There’s been an outcry from many Ontario realtors following the approval last month of a mandatory insurance and benefits package pushed through by the province’s real estate association.
Ontario realtors reportedly will be required to participate in the controversial plan or lose their association membership, even if they already have coverage through another provider or a spouse’s plan. The cost per realtor is about $660 annually, and the fact that there’s no opt-out has many agents across the province up in arms. Although a significant percentage don’t have coverage and are pleased to know they’ll be getting it, others feel that the plan could be improved and that the process leading to it has been rushed and lacking in transparency. Seniors as a group are particularly concerned, as apparently they’ll have reduced coverage but still must pay full price, which some construe as discriminatory.
The majority of an assembly of representatives from member boards voted in favour of the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP), which will take effect on Jan. 1, 2024. But individual members of the Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) had no say in the vote, and many feel that all realtors should have had a voice. As well, it’s been pointed out that the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB), the province’s colossus, holds close to 50 per cent of the votes, rendering anything it votes in favour of virtually unbeatable.
“TRREB is a catalyst in this,” surmises long-time Toronto realtor and professional arbitrator Barry Lebow, who’s been brought on board by those opposing the insurance to be a strong dissenting voice. Lebow notes that TRREB has its own benefits package, and for the board to vote to get rid of it for the new OREA program implies that “there must be something in it for them,” most obviously that they can now hand off administrative responsibilities.
Legal questions surround implementation of mandatory program for independent contractors
A bigger question circulating in real estate circles is whether it’s legal for OREA to implement a mandatory program that has nothing to do with selling real estate, particularly in light of the fact that realtors are independent contractors.
A new Facebook page called ‘Ontario Realtors opposing mandatory OREA ORWP’ has become an online hub for those against the mandatory insurance. (Says agent Gail Cornacchia, one of the admins instrumental in creating and managing the site, “I didn’t know really what I was in for.”)
More than a platform for keyboard warriors, the Facebook page includes a petition — ‘Say No to ORWP’ — that’s racking up thousands of signatures. Money has also been raised through the site to hire a lawyer. The first thing the lawyer will look into is whether the new mandatory insurance is legal by association rules, Lebow explains.
Word is that the lawyer has asked for radio silence while he does the research, as he was being bombarded with calls. By the end of July, more details will be available, Lebow notes.
If the lawyer finds that OREA has every legal right to implement a mandatory benefits package, the anti-ORWP contingent’s options will be limited. Whatever happens, their biggest objection to the plan is that it’s mandatory.
Lebow confirms that “nobody would argue if the insurance was optional.”
He doesn’t know what’s behind OREA pushing the program through in a matter of months, but he doesn’t believe the organization’s motives are underhanded. And he personally doesn’t care that OREA fees will increase substantially.
“But this was heavy-handed.” he insists. “There was no getting a consensus from members…And OREA didn’t give us the option of opting out or in.”
In his opinion, members were steamrolled. “I think the whole board should resign,” he states. “They have not represented the masses. The association did us a disservice. We had no voice. That’s the biggest takeaway here.”
OREA president acknowledges feedback but no direct response to concerns
While OREA hasn’t yet directly addressed concerns, President Tania Artenosi indicates in a recent statement to REM that the organization “continues to receive and review feedback.” The plan will continue to be reviewed to improve benefits and reduce costs wherever possible, she states.
OREA’s goal was “a program that delivered broad coverage and incredible support …ensuring valuable coverage for realtors of all ages and situations,” Artenosi continues. She provides this example: “Most corporate benefit plans do not typically offer critical illness coverage to spouses, and travel insurance for individuals 65 and older is often limited or costly. And the program pays for itself through healthcare coverage alone, which offers a total of $2,000 in combined annual coverage available to all members for medical services and supplies, prescription drugs, and paramedical practitioners, including physiotherapists, chiropractors, and massage therapists.”
The ORWP is a reliable safety net “for just $54.99 a month,” she says. Those looking for increased coverage at their own expense can now view the top-up options on OREA’s website.
“We’ll both be quitting real estate in January…It feels like we’ve been forced out of the business.”
– Darlene Foster, Ontario realtor
Southern Ontario realtors Darlene Foster and her husband Wayne — both with Royal LePage and approaching their golden years — aren’t sold.
“We want a choice,” they say, having discovered that — contrary to what they’d been hoping — Wayne’s excellent existing coverage for medications and benefits won’t kick in once the much lower OREA coverage is exhausted. The Fosters contacted OREA but say they received only boilerplate responses along the lines of the plan being what was best for members.
“So we’ll both be quitting real estate in January,” reveals Darlene. “It feels like we’ve been forced out of the business.”
For those considering the less drastic step of quitting OREA rather than leaving real estate altogether, a recent post on the anti-ORWP Facebook site advises against it, explaining that you’ll likely lose access to MLS and only wind up hurting your business and your clients.
Local associations and boards weigh options
Associations that voted against the insurance are facing a similar dilemma. Bill Duce, CEO of the Waterloo Region Association of Realtors (WRAR), says that the board is deciding what to do next. That decision “may range from fully participating in the ORWP to not complying” at all, he asserts. “The board is deeply concerned that participating in the program would force them to sign a contract with the carrier of OREA’s choice,” which WRAR cannot amend, despite being held accountable for any risks that arise as a result, Duce explains.
REM conducted its own unofficial newsletter poll recently, resulting in 1,162 responses — 22.8 per cent of which supported the ORWP, while 77.4 per cent opposed it. For those outside Ontario, 18.3 per cent said they’d like to see a similar program in their province, with 81.7 per cent against it.
It would seem from the array of responses from various sources so far that “the mandatory nature of this insurance program is objectionable” to a much higher percentage of members than OREA originally anticipated, observes Re/Max’s Cameron Nolan. “One would hope OREA will respond to that statistic in setting aside the mandatory nature of the coverage.”
Susan Doran is a Toronto-based freelance writer who has been contributing to REM since its very first issue.
We need to stand up to this overreach by a tired and out of touch association!
Get rid of the ORWP and let’s get rid of OREA. We can afford to have a rogue association spending our dues money on priorities that aren’t the members.
We need to band together to fight this and get it made Optional as this plan hurts a lot of realtors who already have plans in place. The sheer fact that it is Mandatory is why everyone is up in arms and the fact that they are threatening us with losing access to our MLS system if we opt out right now is what makes this so infuriating. As a 30+ year realtor why am I being blackmailed into this program with the threat of losing my ability to serve my clients in their best interests? OREA is reaching beyond their authority as we are not employees of Orea or TRREB! We are independent contractors and self employed and this program, at least, should be Opt In/ Opt Out. There may be realtors who want it but there are also thousands who don’t want it. Also it is age discriminatory in that when you turn 65 you lose half of the life insurance and when you turn 70 you totally lose the critical illness portion while still paying FULL premium as everyone else who has full benefits! How is this right in Canadian society.
Perfectly said!
It should be a consensus. Obviously some realtors needs it and some does not – why the part that doesn’t need is obligated to pay for those that need it?
Wanted to touch on the age-discriminatory part of your comment. I’m not an insurance expert by any means but every life insurance policy that I’m aware of has decreasing benefits according to age. In terms of paying the same but getting a reduced benefit – the cost of insurance drastically increases as you age. For example, just a quick online search for 100k in life insurance on the TD site shows:
40 y/o: $19 /mnth
50 y/o: $24 / mnth
60 y/o: $66 / mnth
65 y/o: $106 / mnth
70 y/o: Not eligible on the TD site
So although the benefit decreases at various thresholds, the cost to insure those people (even with the reduced benefit) is still more expensive – so technically you should be paying MORE even with the reduced benefits.
People hear “reduced benefit” and feel it’s unfair – with no consideration of cost to insure (557% increase from 40 to 65).
Exactly
Exactly! And even so, there are benefits for each member. The paramedical benefits alone make it worth the annual cost.
Can we have a breakdown of the OREA members in age groups…
What percent would qualify for all benefits at the ” great rate” and what percentage will LOSE out most of the Insurance coverage & benefits because of their Age
Not only age. Pre-existing illnesses will not be covered, so why should those people pay for this
While the rates posted may be correct, nobody in their right mind would go out and get life insurance in their 50’s or 60’s. Life insurance exists to protect a young family. Once you reach a certain age, it’s really not needed anymore
As an add on to the insurance rates posted. These are rates for real life insurances, not like this “term insurance”. You better die while still paying your “dues” otherwise your next of kin will be sol .
Scott White , so UNTRUE we are seniors with life insurance and those premiums you quoted are incorrect. We pay a much lower rate. And the objection here is realtors didn’t have a voice and now we are blackmailed into this!!
I agree that the whole board should resign. I think it is disgusting that the board thinks they have the right to tell us what insurance we have to have and that we will be out of work if we don’t sign on as they demand.
everyone needs to email TRREB president and contact orea. I did and have yet to hear anything back. did we vote for these people to represent us or to be ruled by them?
Exactly
Please disregard earlier comment.
I was at the 2019 TREB (at the time) AGM where the membership voted out some of their rights concerning board positions (meaning the President could fill certain positions without a vote, if I recall) I was stunned as there were many who spoke about this important decision staying with the membership.
I was at the 2019 TREB (at the time) AGM where the membership voted out some of their rights concerning board positions (meaning the President could fill certain positions without a vote, if I recall) I was stunned as there were many who spoke about this important decision staying with the membership. So yes, we voted for the board to make decisions on our behalf.
Just to clarify – it was the local boards that voted for or against this program. OREA simply researched and brought forth the proposal. Personally, my board (DRAR) already has a life insurance component and a critical illness component in our dues – both of which are mandatory – both of which have been in place for years – both of which have declining benefits at various age thresholds. I haven’t heard any dissent amongst members (new or old) about these mandatory programs in the many years they have been in place.
You haven’t heard any complaints because people have the choice to not join your board and be able to trade on a MLS system.
They have options.
What OREA has done leaves no option but to quit MLS because OREA monopolizes MLS access via its membership structure.
Karl – you make a valid point. Having said that, I’m sure how many people in the 13 or 14 years of real estate management where I’ve had an agent choose a brokerage based on the Board in which it’s a member.
Again, this has zero to do with OREA. It is the local boards that voted yes or no. I’m confused over the number of OREA bashing comments (again, I’m no OREA advocate, but factually incorrect). They did the leg work, and your board voted for it.
So what that means is TRREB management with 49% voting power at OREA essentially forced us into this without a vote by its members. I’m a TRREB and OMDREB member, OMDREB asked and listened to us voting No, TRREB didn’t even bother asking. Something as impactful as this should have been voted on by the 96,000 members, not an executive decision by local boards. Shameful overreach and proof the boards wholly funded by the agents it is bound to dutifully represent works under its own self governing rules. I always thought OREA should have have played a leadership roll in a province wide MLS, this proves that would be a colossal failure. Sad really.
Scott,
You can’t say that this is a local board issue only and OREA had only done the leg work if you actually have mindfully participating in your local board association and organized real estate in Ontario for a very long time.
If you actually have studied the local boards’ bylaws, and watched how local board operates, you would’ve known that OREA and CREA has become a medium/platform to bypass local board member consensus for agendas not supported by the members.
All local boards made themselves a member of OREA and CREA and adopted their bylaws as the local boards’ bylaws. With this hierarchical structure, local boards basically render most of the decision making to OREA and CREA because it is easier to bypass local consensus and vote for rules and policies at OREA and CREA that the members would have to follow even if they don’t agree than to obtain local member consensus and approve rules and policies at the local board level individually.
They’ve done that with “Co-operation Policy” at CREA. Now they are doing it with ORWP at OREA.
OREA and CREA are not making our profession stronger. Quite the opposite, our profession is now more divided than ever. Now the members no longer trust OREA and CREA. When the house is on fire at OREA and CREA, there will be more people coming with gasoline than people with coming with water.
other than it is a waste of money
Scott White, this isn’t about your board or my board, it’s about forcing every realtor into this!
I am also extremely upset by this mandatory ORWP program which is shoved on us and to make things worse I already have two insurances and I would be forced to pay for insurance which I will never use. I am sure there are many of us who feel the same.
We are not employees of OREA, we are independent and I don’t believe OREA has the right to do so, they can make it optional for those who need the service.
What can we do to challenge this and stand for our rights, we can start by signing petition and if necessary take it to the courts.
The ‘mandatory’ component of this insurance coverage might have infringed on one’s ‘constitutional rights’. I am no lawyer, but it isn’t rocket science to see that realtors, ‘independent contractors’ at that, are being hood-winked into participating in something without having a choice as others have alluded to namely, the option to ‘op-in’. I was a licensed insurance representative for a number of years, and never was a proposed ‘client/member’ not given the choice to ‘opt-in’ for a particular coverage (they also had the choice of not purchasing anything). I have been a realtor for over 30 years and don’t recall OREA nor its officers’ acquiring a license to sell/trade in insurance products or act a ‘third party’ in that industry. Typically, in most ‘group-type’ policies, ALL “employees” are automatically covered and must officially ‘opt-in’ within 3 months or forfeit coverage; no such option was given here. Would have liked to see how the “tendering” process worked in this instance as well (maybe I missed it?). I will not benefit from the 65+life component, nor the travel coverage. Loosing the critical illness component isn’t atypical of perhaps most insurance products on the market, as one gets closer to potentially making a claim, they are no longer eligible. Insurance policy underwriters use the term ‘spreading the risk’ when assessing the aggregate to decide on offering a product, so this lack of coverage at specific ages/risk factors isn’t a surprise. I too often wonder if there is any need for OREA in our industry. If I recall, when I first became licensed, we could pay our dues (OREA; TREB, CREA etc) separately; not so now.
Class action lawsuit all the way. This is unacceptable. The coverage is inadequate for the price and it has nothing to do with real estate.
I wrote a rather lengthy letter to TRREB’s BoD, approached it from a different angle as I am certain this comes down to boards breaching trust and their fiduciary duty to the members .I quoted By-Laws from both TRREB and OREA, that showed TRREB’s requirement to take all membership related changes to the membership for a vote, and requested a respectful response to this:
“I am very eager then to understand the basis by which you, the Board of Directors, determined that you had the authority to veer from outside of By-Law amendments, past practice and required membership approval, to give OREA the right to usurp the very membership right to vote on such a fundamental change as is afforded to us in the By-laws fully updated to incorporate all of the 29 amendments?”
While I appreciate Paul Baron’s: “Penny, I am working on a response to your detailed questions, and will respond as soon as possible.” was not the usual immediate auto response most are receiving, I’m literally shocked that he did not have the answer at hand since everything I outlined should have been done in normal course of due diligence before jumping the gun on this. Now I’m doubting any was done and 90% thinking that may even be his way of fluffing me off with no intention of following through because they have no answer, but the 10% optimist in me is hopeful I won’t need to send more than 2 follow-ups.
Don’t let the lower percent prevail again TRREB Directors.
PED speaks truths that warrant attention. Identifying a unique requirement in the TRREB Bylaw for member votes on items is notable. OREA’s bylaws may not have the same effect, and its members are set out as two classes, voting and non-voting. The nature of a right and not a right to vote is explicit. Regardless of the lack of authority to vote, an association and its directors have a serious legal responsibility to have substantial input from those who are most affected by any decision. ORE in Ontario failed this miserably.
So they say the 2000 in combined coverage pays for itself but at only 70% coverage. So over 600 for the plan and then if you use the entire 2000 you have to pay another 600 on top of that as they will only cover 70% (1400). So whoop we pay over 1200 to get 2000 in services many don’t need or want!!!
I suspect the lawyer will find that a simple threat of a Competition Bureau complaint solves this issue.
I suspect no other Trade Association in Canada has ever even attempted to implement mandatory double payments of health insurance for its members after they were members.
Wait…is this a secret move to limit new realtors too by grandfathering old realtors into non-mandatory insurance status? Could it be Timmy H and Johnny D already know what they are doing is illegal and that they would be “forced” to grandmother existing realtors?
Well at least this comment will be here if I am not.
I have no insurance coverage nor a spouse with coverage. I found this announcement to be good news. Even if I top up my coverage with the OREA plan, it’s still better than the $2400/yr I would be paying through my brokerage.
The fact that Ontario realtors were not at least polled on this is rediculas. The board members of OREA have totally failed us and need to resign.
We’re independent contractors and business owners but it feels like we’re in a workers union and are not being given a choice. This benifit package is a complete scam, its not even a good package, and its a pathetic attmpt to steal money from us. Someone is getting extreamly rich off of this.
We need to fight this.
B – It was your local board that voted on this, OREA simply did the leg work and all boards across Ontario voted.
It was YOUR LOCAL BOARDS responsibility to poll its members to decide how they should vote on your behalf.
It was YOUR responsibility to respond to your board’s call for feedback.
It was YOUR responsibility to attend the numerous town halls that OREA put on to provide information about the program.
It was YOUR responsibility to read any of the numerous emails OREA sent about the program.
If you weren’t polled or given the opportunity to have your feedback known prior to your board voting that it is your BOARD that failed you.
As for the getting rich part – OREA put an RFP out to 19 Insurers and received 8 quotes. Although you can never please 100% of the people 100% of the time, they plan was choosen to be the best overall balance between cost and benefit.
I should note, that I had no involvement with OREA, this proposal or any approval of it, but am very involved in my local real estate board.
You are correct there is a lot of personal responsibility in this but it does not negate any of the legitimate concerns of other realtors which you seem to be doing.
This was rammed through in a very short period of time, no opt out provision, the threat of loss of OREA membership, no individual vote, reduced coverage over a certain age, forcing independent contractors to pay for this, just to mention some of the other realtors concerns.
Just because you are ok with being forced into something doesn’t mean everyone else is.
Well said!
Yes. You are right. It is my responsibility to take survey… and I did. And I clearly stated I wouldn’t require coverage since I have 2 existing already. Now please let me know, maybe I missed it, at what point of time and anywhere in a survey I was told it will be MANDATORY!!!
Can you clarify when “mandatory” was introduced to OREA’s narrative, town halls and surveys?
Mandatory was added to the fact once the contract was signed and on June 21st when they sent out the notice – never said Mandatory before then that I saw
Scott. You seem to be everywhere on these threads. are you a realtor or are you someone who is currently working at orea?
I just heard that TRREB put the motion to a vote during Realtor Quest where about a hundred people voted on this thing and with the vote of 52 to 48 it was carried forward?
how many agents are currently registered with TRREB?
Why did TRREB not do an actual referendum on this topic and send out a proxy vote to us with the pro and con arguments for it?
did they pull a fast one on us? were the current TRREB board lobbied by orea? it would be interesting to find out the back story about the workings on how this thing came about.
I emailed our president and no a reply. I called orea and again not a darn reply. that should tell you all that you need to know.
did they try to pull a fast one on the entire membership at TRREB?
We do not need conspiracy theories within this debate.
A benefit plan is good for those who need it or want it. I don’t. I would like to see an opt out option. Let those who want it, have it. And those who don’t, aren’t forced to take it or lose their OREA membership and and their access to MLS. And because I’m over 65, some of these “benefits” are reduced and some will cease altogether at 70. Even the travel portion of this one is severely limited. I have my own and even if l didn’t I could get better coverage from someplace like CAA.
I’m not sure you know how these plans work. We are paying into the plan for the whole, not self. I hope you never have to pay for medications not covered by OHIP or need the myriad of other medical devices needed as one ages. For 50 bucks a month I think this is a great program. BTW, I have 95% coverage from my spouses plan.
So this will cost us $54.99 a month. I’ve researched getting private insurance and it’s more than this.
While I’m not happy that an individual won’t have the choice to take the coverage or not, $54.99 is certainly not worth leaving real estate over.
My husband just retired recently so we no longer have his work related coverage. Most of the time we do alright, but better coverage would be welcome.
$54.99 a month now, next year $75.00 year after that ……..$$$$$
they will gouge us every year be assured of that!
Agreed. Thanks for sharing a positive comment!
JML, so you’ll be happy in future when their premiums start to skyrocket and you have no choice but to pay???
I fully support this program! It is a benefit to every member, even those who are 65+. The cost savings for this group plan is huge! When I started in real estate, I was single, in my twenties and did not have any benefits, nor could I afford to go out and buy insurance on my own because the cost was too high. That means that I am self-employed with ZERO support should something catastrophic happen. I would have much preferred to have an affordable plan. Even today, after ten years in the business, I am thankful to have this insurance coming into effect! There are so many costs associated with being a Realtor and this is one I am happy to pay.
You are part of the 2/10 realtors who support this. You’re in the fringe minority. If you want a benifits program get a private one, you can get a better one for cheeper.
Where do you get your stats and who are you “B”?
Can you please support your comment with details of less expensive private plans, please? I am unable to find a single one…
So they say the 2000 in combined coverage pays for itself but at only 70% coverage. So over 600 for the plan and then if you use the entire 2000 you have to pay another 600 on top of that as they will only cover 70% (1400). So whoop we pay over 1200 to get 2000 in services many don’t need or want!!! Many of us are couples who are both agents so getting screwed twice.
That’s one way to put it. Here’s another:
A senior can put the $713 (taxes included) into a TSFA on December 31, 2023 and all of it plus the tax free income earned will be there December 31, 2024.
A senior can stuff $713 under their mattress on December 31, 2023 and it’ll all still be there December 31, 2024.
That same senior can fork over $713 to OREA on December 31, 2023 and on December 31, 2023 it’s goes POOF! never to be seen again.
Obviously some want it but all we are asking for is an opt in/out option. Many of us are couples that are both agents so now costing us double for things we don’t need.
CG it might be good for you and many other realtors but there are thousands it is not good for. The realtors who already have their own policy in place, or the realtor whose spouse has a fantastic policy far better than oreas and of course, like me the elderly who is over 70 – loses critical illness care before I even get it as well as loses 50% of life insurance and yet still pay the same as everyone who get all the benefits. No, this plan needs to be made optional and those who want it will still have a great plan because if there are that many who want it the price will not go up. Orea has over stepped their authority in making this mandatory.
Well said and I totally agree..
C.G., great that you support this program. It means you feel it appropriate to have your need fulfilled at the expense of others, that is others pay for your enjoyment of a lesser cost than you might, and I emphasize might, incur with an independent coverage.
The sole reason this is mandatory across the non-voting members of OREA is it reduces the cost of the program offered. The underwriting insurer likely knows exactly how many registrants are at what age they are at what status they are for the coverages allowed, and has priced the plan accordingly.
You point to this in your remarks, you cannot afford the coverage if you sought it yourself. You think OREA has done you a favour, maybe it has. Beware what you wish for, as the rates can climb significantly and, as with everyone, you cannot escape the cost even if the return to you is no longer the ‘saving’ you initially enjoyed.
What is so unprofessional is that you welcome relief from costs at the expense of fellow registrants who have other coverage and do not need this program, yet whose premiums paid without benefit to them results in a benefit to you. Shame on that perspective.
Sorry, you are the one not thinking of others. This is a long term program which will help many. If you already have insurance, change your plan to fit in with your added coverage. Insurance is the whole looking after itself IF needed, for example an untimely death, accident, illness etc. A large majority will benefit greatly for your sacrifice. I hope you never need to buy expensive drugs or medical devices not covered by OHIP, regardless if one ages out on some parts of coverage. The Shame is not looking after our fellow Realtors!!
C.G, so you’ll also be happy when premiums start to skyrocket and you have no choice but to pay??
Agreed. OREA board outside TRREB should resign and let the new board executives in the rest of the province out of the country of Toronto.
This is disgusting and a militant attempt by an obsolete organization to remain relevant.
Very fair coverage.
Please ask OREA Why this type of Group insurance wasn’t one of their 5 Bold ideas presented to members at January 2019/or was it 2020 at the Markham Suites hotel?
When did group insurance become an idea OREA was proposing?
Ask what were the criteria in the Group Ins RFP sent out by OREA to solicit ideas?
Ask When the RFP went out, how many replied and what was main criteria for picking this one?
Ask When were members (by what means & how many) were asked if they favoured 1) a group ins plan? 2) a mandatory group plan 3) this mixture of types of WELLNESS coverage?
Ask why there isn’t ONE Life Ins plan regardless of age? (it would be cross-subsidized by the huge group) everyone dies, everyone would benefit eventually.
As mentioned above, there would be little opposition of a broad consultation had been undertaken and zero opposition if it was non-mandatory.
Even if offering Group WELLNESS ins is outside the OREA Assoc mandate – a good plan would be welcomed as much as One MLS for all Ontario.
Is it true that in 2022, on TREB board, where there are about 70,000 agents licensed, that 30,000 m/l agents sold nothing? I think it may have been a REM article. Please verify.
The next 30,000 m/l sold 1-5 homes in 2022. So 85% or so sold 0-5 homes. About 15% sold the vast majority of all properties?
Any cost increase of course will be fought.
Apparently we do not have a true profession, as a industry, and until we change our classification to real estate advisors instead of salespeople with at least a minimum of standards maintained, things will not change. Follow the money is a good way to evaluate the situation? 70,000 agents all paying monthly and OREA, CREA, fees make many millions of dollars cash flow!! Thoughts?
I just would have thought that given the anoumt of people involved and most importantly the amount of dollars that surely they could have put together a far superior package. This appears to be a huge win for the insurer not the the insured!!
Due diligence was not done to address the majority of Realtors who have voted against a mandatory plan. Rescind this plan and make it optional and save your butts because a lot if agents are going to opt out or leave the business. Take a vote on line and see the result before you ram this down our throats or perhaps lose your jobs too.
The questions is not whether OREA can or should investigate insurance coverage for its members. The questions is whether or not they have the LEGAL RIGHT to IMPOSE the FINANCIAL BURDEN for this on those members who do NOT want it. We are independent contractors, not employees, and OREA is not our employer. We are professionals in our own field but NOT in the legal profession. We need COMPETENT FACTUAL LEGAL ADVICE on whether or not OREA has the right to do this (I suspect not but I don’t know for sure). All of the other comments and conspiracy theories about who is benefiting or who is plotting against us are irrelevant. I seriously doubt that there were any plots or conspiracies at OREA and this was likely done with the belief it was genuinely in the best interests of the members. It is not the availability of the coverage that is at issue. For those who want it this can be of benefit and a good thing. For those who do not, this should not be MANDATORY nor should our ability to practice real estate be held hostage to the imposition of this on those who do not want it. It MUST be optional, or it MUST be dismissed. We need competent, factual legal advice. If it is proven that the MANDATORY part of this is not legal then OREA needs to contacted to see if they will VOLUNTARILY comply with the law or whether we need to drag them into court. If this is found to be legal then we need to examine whether or not we need to address the clauses and sections in OREA that allow them to do this to have them changed. All the conspiracy theories and finger pointing in the world is not going to fix this. It needs to be addressed through legal channels.
Maybe I am being naïve, but there would seem to be an easy fix for this controversy. I realize that “they” need the numbers in order to get the best possible deal from the underwriters. However, because there is so much pushback, I think each Realtor should be able to enter into the plan or not as they chose. Yes, the plan will then cost more, but if a Realtor wants and needs someone to negotiate on their behalf, then they should be willing to accept the higher cost. As far as charging or not charging individual Realtors, it will take a little more work but should not be an unsurmountable task.
Discriminatory that seniors pay the same and receive less? That’s standard for insurance, but still better than what individual insurance provides; you’d usually be paying more and receiving less. Instead the younger and/or healthier realtors are subsidizing the seniors because their rates would actually be below the $660/yr. I’d argue the younger agents are being penalized. It’s also important to note that if this is mandatory then it’s tax deductible, unlike the more private non-mandatory insurance.
I am quite sure that the CRA will not allow you to make this fully tax deductible. It most likely will be split up in 110 $ for dues and the balance for medical (which bring no or little tax benefit). Now add the fact that the “medical” also includes life insurance which is not tax deductible at all. Keep in mind that us old folks may get life insurance but that’s only good as long as we are with OREA. The regular obituaries that are shared by our board RARELY refer to an active member. Most people pass away after they have left the business.
I echo “ The board members of OREA have totally failed us and need to resign.” As an independent contractor I highly doubt this is legal to be mandated. Optional, yes.
I’m a Military Veteran and have ample coverage for medical and dental.
The idea of being forced to pay for another health plan that I’ll never use is infuriating and unfair.
If OREA goes through with the mandatory health plan, I’ll be seriously considering a career change out of principle.
It’s also hard to believe that they aren’t listening to the masses. With an overwhelming opposition, it was voted to continue with mandatory insurance? Makes no sense.
Who is benefiting from this deal?
Two parts of this are bad. One that it is mandatory and two that the older agents (which believe there are more then a few) will only be paying and not able to use this not so good plan
I am neither for nor against the new Orea insurance plan. Notwithstanding, any plan needs full participation or it becomes cost prohibitive. That is just a fact. Realtors who have their own plans have the ability to change their current coverage limits to coincide with the OREA plan and create a happy medium. Yes, the age limits are also a fact with these types of plans but again are related to plan costs. Picture a new Realtor (most ARE of an age that is within all plan limits) struggling to get a foothold in the business. This plan will benefit people like this and their families and will have a longterm positive affect. For anyone 65 or older, costs related to things not covered by OHIP start to escalate and this plan will more than pay for itself. Like all insurance, there will be a few who will never be able to fully take advantage (what is the average age and likely length of time in the industry of a new Realtor? Still 30’s and lasts less than 5 years?)
Now, for about $50. a month is the negative reaction really about cost or is it about willingness to change and look after those less fortunate?
Great points! I agree with you. This seems like it is about change and a mandatory enrollment. Although now that you shared a positive comment, be prepared for those opposed to attack you. Apparently public posts are only for negative comments.
Thank you 🙂
Needs full participation ? I am sure that 30,000 vs 96,000 would most likely get the same deal. Why would anyone give up a private plan to join this ? No dental, no vision, age discrimination. My daughter has a private plan that includes dental, vision, prescription and it’s not much more than what the fees are for this. How many other group policies have almost 100,000 members to get a “deal” like this ?
Please share the complete details of your medical, insurance, dental and eye plan for $50. a month
This plan doesn’t include any dental or vision and a very poor “medical” portion . Also which medical costs are increasing once someone is 65 or older ? With OHIP paying for prescriptions costs are actually going down, not up. You may want to check the details of this plan before making up your mind. Again, the opposition is about the MANDATE, not about a plan for realtors.
It’s a free will of person to help less fortunate, but it shouldn’t be Mandatory.
Rick M, untrue about “For anyone 65 or older, costs related to things not covered by OHIP start to escalate “
OHIP starts to kick in big time at 65! Like prescription drugs.
Get your facts straight please
It looks very much we are seeing the demise OREA. There will likely be a concerted effort to elect board representatives that will move to relinquish OREA membership and retain CREA membership to ensure MLS access in its ‘current’ form. I’m afraid OREA is writing its own obituary. This Member Movement is serious !
That’s why I’m planning to do at my local board.
Either I make that happen first, or I will join whichever board that leaves OREA first.
We need MLS access. We don’t need OREA.
If they want to treat us like a union then maybe we should act like a union & hand in resignation letters. I suspect with 70+ percent fewer dues it would quickly bring the organization to their knees.
This has tim hudak fingerprints written all over it. The same “conservative” leader that couldn’t save us from the corrupt mcquilty government through two elections, is now shoving mandatory plans against us real estate agents all so that they can create a new and “creative” revenue source for themselves.
TRREB got lobbied by orea pac lobby and we ended up with the short end of the stick. Mark my words. that “premium” with 2000$ savings in the first year will disappear within a year or two. orea will come up with a million reasons for either cutting benefits or increasing premiums.
anyone have any idea how to find out if TRREB voted for this monstrosity and which directors voted for it within TRREB board?
it would be interesting to find this info out.
I guess orea business of “inviting” speakers such as james carville and bush and so many other losers is not as profitable as they thought eh?
can’t wait to see orea fold. I get the forms but what else exactly are they doing for us? everyone is taking a bite out of our A**es and business is getting worse and worse for us agents. Just when deals are harder and harder to come by, let’s tack on more costs to doing business on em.
as I said in previous posts. orea needs to use some of them “zoom” style video conferencing with the psychiatrists they have hired and try to work through their little tyrant ways of mandating things on others. hopefully the sessions with the video psychiatrists will help them find “closure” and see their way into what Ontario agents are trying to tell them
So this will cost us $54.99 a month. I’ve researched getting private insurance and it’s more than this.
While I’m not happy that an individual won’t have the choice to take the coverage or not, $54.99 is certainly not worth leaving real estate over.
My husband just retired recently so we no longer have his work related coverage. Most of the time we do alright, but better coverage would be welcome.
That’s all fine and dandy but if they come to you next and tell you that unless you buy your car insurance through them and this insurance brokerage’s new extended plan that is for reduced coverage at 65 and reduced another 50% at 70, and which is subject to the claims experience of 96,000 people, you will lose your access to MLS, would you be alright with that too?
How about if they add long term disability 2 years hence when the plan is up for renewal, but seniors at 70 get zip, will you be good for that also?
You do know that’s what insurance brokerages and group insurers like to do, don’t you? – pile on the coverages to mask the increases their inflated increases or abysmal claims ratios.
It’s 50 bucks a month, really? The claims about forced Auto or other mandatory plans are unfounded. This has been talked about for years. Were you involved?
so those insurances have dental, vision and don’t discriminate against older folks ? The whole issue is about the MANDATE. The vast majority or realtors already have some type of coverage and will lose the ability to earn a living unless they pay.
Vast majority don’t want it? Where are you getting your numbers from?
Yes, the many helping those in need. I think this concept is lost on a lot of the people who are negatively responding. The insurance is about 50 bucks a month and has potential to really help if one needs it.
Yes the concept of the many helping the few is called charity.
Which is not a mandatory donation.
The concept of taking someone’s money with no benefit to them to pay for someone else is called a welfare tax.
Like mandatory auto insurance?
Like Auto insurance or CPP or the Welfare system? That kind of charity? I hope your loved ones never have to collect on a benefit on your behalf. You just don’t need the benefits today, right? It’s 50 bucks a month and you just may need it one day.
Check yourself buddy! My family did not before, does not now and never will have to depend on collecting anything from OREA and frankly if you paid attention at all, at 65 there’s not much to collect and at 70 it’s not worth the stamp tosend a letter.
OREA is not the government, they are not taking our pension and health contributions and then telling us we aren’t eligible for it at 65 and none at 70.
I’m very happy to contribute to that pool of funds for the greater good of every Canadian if you consider that charity, but I’m most definiely not interested in being forced to pay for anything useless by a company that has no employment or legal constitutional authourity over me.
Take away the right to advertise exclusive listings and hardly anyone cares. Try to take $50/mo out of a Realtor’s pocket and everybody has an opinion. If they made the annual dues $10,000 I think the business would be more enjoyable.
this is about the MANDATE. It has nothing or at least very little to do with the cost. This type of insurance interferes with coverages many realtors already have.
Ha!! You said it!
Actually, Greg, if you had been to the town halls, you would know that there was strong opposition against Exclusive Listing Ban aka “Co-operation Policy”. But it was slammed through by CREA in the same fashion.
Both associations will get killed by the technological advancement soon enough, and most of the agents won’t come to their rescue when they take their last breath.
Let’s talk about that Request for Proposal (RFP) and why only 8 out of the 19 Insurance Carriers provided quotes. Could the tight deadline be a factor? Remember, the task force made their recommendation to the Board of Directors on May 10th.
According to OREA’s own Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), the RFP for Insurance Carriers was sent on April 6th. That means there were exactly 4 weeks and 6 days between the RFP going out and the plan being approved. The best estimate is that the insurance companies were given a 2-to-3-week window to respond to the RFP.
And how thorough of an RFP could it have been if they only shared the additional tiers of coverage with the boards the Friday before the Special General Meeting (SGM)? Where was the room for negotiation?
Also, the “survey” OREA emailed to members was sent on April 26th, 20 days after they launched the RFP for carriers and 14 days before they made their decision. This doesn’t pass the sniff test.
The fact is OREA pushed this through without support and without adequately polling the membership. There was one survey that did not ask the obvious question, “do you want this yes or no”. Instead it had several questions presupposing you want it. With Tania’s replies, her last name should be Trudeau. I say do away with OREA. They have lost the confidence of the membership.
Well said.
OREA has struggled to repurpose itself since RECO pulled it’s (RECOs) primary function which was education. The entire entity should be closed out. It appears it is not only without purpose but is also completely deaf to the needs of the realtors it purports to represent. What instituting a forced insurance plan has to do with real estate activities is beyond me. This is so far outside its mandate that it is incomprehensible to me that the various boards actually approved this.
Wait and see how one day MLS and all of its valuable data will be sold to some tech conglomerate by way of voting behind closed doors.
I don’t have coverage through a spouse or family member, and I’m not a senior. I’m paying privately way more than OREA will be charging for the same benefits. Therefore I’m in favour of this program.
This program may work for some. You have to understand that the people against this has nothing to do with the “program” . It’s about the MANDATE. You may want to read the fineprint. You are paying more . Sure. I pay more too. But I have dental, vision, 90 % of drugs and far more. Remember that if you leave your current plan and 5 or 10 years down the road you are no longer a Realtor or this plan will be cancelled, you will pay far more because you will be 5 or 10 years older.
I did not see the REM unofficial poll
I would have participated in it and voted NO to making the health care plan mandatory!!
We have our own benefits plan which suits our needs and heading to age 65 this plan does nothing for us!!!
It will be very interesting to find out if there is a family member aligned with OREA that has a financial interest in the insurance company they are trying to force onto us.
Oh wow… any proof of that?
The entire Boards at both TRREB and OREA should resign. They have acted in a hasty self serving manner instead of what is in the best interests of their memberships.
As a TRREB member I find it inexcusable that they did not reach out to each of their members directly when they knew they would carry the vote.
They get to wash their hands, and admin costs, of administering their current Life Insurance program so it’s a money grab for them while boosting a pretty irrelevant association like OREA that was floundering to even still have a purpose now that RECO took education away from them.
Please somebody (and I don’t expect TRREB or OREA to do it) tell me where it was ever relayed to the membership that this would be a mandatory program.
All brokerages that are affiliated with CREA require that all licensed brokers and salesperson join the local board. At no time were we ever required to pay mandatory health benefits as part of our independent contactor agreement with our brokerage. I am not a lawyer or legal advisor but it seems like the new OREA ORWP puts us all in a position to lose our independent contractor status because of the MANDATORY ORWP decision. I would suggest that all 100,000 Realtors join to get an expert lawyer to draft a generic contract to replace the existing contract in place with our brokerages that will address any affiliation with CREA, OREA or board affiliation not be able to require any mandatory requirements or payments that would violate our independent status under CRA rulings!
When a worker is an independent contractor and not an employee, there are important differences for an employer.
An employer is not required to deduct and remit to the government statutory payroll taxes and deductions such as income tax, Canada Pension Plan, Ontario Employer Health tax and employment insurance for independent contractors.
In addition, independent contractors are not covered under the Employment Standards Act, 2000, nor are they entitled to common law notice of termination. This often makes the relationship more attractive for employers.
However, when hiring someone as an independent contractor, employers must ensure that the reality of the relationship is that of an independent contractor and not an employment relationship.
Although the intention of the parties is given some weight, it is only one factor the courts will take into account, and a statement in the contract will not be determinative. The totality of the relationship must reflect the independence required to support a contract for service.
The courts (and the Canada Revenue Agency) have developed a four-part test to determine whether an employment relationship exists. The key factors taken into account are:
Control (how much control the employer has over the worker’s activities);
Ownership of tools (generally, a contractor supplies his own tools, but this will depend upon the industry norms);
Chance of profit/risk of loss (the financial risk taken by the worker, such as investments in equipment and materials, and whether the worker can realize a profit); and
Integration into the employer’s business.
Health, dental and life insurance benefits add significant value to workers’ contracts and are often specifically sought out by workers. However, the provision of these seemingly innocuous benefits can be problematic and can result in major legal ramifications if provided to contractors.
The provision of health and welfare benefits to a worker has been noted by the Tax Court of Canada as demonstrating a degree of control by the employer that suggests an employment relationship. Although this is one factor to be considered when assessing the relationship in its entirety, it could be the one to tip the scales towards an employment relationship.
There is no one conclusive “test” to be applied in determining whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor.
Courts will instead look at the totality of the relationship between the parties. Accordingly, employers should examine all aspects of their independent contractor relationships to determine whether they can satisfy the above tests, including the provision of benefits. Otherwise, the employer may be on the hook for significant, unanticipated costs.
Nadine Zacks is an associate lawyer at Hicks Morley’s Toronto office, currently practicing in all areas of labour and employment law.
Perfectly said SID Johnson. You, Tom Booth and Barry Lebow have aptly outlined the basis of concern with this arbitrary program, the process for adoption by the membership and the lack of choice for independant contractors. I have negotiated many “benefit” programs in my prior career offered nationwide and covering thousands of lives and can assure you that this “group insurance” approach is fundamentally flawed and the exact opposite of where most insurance and benefit programs have pivoted to in the last couple of decades which is to provide members more choices and this flexibility otherwise known as “Flex Benefits” which has superseded the majority of old fashion group ins. schemes and is primarily driven by cost containment strategies. I can assure you the benefits OREA has negotiated (albeit poorly) can be provided with choice and at costs not much different than what has been negotiated and anyone with an actuarial background can attest to this. The opt out option is a must! The “Say No to ORWP” campaign has merit and should proceed to a Legal challenge. It is interesting to note if one reads the fine print plan details is that the only ones offered an option to opt out are employees of OREA. … Curiouser and curiouser! Now down the rabbit hole we shall go.
Shame on OREA, and shame on TRREB for voting for this without our consent. Give us the option to opt-out and you won’t hear a word from those of us that don’t want it. Let those that want it pay for it.
I don’t appreciate OREA and TRREB telling me how I need this coverage, this is my concern and no one else.
I think it’s time to shake up OUR organizations and boards, from the top to the bottom, we need people who are focused on what is best for members and not what’s best for them. I for one will be a lot more careful next time I vote for board members.
It would be interesting to know if members pay the OREA fees to their respective boards and if so, when do the boards remit back to OREA.
Do the respective boards receive any incentive for collecting and remitting?
Or do the respective boards collect and remit directly to the Insurance company?
If a members opts to pay extra for family members or to increase the period of time allowed for travel, who does the member pay? and when?
Is now the time for OREA to have direct billing to the members?
Is now the time to review the “three party agreement”?
The latest actions of the board members of CREA, TREB and now OREA are borderline criminal. The collusion between the three and failure to their fiduciary duties to their members they work for have been ignored. Any board members who do not support the actions of their board should speak out or resign. Silent opposition is the same as support for their cause.
Just got word the CREA is also going to be under heat very soon for their Realtor Cooperation Policy as there is a group forming a legal challenge on that.
The most feared words in real estate, “Competition Bureau”, this mandatory program is not wanted by the majority of independent realtors in Ontario and actually limits the competitive choices available to them. Having no choice in such a program is not only an overreach by OREA but it also undermines the very nature of consumer protection via by limiting competition in the insurance business its like saying that there is a standard commission rate in the market. The insurer should reconsider this idea of a mandatory policy as it appear to supports a noncompetitive business model.
I would be very interested in knowing if there is any compensation coming back to OREA from the insurance carrier for delivering a guaranteed number of new policy holders.
I bet you it is !
Quite simply this should be optional. Having health care coverage etc has no bearing on our profession. For those already paying a premium for private coverage this is an unwanted expense.
This is coercion, forcefulness, heavy handedness whatever you want to call it it’s not right.
I am 60+, and I do a trade or two for a year, and sometimes none for a year.
I am already covered through my wife’s insurance(it is not free, we are paying premium).
I am one of those people these guys claiming to help by providing insurance. But hurting me by trying to extract unnecessary premium for their own sake.
Do they expect me to subsidize them with my whole new premium, just because they want to save few bucks on their policy.
What world these guys are living!
Will there not be an option to “waive” if you have evidence of duplicate coverage?
Seems pretty standard in the insurance world
Shame on the current board of OREA! They are supposed to support all members, but they only support those members who demand lowest insurance premiums. They don’t care whether all members are affordable for these extra but unnecessary spending in these days with high inflations. They don’t care whether the mandatory requirements cause so many members double insured without any necessities. They should resign!
I am realtor for 25 years and I can’t imagine how we all have been treated. I am definatelly oposing this insurance because we were forced and insurance itself is not any good. There are a lot of things you won’t need . There is no dental coverage which with medication coverage would be most appreciated.
I think we should get together and fight for our right to decide.