Lawyer Adam Chisholm has plunged into the blowup around the polarizing mandatory insurance plan that the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) is set to put in place for all 96,000 realtors in the province at the beginning of 2024.
Chisholm, a partner with McMillan LLP in Toronto, was hired this fall by a group of concerned realtors who banded together to potentially launch a legal challenge to the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP). Says Liz Polak, one of the organizers of a GoFundMe campaign for legal efforts: “Many members feel that OREA is still not addressing their concerns around the ORWP.”
Chisholm took action and filed complaints about the ORWP with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, alleging age and disability discrimination. The group is asking the tribunal “to make changes that could affect all OREA members regarding the mandatory fee/ORWP policy. They’re also asking that OREA create a policy on human rights and provide training for its leaders,” Chisholm states.*
Lawyer’s letter to OREA
A couple of weeks ago, Chisholm sent a formal letter to OREA president Tania Artenosi regarding his client group’s views. “We are raising these issues now to avoid unnecessary possible legal implications,” he noted in the letter.
The following day, he received a response stating that the concerns would be put before the OREA board of directors for consideration at their next meeting.
Chisholm’s challenge with that response is that it’s not necessarily a commitment to take action. At a minimum, Chisholm’s group had hoped OREA would consider pushing the ORWP implementation back so that there’s time for further discussion. There’s apparently been no word on that, though.
“The plan is going into effect January 1,” Chisholm points out. “There’s not a lot of time left.”
Anger and activism persist among Ontario realtors
As a recent Globe and Mail article noted, the ORWP has stirred up a hornet’s nest of anger and activism rarely seen among Ontario realtors. Some have gone so far as to call for the end of organized real estate in the province.
Realistically, the consensus seems to be that most of the dissenters would be satisfied with seeing the program be made a choice which they could opt in or out of, rather than a dictate. OREA, though, is sticking to its guns, insisting that those who don’t enroll in the program will forfeit association membership.
With OREA seemingly not giving member concerns top priority, Chisholm’s group felt the time had come to take action and file official complaints.
Human rights infringement claims
The purported human rights infringements centre around the potentially discriminatory or prejudicial effects of the ORWP on various members, who, due to factors such as age (benefits are reduced for seniors, but the annual fee is not), disability or marital status/spousal benefits, may wind up with lost or inferior coverage.
This includes impact on drug coverage and loss of access to pre-existing insurance packages of superior quality – although OREA has assured members that the ORWP can generally complement existing plans.
Not buying it
Chisholm’s clients aren’t buying OREA’s assurances. They believe that the ORWP repercussions could potentially negatively impact affected realtors “many thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars per year,” Chisholm told REM.
He added that human rights complaints could be just the beginning. He anticipates that further actions potentially may be in the areas of non-profit or competition law.
OREA’s SGM – November 29
Notably, a significant number of realtors in the province seem pleased with the package, particularly those who don’t already have coverage. Others somehow know nothing about it. Then there’s the hefty percentage uneasy with the details. That includes a contingent of 10 Ontario boards that have pushed for a special general meeting with OREA (now scheduled for November 29).
Impact on member fees
The ORWP will be included in members’ OREA dues and will hike these by about $660 annually, reportedly raising member fees to around $770 altogether. The program was officially approved this past June by OREA’s governing assembly, comprised of delegates from the province’s boards. (There’s some contention that the voting structure itself is problematic, as the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board has almost 50 per cent of the votes.)
Process lacks transparency and effort to address member concerns
In his letter to OREA, Chisholm describes the ORWP’s fast-tracked trajectory in 2023 from a concept to a mandated reality. His clients feel that the process has lacked transparency – particularly around the mandatory piece – and that OREA hasn’t made reasonable efforts to hear and address member criticisms and accommodate concerns about the aspects of the plan that could be construed as ageist, punitive and/or constituting unfair differential treatment to certain groups.
“OREA may not have considered the legal implications of imposing such a program,” Chisholm asserts in the letter. “Ontario’s Human Rights Code protects individuals from discrimination and requires equal treatment in relation to services and contract … The increase in member dues in exchange for benefits, insurance, wellness and healthcare services results in adverse effects on certain individuals within enumerated groups and may be held to be constructive discrimination.”
Chisholm acknowledges that there’s a ‘statutory carve-out’ permitting insurers to offer group insurance to associations. But “we are not aware of any established legal precedent under human rights law for the mandatory imposition of a wellness plan by an association in exchange for increased dues,” he continues. “In our view, it is not necessary or reasonable.”
OREA’s tying of the program to membership (the stated purpose being that all members need to be on board to keep premiums low) is unusual, in Chisholm’s opinion.
Legally challenged as “oppressive”
Loss of membership disadvantages members – causing them to lose access to MLS and standard forms – and “unnecessarily jeopardizes” their ability to practice real estate, he notes in the letter to OREA. In his opinion, this aspect and the ORWP, in general, could potentially be legally challenged as “oppressive” in that members’ reasonable expectations around the scope of the association’s objectives are breached. The same, in his view, goes for OREA putting the bulk of members’ annual dues toward ORWP purposes.
“We ask that OREA reconsider its implementation of the mandatory plan … and take all possible steps to avoid harm to any of its members,” his letter to the organization concludes.
*Since the complaints were recently filed, OREA may not be aware of them yet.
The content of the Human Rights Tribunal applications are merely allegations which have yet to be proven at the Tribunal or otherwise. Until a decision is reached, the allegations have not been upheld and are subject to response by OREA. The Tribunal has significant discretion in its process and may impose different or no remedies even if the applications are made out.
Susan Doran is a Toronto-based freelance writer who has been contributing to REM since its very first issue.
Thank you for publishing a balanced article! With 17,000 signatures on a petition , and a group of realtors that is around 9100 strong and growing every day, all trying to reach the people who STILL don’t know how this is going to affect their fees/ dues and ability to do their job it is beyond frustrating that the very association that keeps sending propaganda through email/ social media and town halls that are tone deaf and say NOTHING about it being mandatory. The gaslighting is beyond anything ever witnessed in the industry . This program may work for some – but it is terrible for many . The all or nothing that OREA is pushing is beyond their mandate – and this program WILL harm many who already have a program that fits their family situation. How dare they call this a “benefit” if I HAVE to pay for it and they call it DUES and if I choose not to then I can’t access the tools I need to run my business? We have supplied many many emails and attempts to dialogue with 0 response to our concerns. Their job – is to work to improve real estate – that is their mandate – THIS is not. Make it optional!
100% agree. I knew nothing about this before receiving the invoice. It’s abhorrent and absolutely RIDICULOUS!
The solution is very simple, an opt-in program, period full stop.
Discrimination is discrimination and in this case possibly elder abuse because it’s the elderly that would like to be productive and stay in the real estate industry but a mandatory enrolement for a restricted discriminatory policy is asking the elderly to participate but get less while paying the same – offer seniors a reduced rate in proportion to the reduction in services ie 50%
Orea stated that the number of Realtors who wants this insurance is very low, so why are you stating “significant number of realtors in the province seem pleased with the package”
My guess, because REM is not impartial or they are printing what was sent to them (propaganda). I sent them an email and warned them about trying to walk the line and they made it clear their position and endorse the nick name REM-Rag. Coming soon regular columns by sitting board members.
Finally an article expressing how many thousands of us feel about the ORWP. I am one of those realtors vehemently opposed to the mandatory aspect of this plan. If OREA was truly acting on behalf of its members, they would listen to our opposition group’s concerns. But sadly they are deaf to it all…..not even one tiny concession.
Our group is like the squeaky wheel that is begging for oil. Some of the other 3 wheels aren’t even aware that they are about to fall off. OREA needs ALL of its members satisfied with implementing this plan or it will not be able to run smoothly. If just one of OREA’s 4 wheels falls off, then the entire vehicle is broken down.
I am only one of the members screaming for my wheel to be given some serious attention. But alas OREA only has one thing on their agenda, and that’s to get to their destination as fast as possible regardless of the squeaky wheel. In January 2024, I’m afraid that the vehicle will be broken beyond repair. Many of the squeaky members will just stop working and drop out of organized real estate altogether.
I’m one of those senior realtors who will start out disadvantaged but still have to pay the same amount. ….or else!
OREA must see our squeaky wheel as still “driveable”. We however have “gone flat” and have hired a lawyer (mechanic) to try to get OREA to fix this issue. The only solution is to put on a spare (make the plan optional) and away we go, or try to get to keep driving until January with a flat, causing much more damage to the entire vehicle. Our lawyers have made OREA abundantly aware of the problems with the mandatory aspect of ORWP. Our group has been squeaking like crazy, some of the other wheels are beginning to go flat too, but don’t know what’s going on.
OREA, fix this!!!!
Even greedy financial institutions offer free services to seniors. Why shouldn’t it be free of optional for seniors; seniors built what the younger agents are riding on.
The program was voted for overwhelmingly. The majority of dissent comes from those who already have coverage somewhere else with the mentality of “eff you, got mine”.
For those claiming they’re being discriminated against based on age, that’s how insurance works; the older you get the less insurance gives you and the more it costs. The younger/healthier members are actually subsidizing your premiums which would be higher without us.
Finally, there’s too many ‘part time’ realtors and if a tax deductible $660 is what drives them out that’s probably for the best.
Do you have results of the voting? Please share if you have anything. And who voted on my behalf? I did not vote and I did not get any information about this crap ORWP. Tim at one point at NAR acknowledge that there are very few people interested in this ORWP. I asked Tania and other 2 that, “If you’re so confident about 80% + votes in favor, why don’t you go for voting directly to the OREA members?” Guess what was the answer?? “We will not do that.”
You do realize that the entire amount is NOT deductible? Just the actual “dues” portion of approximately $100. The rest which are hidden under the guise of dues are actually “benefits premiums” and NOT tax deductible. It’ll be up to you to divide it when you prepare your taxes.
The program was voted on by only the boards – members were not asked if they wanted a mandatory plan. I am one of those agents who has been in the business 35 years and work a lot less than I did previously however you seem to think it is ok for Orea to push those of us out now if we don’t want or need this insurance. Many senior agents work “part time” or with a select few of their past clients, family and friends and with all the years we have put into this business, helping shape what it is today it is not okay for those members to be pushed out! This is a business that you have always been able to continue to work as long as your health permits and many chose it because of that reason so I don’t agree with your logic of let the $660 drive them out of the business. The other factor is that it is not even the $660 – it is the fact that it is mandatory and you will find out that the $660 will substantially increase every year to be more than $1000 after the first year and perhaps doubling after the 2nd year. Furthermore, there statement that all can enroll without any medical is fine and dandy but then once you are enrolled and have any pre-existing conditions try to collect on any of it. You will not be able to claim for any pre-existing conditions so this is not black and white and has many many layers to it. And I do resent your comments about just pushing out the part timers due to the money.
Mike. you’re missing the point I think. This is not OREA’s mandate and they have no right to tie it to our ability to do business. This is a money and power grab and needs to be stopped now. If they want to delve into insurance, and I for one think they should stick to real estate business only, they need to make this optional and let every individual realtor decide what is best for themselves. NO TO MANDATORY,
No wonder you did not put your FULL name to your “remarks”
Your probably on the board of OREA
Prior to the June vote, the ORWP program was not surveyed to MEMBERS indicating it would be mandatory. If it had, we wouldn’t be here today.
Mike, your reference to overwhelmingly is simply incorrect. In fact while about 80% of the representatives of realtors, the actual people who decided to vote were only the delegates to the meeting and maybe also the boards of directors who they were named to be delegates for. That is a small number of decision makers. Take a proxy vote of all REALTORS®, and take as a no those who do not vote, in other words those who really want this program would stand up and vote for it, and if not voting actively for it, then it cannot be of sufficient interest. The number is small who would vote for it. As to the discrimination on age, this is a fine line point and in my view, it is OREA who is discriminating and not the insurer; insurance exemption need not apply. And I see that you are echoing the actual thought of many, lets get rid of the part timers. If there are so many of them AND if 96,000 participants is required to make this work, what is the number of part timers who will leave and how will that then debilitate the plan?
Plain and simple. OREA is in territory it is not made to be in.
Hmmm, where did you get the idea that this is a tax deduction? From OREA? Who, admittedly, had not consulted the CRA. Life insurance is never considered a tax deduction in the eyes of the CRA. Also, do you notice that the additional cost on our invoice doesn’t (won’t) say “insurance”? In all written documentation it is simply referred to as premiums or benefits. This is because OREA is licensed to sell us insurance. (yet). If it’s not called insurance, they are not exempt from discriminatory actions as they would have you believe. They most certainly cannot discriminate among members. Everybody who pays “dues” to an association is entitled to the same benefit. OREA can’t have it both ways. They can’t skirt the “unlicensed” portion of selling of insurance AND offer lesser benefits for more money. They have taken member apathy as a sign of acceptance; it definitely is not. As for the younger members “subsidizing” the older ones. I think you have that backwards my friend. People who fall into the senior category wouldn’t be going out and purchasing insurance in their later years. Either they already have this coverage, or a spouse does. So at 70 years old, they’re not procuring insurance. Most prescriptions are paid for over 65 years of age. The remaining benefits will COST money to redeem (spend $1070 to get $750 back… Woohoo!) So at the end of the day, seniors being forced to buy something they’d never have gone out to buy means that they’re subsidizing coverage for the younger ones. Not the other way around. If you can find me one senior who would have been shopping for insurance past 65 years old, you should buy a lottery ticket. People like you can’t see the forest for the trees. In 3-5 years, TRREB will be OREA, governing our industry as though we’re all selling in a Toronto market and OREA will be an insurance company. And we, my friend, are the pawns who will be instrumental in making that happen. Mark my words. OREA realized they are redundant, obsolete even, and this is their hail Mary.
*Not licensed
They are not saying eff you I got mine. They are saying I got mine and it is better and if I take yours I could lose mine and it could cost me thousands. So Eff you and your selfishness for wanting someone else to subsidies you.
Looking on from afar, here in Alberta, the mandatory nature of the plan has always struck me as odd. I can find no moral justification for those who want the plan to impose fees on those who don’t. Making me pay fees for something I, as an equal member, don’t want to subsidize something you (also a full member) do want seems patently indefensible, especially when I may already have something better.
I’ve seen a few comments in previous discussions dismissing complaints with a peremptory “majority rules,” but I am reminded of two thoughts that have stuck with me over the years. First, I recall many years ago my high school social studies teacher, Miss Mondea, saying that the full definition of democracy is “the rights of the majority – with respect for the rights of the minority,” and the wise words of 20th century American philosopher, Mortimer J. Adler, simply that “the majority is often wrong.”
I think the most maligned words in the English language these days are, “To serve you better…”
Sir, you have a clear idea of the high road on this matter. All the best.
If OREA pushes ORWP through the next thing will be that ALL Realtors will have to buy certain Car’s, PC, and Bank at the NEW OREA Bank of Canada (OBC). Dont belive me , just wait.
OWRP has been pushed through and there is more to this story than OREA shares. That is the hidden back-story.
38 years and OREA sprang this on me and my small office in southern Ontario just like they did when they created OREA based Errors and Omissions Insurance which increased our office costs by thousands over the cost of the policy we already had. If you’re good and honest you don’t get sued much. I first heard about the OREA plan 3 weeks before they voted it in. No one in my office was ever asked for opinion or input. I suspect something as nefarious as the sale of the greenbelt going on under the table because of this ridiculously unfair approach to it’s implementation.
Very well written article! Hopefully some of the REALTORS®️ who still don’t know about this program will read it and make their voices heard too. An opt-in option was the correct way to present this program. Not making it mandatory.
Optional is the only answer, but that’s not even needed as there are better more cost effective plans out there already for any member that wants coverage… mandatory is only being done as part of a cash grab strategy by the OREA dictatorship. As Remembrance Day approaches where we celebrate our freedom. and choices in this great country, OREA … our own association is trying to take our these freedoms away from us… they are suppose to work for us, not against us
Mandatory is the key issue here. We lose our tools to work if we do not comply. It’s not necessarily about the money – it’s also the irreparable damage that this will do to many members. One thing not mentioned in the article – there is no vision or dental benefits and a $750 yearly cap on meds. Many people go through this amount in less than a month! Also it is $750 coverage per year for a COMBINATION of chiropractor, naturopathy, physio – not individually. It’s extorsion – pure and simple.
While the intent seems to mean well – it looks like a one shoe size flits all scheme. Many questions. What are the original terms and conditions of OREA membership? Do those imply a must participate – if so were members aware of the membership p’s and q’s [to compare – realtors must ensure their clients understand contracts] What is covered by the plan? In a labour environment bargaining would work out an acceptable plan. Also what & how was the experience rating arrived at to determine costs? Where’s the actuarial work? e.g. The article points out seniors [of which there a lots in real estate] are paying the same freight for less? Many realtors have spouses who have family plans already
Don’t just pin the tail on the donkey (OREA), TRREB has much skin in this plan as OREA has.
From an task force (selected members) creation in February to a Board of Directors acceptance on May 10, to an approval of New Specific By-law changes and General Assembly vote on June 23, 2023.
Wow, moving at the speed of sound and during all the this OREA has a back log of unanswered emails (or avoided emails) even with the creation of new positions at OREA.
In 2024, OREA and the Boards could share approximately $800,000 with over $500,000 going to TRREB.
TRREB will also Hold approximately $40 MILLION in collected OREA dues and remit monthly to OREA.
A good Investment could produce $ millions of further revenue for TRREB.
We also heard in one of these “townhalls” that ultimately OREA wants to turn into an insurance brokerage because they know they are mostly redundant. Insurance brokerages make huge profits……hmmmm.
This should absolutely be an optional health insurance program. We are self employed individuals who make our own decisions on our personal health insurance.
There are much better policies out there! Just look at what CREA offers there members!
We will have no control over future increased premiums and coverages.
I would like to Opt Out, too. As a Broker/REALTOR® I see discrimination AND I must use this lesser insurance before I’m allowed to then use the better insurance policy which I already share with my spouse.
I would have been more accepting had there been a vote among membership.
November 11 Remembrance Day celebrates “Glorious and FREE” Really?
How can I convince CLAR to represent the majority who would vote “Against” OREAs OWRP. Let’s vote OREA out at the same time.
The OREA Board should resign now. This is a total breach of trust.
.
CREA Cooperation Policy Comes into Force January 2024 and that is being challenged also as we speak.
I already have a far superior Insurance Plan than the one mandated by the ORWP. If I am mandated to take up OREA’S ORWP, I will have to give up my current Insurance plan which is cheaper, as I got my insurance taken many years ago, and I cannot throw money to take on an inferior Program! Also please note, should I develope an illness while with the ORWP, and have to leave OREA, and take up insurance elsewhere, the premiums will not only be exorbitant, but also I may not be eligible for insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Also I will be older, and as one gets older the premiums get much higher. The way OREA is pushing on with the ORWP, I cannot trust OREA with what they say now (they wil say anything to make it sound good for us) and the way they have mishandled this whole situation. I have written several e-mails but no response from them. Yes I am sorry to say that I don’t feel confident with the President and Team who say they received an overwhelming approval for the plan from members. I never voted nor heard of this Program until i was told it was approved AND MANDATED! They refuse to provide proof of the program being overwhelmingly mandated!!!! Anyone can say anything. A lot of the Realtors were caught by surprise and the ORWP team are just pushing ahead with very short notice.
Also I have over the last 30 years paid for the implementation of the MLS system from inception, and continue to pay for the maintenance of the program, and now switching to REALM… through our fees …. i.e. TRREB/OREA/CREA. I don’t know what benefit we realtors get for paying all three Boards, but when I joined Real Estate, I was told it was part of getting membership. However, at no time was EVER indicated that I would be mandated to taken on an inferior Insurance program as to what I already had, except for now, which is totally wrong!!! When you join a company, you are told then what benefits you get and you either except it or not. However, you don’t mandate a program which is inferior and demand payment! Hence an absolute NO FOR MANDATORY ORWP for me.
Please provide contact numbers to join the petition and the lawsuit. Thank you.
My question is, what was the actual numbers attending the meeting, exercising the power to “represent” the total membership. Voting “overwhelmingly” to bind all of 90,000 members to a mandatory plan, that will impose a substantial increase in annual fees, effecting of thousand s of older members, who will be subjected to a significantly reduced benefit? Further enriching the designated, greedy insurance company’s already inflated profit margin. Second question, how many of the 90,000 members were even aware of the timing of the meeting that had the power to impose this mandatory plan?
See below, an excerpt from a letter submitter earlier to the head of OREA
. My name is Robert Soproney, I have been a supporting member of OREA since 1975 (48 years). I am now, 77. My understanding of the Wellness Program is, that the proposed premiums will be added to the annual dues. This addition will substantially increase the annual dues. Adding to the ever-increasing expense of maintaining a Real Estate License, in Ontario.
All members will be required to pay the same premiums, yet the benefits vary, depending upon age.
Earlier, a meeting was called, to approve the proposed benefits plan. I was not aware of the timing of this meeting, otherwise I would have made a point of attending. It would have been helpful, to know how many attendees were over 60. Would you be able to tell me their numbers? On the same topic, how many of the membership is over 60? What percentage would that be?
I don’t agree that members over 60, are asked to subsidize younger members with higher earnings. Let me explain. As proposed, all members are required to pay the same premium costs. Yet, the older members, “the seniors” who are experiencing declining incomes, receive reduced coverage. All of us are getting older. Consequently, all members will be affected with reduced benefits. Some sooner, others later.
My point………, premiums paid by members, should serve all members fairly and reasonably. Long standing members, should not be burdened, supporting the younger, higher earning members. The long-term members must not be discriminated against, ignoring their past contributions, to the Board.
I am asking for consideration be given to fairness to all members, who are contributing to this plan.
Sincerely,
Robert Soproney
sales representative (since 1975)
RE/MAX Realty Enterprises Inc. BROKERAGE
Thank you very much for the article! I have been one of many who strongly opposed ORWP. For a simple factor that it has no good to me at all. Our voices were not heard, no responses ever received. Keep your hands out of my wallet please. What a world we live in now in Canada. How eye-opening!
Absolutely NO ORWP for me.
Here one of many who strongly opposed ORWP too, as it’s totally useless to me. Sadly our voices are neglected! Let’s continue support the lawsuit together.
NO ORWP for me!
Is OREA expanding its power beyond its mandate by its monopoly position? Why won’t it want to sell auto insurance next? And then laptops, cellphone plans, uniforms, cars, and other business-related goods and services. What else?
In Canada, there is no federal law mandating that individuals have health insurance. An individual’s human rights are protected by the Constitution, as well as federal, provincial and territorial laws. They are making a serious mistake taking advantage of the members to their own benefit.
I appreciate many of the concerns addressed in this discourse and express empathy for most, though I am somewhat ambivalent about the proposition of an “opt-out” alternative.
Drawing from recent corporate involvement in a substantial insurance contract, the pricing model for extensive employee coverage heavily relies on the concept of total subscription. Introducing an unknown variable of subscribers inevitably necessitates an adjustment in the per-subscriber cost, given the pricing structure’s dependence on volume contracting for profit optimization.
On another matter, several days ago, I submitted inquiries I considered of significant importance to the plan administrator.
Regrettably, I am yet to receive any acknowledgment of my email.
Of particular concern addressed in the email are the ‘EXCLUSIONS”, (See pages 42 and 43 of the manual) notably the absence of coverage for (f) heart attacks, etc.. or
(o) natural causes, which traditionally form what I would suspect are a significant percentage of life insurance claims.
Here are the excerpts from pages 42 & 43 of the:
ORWP Member Benefit Booklet January 1, 2024.
EXCLUSIONS;
No coverage shall be provided under this contract and no payment shall be made for any Loss
or claim resulting in whole or in part from, or contributed to by, or as a natural and probable
consequence of any of the following excluded risks even if the proximate or precipitating
cause of the Loss or claim is an accidental Injury:
(f) stroke or cerebrovascular accident or event, cardiovascular accident or event,
myocardial infarction or heart attack, coronary thrombosis, aneurysm.
(o) natural causes.
Perhaps I have misread the section, I look forward to someone correcting my oversight.
Many of us like myself already have insurance. There seems like a lobby which is patronizing selected insurance company. It need to be choice of individuals to choose provider or no provider. I smell corruption.