and impressions of IAC
The Chair led a round-table discussion seeking initial impressions from members about their participation in the IAC. Overall, members of the group expressed a desire to make a meaningful contribution to the real estate services sector and to share their experiences as registrants. While this first meeting was held virtually, there was widespread support from IAC members to hold an upcoming meeting in person.

4. Industry issues for potential IAC consideration

The Chair began this roundtable discussion enquiring about the recent introduction of legislative and regulatory updates under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, 2002 (TRESA). Members of the IAC were largely supportive of the changes in the legislation, notably:

• The implementation of designated representation and that it reduces the frequency of multiple representation.
• It was generally agreed that the RECO Information Guide is well written in plain language, clarifies the roles and responsibilities of real estate agents and consumers, and is overall an enhancement to the sector.
• There was some confusion with respect to OREA forms at the launch of TRESA because some forms were introduced nd then withdrawn, while there were multiple iterations of other forms.
• It was noted that there was a varied depth of understanding about TRESA within individual registrants, notwithstanding the material put forward by RECO (bulletins, videos, information guide), OREA, and some brokerages.

Apart from TRESA, there was a wide range of industry issues that were noted to be considered for discussion in future meetings, subject to the terms of reference of the IAC. These include:

• broker of record accountability,
• broker of record communication,
• expectations in agency relationship/multiple representation,
• cooling off periods,
• real estate education exams,
• brokerage audits,
• the process for adjudication of complaints,
• rules for advertising, and
• specialized registration classes.

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 sector 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 IAC for discussion. Input from the IAC members ranged from support to slide the scale towards the consumer, to a concern that RECO’s role should be to defend the interests of registrants, even though many industry associations exist with a primary mandate to support registrants. It was also noted that the proposed brand messaging related to RECO’s registrant education could be interpreted as too aspirational.

6. Determine next meeting date

The Chair noted the IAC members’ desire to meet in person, if possible, for the next meeting. He also noted that it will be important to meet again early in the fall to provide sufficient time for the IAC to provide further feedback in advance of its annual report to the Board.

7. Closing remarks and adjournment

The Chair thanked all for their active participation and closed the meeting at 12:32 p.m.

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