For years, Ontario’s real estate boards were the gatekeepers. Need MLS access? You joined the local board—no questions, no choices. But that’s history. Today, with most Ontario boards subscribing to PropTx, MLS services are no longer region-locked. Instead, the majority of Ontario Realtors are or will be soon, operating on the same shared MLS platform.
Shared MLS access redefines membership value
This shift fundamentally changes the equation: the core value every board used to offer—exclusive MLS access—is now a standard feature across (most of) the province. So the question becomes: what else do boards offer, and is it worth the price? If boards want to keep members, they’ll need to bring something new to the table. They have to compete.
This competition should mean better pricing, improved services and tangible value. And it’s not just Realtors who will benefit; brokerages can too. In a standardized MLS world, brokerages now have the option to choose boards that best match their cost and service priorities, creating material savings for their agents. This choice gives brokerages a new edge in recruitment, allowing them to align with boards that deliver the best return on dues. In a market as tight as Ontario’s, this competitive choice is a recruiting advantage that’s as valuable as it is overdue.
Power through choice
But competition also empowers individual members. Not happy with the direction of your board? Feeling like your concerns are ignored, or that your dues aren’t delivering value? You no longer need to wait for quorum or for your brokerage to make the call—you can vote with your feet. The ability to choose a board that better aligns with your priorities creates a new level of accountability and responsiveness that was unheard of under the old system.
At the same time, this level of choice exposes the weaknesses in the current multi-board structure. Despite the increased pressure to compete, many boards are doubling down on costly mergers and amalgamations that fail to deliver meaningful improvements in service or value. If the goal is to provide better options for members, shouldn’t these efforts focus on addressing redundancies and inefficiencies at their roots?
And here’s the issue: despite the shifting landscape, only one board in Ontario seems truly prepared to compete at scale—TRREB. That is to say that there is likely not a board in Ontario that can offer competitive pricing even if all that is offered is the most basic of services. If most boards aren’t in the game to win, why are they spending valuable resources on mergers and amalgamations that won’t increase their competitiveness? At what point do realtors have the right to ask: where’s my money going, and why isn’t my board focused on delivering more value?
Mergers without meaningful results
When I have this discussion with clients—whether broker/owners or franchise corporate offices—I’m often met with concerns that autonomy or culture is at stake, that a merger risks “losing the board’s unique character.” But let’s be clear: mergers and acquisitions are meant to add value, not size. If you’re a member of OnePoint, Central Lakes or any of the Eastern Ontario Boards, it’s fair to ask—what value is being added by these changes? Are these amalgamations truly making boards more competitive, is your dollar stretching any further when it comes to providing you value in your real estate business or are they just merging to delay the inevitable? Without measurable improvements, these mergers are little more than costly reorganizations, creating larger, equally uncompetitive boards that fail to meet members’ evolving needs.
The concerns around autonomy and culture aren’t unique to large mergers; these challenges arise in smaller amalgamations, too. Boards are pouring resources into combining forces without a meaningful plan to compete on a broader scale, leading to expensive exercises that result in larger, but still uncompetitive, boards. If these mergers aren’t driving efficiencies, improving services or creating real value, they’re ultimately a waste of members’ dues.
The case for a single-board model
In the for-profit world, mergers are strategic, and designed to increase efficiency, expand market reach, or add unique capabilities. Successful acquisitions often preserve the best parts of a company’s culture and structure—consider Berkshire Hathaway, which buys companies but allows them to retain significant independence, or Disney’s acquisition of Pixar, where cultural preservation was a priority. These models thrive because they combine strengths without losing what made each company valuable in the first place. Ontario’s boards could—and should—take a page from these playbooks, focusing on creating competitive value and preserving unique benefits instead of just merging for the sake of consolidation.
If mergers aren’t solving the core issues—redundancy, inefficiency, and lack of value for members—it’s worth asking if there’s a better way forward. Rather than continuing to consolidate small, struggling boards into larger but still inefficient entities, consider a fundamentally different approach: moving toward a single-board model.
Provinces like Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and PEI have demonstrated the benefits of unified governance. A single, consolidated board eliminates duplicative costs and invests resources directly into what matters most for members—training, advocacy, and technology. This structure creates a streamlined system that serves the entire province’s interests while maintaining local insights and autonomy where it counts.
The business of boards and a call for accountability
With one board, Ontario realtors could also overcome challenges tied to vote distribution and representation. Consider last year’s ORWP vote through OREA—a win that left many members questioning how the outcome was reached. A system incorporating referendum tools could have provided a broader and more equitable resolution. Unified governance simplifies decision-making, ensuring every member has a clear and equal voice in shaping the industry’s future.
The shift toward competition places a new and necessary responsibility on associations: they must operate efficiently. Just as businesses must streamline operations to stay competitive, boards must be prepared to deliver greater value and service—faster, smarter, and with a focus on real results. The boards that can’t meet this standard will inevitably be left behind, while those that embrace this challenge set a new bar for value and relevance in the industry.
Ultimately, organized real estate is a business. Realtors owe a fiduciary duty to clients, and our boards should behave no differently. Why should realtors accept less from their boards than they give to their clients? Realtors deserve boards that focus on tangible value, evolving to meet real needs rather than clinging to outdated structures or protecting internal interests.
Ontario’s real estate boards are at a crossroads. Realtors and brokerages deserve value, transparency, and innovation—not outdated systems. It’s time for boards to compete, consolidate or step aside for a streamlined provincial model that better serves its members.
Brandon Reay is a former residential REALTOR® turned consultant with extensive experience in organized real estate associations and not-for-profit organizations. He has served on committees with the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA), and various Chambers of Commerce, focusing on strategy, policy development, and industry advocacy. Brandon holds an MBA from the Sprott School of Business and regularly speaks on real estate and economic issues, bringing actionable insights to help professionals navigate an evolving market.
What were the outcomes of the provincial meetings held among Ontario’s real estate boards? From the last article it seemed that all boards except one were in favour of data access and sharing. Wasn’t it intended to maintain individual identity and autonomy of each board while also reaping the benefits of economies of scale?
Hi Frank,
I can’t speak to the reasoning behind many boards in choosing to move forward with data access and sharing. Personally, I think it’s long overdue.
The challenge here is that economy of scale simply won’t happen in a meaningful way for Ontario boards. This is a province where one board carries significantly more members than all of the other boards combined. There is a vast difference in membership costs associated with the services provided as a result.
As for autonomy and identity; both can be retained to some degree if and where there is value.
I have been advocating for one MLS system for more than twenty years and unfortunately was not able to accomplish this, even while serving as President of RAHB in 2019. We were two weeks away from a comprehensive data agreement with TRREB when our CEO managed to derail these efforts. Petty and personal resentments prevented meaningful movement in this direction as well as a Governance structure that did not allow for accountability or real goal-setting. What we now have is a larger “board” that still does not have comprehensive data and a more confusing structure where some of the boards that were previously sharing data through ORTIS now moving (correctly in my opinion) to Proptx so that they have access to the TRREB data. It is time for all Ontario boards to arrange with TRREB for a full partnership or comprehensive data sharing so that Realtors no longer have to join two boards to have all of the MLS information (current and historic) for their trading area. To all Board Members of all Boards and Association: Stop thinking of reasons not to share and contuing to building walls and instead think of your members who want nothing more than comprehensive data.
Same here.
That one board you surmise is the only one to “truly compete on scale,” is the same board which spared not much expense lobbying the smaller boards to join its system and pay for a number of years contractually. Those fees can’t be cheap.
Yet that’s the same board who couldn’t for the lives of their experienced staff see the forest for the trees and note that such amalgamations would reduce the paid listing services required for those boards’ members.
That same board also couldn’t, with all of its years of sales data comprising at least 90% of the province’s sales history, forecast a dearth in sales and a corresponding reduction in get rich quick registrants.
That same board is mired in costly lawsuits because it lacks foresight.
When then, that same board, despite the additional fees from boards paying thousands no doubt for its system, failed to raise $4 million plus from its member fees by 60 bucks per, it threatens to either reduce or charge service fees which can only be blamed on poor management.
Yet it’s run by two CEOs, is a cash cow and sits on 10s of millions of reserves with obviously no intended purpose.
So that’s what you want? one mls run by one board which will hold all the monopoly cards? Good luck to you!
The vast majority of Realtors have learned nothing and continue to learn nothing except how to be keyboard warriors.
I am a Realtor with 54 years of experience and sat on the Board of Directors of TREB back in the 80’s. We seem to be still fighting over the same issues.
One board for the province so that we have a say with CREA, otherwise we are just paying for services that are not needed.
I agree with your position fully.
Rick, I agree, and I think our TRREB directors are proactive and doing good work.
I think members are more interested in getting (cost) efficient services for our day to day work and less interested in organizational re-alignment. Leadership has to look at the big picture, and ultimately sell their ideas. With consolidation, turf protection can stall progress.
Changing the landscape is challenging, and asking questions is a good start.
Several key issues raised, congratulations!
– What is worse? Orea? Crea? Or a Proptx-ified TRREB?
While I agree with your position that ‘one board, one MLS system’ is long overdue, I hesitate to recommend TRREB for the job. They have shown they’re just an oversized version of the inefficient, agenda-pushing cash cow board model. They’re definitely not interested in a fiduciary relationship with their members. Personal agendas and hand-picked directors are the norm. A massive overhaul of the current operations systems, bylaws, and mandate that Ontario Realtors are familiar with at the board level would be needed before I could get ‘on board’ with the idea of a single board.
Great response Elaine. Not sure how they move forward maybe replace OREA or have OREA roll out new services such as PROPTX to all boards at the same time. With the amalgamation of the Quinte board into CLAR we have lost our local identity & appeal. As well I question the authors’ commitment/obligation to TREB. My opinion
So what you are saying is that a Realtors best option is to join a monopoly. Where the monopoly can charge and act in anyway they want and a sales rep will have no other options but to pay the price. Last time I checked a map I live in the Province of Ontario. Not the Province of Toronto. How does a sales rep from Thunder Bay benefit from being a member of TRREB? We all know how TRREB operates. Just look back to the ORWP. And it must be comforting to know that TRREB used members money to open a “For Profit” division of TRREB known as PropTx. And another great idea for a sales rep to sign onto PropTx, a new unproven system for a ten year term? Data sharing and a stream lined MLS System is what all Ontario Associations want, except TRREB. Does this not raise a red flag ? Well from TRREBS perspective , no. The solution is simple. Join TRREB. Problem solved? Or will this just result in more problems down the line?
ORE is destined to evolve like molasses going up hill given its governance structure. Directors are rewarded (and its a fair inference to suggest these are rewards) through free conference attendance, good feelings about giving back to one’s profession, and some opportunity for prestigious recognition. There is no bottom line to assess performance or reward performance. The most competent among those who contribute time and resources as an ORE director soon learn there is not much progress to be achieved. With their influence ineffective, the good leave ORE governance to focus on the rewards of the profession, leaving as dominate influencers the bad and the ugly.
The author argues a one board is an inevitable outcome of shared MLS® operating data systems; it may likely be two not one. And underpinning advocacy for a single board now is that mergers are not solving core issues (redundancy, inefficiency, and less than appropriate value to members).
The suggestion to move now, at light speed (which for ORE means several years of debate and a likely refusal to proceed as the outcome) toward the idea of a single board sounds wonderful to many, yet not reflective of the nature of ORE.
Research the nature of not for profit guilds, including the many which purport to represent industry and professionals will result in seeing that achieving a single organization out of multiple organizations has never been a revolution to one from many; it has been a slow and plodding merger of neighbours, creating somewhat larger organizations with neighbours of similar size and impact. Then those neighbours merge, and so on toward a single group.
And arguably, it is not the many existing local boards which is the problem, rather it is the governance structure itself at those levels and above. Like councilors to a city ward, Directors of the local organization fail to look at any macro goals in lieu of serving their comfortableness with their own rules, regulations, and approaches. If local association ORE governors were doing what is best for their members, long ago we would have a single provincial MLS® data application. Instead we argue about whether (as an example) square feet should be specific or a range. Single MLS® outweighs that debate, which like so many others should be relegated to the waste heap.
If the foregoing implies I disagree there should be a single board, let me be …. should be one……..and lets not stop provincially, there should be one nationally. And one national MLS® system. And run by shareholders, not members. And it should be a profit centre for shareholders. And its governors would be skilled directors, few of which would be REALTORS®, with sound strategic, profit driven skills and judgement experience.
ORE is a business, it should act like one and respect the ownership of its existence by those who are called members, yet make them shareholders. BTW, no business would have decided to extract $64M from its primary client (REALTORS®) as a mandatory fee to obtain any of the other more critical client desired services and still have the same Directors in charge. Only the association is a member of the association model allows such a travesty to occur.
And for that ORE will continue to move like molasses uphill until like the typewriter its beneficiaries decide it should be a boat anchor.
Thanks Elaine and Ron,
Points well taken.
I should remark that while it isn’t clear from the article, I have no commitment to any one board that currently exists unless there is no appetite within the province to push into one new entity entirely.
I can understand concerns surrounding governance structures and past issues – and I am not at all dismissing them.
In my view, the best case for ORE in Ontario would be one (or two, but that’s something that would take much more time to argue for than an editorial permits) board that serves the needs across the province.
I am in full agreement that an overhaul is the best case scenario.
Finally, I’ll note that the suggested preference for TRREB arises from competitive analysis. They already have scaled services by necessity. They also own the MLS system to which most realtors in Ontario subscribe.
That is not to say that some provincial entity couldn’t have satellite offices and differences in organizational culture at those offices. A provincial association works if and only if the needs of members are being met across the province – identity and autonomy are often discussed as needs.
Thanks for taking the time to read and for your discussion – always happy to further engage.
Brandon