Editor’s note: REM reached out to MREB for more information on the SGM, its outcome and the decision to move forward with the Cornerstone amalgamation. As of the time of writing, we have not heard back. Any information received will be added here.
On Monday, July 1, the Cornerstone Association of Realtors (Cornerstone) began its operations.
This follows a special general meeting (SGM) held by the Mississauga Real Estate Board (MREB) on June 26, where a vote in favour of terminating its amalgamation with three other Ontario boards as Cornerstone took place.
SGM vote to reverse decision didn’t stop amalgamation
However, MREB’s amalgamation has moved forward, as confirmed in a July 2 email to Cornerstone members from Bill Duce, CEO of Cornerstone:
“Like any amalgamation, this is not about endings but rather new beginnings. All four partnering associations, Hamilton-Burlington, Waterloo Region, Simcoe & District and Mississauga will continue into Cornerstone. We take our extensive and celebrated past into new beginnings to become better together.
Nothing about this was easy, and by no means is the heavy lifting finished; it is just beginning. As you are likely aware, there has been some eleventh-hour angst at one of our partner associations when some vocal members tried to withdraw from the amalgamation. These members were engaged, passionate and cared deeply about their association. While some of their concerns were absolutely on the spot, others were based on misinformation that created fear, uncertainty and doubt.”
‘(MREB) did not honour the mandate of the SGM verdict nor communicate to membership what steps they took after’
Tahir Qureshi, broker of record and president of City-Pro Realty Inc., Brokerage, was one such concerned member. Quershi left the new association on July 2. “I have terminated my brokerage membership and designated TRREB as my home board,” he explains, despite supporting and partaking in MREB, his local board, for years.
“The painful part is the SGM reversing the amalgamation was not considered by the board … (They) did not honour the mandate of the SGM verdict nor communicate to the membership what steps they took after the SGM mandate.”
Tehreem Kamal, broker with Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., Brokerage, echoes this sentiment and shares: “The Mississauga Real Estate Board of directors having chosen to disregard the members’ mandate is a serious violation of the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) and Mississauga Real Estate Board bylaws.
Also important is that the chair and three other directors had a direct conflict of interest in this matter from the start. When the then-president decided not to be on the task force, the president elect was appointed to the task force along with the chair and two other directors. It was determined at the last two meetings of the board (late last year) that the task force would become the (Cornerstone) board once the individual boards were dissolved.”
‘Amalgamations between real estate associations are not about MLS systems alone’
In his email, Duce goes on to explain that Cornerstone is fully aware of the concerns regarding access to MLS information:
“While the province’s inefficient and arbitrary ‘MLS system boundaries’ are actively shifting, members are still required to access two or more MLS systems. We are actively working on this issue and will continue until a satisfactory solution is reached.
Cornerstone staunchly believes that all Ontario realtors must have access to all Ontario MLS information to fulfill their fiduciary duties to their clients. It is not about how much data one has access to or having more data; you need all the data — full stop.“
He states that the amalgamation task force saw a presentation from PropTx, but that their “immediate attention is on completing the remaining tasks of our amalgamation while ensuring we provide our users with a robust and stable system … Amalgamations between real estate associations are not about MLS systems alone. We see multiple examples of associations within the same MLS system still pursuing amalgamations to provide additional efficiencies and excellence to their members.”
Duce’s wrap-up reiterates that real estate is local and that Cornerstone believes boards need to be as well.
Emma Caplan-Fisher is an editor and writer for REM. She has over a decade of experience in various content types and topics, including real estate, housing, business, tech, and home & design. Emma’s work has also been featured in Cottage Life, the Vancouver Real Estate Podcast, the Chicago Tribune, Narcity Media, Healthline, and others. She holds a Certificate in Editing from Simon Fraser University.
Without Prejudice: Not-for-profit organizations arise when dedicated individuals join forces to pursue a common goal, often resulting in tax exemption status. Elected representatives are responsible for creating and ratifying by-laws and policies during the Annual General Meeting to ensure effective governance. By taking oaths, elected directors commit to upholding laws and by-laws, and are obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest. In any Not-for-Profit organization, the president or Board Chair cannot unilaterally make decisions against the members’ mandate, as this would undermine democracy and good governance. It is also important to seek independent legal advice when agreeing on behalf of the organization. Honest and timely communication is a key factor that helps build bridges between members and elected representatives to avoid misgiving between them.
Failure to adhere to the members’ mandate by elected directors sets a negative example and dissuades others from volunteering for similar roles. Therefore, it is essential for the Board of Directors of any Charity or Not-for-Profit organization to undergo training to comprehend their responsibilities and drive the institution forward towards progress and prosperity.
Directors can always learn from past leaders who have successfully run Not-for-Profit organizations and could be a guiding tool for the continuity and success of the association.
With all due respect Mississauga did hold an AGM in January of 2024. At that meeting the over whelming vote was to join Cornerstone. If you were an engaged member you would have attended this meeting. A last minute Hail Mary SGM to overturn an amalgamation that was well past the point of return is not a violation of a directors duties. As a matter of fact if one looked at the bylaws of the Mississauga Board it would state that the SGM held was not within those bylaws or policies based on time alone. And even if it was held within bylaws and policies,, backing out at the last minute would have bankrupted the Mississauga board and they would be left with no MLS provider. And, you were currently a member of 2 boards anyway. Mississauga as well as Toronto. So becoming a member of Cornerstone is no different. Other then the important fact that your sales reps would now have access to almost all the data in you trading areas. So your decision (IMO) is short cited and based on emotion rather than critical thinking. And to top it all off Mississauga was a small board with limited resources. They brought the least to the table. RAHB has well over 10 million in cash and asserts , and KWAR was flush as well. Both owning their own buildings. You are missing out on a great opportunity for your sales reps and a step forward to the end goal of a Province wide MLS system. But you can now bow to the ruler and kiss the ring. Maybe there will be a Gold Star in it for you.
Not For Profit Corporations. Mreb, as well as RECO, Orea and TRREB are indeed not for profit Corporations.
In recent years TRREB, Orea and now Mreb ‘appear’ to be acting independent’s/ contrary to the wishes of their members.
I have been searching to discover exactly who/what holds a not for profit corporation to task?
Who can members turn to in order to control a not for profit?
Some say is the Public Guardian and Trustee, some say the 2011 Legislation made that point unclear – I see that the Province clamped down on RECO after a disapproving Auditor General’s report, who/what can do the same to OUR not for profits?
How are you going to just accuse the chair and four directors of having a conflict of interest without elaborating on that accusation? That’s pretty sloppy and unprofessional “journalism.”
Since the four (not five) individuals were on the task force and the task force became Cornerstone’s board, as quoted, I believe that’s where this accusation comes from.
I don’t understand how that constitutes a conflict of interest.
For Clarity without Prejudice:
It is well known fact that Four Directors became Directors of new corporation that did not even exist and negotiated an Amalgamation Agreement without consulting MREB corporate Lawyer bypassing to protect the interest of its institution or membership. When 2nd SGM was held, 26 June 2024, two Key Directors including the Chair did not attend MREB SGM. Apparently, new amalgamation agreement included a clause that only give power to the board of directors to terminate the amalgamation. Board of Director did not take any action for new mandate to reverse the termination. Do you know why it happened? All four of them are director of new corporation.
Thank you Tahir. That would have been good information to include in the article accusing them of conflict of interest.
I’m confused.
I attended the meeting on June 26th where nearly 99% of members present voted to end the amalgamation in a very heated setting.
When I received an email on July 2nd or 3rd that the amalgamation had gone through I called the board and was told that they had no new information or answers about why the board had decided to completely contravene the members wishes.
I’m disappointed in the complete lack of respect for member’s wishes.
I, for one, will vote with my feet. This complete disregard for the member’s wishes is not something I wish to support.
By the way – it’s always, always, always about the data. That is why we take dual (costly) membership in local boards.
Your confusion is rooted in your apathy. Mississauga did hold a vote to amalgamate in January 2024. That vote overwhelmingly was in favour of the amalgamation. Then on the 26th of June 2024 a group of upset members call a last minute SGM. And that SGM was probably not even within the bylaws or policies of the MREB. A heated meeting at the 11th hour! Way past the cut off to back out of any agreement. That would be like a buyer backing out of a firm sale because their bratty kids were all of a sudden upset about moving. Backing out would have left all the MREB members without an association. Did you never consider that fact? Secondly MREB brought the least to the table. RAHB has well over 10 million is cash and assets. They own their own building. So did KWAR! KWAR was flush as well. You were already a member of 2 associations and as a member of Cornerstone think of all the data you now have access to! Way more than back in May. So your Data, data , data comment should read. Excellent I have access to way more data then ever by being a member of Cornerstone. And did you ever think that now TRREB may possibly have a different perspective on cooperating with other associations in Ontario? Look at TRREBS track record. Took over Barry. A small board with limited to no resources. LakeLands. A small board with limited resources. Brampton. A small association with almost no resources. And next would be Mississauga. Another small assocition with limited resources. Now you are a part of a significant association with a data bank growing by the month. Something TRREB cannot get it hands on. Can registrants not see the larger picture in Ontario! Oakville/Milton does not want to join Cornerstone. Maybe now that the amalgamation is complete they should think about joining with Cornerstone. That would be the best move for their members? Or will Oakville Milton just be thinking of their individual brokerages?
I don’t know where you are getting your information there are only 4 directors on Cornerstone board not 5 from MREB and how can there be any conflict when the board elected three of them to be on that board and fourth was appointed by 2023 President There was no Cornerstone board as it was only a task force until July 1st. . These volunteers are giving their time to their professional associations instead of being thankful people are insulting them. Most of the people with their own agenda are spreading false rumours. Members would have received the answers at June 26th meeting if any one allowed them to answer any questions. There are by laws and the directions followed them and did what was their duty not a shouting MOB who did not let any one else speak as they think they know more than everyone else. I saw the meeting and It was not a professional meeting. Emma with due respect you should check your facts before you print them. Just because some one gives you the info unless it verified it is not print worthy.
That statement is attributed to Tehreem Kamal, as quoted, not REM (and only four individuals are mentioned in the article, not five. That was an error that’s now corrected in earlier comments). We tried to get MREB’s take on what was mentioned, including the conflict of interest accusations, and have not received a response to date.
Without Projudice:
Emma, please ask former MREB to share the video recording of the SGM that was held 26th June 2024 to set the record straight. You can ask under the Freedom of Information ACT, freedom of speech and for clarity.
For Clarity without Prejudice:
The SGM of 26 June was requested by MREB members only with one agenda to move a motion to give authority to the Board of Directors to terminate the amalgamation. Unfortunately, the key persons including Chair decide not to attend the SGM. Over 250 members signed the petition. The board tried to turn that SGM into a town hall meeting contrary to the SGM notice sent to members. No doubt, it was hot and debated due to a lack of effective communication. The motion was passed by 119 Members voting yes to terminate, 2 voted against the motion and 4 abstained. It would have been nice if the Chair had attended and clarified why they wanted to proceed and explained why they did not consult with an MREB Corporate appointed lawyer and use a new corporation lawyer to represent them. In a democratic society voice of the people matters and whoever has good logic to persuade the people becomes the winner. In this case, the membership that bestowed their trust in them was defeated due to a lack of action by their elected officials. To provide more clarity, you should ask former MREB to share the video recording of the SMG to set the facts straight.