The Ontario government is preparing to “assume control” of the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) after reviewing a scathing report into the industry watchdog’s handling of the iPro Realty Ltd. fraud scandal.
On Thursday, Public and Business Service Delivery and Procurement Minister Stephen Crawford publicly released a letter he wrote to RECO chair Katie Steinfeld in which he states his intention to appoint an administrator to take control and responsibility of RECO to “prevent serious harm” to the public and restore confidence in the organization.
Today I issued a formal letter to the chair of the board of the Real Estate Council of Ontario.
Following my review of the Dentons report on RECO’s handling of the iPro matter, I have notified RECO’s Board of my intention to appoint an administrator to restore public confidence… pic.twitter.com/QGkicaoiEs
— Stephen Crawford (@stcrawford2) November 13, 2025
Crawford has given RECO’s board 15 days to respond before he makes a final decision.
“The report identifies significant issues with RECO’s practices, processes, and procedures, and raises questions about RECO’s organizational cultures,” wrote Crawford, adding that this environment has led the real estate sector to lose confidence in its regulator.
Two weeks ago, Crawford received the report conducted by Dentons LLP Canada, which was commissioned by RECO. The report was released publicly on Thursday evening.
Former registrar ‘deviated from standard process’
Real estate professionals and consumers alike have been dismayed by RECO’s handling of the matter, particularly the fact that it waited three months to alert the public after former registrar Joseph Richer learned of Mississauga-based iPro’s $10.5-million trust account shortfall. Richer left RECO in August.
The news of Richer’s exit came out following RECO’s highly scrutinized decision not to lay charges against iPro Realty’s co-founders Rui Alves, a former RECO board member, and Fedele Colucci.
The report found Richer “deviated from RECO’s standard process” in initiating an undertaking agreement in response to the shortfall in iPro’s trust accounts, rather than launching a formal investigation. The report also found the former registrar did not inform the board of the iPro issues until after an undertaking agreement was signed with the brokerage, and is recommended sweeping improvements around oversight, transparency and operational consistency.
RECO embraces report recommendations
RECO said it fully endorses all recommendations and has already begun implementing reforms, including stronger regulatory oversight, a new risk framework and increased stakeholder engagement.
The regulator added it will continue working with the minister to understand “the proposed process, scope, and next steps.”
Dentons represents RECO in the ongoing court case against iPro.
OREA and TRREB respond
In a joint statement released Friday, the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) and Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) said they “fully support” Minister Crawford’s decisive action.
“We endorse the intention to appoint an administrator to ensure RECO gets back to the basics of fulfilling its consumer protection mandate,” it reads. “OREA and TRREB remain committed to collaborating with the Government of Ontario on reforms that strengthen transparency, accountability, and public confidence in Ontario’s real estate market.”
Courtney Zwicker is a digital reporter and associate editor for REM. Based in Atlantic Canada, she has over a decade of experience covering daily business news.
The Auditor General’s report issued in November 2022 was scathing in terms how how RECO handled its obligations and responsibilities towards the public and industry. Yet, no one was fire and the registrar kept his job. It was at that point that I realized (among many others) that RECO was truly off the rails and that things could only deteriorate further. When there is no ACCOUNTABILITY then individuals will do what they choose and leadership is given a free reign to ingore procedures and governance obligations. It would have been more surprising if there had not been a fiasco of this magniture. It continues to baffle me that there have been no charges and that Ipro’s principals (through spouses and others) have maintained ownership of the broker through a “new” company. Had Ipro been sold this could easily have covered any shortfall that existed and RECO and the insurers would not be spending millions on dealing with this. Hold Richer accountable and let the government do its things because the RECO board has surely lost any and all confidence of the public and profession.
Not surprisingly, the Dentons Report allows for numerous opportunities for consultants and others to review, amend, adjust, tinker with and otherwise modify RECO’s governance. Hundreds of thousands of our dollars will be spent to rejig this mess, none of which is likely to have any long term positive effects. The basic Governance Model used by most non-profits is BROKEN because it does not build in proper accountability. I have seen this on personally on school boards, real estate associations and RECO, and seen the effects on CREA, the Red Cross and many others. Accountability is key and until this issue is address (other than through dashboards and ridiculous evaluation models) the fundamental problem will never be fixed.
Entirely agree with Bob Van de Vrande. It may be worth some clarification as to what leadership was or is “free” to ignore procedures and governance obligations. Boards of Directors as governors must conduct routine inquiry of management, about the conduct of management. This is more than meeting narrowly defined statute driven obligations of corporations and the responsibilities RECO was delegated in its creation. Those routine asks of management require curiosity, critical thinking, and more than a handshake understanding of policies, procedures, and management behaviour; its about risk mitigation, a very serious matter for which Directors carry the lions share of responsibility and should thus carry the lions share of accountability.
It is challenging to know the legal matters impinging on the lack of charges which Bob Van de Vrande remarks have not been made. Outrage in the circumstances where such remarkably harmful impacts go unpunished from a criminal perspective is most natural. Speculating beyond that outrage may not be useful though.
Aligned with the inferences Bob suggests exist about the effectiveness of consulting which seems inevitably to ensue, it is imperative we revisit governance as it applies to what is arguably corporate, formal and sophisticated corporate activities, and consider the poor performance of NPO style oversight. Accountability must have consequences and responsibility for that oversight must be professional in manner. And that means members of ORE be involved, but only if they are experienced, highly experienced and educated governance experts, expert at being a director; and that means more than having the internal professions director training.