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.

Recent public statements from association leadership have echoed this outrage, calling the scandal “deplorable” and pledging to do everything possible to prevent a repeat. In the same breath, however, those statements concede that associations lack authority to intervene directly. That contradiction, angry but powerless, deserves scrutiny.

What almost no one has covered is the irony of what followed: boards and associations rushing into the spotlight to demand change.

The letter

On Sept. 3, nine of Ontario’s largest boards joined the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) in a public letter calling for the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) to be placed under the Ontario Ombudsman. The letter reads, “Make RECO subject to independent oversight by the Ontario Ombudsman.”

It sounds bold.

It isn’t.

The Ombudsman’s own statute is explicit. Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act bars complaints about self-regulating professions such as lawyers, doctors, or nurses. RECO is a delegated administrative authority, funded by industry but operating at arm’s length, and therefore outside its jurisdiction.

If what boards really mean is that Ontario should legislate RECO into a fully public agency subject to Ombudsman oversight, then they should say so. Instead, they imply the Ombudsman already has that power. That is not advocacy. It misstates the effect of the statute.

Which leaves two explanations:

• Boards may not fully appreciate the limits of the Ombudsman’s role; or
• They do, but have not been fully clear with members about what their ask really means, which is the end of self-regulation.

Either way, Realtors deserve clarity from organizations funded by their dues.

Compliance vs. regulation

This distinction matters. 

Boards enforce MLS rules and the Realtor Code. That is compliance. Compliance means setting professional standards for how members interact with one another, how listings are input and displayed, and how disputes within the membership are handled. At its best, compliance keeps the MLS orderly and the professional culture consistent. It is inward-facing, designed to manage the conduct of members within an association.

Regulation is different. Regulation belongs to the state. RECO audits trust accounts, suspends registrations, and prosecutes misconduct under TRESA. Regulation is outward-facing, with the authority to protect consumers, safeguard deposits, and impose penalties that go well beyond membership discipline. Unlike compliance, regulation carries the force of law.

The two roles are not interchangeable. A board can fine a member for breaching MLS policy, but it cannot seize a trust account or revoke a license. RECO can. A board can enforce courtesy and accuracy in listing data, but it cannot investigate fraud or order restitution to a consumer. RECO can.

Conflating the two is not advocacy, it is overreach. And if we acted outside of our competence the way boards are attempting to, they would face RECO discipline.

Precedent they will not say out loud

The ask for Ombudsman oversight is not an abstract gesture. There is precedent, and it tells us exactly what this would mean.

In British Columbia, self-regulation collapsed after a 2016 investigation into shadow flipping and assignment fraud. The provincial government acted swiftly. The Real Estate Council of B.C., once the industry’s self-regulator, was stripped of authority. Oversight was shifted to the Superintendent of Real Estate. By 2021, regulation was fully consolidated under the B.C. Financial Services Authority (BCFSA).

The industry’s self-governing experiment was over.

In Québec, the same outcome arrived earlier. In 1994, the government created the OACIQ, a statutory regulator reporting directly to the Ministry of Finance. The move followed years of concern about weak enforcement by the industry’s predecessor body, the ACAIQ. The province concluded that consumer protection required a public regulator.

These are not tweaks. They are full structural shifts away from self-regulation.

So, if Ontario boards understand these precedents, they are quietly asking to end self-regulation without saying so outright. If they do not, then they are making an ask without appreciating its true implications. Either way, Realtors are left in the dark.

Ontario’s pattern of failure

This is not the first time governance in Ontario real estate has failed the public.

RECO has long been criticized for being reactive rather than proactive: slow to audit, slow to respond to complaints, and often opaque in its processes. The iPro scandal is the latest headline, but it is not an isolated event.

Boards have their own pattern. As of September 2025, RECO’s public discipline database lists decisions involving some sitting directors of Ontario real estate boards. These are breaches of the same statute that boards now want to advise on. 

A body led in part by individuals sanctioned under the very law they seek to shape cannot credibly position itself as an authority on regulatory reform. That tension should matter to every Realtor asked to fund these advocacy efforts.

That alone should give pause before positioning boards as credible voices on regulation.

Authority without liability

Brokerages carry liability. They hold trust accounts. They manage compliance systems. They face consumers when deals collapse. Registrants carry personal liability under TRESA.

Boards carry none of that risk. They can make public statements, lobby governments, and issue demands without ever sharing the burden of liability.

That is authority without liability. It is not advocacy. If it’s anything, it’s performance without consequence.

Advocacy failure

Boards defend their role by pointing to advocacy as part of their mandate.

Sure, but advocacy without accuracy is malpractice.

If the Ombudsman cannot, under statute, take jurisdiction over RECO today, then telling the public otherwise is misleading.

If boards actually mean that self-regulation should end, then failing to tell their members directly is not transparent.

And if boards acknowledge they cannot directly intervene in the very scandal prompting these calls, then how can they claim authority in reshaping the rules of regulation itself?

Either way, Realtors are paying for advocacy that fails the test of accuracy.

From symptom to system

The Ombudsman letter is not an isolated misstep. It is a symptom of a deeper imbalance in organized real estate: boards exercise authority without liability. They lobby on regulation while carrying no regulatory risk. They control essential infrastructure while carrying no ownership duty.

If we want oversight that works, it is not enough to fix RECO. We need to fix the system that empowers boards to misstate and overreach in the first place.

A structural fix

Members fund the show, yet they never vote on the script. If boards want to call for external oversight, they should accept internal oversight first. That requires structural reform.

A share-capital model is not radical. It is alignment. It means that those who carry the liability, being registrants and brokerages, also carry the authority.

Here’s how it could work:

Shares would be issued to brokerages and individual Realtors. Votes could be capped to prevent dominance by any single firm, with limits on how many votes one shareholder can hold. Major decisions (structural mergers, policy positions, advocacy campaigns, large financial commitments) would require shareholder approval. Directors would answer to owners, not just to each other. With modern platforms, registrants could cast those votes electronically in days, faster than boards now move behind closed doors.

And we already have a precedent set.

Associations behave like corporations by outsourcing essentials into for-profit subsidiaries. MLS systems are the clearest example. Ontario’s MLS infrastructure has consolidated onto a dominant, board-controlled platform used by most Realtors in the province. The sole shareholder is one board. Other associations subscribe, but they do not govern. In corporate law, directors owe their duty to the corporation. When that corporation’s sole shareholder is one board, governance incentives align with that board. Subscriber associations are counterparties, not owners.

That matters.

Contract rights are not control rights. Advisory councils advise; they do not govern. Exiting a province-wide MLS is theoretically possible and practically punitive. The most important tool Realtors have is controlled by an entity that owes them no ownership duty and where they hold no votes.

What should be for us and by us is neither.

And yet associations still applauded this arrangement. By subscribing, they subordinated their members’ governance voice to a competitor’s corporate control. That is not collaboration. It is a surrender of member sovereignty.

A share-capital model flips the script. Instead of boards owning the corporation Realtors rely on, Realtors would own the corporation boards rely on. It makes ownership explicit. It gives Realtors direct votes on advocacy. It forces disclosure of lobbying. It requires governance frameworks to expire on a fixed cycle unless renewed. And it ensures that when boards speak, they do so with a mandate earned from those who carry the liability.

The MLS precedent proves the door is open. Essentials can be corporatized. The only unresolved question is whether Realtors will remain disenfranchised subscribers or become owners. This is the natural endpoint of trends boards themselves have set in motion.

Conclusion

There are only two explanations for the Ombudsman ask. Either boards do not fully understand the system, or they do, and are not telling members the truth. Neither is acceptable.

If Ontario is moving toward the B.C. and Québec model, then say it plainly. Admit what is really on the table. And put the people who actually carry liability at the center of the conversation.

Oversight without liability is theatre, and the play has gone on long enough.

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: Why the Ontario boards’ call for Ombudsman oversight of RECO falls flat appeared first on REM.

That gap is not just about capital or regulation. It’s also about perspective. Canadian housing policy is being made largely without the insight of those closest to its day-to-day failures: the real estate brokers and agents navigating this market in real time.

These professionals – licensed, regulated, and embedded in communities across the country – are not part of advisory panels or roundtables. They are not routinely consulted when legislation is drafted or programs are rolled out. But they are the first to see where housing policy is succeeding, stalling, or simply missing the mark.

That needs to change.

“Real estate professionals are the connective tissue between buyers and sellers, developers and planners, regulation and behaviour.”

Recent federal and provincial housing strategies are built around one shared premise: build more, faster. The federal government has committed to doubling home construction to around 500,000 starts per year by the early 2030s. Ontario has pledged to add 1.5 million homes by 2031, which still will not meet demand. British Columbia has implemented province-wide zoning reforms legalizing up to six units on most single-family lots. Municipalities are being pushed to meet supply targets or risk losing federal funding.

These are consequential efforts. But many are faltering on delivery.

Ontario housing starts fell 25 per cent in the first half of 2025. Developers across the country are delaying or cancelling projects due to high financing costs, labour shortages and permitting delays. CMHC recently projected that unless conditions shift dramatically, Canada will fall short of its 2030 housing target by 1.3 million homes.

Much of the public discussion focuses on macro factors: inflation, interest rates, tax policy, and immigration levels. But missing from the conversation is the input of those working inside the system every day. Real estate professionals are the connective tissue between buyers and sellers, developers and planners, regulation and behaviour. Their absence from policymaking leaves strategies vulnerable to blind spots and misfires.

Blind bidding debate

Consider the federal proposal to ban blind bidding. It was introduced as a solution to affordability, based on the assumption that bidding wars were artificially inflating prices. But brokers and agents in competitive markets had long observed that blind bidding was a symptom, not a cause, of price escalation. Scarcity, not secrecy, was driving the frenzy.

Studies have since confirmed what agents already knew: jurisdictions with open bidding formats experience similar, sometimes sharper, price increases in hot markets. Ontario’s recent move to allow (but not require) open bidding has seen almost no uptake among sellers. Agents could have predicted that, too: when listings are scarce, transparency does little to change outcomes.

This is just one example. Brokers across Canada are navigating the real consequences of housing policy. They are hearing from buyers who can’t qualify under current stress test rules, builders stymied by slow approvals, seniors unable to downsize because of a lack of local options, and newcomers struggling to find a foothold in overheated rental markets.

Their insight could help shape better policy, but too often, it is left out entirely.

Boots on the ground perspective

There are more than 160,000 licensed Realtors in Canada, many of them operating through franchised brokerages that serve specific communities but also track trends nationally. They see the ripple effects of tax policy, financing rules and regulatory changes not in theory, but in practice; through listing behaviour, client financing challenges, and transaction timelines.

These are not anecdotal inputs. They are early signals of how policy is landing in the real world.

When interest rates rise, brokers don’t just see a decline in demand; they see where deals fall apart, who gets priced out, and what types of housing are sitting longer on the market. When zoning changes are made, they track whether sellers are adjusting expectations and whether buyers are ready to act. When affordability programs launch, they see who qualifies, who falls short… and why.

Real estate agents are not just intermediaries. They are interpreters of policy, friction, and behaviour, and are essential to making the system work.

‘What’s missing is the voice of the front lines’

Housing policy cannot succeed through mandates alone. Execution matters. So does feedback. Governments at all levels should formalize consultation mechanisms with front-line real estate agents,  not just with industry associations, but with active brokers and agents across regions and market segments.

The federal government’s proposed national housing roundtable is a step in the right direction. But it must include representation from the front lines, the people facilitating transactions, fielding client concerns, and tracking policy consequences in real time. Provinces and municipalities should do the same when implementing zoning reform, development charges or buyer protection measures.

This is not about giving industry players veto power. It is about designing better policy with more complete information, and avoiding the lag between drafting and delivery.

If governments do not course correct now, they risk continuing to build policy that looks strong on paper but breaks on contact with the market.

Canada’s housing goals are ambitious, and rightly so. But success won’t be determined in press releases or legislative chambers. It will be measured in permits issued, homes built, and families housed.

Real estate professionals don’t set those goals. But they do see, earlier than most, what’s working and what’s not. If governments want policy to succeed, they need to tap that insight, not after the fact, but from the outset.

There is no shortage of task forces or reports in Canadian housing policy. What’s missing is the voice of the front lines; the brokers and agents navigating the realities policymakers are trying to solve.

If governments are serious about fixing housing in this country, they can’t afford to keep building strategy in a vacuum. If we keep excluding the people closest to the system, we will keep building failure into it. It is time to bring real estate professionals into the room. And not just to listen. To lead.

Paul Abbott

Paul Abbott is the National Vice-President of Franchise Development at Coldwell Banker Canada, where he leads the company’s growth strategy and supports the expansion of its national brokerage network. With a background in franchising, marketing, and operations across multiple sectors, he brings a strategic lens to real estate development and partnerships. Paul works closely with broker-owners across the country to identify opportunities, navigate the franchise lifecycle, and build long-term value within the Coldwell Banker Canada system.

The post OPINION: Why Canada’s policy-driven, market-blind housing strategy is falling short appeared first on REM.

But every now and then, a government program hits our business model so directly, and so unfairly, that we have no choice but to speak out. Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation, under the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act (RRCEA), is one of those programs.

Re/Max Canada supports environmental stewardship and the goal of a modern, efficient recycling system. We encourage our agents and offices to reduce waste, embrace digital tools, and adopt sustainable practices. But the way the Blue Box program is structured today is punishing Ontario’s real estate businesses and the thousands of independent agents who work under franchise brands like ours.

Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation

The Blue Box Regulation, formally known as Ontario Regulation 391/21, was introduced under the previous government to shift the province’s recycling system to a full Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) model. This means that the brand owner of printed paper products, plastic or other designated materials is fully responsible for collecting and recycling those materials at end-of-life. 

The program replaces the old, municipally run system with one funded and operated by the “producers” themselves, with oversight from the Resource Productivity and Recovery Authority (RPRA). The stated goal is to create a more efficient, standardized recycling framework across the province, improve diversion rates, and ensure the costs of recycling are borne by those who generate the waste. 

While the intent is sound, the transition has created significant financial and administrative burdens for many small and service-based businesses. 

Under the regulation, the RPRA has broad enforcement powers, including imposing administrative penalties and even initiating prosecutions against non-compliant parties. These penalties can reach up to $1 million per contravention.

A disproportionate and unfair cost burden

Under the current definition of “producer” in the regulation, franchisors like Re/Max Canada are deemed responsible for all paper marketing materials with the trademark owner’s mark, used by independent franchise offices and their agents. 

In Ontario, all real estate franchisors, along with other franchised brands, would be deemed producers and must comply with the requirements for registration, reporting, and cost obligations, even where the actual materials are created and distributed by independently owned franchise offices or their agents

This one-size-fits-all approach has created an enormous and disproportionate cost burden. For Re/Max Canada alone, compliance costs, including registration, reporting, consultants, and the fees charged by Producer Responsibility Organizations, are projected to exceed $1 million annually. And for what? Re/Max Canada has no way of reducing these costs or improving waste diversion because we do not control the local marketing decisions made by our agents or our brokerages. 

Re/Max Canada proposed reforms

Ontario’s real estate sector is a cornerstone of the provincial economy. In 2024 alone, the 13,000+ Ontario-based Re/Max agents facilitated over 108,000 transactions worth $89 billion, generating $3.5 billion in additional local spending and supporting jobs across construction, trades, retail, and professional services.

Yet the Blue Box regulation, as currently written, threatens to weaken one of the most cost-effective ways real estate agents connect with clients. Localized print campaigns remain an essential tool, particularly for new agents building their businesses, for communities in small towns and rural areas, and for serving clients who may not be as active online.

Thankfully, the Ontario Government is listening and considering amendments to the regulation, such as delaying mandatory recovery targets, cancelling unnecessary service expansions, and clarifying certain operational rules. These steps are welcome, but they do not go far enough to address the fundamental problems in the current framework.

Re/Max Canada is calling for deeper reforms to make the system fair, efficient, and economically sustainable. For example, the definition of “producer” must be revisited so that franchisors are held responsible only for materials they actually supply or control, rather than for every item produced by independent operators over whom they have no operational authority. 

In addition, the scope of exemptions for recyclable flyers should be expanded beyond newspaper inserts to reflect the reality that many printed materials are equally recyclable regardless of distribution method. 

Finally, the province should consider introducing temporary fee relief while the Blue Box system is still maturing, providing much-needed breathing room for small businesses as the program evolves.

Fighting for Re/Max brokerages and agents

Re/Max Canada has been part of communities across Ontario for decades. Re/Max brokers and agents have helped generations of families buy and sell their homes, and they’ve always done so with a focus on professionalism, integrity, and service.  

We are now fighting for our brokerages and agents to ensure they can keep doing what they do best: serving clients and building communities unburdened by additional regulatory expenses. Environmental progress and economic health are not mutually exclusive. With smart changes, Ontario can be an EPR leader among other provinces in Canada for reducing red tape and costs on businesses. We’re committed to working with the province to make that happen.

Don Kottick

Don Kottick is President of REMAX Canada where he oversees operations and strategy for the company-owned REMAX Canada region, which includes Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Prince Edward Island and Saskatchewan, as well as Yukon and Northwest Territory. Don also works closely with the leaders of the independently owned and operated RE/MAX Quebec region to amplify the brand nationwide. Don joined REMAX in 2025 with more than three decades of Canadian real estate experience managing brokerage operations, leading mergers and acquisitions, driving strategic direction, and overseeing technology, products and services. Prior to joining REMAX, he served as President and CEO of Sotheby’s International Realty Canada, where he increased both agent count and overall sales volume during his six-year tenure. Don previously held senior executive roles with Royal LePage, Right At Home Realty and Peerage Realty Partners. A Toronto native, Don is a graduate of the University of Toronto and a Fellow of the Real Estate Institute of Canada (FRI). He is a former Director-at-Large for both the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), where he also served as Chair of the Broker Involvement Committee and on the Global, Technology and Director Selection committees, and the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB). Additionally, Don is a Past President of the Real Estate Institute of Canada (REIC).

The post Kottick: Ontario’s Blue Box Regulation is punishing real estate businesses appeared first on REM.

While the article raises valid concerns about governance, communication, and member engagement, it offers a narrow view that overlooks the broader realities and growing responsibilities of organized real estate. 

The truth is more nuanced. The system isn’t broken, it’s evolving.

Boards don’t control markets — but they do shape resilience

Real estate boards are not economic policymakers. They don’t set interest rates or lending criteria. What they do control is how they lead, how they govern, and how they support members during times of uncertainty. 

That’s where strong governance becomes essential. While some boards may have missed opportunities to comment on larger economic issues, others have embraced a more strategic approach by choosing informed, deliberate action over reaction. In turbulent times, effective governance isn’t just helpful; it’s essential. Strong boards focus not on short-term headlines but on the long-term health of the profession and the associations that support it.

It’s also important to remember that board directors are Realtors themselves. They face the same pressures of fluctuating markets, demanding clients, and economic uncertainty. Because they share these experiences, they understand members’ challenges firsthand and are better equipped to guide the organization in a direction that benefits the broader membership.

Governance isn’t about being louder; it’s about being thoughtful, accountable, and resilient. And part of that resilience is rooted in meaningful member engagement.

Member engagement: Your voice matters

Concerns about disengagement, such as low voter turnout and governance decisions made without broad input, are real and deserve attention. These issues aren’t unique to real estate; many membership-based industries face similar struggles.

But governance is a two-way street. Boards and associations can offer opportunities for involvement, but it’s up to members to participate. If we don’t vote in elections, attend meetings, or engage with board communications, are we truly holding leadership accountable?

Boards want to hear from us, not just during times of crisis, but continuously. They rely on our input to make informed decisions that reflect the needs of the entire membership. To have a voice, we must be willing to use it.

Reform is welcome — and already underway

Saskatchewan is a powerful example of what happens when reform is rooted in transparency, trust, and genuine engagement.

In 2017, a proposed amalgamation vote failed. Members felt the process wasn’t transparent enough. They didn’t feel heard, and they wanted more consultation. The message was clear: it was time to regroup and do it right.

The governance leaders of the legacy associations listened. They launched a province-wide engagement effort such as town halls, one-on-one visits, and open consultation. The result? In early 2019, members approved the amalgamation. And on Jan. 1, 2020, the new provincial association officially launched.

The first couple of years weren’t without challenges, but the foundation was strong. They stayed focused, and accountability to members was embedded into every decision. And decisions were made with a long-term vision, looking ahead, not just reacting to today.

Across the country, boards and associations are recognizing the need for stronger governance and deeper member involvement and many are taking action.

We’re seeing governance reviews, structural audits, and improved communication strategies. Boards are prioritizing member-driven policies, refining election procedures, and embedding transparency into every layer of decision-making.

These reforms aren’t radical, they’re responsible. They reflect a growing awareness that members expect more than just representation; they expect a voice, a vision, and a seat at the table.

When governance is done right, boards can get it right

Good governance doesn’t make headlines, but it lays the foundation for progress. When paired with active member engagement, it becomes a powerful catalyst for lasting change.

We’ve seen the benefits:

• Investments in long-term tools, education and technologies deliver meaningful value to members
• Transparency in decision-making builds credibility and trust
• Strategic foresight allows boards to prepare for future challenges instead of reacting to every market fluctuation
• Two-way communication keeps members informed, engaged, and empowered

Together, good governance and active engagement create an environment where boards can lead with purpose and give members the tools to thrive. Through stronger engagement and more thoughtful governance, we can build a more resilient, responsive future for organized real estate, one that serves the profession and the people behind it.

Progress takes all of us – are you doing your part?

Leadership must commit to transparency and accountability, and members must commit to showing up and speaking up.

Progress doesn’t rest solely with those in leadership roles. It begins with each of us. Good governance and member engagement equal a strong Realtor community – one we can be proud of.

• Are you reading your association-to-member emails?
• Are you showing up to education days and town halls?
• Are you providing feedback to your board when things are done right? Or only when expressing dissent?
• Are you volunteering for task forces and committees?

A stronger, more resilient real estate profession isn’t built by boards alone – it’s built by all of us, together.  The future of organized real estate depends not just on how we’re led, but on how we show up.

Sheri Willick and Tim Otitoju

Sheri Willick is a REALTOR® and Associate Broker with Coldwell Banker Signature in Saskatoon, with over a decade of real estate experience following a successful career in media advertising and fundraising. A respected industry leader, she has held key roles in organized real estate, including service on the Saskatoon & Region Association of REALTORS® Board of Directors and as Chair of its Government Relations Committee. Sheri played a pivotal role in the successful province-wide REALTOR® amalgamation and was recognized as Saskatchewan REALTOR® of the Year in 2019. In 2021, she served as Chairperson of the Saskatchewan REALTORS® Association Board of Directors, and continues to contribute to the profession at the local, provincial, and national levels. Beyond real estate, Sheri is an active member of the Saskatoon business community and has served on numerous non-profit and charitable boards. Tim Otitoju is the President of Realty Hub Brokerage, bringing over 15 years of real estate experience to the role. He has held numerous leadership positions at both the local and provincial levels and continues to contribute to the industry through active service on local and national committees.

Tim Otitoju is the President of Realty Hub Brokerage, bringing over 15 years of real estate experience to the role. He has held numerous leadership positions at both the local and provincial levels and continues to contribute to the industry through active service on local and national committees.

The post OPINION: Organized real estate isn’t broken — it’s evolving appeared first on REM.

According to Altus Group, this ongoing sales collapse threatens to stall Toronto’s housing pipeline and wipe out over 40,000 construction-related jobs if conditions don’t improve.

Released in late June by Altus Group and BILD, the May figures represent the most current full-month snapshot of new home sales (and one of the most seasonally significant periods in the housing calendar).

That’s the story. But if you looked to organized real estate for answers, you’d never know it.

Instead of urgency, members got optics. Boards that were built to support Realtors through difficult markets have become fixated on protecting their own narrative.

In the middle of the worst new home sales slump in decades, some boards offered commentary on crime and bail reform (yes, in a housing update) while others painted a sunshine-and-rainbows picture of a market building momentum when, in fact, it barely regained its footing amidst trade tensions and election uncertainty.

While Realtors were trying to explain to clients why nothing was moving, their representative bodies were preserving image instead of delivering insight.

The quieter the market gets, the louder some boards become. Because when your value proposition fades, overreach starts to look like relevance.

What boards could have said (but didn’t)

A board serious about member service would have used this moment to speak directly to the economic fundamentals reshaping the market:

Canadians need to deleverage. Household debt is still hovering at 173.9 per cent of disposable income. According to the Bank of Canada’s May 2025 Financial Stability Report, 60 per cent of mortgages in Canada will renew in 2025 or 2026. Even after seven rate cuts, most borrowers will face payment increases. OSFI continues to warn that structural debt exposure remains high. 

Boards could have helped members prepare their clients and themselves for that reality. They didn’t.

Cap rates are flashing yellow. Altus Group’s Q1 2025 Investment Trends Survey shows capitalization rates trending upward across several asset classes. Suburban multi-unit residential rose to 4.65 per cent. Single-tenant industrial reached 5.93 per cent. On paper, these shifts may seem small. But they translate into five to 15 per cent headline valuation losses; enough to reset investment expectations and weaken the price floor in residential markets.

It should have been the front-page story of every board update. Instead, we got distraction.

And the consequences? Builders can’t make projects pencil. Equity partners are waiting. Lenders are cautious. Land deals are stalling. The risk-free rate is no longer a rounding error. Realtors are in the middle of this. Boards could have helped them understand it. They didn’t.

But the warning signs weren’t limited to cap rates and debt loads. Purpose-built rental completions may be near record highs, but new starts have cratered, down 60 per cent year-over-year, and the pipeline is thinning fast. Vacancy is rising, incentives are back, and investor confidence is softening. Still, boards said nothing.

They also stayed quiet on Ontario’s growing outmigration, on OSFI’s proposed replacement for the mortgage stress test, and on CMHC’s quiet retreat from its affordability benchmark. These aren’t footnotes. They’re flashing signals. The story is playing out across every part of the housing system and boards could have helped members make sense of it.

They didn’t. 

Whether it was neglect, confusion, or incapacity, the result is the same: silence when members needed clarity.

The agency problem, made personal

And the silence isn’t accidental. It’s structural.

Boards didn’t just miss these signals. They were never required to address them. Because when power becomes insulated, accountability fades. The problem isn’t just what wasn’t said. It’s why no one had to say it. And that brings us to how real estate governance actually works, and who it works for.

The agency problem happens when people who are supposed to act in your best interest start acting in their own. It creeps in slowly. In governance, it happens when directors and executives stop speaking for members and start managing around them.

This isn’t another article about disengagement. It’s about representation.

Directors begin to equate dissent with disloyalty. Executives start to believe that continuity equals leadership. And over time, boards stop responding to members and start protecting themselves.

That’s how we end up with multi-year tech contracts. Education programs launched without regulator or even stakeholder input. Conduct policies applied retroactively. And when challenged, the response is always procedural: “We followed the process.”

Disenfranchisement by design

Of course they followed the process, because the process was built to protect them from you.

Quorum thresholds are alarmingly low. At some boards, just a handful of votes in an organization of thousands, or even tens of thousands, are enough to pass sweeping by-law changes. As REM has previously published, TRREB’s most recent AGM saw a record turnout. Just over 1,000 members voted, including proxies, out of a membership of more than 70,000. One of the most controversial votes in years failed by fewer than 250 ballots.

This isn’t oversight. It’s insulation.

Through proxy stacking, a handful of insiders can quietly collect voting rights from disengaged members and consolidate control without resistance. Floor motions are ruled out of order. Consultations happen after decisions are finalized. Procedural legitimacy is performed, not earned.

Members don’t just feel shut out. They are.

What Realtors get instead

While agents are trying to keep deals alive and guide uncertain clients through turbulent financing, their boards are delivering generic talking points and irrelevant press releases.

They need data. Insight. Perspective.

Instead, they get messaging. Crime commentary. Boilerplate optimism. Statements no one asked for, released on their behalf.

You can’t fix this with a vote

This isn’t about better personalities. It’s about power.

Major by-law changes and dues increases should require a referendum. Programs introduced without a vote should sunset unless reaffirmed. Governance audits should be routine, not radical. And a national standard for board transparency and accountability should already exist.

In every other sector, these are baseline expectations.

In real estate, they’re treated as revolutionary.

The bottom line

Boards are not regulators. They are service providers. Their power flows from Realtors, not to them. If they’ve forgotten that, remind them.

As I argued in a previous article, the problem isn’t disengagement. It’s disenfranchisement.

You’re not just a member. You’re the owner. Act like it. Ask harder questions. Demand transparency. Refuse silence as an answer.

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: Boards lost the plot. Realtors are paying for it. appeared first on REM.

In 2023, the Government of British Columbia introduced the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act, which imposed province-wide restrictions on the use of most non-principal residences for short-term rental purposes. The intent was clear: the province wanted to return more housing units to the long-term rental market.

Nearly two years later, the evidence tells a different story. Rents continue to rise across B.C., with little measurable impact on housing affordability. Meanwhile, the unintended consequences of these blanket restrictions are being felt acutely in smaller and tourism-dependent communities throughout the province’s interior.

Supply–not short-term rentals–is causing the crunch

The latest research from the Conference Board of Canada confirms what many local leaders and residents already know: short-term rentals have a minimal impact on rents. The study found that increased short-term rental activity accounted for less than one percentage point of rent increases over a six-year period. 

The real challenge in B.C. remains the substantial shortfall in housing supply. According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, B.C. needs to build over 500,000 new homes by 2030 to restore affordability to historic levels.

At the same time, short-term rentals play an important role in supporting local economies. In the interior, they provide critical accommodation options for tourists, temporary workers, emergency responders, students and displaced residents. They also generate significant economic activity and support small businesses in communities that often lack sufficient hotel infrastructure.

Call to action

The Association of Interior REALTORS® has developed a set of practical recommendations that would improve the province’s short-term rental (STR) framework and better align it with regional needs. These recommendations would not undermine provincial housing goals but rather strengthen them by enabling local flexibility and economic resilience.

• First, the province should return zoning authority to local governments, allowing them to designate specific areas within their communities, such as tourism zones, where short-term rentals can operate under locally tailored rules. Municipalities that have invested in developing their own responsible STR bylaws should be supported, not sidelined.

• Second, the province should enable exemptions for short-term rentals located near essential worksites. In many regions, healthcare and infrastructure service delivery depends on the availability of temporary housing. The province could apply a model similar to transit-oriented development zones, allowing municipalities to approve STRs within a defined radius of hospitals and other critical projects or facilities.

• Third, the province should revise the timing of its exemption framework to better reflect the operational needs of tourism-based economies. Requiring municipalities to wait until November to implement exemptions, even if they meet the criteria, means entire summer seasons are lost. A more responsive model would allow exemptions to take effect immediately upon approval.

• Finally, the province should update its strata hotel and fractional ownership exemptions to reflect the reality of how these purpose-built properties are designed and used. The current criteria are too narrow and inconsistent, leading to confusion for operators and creating uncertainty for investors and municipalities alike.

Balanced regulations for STRs

These proposed changes would not weaken B.C.’s overall housing strategy. Instead, they would ensure that short-term rental regulation is both effective and fair, protecting long-term housing supply while respecting the unique needs of interior communities.

British Columbia’s housing challenges are complex, and solutions will require coordinated action on multiple fronts. However, the evidence makes it clear that restricting short-term rentals alone will not solve the crisis. What is needed now is a more balanced approach, one that recognizes the value STRs bring to regional economies and service delivery and gives municipalities the tools to manage them appropriately.

Seth Scott and Matthew Thornton

Seth Scott has overseen the advocacy function at the Association of Interior REALTORS since 2022. Prior to his role as the Director of Government and Stakeholder Relations, Seth was employed as a Senior Policy Analyst at the CFIB, representing the interests of small businesses and franchisees in B.C. Prior to that, Seth worked at a national think tank and has been involved in various political capacities.

Matthew Thornton founded Real North Strategies in 2023 after working over 16 years at Queen’s Park and as a public relations executive at Canada’s largest provincial association. He is on a mission to build a better Canada by helping associations, not-for-profits, and organizations solve the biggest public policy challenges of our time by providing world-class advocacy and communication services. From multi-million-dollar campaigns to working with volunteer committees & boards, he has a track record of innovation, creativity, and success when it comes to public affairs, media relations and government relations. Matthew is a proud University of Western alumni, having graduated with an Ivey Business School Executive MBA (’22), Master of Arts (’07) and Bachelor of Arts Honors (’05). He also achieved the CAE designation from the Canadian Society of Association Executives in 2012.

The post OPINION: It’s time to rethink B.C.’s flawed short-term rental policy appeared first on REM.

When listings are incomplete or misleading, it isn’t just agents who lose. It’s the consumers who make life-changing decisions based on flawed information. It’s time we stop pretending the system works. The tools that power our listings are riddled with gaps that force even the most diligent Realtors into impossible positions.

Brokerages carry the risk, yet boards retain control. That misalignment is eroding public trust and the Realtor brand along with it.

Systems that undercut service

Realtors are not just working within flawed systems; they are compelled to. 

Under CREA’s Realtor Cooperation Policy, agents who publicly advertise a property are required to post it on the MLS. There is no true opt-out. That means if an agent markets a listing on social media, in print, or even by putting a sign on the lawn, they are obligated to input it into a system that may not be capable of capturing the full picture. 

In practice, we are forced to shoehorn listings into rigid platforms, regardless of whether the data fields reflect the property accurately.

In many regions, agents are working within platforms that do not allow them to input basic details of a property. One common issue is the restriction on the number of rooms or features that can be uniquely defined. Some systems limit descriptors, cap room types, or omit fields entirely. These gaps seem trivial until you list a $3-million custom home and find you cannot properly describe it. Not because of negligence, but because the system itself makes full disclosure impossible.

It’s a Hobson’s choice: either comply with systems that cannot reflect the full truth of the listing or violate the policy by withholding it entirely. In either case, the agent loses, and the client is underserved.

That listing then feeds into Realtor.ca, our most visible and trusted public-facing platform. The consumer sees incomplete information on a website that claims to be powered by Realtors. They expect that it is accurate.

Who takes the hit?

Not the system vendor. Not the board. Not the national platform.

The Realtor does.

The brokerage is on the legal hook, but the agent is the face beside the listing, and the one the public holds responsible. When the data is wrong, that trust is shaken, even if every rule was followed.

The fragmented foundation

This is not hypothetical. It’s happening right now, in real markets, with real listings that bear real consequences. 

In some cases, agents are told to work around limitations. They are advised to put key details in the remarks, fudge the structure of the property, or leave important aspects unlisted. This creates a troubling contradiction. Realtors are held to the highest standard but asked to compromise accuracy because of technical limits they cannot control.

At the heart of this issue is a contradiction in organized real estate. 

We promote ourselves as a unified national profession but operate in a fragmented data ecosystem. There is no single MLS system in Canada. Each local board or regional association negotiates with its own vendor and sets out its own rules. 

The result is a patchwork of differing input fields, inconsistent property categories, and minimal national oversight.

Even Realtor.ca, which is often treated as our national standard, is not a national MLS. It is a reflection of data feeds from boards across the country, each shaped by different priorities and limitations.

Risk without authority

Who owns the data? And more importantly, who is accountable for it?

Listing data may originate with Realtors, but in practice, it’s governed by boards, housed by vendors, and syndicated nationally by CREA. Boards license its use, enforce its rules, and in some cases, restrict how it can be accessed. CREA promotes the listings and brands them with Realtor trust.

At no point does the individual Realtor retain full control over the dataset. Agents pay dues to three levels of organized real estate but often cannot access their own listing history without going through approval processes or paying additional fees. That is not sustainable. Especially when the stakes are high.

Because what boards and CREA do not carry is risk. Brokerages do.

It is the brokerage that takes on vicarious liability. It is the brokerage that ensures accuracy and compliance, that trains, audits, and disciplines its agents. It is the brokerage that absorbs reputational and legal fallout when listings go wrong, regardless of whether the error began in a system it cannot access or control.

A misalignment of power

So why are the most accountable actors given the least control?

Today, boards control the platforms that manage the most visible and valuable real estate data in the country, while brokerages, the entities legally responsible for much of what happens with that data, are often left out of governance conversations entirely. This is not a question of internal politics. It is a fundamental misalignment between responsibility and authority.

And this isn’t a governance quirk. It’s a cultural flaw that distances decision-makers from responsibility, and one that is often hardcoded into board-level vendor contracts that entrench limitations, delay reform, and prevent innovation. In many ways, Realtors have become service users of their own listing platforms, with limited ability to shape or challenge the architecture of the systems they fund. That disconnect reinforces disengagement. It limits innovation. And it weakens the voice of those doing the work on the ground.

The erosion of trust

This is a problem because data is trust. The Realtor brand is not just a logo or a code of conduct. It is a promise. When the listing platform shows incomplete or misleading information, it reflects poorly on the brand that is supposed to represent integrity and accuracy. And if the national platform cannot distinguish between a system constraint and an agent oversight, then the public sees no difference.

The result is that consumers blame the Realtor. Not the board. Not the system. Not the national feed.

This guarantees reputational risk. It also undermines the value of being a Realtor rather than a registrant. If a consumer sees inaccurate or missing information on a Realtor listing, they may ask what value the designation truly offers. If a custom home cannot be accurately marketed on Realtor.ca, why would a seller choose a Realtor when the system is built to fail them?

From awareness to action

Organized real estate has been aware of platform limitations for years, but progress toward national data standards has been slow, cautious, and largely invisible to members. The result is that frontline agents and brokerages are left to fill the gap, absorbing reputational risk while systems inch forward behind closed doors. That silence is no longer defensible.

If brokerages are held accountable by law, then they must have standing in the governance of the systems that define their risk.

If brokerages are to remain accountable, they must also be empowered. Platform governance should include brokerage representation. Data policy must be co-designed with those who shoulder the liability. Anything less is regulatory negligence by design.

CREA does not own MLS systems, but it does own the Realtor trademarks and operates Realtor.ca. That comes with responsibility. CREA should not micromanage boards, but it must set national expectations for what Realtor-level data integrity looks like. That might include minimum input standards, public disclaimers when known system limitations exist, and tools for agents and brokerages to preview how their listings will appear.

It also means working collaboratively with boards and vendors to modernize platforms in ways that reflect how real estate is practiced today. This includes eliminating arbitrary field caps, improving cross-board interoperability, and giving brokerages and Realtors more agency over the data they are responsible for.

A seat at the table

When there is no accountability for the system, the accountability falls to the agent and their brokerage. This is not just unjust; it’s structurally indefensible.

We’re at an inflection point. Consumers are more data-savvy than ever. Alternative platforms are gaining traction. Realtors cannot afford to be trapped in outdated systems governed by legacy contracts or institutional politics. If we want to maintain our place as the most trusted advisors in real estate, our tools must reflect the standards we uphold.

Right now, the message to consumers is this: trust the Realtor, but not the data they are forced to work with.

That contradiction cannot stand. If we want the Realtor brand to thrive, we must stop outsourcing control and start aligning authority with accountability.

Brokerages carry the risk. It is time they had a seat at the table.

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 OPINION: Agents risk reputation while broken listing systems undermine trust appeared first on REM.

David Langlois

David Langlois has been an award-winning Realtor since 2003 and is currently the Managing Broker for Macdonald Real Estate in Victoria, BC.  David has been involved in organized real estate for many years and was the President of the Victoria Real Estate Board in 2021. His goal has been to contribute to strategic initiatives in the province and has focused on government relations and real estate industry policy with a focus on increasing professionalism and keeping Realtors at the centre of the real estate transaction.

The post OPINION: Is Realtor.ca selling its soul? appeared first on REM.

Jonathan Cooper

Jonathan Cooper is the President of Macdonald Real Estate Group (MREG). Based in Vancouver and with an annual sales volume of over $7.4B in 2023, MREG has 1100 staff and agents and 24 offices, offering residential and commercial brokerage, project marketing, and property and asset management for a $6B portfolio. His commentary and op-eds on the real estate business have appeared across various media platforms, including REM, Inman News, Bloomberg BNN, and The Vancouver Sun.

The post OPINION: Why Canada should embrace foreign investment in the housing market appeared first on REM.