Advisory councils

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.

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.