The Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) has lost a bid to continue providing Ontario real estate licensing education after 2020, sources tell REM.

The news comes, according to industry insiders, after the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) selected another respondent to the Request for Proposal process it launched in March 2016 for the Educational Services Agreement (ESA).

RECO oversees real estate licensing education in Ontario on behalf of the provincial government and OREA’s Real Estate College currently delivers licensing education under the existing ESA that expires in 2020.

Story continues below

RECO senior communications officer Adam Hawkins would not confirm or deny the allegations, telling REM that he can’t say much about the RFP process other than to confirm that the process “is still ongoing.” Last week RECO posted a notice on its website that says, in part, that on Dec. 30, 2016, “RFP Proponents were advised of an extension to the RFP timeline and RECO anticipates that the RFP process will conclude no later than March 31, 2017.”

The notice also says that all of the parties involved in the RFP process have entered into a legally binding confidentiality agreement that prohibits the release of any information related to the RFP process.

OREA officials declined REM’s request for comment.

OREA has been providing licensing education through the college for over 40 years. If the allegations are true, it would be a major hit to the association.  Its 2016 annual report shows that approximately 76 per cent of its 2015 revenue – about $29 million – came from the college.

Sources say that OREA has already let a number of its staff go, though no one could say exactly how many people were affected. One source described it as “a number of people.”

In his “CEO’s Message” in the 2016 annual report, former OREA CEO Ed Barisa wrote,  “Education continues to be a key part of our work,” adding that, for the second time, the OREA Real Estate College won a prestigious international education award last year.

RECO appears to be taking a different direction in real estate licensing education. In providing background to the RFP, the council began by saying, “RECO has a new vision for registration education.”

It continues: “RECO’s vision would reshape registration education so that aspiring registrants are better able to ‘hit the ground running’ when they enter the real estate profession.”

If RECO has indeed selected another provider and is moving in a different direction, it will be the second major shakeup of real estate education by the regulator. In 2013, RECO took over the mandatory continuing education program – a move that was criticized by some in the industry.

“RECO’s decision to give themselves the exclusive right to deliver continuing education destroyed all competition (and) it rendered all other education providers redundant,” says Callum James, president of CE Network, one of the companies directly affected by the change. “Sadly, CE Network, a Toronto-based employer, was forced to lay off most of our employees.”

Callum says the few employees that were kept were only saved because Oliver Publishing, a Canadian financial services educator, acquired the company. He says CE Network is now in the unusual position of being the only internationally certified real estate education provider, delivering state-approved real estate training in the U.S., but is forbidden to deliver accredited education in its own home province.

For both initial licensing and continuing education, Callum says he promotes the adoption of a model with multiple, competing education providers – a model that, he says, is the mainstay of North American real estate regulators.

“In this model, regulators regulate and educators educate,” Callum says.


  1. I suggest and feel that reins of OREA should be brought within ambit of government of Ontario as RECO is not effectively and sternly taking action against many unscrupulous agents. For example ,

    1. Why legislation allows that OREA agents ask buyers to sign a standard representation agreement, which itself is a contract, whereby the period of representation and the hold over period is ……BLANK. At times, it gives an opportunity to an unscrupulous sales person to fill in the hold over period later and to which is like entrapping a non suspecting buyer.

    2. Why OREA agents charges such exorbitant fee of 5 % plus HST for listing a home. It is irrational and illogical keeping the eligibility qualifications for an agent license as only a high school diploma and moreover the duration of the course of license examination a mere few months? It should be brought down to overall say 2% + HST for listing.

    3. Why still so many agents/sales person are deliberately indulging in creating hype in real estate market as on one hand they advise sellers not to take decision on offers despite inviting them and on other hand push buyers to put more and more number of solid and better offers to create a bidding war. This unscrupulous action and misconduct of those real estate agents must be stopped and declared illegal, if it is not so, without any delay and a stern disciplinary and penal action be taken against those agents.

    Reply ↓

  2. Brian,

    Were it the case that you had had 3 up-votes and not just 2, your explanation might be plausible, but with just 2 votes you should have known it was Carolyne L. and PED — only a third vote could’ve presented something of a curiosity! In any event, a simple left-click on the down arrow should have thus negated the need for an apology, whilst denying REM readers of such a splendid confession!

  3. Brian, the reply boxes appear to be full or some such so I post here as a reply to your Feb 5 comment posted as a reply:Brian

    Can’t help but wonder is there a syndrome called “misinterpretitis.” If so, hope it doesn’t go viral.

    The same person misinterpreted something I said last week in the same manner, stating (un)facts, as true-facts.

    A plain and simple statement saying I had said something that I did not say. I had asked you to re-read what I wrote in the “Cheers” article, to see if you could see and point out to me, to what the poster referred, because I certainly upon rereading what I had posted, could not connect his dots … what was noted as my having stated. (Don’t ya just love gerunds?)

    Don’t bite. That’s not debating. That’s not discussing, even. It’s just plain silly. Like I already said, for someone whose first language appears to be English, there’s no logical reason for misreading posts the way it happens regularly. Neither you nor I were using words that could not be easily understood, or even interpreted. So, ’nuff said.

    There has to be a certain amount of logic that prevails, but for the moment it clearly escapes me.

    Carolyne L ?

  4. Success is not just about better salesman textbook education.

    I was just speaking with someone Stateside, a salesman in another industry, whose job pays him salary plus commission.

    Perhaps that might be one solution to take some pressure off brokerages, hiring those agents wanting to hit the road running. But it could only work in theory. The brokerage would have to be secure enough to make that kind of commitment to an agent, investing and encouraging the hiring of the best and the brightest.

    Many of the best doctors, dentists, lawyers, and others graduated in the bottom fifty percent of their class. Textbook smart? Maybe not so much, but skilled in how to do things that need doing, right.

    We first have to realize the real estate business often has nothing to do with bricks and mortar. Firstly we are in the people business. Perhaps courses in psychology might be of use. Seconded closely by accounting and bookkeeping education. Our business truly isn’t about “selling,” employing various “tactics,” and memorizing scripts, even so in the unknowns of the world that can indeed be useful, provided the agent has the skill set to adopt the copy and create his own version so as not to be considered robot computer speak.

    Naturally, we know that mostly the old way with old splits, worked: 50/50, 60/40. And bonuses kicking in to top producers who reached peak production extra levels. Leaving enough differential in the pot to run the brokerage. Too bad the old adage didn’t prevail: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    It’s always sad and sometimes painful to see that the innards of any brokerage is only as good as the uppermost management who sometimes themselves do not have adequate skills.

    They might have degrees in the sciences like one manager where I worked. Or an appreciation for the operas, performing arts, complimenting their fine arts degree. But often have no people skills, as an absolute essential in the real estate industry. Both as it applies to staff, salespeople, and various support.

    The undoing began with the “pay the agent a hundred percent” with the hope the agent could manage in effect a subset business, have enough rent money left at the end of each month (under contract) to pay a designated portion of the brokerage “run the brokerage bills,” including leaseholds, leases, franchise fees, etc. Did your broker ever tell you what his office/business bills are? Did he know that he would have to put a mortgage on your own house, due to he acted as your personal banker in months when you had no sales?

    When that didn’t happen, “the brokerage” was left filling in the gap, until the agent could “write another transaction,” or wait to get paid by a co-op brokerage who was fielding the same game plan.

    The best and most truthful post actually about education, was the article in REM, re the brokerage in Alberta whose broker explained it brilliantly. His education, after the fact. He “had” to spend incoming commissions, he confirmed, to keep the office brokerage afloat, acknowledging the whys and what-fors. That “had to” doesn’t make it right, but he did acknowledge, and likely the same situation applies to brokerages across the country.

    I hired a helper (license – I paid) agent at one point, one of three in my career. She didn’t have a car but lived near my office. The family car broke down. I leased a van for her, that she was to reimburse the payments on. And in 48 hours it was on the road. First couple of payments, fine.

    No more payments. I had to repossess the van and was on the hook for buying it out. I didn’t need it. I became the bad guy. She was a hard worker, just irresponsible. The brand new vehicle was badly damaged by her hockey boys right away. I really liked her and became her victim. But that’s the thanks a broker can receive, helping an agent.

    There’s a lot of contra bookkeeping going on behind the scenes, daily. And a lot of forced balance sheets.

    Brokerages often report to their bankers the “gross commissions” earned, fudging the remaining figures, because bankers don’t understand the real estate business, either, and his banker who often has no clue how real estate office breakdown subsets work, approves credit lines based on the extrapolated income, not realizing the bulk of that stated income is owed to agents and other (co-op) brokerages. Leaving little or none for the running costs of a brokerage. And a pay cheque for him? Often there isn’t one. But many drive an upscale car in lieu of. And that should be an okay thing if such interests him.

    The typical accounting “business breakdowns” don’t apply to real estate divergent reality. Terms of engagement with chartered accountants need to be fine-tuned as per the running of a real estate brokerage. Most of them don’t know either. They only work with the figures and material provided. It’s not their job to monitor their client, the real estate brokerage decisions (unless maybe their own terms of engagement includes consulting and babysitting).

    If the brokerage system were to be set up in finite terms initially, many would find themselves in a different position than that of the Alberta subject in the REM article in recent months, and the Newfoundland article also.

    It is all but impossible to run a brokerage when the broker is left to fill in the gap not just regarding the financials, but often feeling it necessary to be a selling-broker with the hope of picking up the slack while his new hires try to “hit the road running.”

    What happens when nothing happens for those new hires, and the office is being held together via the marionette system of strings held, and put in place, by the only ten or twenty percent of producing agents in any given office.

    There’s so much more to the whole industry than just more and better salesman education at any level. More and better educated folks admitted into the industry is never going to address this side of the coin topic. And in its present format is programmed to fail. It has to self-destruct. Implode.

    The agents sign on to the brokerage who pays them the most. Plain and simple, with absolutely no business operational experience allowing the agent to understand the running of the brokerage background details. And the possible danger his earned commission is in. The possibility or likelihood of a new hire being ready to hit the road running in real terms is nearly impossible to calculate.

    As an agent do you know what your broker’s office-related financial commitments are? And if per chance you do know, do you care? Did you even consider or entertain the ramifications of joining that particular brokerage? How stable is the brokerage where you intend to be hired? Do you even know the questions to ask? Does any agent ask to see the brokerage bottom line, financial statements and such. And would the brokerage be proud to show, share? Not saying they are obligated to.

    Nothing to do with you, you say. If you really believe that, then that is the beginning of what you must learn in order to not only protect your hard-earned commission, but to keep the office afloat committing to your share of the corporation needs list.

    But I know from personal experience when I entertained buying into a franchise more than twenty-five years ago, and when I saw the bottom line in my pocket was going to be less than what I earned as a salesperson, why would I want to babysit a group of agents who had no clue what an office bottom line even was.

    And my near choice was a fabulous group of senior head office executives. I imagine the shock was evident on my face when they were kind enough to show me real sample branch figures, and saying no new, about to be franchisee to date, had ever asked to see such. What does that bespeak of who gets to buy a frsnchise? It was an amazing education moment.

    It spoke, no, screamed, that it was a no-win situation. But there are many great brokerages out there. So somebody has figured out how to make a profit.

    Carolyne L ?

    • Carolyne:
      What you have described is your experience over the decades that displays the “blind leading the blind” syndrome. This business is rife with amateurs, even sometimes at the brokerage ownership level. “Let’s throw a bunch of mud at the wall and see what sticks” seems to be the strategy of many. This is hardly a professional attitude.
      I think that the headline for this article…”OREA loses real estate licensing education” could be reworded thus: “OREA loses real estate license-granting procedure”. Just as the government grants drivers’ licenses to people who can during a test run steer a vehicle down a straight, dry paved road during daylight hours, obey a no-left-turn sign, stop at a red light, stay between the lines, and maybe even parallel-park that potential four-wheeled weapon over a five-minute time trial period, all the while likely being totally incompetent when it comes to keeping the vehicle under control during an emergency situation that arises at speed, usually out of the blue, real estate trading licenses have been granted to graduates of OREA university, who, for the most part, don’t know what the hell to do during the early going other than to get out the door and beg for listings as they try to convince their targets (after having been schooled by the brokerage vis a vis how to deliver responses to objections) that they are knowledgeable professionals who know a lot more about the real estate industry than do their marks.
      I hope RECO gets it right and makes sure that the new education procedures encompass some kind of a hands-on apprenticeship period, ‘before’ allowing potential students to attend classes. That way, when an instructor talks about this situation or that situation, students will know what the hell is being discussed, and they will be able to tie the experience and the theory together. This will mean that brokerages will have to properly vet potential hires and thereupon invest in them up front. There is no other way to fairly quickly develop professionals, in my opinion. The “give ’em a try and see who makes it” philosophy needs to be extinguished. Panning-for-gold may have worked for a desperate few who could do nothing else, but that kind of behavior within an industry that holds the publics’ fiduciary interest supposedly at heart needs to go the way of the Passenger Pigeon.

  5. Should REM’s sources be correct, there may be something of a new day dawning for the real estate industry in Ontario. Clearly, if RECO realizes that the delivery of real estate education has been enough of a failure that they must make profound changes, they would also know better than to trust the current crop with any notion of mentoring!

    While better education is always laudable, it isn’t in and of itself a cure for all that is wrong with organized real estate. Incompetent and unethical people can be found just about anywhere where people happen to be — consequently the most important factor is accountability. The typical Canadian Senator is fairly well educated, for example, but the question of their accountability is really at the center of what is most galling about our, so-called, Upper Chamber!

    Do we suppose that RECO would abide any brokerage engaging in misleading advertising, if RECO knew it was going on — especially repeatedly? With that in mind, how many Registrants would word a public advertisement (to gain new listings) by saying:
    “we will SELL your home on the MLS for as low as $3,333.33”? And such an advertisement makes no reference to “selling commission” let alone what the dollar amount of any selling commission might be! Simply put, when such a brokerage advertises for new listings by leveraging off of the MLS brand and has the intention of keeping all of the commission stated for themselves (save 1 token dollar for a cooperating brokerage), are they not clearly engaging in misleading advertising?

    The removal of the MLS compensation Pillar, didn’t alter the two facts of what made the Multiple Listing Service work, when it works: REALTOR’s and remuneration — the former can not be expected to have any interest without the latter. The MLS was never a magic bullet, it was simply about REALTOR’s wanting to cooperate and earn a living — take that away and its just another website! It is one thing for the Compensation Pillar to be removed, it’s quite another for a brokerage to make a performance guarantee, by leveraging off of the MLS brand and consumer ignorance — which is clearly the case when the brokerage makes no promise of compensation should they fail to: SELL the home on the MLS, during the initial listing period.

    CREA may be prepared to sit back and let its brands further dissolve into obscurity, but if RECO doesn’t have a problem with fundamental misrepresentations, the net benefit to educational improvements might be worth about as much as say, a: $1.00 selling commission!

  6. If RECO wants new registrants to ‘hit the ground running’ they should recognize that mentorship is the answer. Instead new registrants are thrown into the lions den of Realtors® who guard their experience, and fail to assist new Registrants. I am suggesting mentorship from experienced listers and buyers agents. The art of the deal. Broker Owners who don’t sell, in house teaching etc is just not the same. Realtors® who are out in ‘the field’ can really only provide that. Even grads from academic Universities and colleges need mentorship and they get it. Experience is the educator. Is it because Realtors®, unlike many other professions, are commission based and registrants are loathe to share their experiences in case the new Registrant learns something from them that they then use to further their own agendas? Perhaps. Too bad. We were ALL new to this job at one time in our lives.

  7. Let’s face it; when 76% of OREA’s 2015 income was derived from the never-ending stream of failures-in-waiting graduates from the educational turnover mill, it becomes quite evident that the real estate education system exists, and has always existed, for its own benefit.
    Hopefully, RECO will set down stipulations that make it much more difficult to acquire a real estate license, so that ‘anyone’ who cannot find a job elsewhere cannot as a last resort ultimately become a Realtor representing the fiduciary interests of trusting clients (on day one post licensing) simply by previously attending a few weeks of poorly instructed classes and thence answering 80% of questions correctly on three sets of exams. Short-term memorization of facts and figures does not a professional make. If OREA wins awards for its educational successes, why do so many 80 plus percenters flame out so often? Obviously, something is missing at OREA real estate university.
    Get it right RECO; go for quality over quantity. Don’t wait for complaints to come in before rooting out incompetence. Become proactive and go looking for incompetence and ethical violations…before it negatively impacts, negligently or willfully, its victims. The vast majority of clients who get screwed never know that they got screwed by registrants who work behind the scenes to pull deals together for their own mutual benefits; ergo there are no client complaints, and many of those trusting folks who do think that they were screwed by their Realtors simply suck it up and can’t be bothered with the process of documenting what went down; they just resolve to never trust one of those damn lying real estate bastards ever again. The real estate salesperson stereotype lives on, and the small minority of good guys/gals are included within that stereotype.
    If you want to know where to find an incompetence sleuth who has no sympathy for amateurs…

    • Brian,

      A good incompetence sleuth would need to have certain uncompromising qualities, beyond whatever industry related knowledge they may promote themselves as having. Such a sleuth would need to maintain his/her objectivity. It would be unacceptable for such a sleuth to persecute someone just because of a previous work history, as say a: used car salesperson, for example. It would be equally important for such a sleuth not to aid or abet an industry member for the purpose of propitiating!

      • Alan:
        You are assuming that I advocate for persecution as a means to an end, which clearly, I do not. You are again connecting dots that do not exist in order to create a picture in reality that does not exist.
        A previous work history, if in fact same exists, would not be one of my markers for determining if a registrant had committed incompetent or unethical behaviours; the simple act of uncovering the commitment of same would be all that would be required, be it committed by a former used car salesperson or by a high-flying veteran of the industry with a heretofore ‘officially’ unblemished record. To that end, random, unannounced inspections of transaction files in combination with conversations with parties to transactions would be my modus operandi. The fact that brokerages and registrants would know that such inspections and investigation techniques would be the order of the day would/should keep registrants on their toes. If registrants are on their toes, they will likely not fall back on their heels and become sloppy and /or unethical by design.
        As for your propitiatory remark, I was a conciliator with an Ontario government agency quite a while back, and I can assure you that operating as a conciliator has no place in the realm of being an incompetence sleuth. I would also add that you are fast acquiring a persecutor-in-chief reputation on this forum by way of your personal attacks on posters who submit positive expressions of advice which you routinely troll looking for negativity to jump upon. Your pugnaciousness betrays the inner sanctum of your need to create a public image of one who looks down upon the rest of us with disdain based upon self-infused superiority of the mental processes. Stop looking up big words and speak in plain, unvarnished language.
        Yours truly,
        The Bull Shit Exterminator

        • Brian,

          And how would you propose to penalize those Registrants who advocated for higher deposits from their buyer clients? What would the standard be? Would there only be penalties if said buyer clients were overwhelmed by “buyer remorse”?

          • Alan of M:
            Please clarify your question regarding “…registrants who advocated for higher deposits…”. Are you talking about registrants who advocate, thus, who try to ‘influence’ a client regarding how much said client should offer as an initial deposit within an initial APS, or, are you describing a scenario whereby a registrant, after a client decides for himself/herself the amount of an initial deposit (without input from said registrant) advocates on behalf of said client why said deposit amount has been included within said APS? There is a difference.
            How do you arrive at the conclusion that if a registrant advocated that his/her client should include a relatively high deposit number within an initial APS, that I would necessarily propose to penalize said registrant? Again, you are connecting dots to create something that does not exist. I simply have said herein that a $1.00 deposit is all that is required to accompany an initial APS, and that no deposit is legally required. I am talking about initial offerings.
            If one of my buyer clients experienced buyer remorse, for whatever reason, I believe that it would be incumbent upon me, as his/her registrant advocate, to defend said action vis a vis extracting said client from being forced to purchase said property. Being a registrant advocate does not dovetail with being a shoehorn specialist. We can argue pros and cons of my attitude to this potential problem until the proverbial cows come home, but the dictates of ORE sales attitudes do not mesh with what the public demands of us as their fiduciary advocates. ORE needs to be turned on its head regarding its entrenched “sell, sell, sell” attitude toward the public. ORE sees the public as a cash cow, and that is the problem. Buyer remorse, when acted upon at whatever stage of the negotiation/transaction proceedings, can be dealt with in the courts. As long as a buyer client understands the legal implications and the potential penalties, it is up to said clients to decide whether or not to act upon buyer remorse.

          • Brian,

            So based on what you’re saying, you would treat a: client or a customer buyer exactly the same way, insomuch as advising either how much of a deposit they should include, with their initial offer to purchase. There is no difference in your estimation?

            Brian, regarding your following:
            “If one of my buyer clients experienced buyer remorse, for whatever reason, I believe that it would be incumbent upon me, as his/her registrant advocate, to defend said action vis a vis extracting said client from being forced to purchase said property. Being a registrant advocate does not dovetail with being a shoehorn specialist.” Please tell me how you would go about “extracting” a client, from an accepted Agreement of Purchase and Sale?

          • Alan of M:
            Regarding your first paragraph/question: Again, you have misinterpreted what I said/did not say. Where did I say that I would ‘advise’ a customer/client how much he/she/they ‘should’ or ‘should not’ include as a deposit amount within an initial APS? What I said was that one dollar ‘may be’ offered as a deposit and that a deposit is not legally required within an initial APS; I would advise a customer and/or client buyer thus, and I would advise them that any deposit amount is legally regarded as being forfeited to the seller if a deal falls through (post acceptance by both parties) at the behest of the buyer. If buyers have this knowledge beforehand they may/should think twice about how much money they can afford to gamble away. The property they may have been wanting to purchase above any other, but which has not been for sale, may suddenly come onto the market after a deal has been struck with a primary seller, and the buyer may thence decide to breach said deal and forfeit the deposit in order to purchase the other property. The seller may or may not pursue legal action against the buyer; that is the chance the buyer will take if a deal is breached. It is the buyer’s money and buyer’s legal circumstances that are at risk. I, when acting as a buyer registrant/advocate, have absolutely no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to the seller’s side; that is the responsibility of the seller’s registrant, in my opinion. I work for one side, my side, and for my side only. I am not a sub agent.
            I said that I would “…’defend’ said action vis a vis extracting said client from being forced to purchase said property.” That does not mean that I would personally ‘extract’ said client from the accepted APS. It means that I would ‘defend’ his/her action to do so by any means available to me, be it by way of negotiating with the seller’s registrant or by way of advising the buyer to directly contact the seller with an explanation for the breach. Maybe the parties can privately work something out financially; it would be worth a try. Once a deal has been breached I see no reason why a buyer cannot directly contact a seller. I realize that many will not like my attitude or my ways, but I did not subject myself to others’ wishes when acting for my clients interests.
            Whilst operating as a registrant/advocate, I did whatever I believed was necessary to look out for my clients’ fiduciary interests, come hell or high water. Other than for one client I dealt with way back in 1982, I have never had a single complaint (either in person or formally) from any clients that I have transacted deals with. I have had a few complaints from other registrants though. Tough nuggies. You asked a question, and you have my answer. Pick it apart at your leisure.

          • Brian,

            You already answered my first question when you replied to Joseph Richer’s recent article, wherein you stated:

            “A professional registrant advocate should/would never tell a client how much of a deposit should be included with an offer to purchase, but rather, said registrant should/would fully explain the ramifications/pitfalls of the pros and cons of submitting (with offers to purchase) substantial vs small deposits, and whether or not any deposit amount can be walked away from if purchaser minds are changed. ” Brian, the answer to my first question is simply: yes!

            Brian the idea that a Registrant wouldn’t have an obligation within a Client “Full Agency” working relationship to counsel said client as to how much of a deposit they should offer, as distinct from any legal requirement for a deposit, is ludicrous! You have bad-mouthed Registrants who have counseled for higher deposits, while at the same time arguing the value to indecisive buyer’s for offering the minimum. Obviously, if there is a benefit to be seen to a buyer, the reverse benefit wouldn’t be lost on a seller, and a Registrant who was looking to negotiate the best price and closing date etc., for their buyer client may use a higher deposit as a legitimate strategy!

            Brian you have talked a lot about professionals verses amateurs and yet advocated that a professional Registrant who is working with a buyer has a greater obligation to: facilitate said buyer being more able to potentially not proceed with an Offer to Purchase with a proper “Good Faith” mindset. Buyer’s remorse and being opportunistic towards what might be perceived as a better real estate opportunity, are two different things!

            Brian, regarding your following statement:
            “It means that I would ‘defend’ his/her action to do so by any means available to me, be it by way of negotiating with the seller’s registrant or by way of advising the buyer to directly contact the seller with an explanation for the breach. Maybe the parties can privately work something out financially; it would be worth a try. ”

            Brian, it would be beyond ludicrous for a Registrant to counsel a Client to potentially waive Agency Confidentiality to talk directly to a seller, in a circumstance where the seller could and probably would have a legal entitlement to sue said buyer! At this point in such a transaction, a lucid professional Registrant would defer the situation to the buyer’s Lawyer and follow the directions of their buyer’s Lawyer.

            And if readers are wondering why RECO may have decided to take education away from OREA……….

          • Alan of M
            The answer to your first question is “no”, not “yes”, as you prescribe. Go back and read carefully what I said…again. There is no difference in the way that I would treat a customer or client re deposit advice and attendant potential legal ramifications. Why would I treat customers or clients differently? Thus, the answer to your question “There is no difference in your estimation?” is no! How did you come you with a “yes”?
            Where does it say that a registrant ‘must’ be obligated to counsel a client regarding how much money ought to be put into the deposit gambling tray? I agree that the accepted industry standard is to encourage clients to put up a substantial deposit, thus almost ensuring that a deal will go through and therefore, subsequent to that, a commission will be earned. I have a problem with that standard, and my problem with that standard is defined as the very real implication of conflict-of-interest. Any advocate who is being paid by the hour instead of by way of a hoped-for-commission might simply give good advice unencumbered with the pull of big money. That is my opinion. I understand how human nature works when the going gets tough. The accepted standard is wrong when viewed from the perspective of the public interest vs the registrant interest. I expect that you will disagree because you are well indoctrinated with the way things have always been done, and that that way has been beneficial to your bottom line. A small initial deposit will have no effect on the final outcome if the buyer registrant is a better negotiator than the seller registrant. I see things from both sides of the fence. I am not a flat out “sell, sell, sell” ORE/OREA standards advocate. Apparently, neither is RECO!
            A professional registrant has an ‘equal’ obligation to keep the door open for a buyer who does not want to proceed with the purchase of a property…absolutely! Again, I realize that this attitude flies in the face of OREA “sell, sell, sell” “lock-’em-up” old school sales standards; OREA is a sales/marketing organization, and registrants are licensed as “salespersons”; are these not the facts? “Good Faith” also pertains to how a registrant educates his/her client regarding what pitfalls lie ahead when large deposits are on the line, and I would argue that the “Good Faith” theory ought to apply more to one’s clients than to the opposing registrants’ clients. This industry has for too long encouraged registrants representing opposing sides to get into bed with one another and pull deals together. If every customer out there knew how the system is designed to work in favour of commission generation (first and foremost) and subsequently how registrants are taught to carry out the processes that underpin that design, they might be more wary of becoming clients. “Good Faith”, when dealing with ones’ clients trumps same when dealing with opposing registrants’ clients. Registrants need to operate and think like lawyers. That is what should be taught at OREA university. Therefore, outsiders (former indoctrination resistant registrants and lawyers for example who have no skin in the game) need to create OREA university content. Then the content should be reviewed by consumer advocacy groups. Keep the sales hacks out of it.
            My clients would already know that the seller could sue for either specific performance or for damages, if any exists, because I would have already educated them in that regard. It would be the client’s choice to breach. or not, going forward. If a deal has been breached/terminated by a registrant’s buyer client, then the former parties to the potential transaction become released from being held hostage (according to OREA dictates) by their respective sales representatives; they can talk to whomever they want to! Again, old school teaching/rules interferes with free speech! You, Alan of M, are obviously fully indoctrinated with the mantra that has been perpetuated by old school sales people who have come up with these rules of engagement. Am I a rogue former insider/now outsider who believes that the interests of clients should be defended by their individual registrants against indoctrinated habits of the “sell, sell, sell” crowd? Absolutely! I guess I am beyond ludicrous…to the mind of a confirmed tow-the-line defender of the faith. An indoctrinaire (not a real word) supreme you are my friend.
            Yes, readers should wonder why RECO took education away from OREA. It is time for a new wave of education. Out with sales indoctrination; in with education that works, for the consumer…and for a new generation of consumer advocates/registrants.
            Alan of M: Get your dictionary out again and look up “fossil”. That is what happens when say, a Dodo lays in the mud for a few hundred thousand years. I will save you the trouble of looking up Dodo.
            “Dodo: extinct bird, related to the pigeon but larger than a turkey, with useless wings; old fashioned or stupid person” (Penguin Concise English Dictionary).
            Hi Ho, Hi Ho; off to work I go!

          • Brian,

            If what I am saying in terms of my understanding of your mindset is correct, than you would answer in the affirmative by saying: yes, you are correct!

            Brian, your argument against higher deposits, as distinct from the legal requirement for any deposit, is self defeating. The fact that you would use a “self defeating” argument to also bad mouth Registrants and their Brockerages who advocate for higher deposits from time to time, proves that your exaggerated sense of dignity has caused you to have cataracts that blind your vision to reason. I’m wondering if you believe that RECO would endorse your methods or endorse your removal — if you had a license to trade?

  8. It’s time for TREB to exit OREA, their reason for being has been hanging by a thread ever since RECO’s online mandatory updates came into effect. Their forms are a redundancy given CREA and Realtor link, as is their lobbying and advertising. I’m not holding my breath that TREB directors who love to roam from organization to organization will do the right thing after all, they just took it from the members and upon themselves to be the ones who elect the incoming president, just hoping to be surprised that they will.

      • I’m good with that too although I believe that is no longer a given since the CREA/Quebec battle. Surely though you’re not suggesting the mechanism for dissolving it doesn’t exist? When an association which is really just an intermediary becomes redundant, it needs too be dissolved because it does no good to allow it to be a useless expense for its members.

        • Just saying as of now CREA obliges boards to be members of the provincial associations. Failure to do so would mean loss of use of REALTORr trade marks and

  9. It’s about time, the program offered by OREA is a joke. The final nail in the coffin is they hired that self absorbed politician, Tim Hudak, as a CEO. Terrible politician, and he will run whats left of OREA into the ground.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here