Re/Max Hallmark CEO Ken McLachlan says the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) has “lost its way” and now acts more as a training platform, rather than a real estate board.
McLachlan told Real Estate Magazine that TRREB is “not operating according to its purposes.”
“In the last year, it has gradually turned into a training board for the Realtors, providing services which are frankly the job of brokerages,” he said in an email to REM.
“More and more broker-owners are now relying on the board for their training platform. In my opinion, brokerages that have invested heavily in training and education are at an extreme disadvantage to broker owners who do not invest but have the board as their training platform.”
Interfering with competition
McLachlan’s comments have opened a debate over the role real estate boards should play in the industry.
Re/Max Hallmark agent Brandon Reay told REM that other boards, not just TRREB, have been overstepping their jurisdiction for years now.
“We’re subsidizing education for brokerages that don’t provide what we provide, but we keep them in competition,” he said.
Reay argued that by relying on boards for training and education, standards are being lowered in the industry to the “lowest common denominator,” which has raised some alarms. He warned that Re/Max could lose out on talent since its heavy investment in education may no longer be seen as a competitive advantage.
He noted boards carry no liability and are not in a position to determine what should be taught since they are insulated from market signals and bear no risk.
Education, instead, should be the responsibility of brokerages, as it has in the past, according to Reay.
He added that boards are distorting the marketplace by expanding their offerings to not only education, but also to tools.
“It’s really shifted how we have to compete because we’ve never had to compete with real estate boards historically until the last 20 or 30 years,” he said.
Reay said RE/Max is now at a crossroads and must decide whether it wants to continue to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in education.
TRREB CEO responds
In a statement to REM, TRREB CEO John DiMichele said that the board has a mandate to “elevate professionalism and support all Members in delivering consumer value,” and that the board’s courses complement the training brokerages offer.
“Our offerings are developed in collaboration with industry experts and provide timely, practical, and accessible learning,” he said. “TRREB continuously evaluates and streamlines the education and training programs we offer, adjusting based on members’ needs and the ever-evolving real estate landscape.”
In favour of board-provided education
Not all real estate agents are opposed to boards offering more education. Dorian Rodrigues, a broker and partner for PSR Brokerage and one of the founders of education platform The Listing Academy, told REM that he believes more education is better, regardless of where it comes from.
“At the end of the day, the more educated the sales representative is, the better the experience (the customer) is going to get and the less issues that will arise further down the road when you’re dealing with them,” he said.
Rodrigues said that receiving education from the board means all sales representatives will have the same messaging, which he thinks is a good way to avoid discrepancies.
He said that brokerages are still free to delve a little deeper into certain topics that boards don’t cover, and that the different sources of education will complement each other.
He said his agents on his team are more self-sufficient now due to more education and can look up answers to questions themselves rather than relying on the broker.
“If there’s a lot more education and the consumer and the client knows that we’re getting educated not just once but multiple times and we’re continuing to learn, I think it only benefits us as an industry,” he said.
Eric Stober has over 10 years experience as a journalist and writer at publications big and small, including Global News, Toronto Life, Post City Magazine, Greencamp.com, the Toronto Star and The Grid.
My issue is more about the fact that TRREB brought on REALM (one of the numerous platforms over time – many that failed). This time they charged hundreds of dollars for training on top of the already elevated fees for which we receive basically nothing but MLS platform and ridiculous perks such as neighbourhood info – which is part of a realtors diligence anyway. And HPi with irrelevant data that doesn’t align with what is happening in market. It’s alll a scam.
I have a concern regarding Board education. The trainings are held in Toronto, and I do not wish to travel there for the sessions. I would prefer to attend training with local boards. Since TRREB has absorbed the local boards, it has become challenging to find community training, which is one of the best environments for learning and development.
Yes, I agree—the cost of their education courses, which used to offer good value, has really gone through the roof. In some cases, they’re quite frankly just not worth it anymore.
More education is always a good thing, but not when it comes with significantly higher costs—especially when we’re already paying so much through our existing fees. Not sure this is the direction we should be heading in.
I believe that Mr. NcLachlan’s and Ken Reas’ comments and position are one of protectionism for their brand, and have nothing to do with the reality of providing for the good of the industry and ultimately for the public. Of course, Real Estate Boards should provide training, insight, and development for their members. By not doing so, they would be shortchanging the public. As Realtors, our top priority is to deliver the best service possible to the public. All professional Boards of every stripe and profession provide education and insight to their members.
Suggesting that training at the Board level is the lowest common denominator is an insult to every Realtor in the Province.
More knowledge and different perspectives are what create a prosperous society, not Blinders, and a narrow-minded ideal as dictated by the few.
Any Brokerage that feels it could lose out on talent since its heavy investment in education may no longer be seen as a competitive advantage should perhaps rethink its business model. As Bob Dylan said, ” The Times They Are a-Changing “,
Why would a broker complain about educational opportunities for registrants? I have never once heard that it was a Brokerage responsibility to provide education to a registrant. It would be the individual registrant deciding what education they want take on. And why would an association not provided added services and tools to allow all members the opportunity to deliver a high level of service to consumers and compete on a level playing field. That only makes sense. And members, in many cases, pay for these courses put on by associations. This sounds more like an individual complaining because they are losing out on a source of extra revenue within the brokerage, I am sure the REMAX education is not free, as well as losing an edge on attracting new sales reps. Maybe it is time REMAX catches up with the times and evolves to provide something new or different or dynamic. Rather then complaining about all registrants having equal opportunities to learn and compete in the market place with tools available to all members.
This is an odd perspective. Why would an association not provide educational opportunities and all available tools to all members to provide a high level of service to consumers. This sounds more like a complaint about losing streams of revenue. I am sure REMAX Education is not free. And about losing ground when it come to recruiting sales reps to a Brokerage. Maybe it is time that REMAX catches up and provides something new and dynamic to sales reps.
Brokerages are the legislated entities responsible for professional performance. The statute does not provide that associations, ORE, is the responsible and accountable party. Arguably, all NPO’s fail at a serious level of accountability – no director and with utmost rarity is a NPO CEO terminated as a result of poor organizational performance.
MacLachlan and Reay are on the side, not the sidelines, in the trenches and in the fray, they are on the side of staying in one’s lane.
The evolution of professional real estate associations mirrors most every other professional or industry craft. Start with disparate and unconnected service providers who go it alone, then a move to cooperate – ordinarily the first thing is trade terms, codes of fair trade conduct ensue to augment the primary cooperation, augmented more and further by a cooperative need for regulatory frameworks that advantage the industry, and soon regulators start to seek something in return and that is usually professional conduct regulation by the industry. NPO’s are incorporated, and their size and need to conduct the foregoing efforts require financial stability, and ORE like other industries seeks to do more things for more money as that provides for sustainability.
ORE Boards and CEO’s rightly point to training as a mandate. However, in the midst of the evolution, regulators enshrined the employment relationships that existed in the real estate profession between business people and sales people, into legislation. It is not so much that individual REALTORS® cannot be independently active, it is the regulatory requirements make individual independence almost completely unsustainable, costly, and high risk…and the regulators keep piling on performance based requirements.
All the regulation falls on the brokerages, something I wish would change and there are ways to accomplish protecting the public, ensuring financial regulatory frameworks survive, and leave the individual REALTOR® as primary responsible persons. AND IF THAT were the case, ORE would have a role to play in education. However, it is not in place and the proper role for training in professional service is regulatorily set out as the Brokerages.
Hence, the point that MacLachlan and Reay make is reasonable. ORE should stay out of the role of educating registrants. They are correct that the only way to achieve a program of education inside ORE is to hit the lowest possible standard as the mark to reach. On the other hand, Brokerages are accountable to shareholders and will do the most advantageous things to distinguish themselves from the competition…and they are in the competitive space. ORE is not in any competition.
And the same universal standards that drive the form and content of ORE education also drive today’s rules and codes of fair trading.
But for the Ontario regulatory environment that places responsibility and accountability upon brokerages, and until the individual REALTOR® has primary accountability, ORE is in competition with brokerages where it takes on the role of trainer – except of course if the ORE client is the brokerages……but we evolved away from that model some long time ago.
We are speaking the same language, my friend! Thank you for this
Can you imagine if each law or accounting firm or even medical professional corp took on educating their employees? Where would the professional standards be for the profession, clients/customers/patients, etc. Each would determine their own standards which would inevitably clash and work against the individual realtor and client interest.
Firms/brokerages are business in the business of making a profit – their are not regulatory agencies. Education and standards are meant to be broad and protect the profession as a whole in a geographic area and help the public to trust not just the realtors from one brokerage but from any they choose to work with. A regulator works in the best interest of all.
I understand the concern from the brokerage of losing an important revenue stream. It will affect the bottom line and the EPS for their shareholders. Nothing stops to a brokerage from having its own firm specific rules & regs that do not conflict with the Code. In this way it can train its realtors in its own approach and procedures that are brokerage-specific that will supplement regulatory education and hopefully give it a competitive edge.
Brokerage accountability and responsibility is no different than in other professional firms. Yet in all the other aforementioned professions, the regulatory agencies, which by design are all non-profits, provide education to elevate professionals without co-opting firm specific supplementary training or affecting the bottomline.
Thanks for the response, J. De Souza, but I think we need to clarify a key point that has been overlooked: real estate boards are not regulators.
Regulators like RECO (in Ontario) are mandated by legislation to protect the public interest. They set minimum standards, enforce the Code of Ethics, and ensure compliance through discipline and licensing. No brokerage (that I know of) is arguing with that role: regulatory education is essential, and everyone plays by the same rules.
What’s being challenged here is the expansion of real estate boards, which are member-driven organizations, into education that competes directly with what brokerages already provide. Unlike regulators, boards are not neutral entities. They are governed by elected REALTORS® and funded by dues. When they begin building and promoting their own training platforms or “preferred” learning pathways, they risk crowding out the innovation and differentiation that brokerages bring to agent development.
Brokerages aren’t trying to write their own code of ethics. They’re trying to provide targeted, hands-on, business-relevant education tailored to the markets and agents they serve. That’s not about profit; it’s about performance, culture, and accountability.
So yes, we need consistent standards, but those already exist through the regulator. Let’s not confuse the role of boards with the role of regulators. When each sticks to its lane, we all serve the public better. The fact that regulators and boards can be confused speaks to the issue described right here in the article.
Regulators set the minimum bar. Firms raise it. This is true in nearly every professional services field.
Boards are optional. Regulators are not.
I believe many boards across our great land struggle with their identity and purpose. Questions like “Who are we?”, “What is our purpose?”, and “Who is our client?” are essential for a board to consider.
There’s no question that boards “try” to do the right thing and provide value and service. Applying the “KISS” principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid), a board’s core responsibility is to disseminate and deliver property information to their members.
However, this is a deep subject, and there are many different opinions on what a board’s responsibility truly entails. While I have no doubt that boards are doing what they believe is best, they may sometimes go beyond their core mandate. Can anyone clearly define a board’s mandate?
Miles Godlonton
I understand both viewpoints. I have seen boards offer education that conflicts the teachings of the brokerages (eg best practices such as reducing cooperating commission when buyer views at a showing hosted by listing agent, or even which board(s) to join to maximize visibility), and it certainly does provide an avenue for realtors to ignore full service brokerages with good educational offerings because they get it for free at their board and can side with a cheaper brokerage and feel as though they are getting the same service.
However the concept of making sure that realtors are getting ANY education at all, is a necessity in today’s sector where the bar seems to be ever lowering. Sadly I’m guessing that if an agent doesn’t value partnering with a brokerage that offers good education (and of course, ensuring they are taking those teachings) isn’t going to take the courses offered by the board either, which does sort of defeat that argument.
I would much prefer that the boards put more investment into PSC and discipline rather than education. Make the education exclusively to ensure learning is deeply engraved when a realtor is brought to PSC, and make it easier for the boards to learn about and act on matters of professional standards (eg consider keeping the complainants identity private from the accused, and change bylaws to allow boards to investigate without complaint).
I’m ever appreciative of Hallmarks commitment to raising the bar, and holding trreb accountable for their tunnel-vision of hopeful industry dominance.
I love an active thread in REM!
Clearly, there’s strong interest in the role that real estate boards should play in our profession.
I want to take a moment to clarify (or expand on) my own position and respond to the broader argument that more education from more sources automatically benefits the industry.
The problem is not with education itself. The problem is structural. Brokerages are the entities held accountable by the regulator. They carry liability for their agents’ actions, provide day to day oversight, and are responsible for ensuring standards are upheld in practice.
Boards are not.
When boards begin offering full-scale training, tools, and platforms, all without holding any risk, they shift from supporting the profession to distorting the competitive landscape within it.
Boards often argue (as they have in this article) that their training complements brokerage offerings and supports professionalism. The intent may be good, but it ignores the real consequences. By creating centralized, board-run education systems, we weakening brokerages’ incentives to invest in their own training.
This doesn’t elevate standards, it creates a race to the bottom, where education offerings are broad enough to apply to all and inexpensive enough to be palatable. That is not a recipe for excellence.
But there’s a deeper concern: an agency problem that we rarely name out loud.
Boards are not neutral actors. They are unelected service providers operating without competitive pressure or meaningful checks from their membership. They collect mandatory dues and then use those funds to expand into education, technology, and training (all areas traditionally handled by brokerages). This places them in direct competition with the very businesses they claim to support, using funds brokerages are compelled to pay.
That dynamic would be unacceptable in any other sector.
Suggesting that the brokerages raising these concerns are simply upset about losing a recruiting edge or a revenue stream is missing the point entirely. This is not about protecting turf. It’s about defending the principle that responsibility should not be separated from authority. If brokerages are expected to ensure competence, then they must be allowed to differentiate how they do so, not have it outsourced and standardized by a third party that bears no consequence for poor outcomes.
Other professions clearly understand this. In medicine, law, engineering, and accounting, training is typically led by the firms, clinics, or organizations responsible for client outcomes; not by the regulator or the association.
Why?
Because those closer to the work are better positioned to train for it, and because those responsible for results must be the ones designing the path to get there.
There is a role for boards to play, but it is not to act as parallel education platforms, tech providers, or training hubs. Until the regulatory framework shifts and boards are held to the same level of accountability as brokerages, they should stay in their lane.
Professionalism is not just about access to content. It’s about accountability for outcomes. And right now, only one party in this conversation carries that burden.
Both viewpoints make sense, and there is logic for proprietary training from franchisors/franchisees to augment what associations do not offer. If boards compete with brokerages in providing education, ultimately members make their choices.
A course enhances the individual, whether or not they remain with the brokerage. When agents change brokerages, they take their education with them.
Boards are meeting a demand from members, and so are the individual brokerages, and rather than lowering the bar, competition raises the bar.
Trreb’s mandate is to hire the President’s son to teach courses. LoL
Is the education being provided forced upon board members, offside, incorrect or outdated? If not then what’s the problem?
The profession needs more and better educated agents and anyone willing to further themself, on their own initiative, via courses offered anywhere is improving their own knowledge and elevating the industry.
If brokerages are upset about courses being taught by boards, they should also be upset by courses offered by other players as well many of which are just cash grabs for a useless designation the public neither understands nor cares about. Of course brokerages can always contractually require their agents attend brokerage provided courses, if it’s truly that big an issue for them. It would even be more meaningful – to the consumer – to see accolades for continued relevant education instead of awards for commission earned, president’s club and such.
Where boards though, really fail relative to this is by keeping secret all the disciplinary actions taken and the causes. There is not one valid reason for this, not even to keep private the value of the fines collected. Disclosure of the number of times each rule was broken would go a long way towards enlightenment and elevating standards and, who knows, maybe even as to overreach and the measures taken.
Ultimately, boards are governed by those elected by the agents. If you want better run boards, brokerages should educate their agents on how boards work and why their democratic vote matters. It is shocking just how little agents know about their organizational structure.
The fact of the matter is that all brokerages try to differentiate themselves by offering training, mentoring,”team” environment, culture, cloud based! Because the entire business is built on having the absolute maximum number of agents to pay the monthly fees, most Brokerages fall flat on this offering including many, many Remax offices. So without the ability to falsely claim that they train their people better, they must attack boards. BTW, you can insert any Brand name in above and the same it true!
Brokerages are not teaching agents what they need to be compliant and successful. In many cases… in brokerages with hundreds of agents… this is an impossibility… it all comes down to how many agents you can acquire to pay the monthly tab… masked by claims that the boards are hurting them!
There, I said it.
I can’t imagine TRREB offering the level of training and support we get at our brokerage. For me, learning is a lifelong journey and it’s good to learn from different sources and perspectives.
I appreciate some of the courses at TRREB mainly related to understanding and applying the systems and tools available to us on PropTx. I love the regular up to date market analysis we get from our brokerage along with special guests and pro tips from different sources. I find having access to our brokers for personal questions very helpful. And I enjoy books and podcasts on sales and leadership. In my opinion, the more sources of learning, the better.
And as for small brokerages who do not provide full service training, I think it’s good for TRREB to offer their realtors the option to improve themselves for several reasons:
1) It’s always more refreshing to deal with an agent who knows what they are doing.
2) And if they don’t, they have no excuse for their incompetency.
3) But really, hopefully, the bar will be raised for our industry
As for large brokerages, they may need to consider the type of training and education they provide and pivot to equip their agents for a higher level of professionalism.
Great article and comments. The Provincial Regulator sets the standard for realtors. Boards are basically coops overseen by elected members. But in providing a joint MLS listing service, Boards need to ensure the system operates appropriately. Both boards and brokerages need to ensure moral, ethical, operational, legal principles are followed. Hence some kinds of training certainly seems appropriate. Otherwise a-la-carte offerings and events are nice. However, boards / brokerages could take a closer look at fees. Some say in real estate the 85/15 principle applies wherein the masses support the system that the few profit handsomely from. Low volume agents could pay less, high volume producers pay more. Not the masses under-writing the system for the few. Not just scoop up agents to pay the bills and salaries. Not idolizing high-producers while some have trouble buying groceries.
Excellent conversation! As someone whose negotiation courses were among TRREB’s most popular offerings pre-pandemic, I wholeheartedly support meaningful education in our industry. Effective education must go beyond basic information—it needs to be skill-based, expertly facilitated, and directly tied to measurable outcomes for REALTORS®. Brokerages and boards both have important roles to play, and collaboration rather than competition will raise the bar for professionalism. I’m excited about the industry’s renewed focus on quality training and invite brokerages looking to differentiate their value to continue investing in programs that truly elevate negotiation intelligence and client experience
I agree with you 100 percent. You have worked tirelessly to elevate the profession and the agents who are wise enough to take advantage of your courses. It sickens me to think that any broker would object to real estate education regardless of who offers it. If the brokerages that provide in house training feel their programme is vastly superior, why would they feel threatened by any education provided by TRREB . Most open minded professionals in our industry are encouraged when it comes to raising the bar in our profession no matter what the source. Congratulations to the brokers who provide their own trading and shame on those who would deny getting it from any other source.
When all Brokerages do a proper job of raising the education and professionalism their Realtors then the Board can get out of Education. I have not seen this yet. This is an age old complaint from a few Brokerages. I still don’t see how a Brokerage with over 300 Realtors can be as effective as the Boards offering
Large Brokerages could be using their educational seminars as an income generating resource which often times is only offered to a select number of registered Realtors in their firm, it would be prudent that TRREB and other real estate boards continue to provide educational resources that all Realtors have access to.
If Canada trends toward socialism, as current indicators suggest, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) could potentially become the ultimate state-owned brokerage.