Canada’s largest real estate board, the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board, is facing internal dissent over proposed bylaw changes that could transfer key decision-making powers—including control over membership fees—from members to the board of directors.
The reforms, to be voted on at TRREB’s spring annual general meeting (AGM) on May 14, ahead of its annual conference, Realtor Quest, come with limited time for review, critics say, and have raised concerns among some members about their potential long-term implications.
Members warn the changes threaten accountability and transparency in the 73,000-member organization, which posted a $7.65-million deficit in 2024, according to financial statements. TRREB also reported a 3.3 per cent decline in membership year-over-year.
Members voice concerns over transparency and financial pressures
“They do not give membership the opportunity to speak at the annual meetings,” Jeff Mount, a TRREB member and Realtor with iPro Realty Ltd. told the Globe. “Last year, we got one question. Why are we spending money to bring in Americans as guest speakers when we could turn it over to membership to ask more questions?
“The whole process has been rewritten in favour of the executive team, and not to the benefit of membership. It is just another example of the direction they have taken and the removal of any accountability of membership.”
Last fall, TRREB members rejected a proposed $60 increase in dues for 2025. Fees vary by membership category but are generally around $700.
“I don’t think that Realtors can currently afford higher fees: the market is down, transaction volume is down,” said Jake Steinman, broker of record for Meta Realty Inc., told the Globe and Mail. “This is a case where democracy has to rule: you can’t complain if you don’t vote.”
Brokerages speak out ahead of key vote
In a video message to agents, Ken McLachlan, CEO of Re/Max Hallmark urged members to review the proposed changes carefully and participate in the vote.
“There’s a board vote next week that’s important to go to, to vote at,” McLachlan said. “I’m encouraging you to do as much homework as you can right now on what’s important to you.”
While he didn’t oppose reform outright, McLachlan expressed concern with how the proposed bylaw changes have been bundled together.
“I personally am going to vote no on this,” he said, “not ’cause I’m against what’s going to be happening, but I think they should take a really good look at maybe separating some of the stuff…not to put it all together.”
He concluded by urging members to “get involved, make a difference,” and said he was open to questions from fellow agents.
TRREB CEO declines to comment, says members will have final say at the AGM
In an emailed statement to Real Estate Magazine, TRREB CEO John DiMichele said: “At this time, it would be premature for TRREB to publicly discuss business items ahead of the spring Annual Meeting. We are communicating directly with our Members and providing details on business items that the Board has brought forward for Member endorsement, including the proposed modernization of our By-Law.”
Tim Syrianos, broker of record/owner with Re/Max Ultimate Realty and 2017/18 TRREB president, says the agenda item regarding the board and its ability to adjust dues and fees without requiring direct member approval has been floated around for years.
“I for one personally believe that the members should decide this. You bring forward a business case as to why this dues increase is requested, and the members decide,” he said. “Call me old school. I like the idea of members being able to be educated and vote on these things.”
Syrianos explains that TRREB has always managed a very tight ship, and they’ve always had the members’ interest first and foremost.
Circulating emails raise alarm over proposed powers
“The chatter is starting, and it seems to be that more people want the members to still decide on these changes than it is the board of directors, from what I’m gathering.
“The one (agenda item) that seems to be of greater concern amongst members’ conversation, especially in this environment with the cost of living and everything else going on with the economy, is the idea of dues going up without finding efficiencies that may already exist. That’s what has provided the most concern.”
An email, reportedly circulated by a former TRREB director, expresses alarm over the proposed bylaw overhaul, particularly a provision that would shift authority to increase membership dues from the membership to the board. The message warns that the changes could permit the board to adjust dues without requiring member approval.
It urges members to vote “no” at the upcoming AGM to allow more time to review and understand what it describes as a sweeping set of reforms being introduced through a completely rewritten bylaw and policy manual.
TRREB: Dues still require member-led oversight
TRREB leadership has responded to this email with clarification to members.
“Dues are set once per year, not multiple times. The proposed changes would move the specifics of dues setting from the By-Law into Board policy, but this does NOT mean a blank cheque for the Board,” the board wrote in an email to members. “The Finance Committee, made up of volunteer TRREB Members who pay dues, approves a budget which includes the proposed dues amount which is then sent as a recommendation to the Board of Directors, also made up of volunteer TRREB Members who pay dues, for their approval.”
TRREB says the change is intended to allow flexibility and efficiency, especially in times of financial stress such as litigation or membership decline.
The board emphasized that oversight will remain in place: “Most importantly, you still have the ultimate oversight. You elect the Board of Directors who are responsible for any future dues changes, and we your elected Board of Directors have a duty to act in the membership’s best interest, which makes sense as we too are Members. If we don’t, you can vote us out, and you don’t have to wait four years to do so as you do with the government.”
Upcoming vote
TRREB members can vote on the proposed bylaw changes in person at the Spring Annual Meeting, taking place Wednesday, May 14, at 9:15 a.m. at the Toronto Congress Centre during Realtor Quest. Member registration opens at 8:15 a.m., and a valid TRREB member ID is required for entry.
Mario Toneguzzi is a contributing writer for REM. He has more than 40 years of experience as a daily newspaper writer, columnist, and editor. He worked for 35 years at the Calgary Herald, covering sports, crime, politics, health, faith, city and breaking news, and business. He now works on his own as a freelance writer for several national publications and consultant in communications and media relations/training. Mario was named in 2021 as one of the Top 10 Business Journalists in the World by PR News – the only Canadian to make the list.
Good & timely Coverage.
Meeting will be informative to many who attend.
Wow with that deficit if correct in article I think they need independent auditor to start chopping expenses, like numbers going to conventions, perhaps staff, less expensive building With everyone working off computers do need that much space. before look at increasing member fees, to cover that kind of a deficit. I am a working full time realtor since 1978 and sky is not the limit
We don’t elect board members, we elect Board members that have been selected by the board. It’s called a selection process designed in my opinion to keep people that opposed the board out. The entire organization is a farce.
SO proud of the members speaking up and asking questions. It is member’s organization and owned by the members. Members should have a say in all decisions. Can you imagine if this is how TRREB wants to run the non for profit and what would happen to the profit division . Why are the same people running both organization ( most of the same people) Time for a change and let members speak and stop giving our ( members money to American speakers) Also STOP bundling up all the decisions so no one will pay attention. Great article in Globe and Mail.
If TRREB wants to increase our fees maybe they should talk to OREA first and have them reduce the $600 they forced on us so that members can use that amount on TRREB instead. 🤷🏻♀️
So give the 600 to treb?????
Just eliminate the 600 and orea
Ah yes. Everyone is riled up because they may loose their ability to vote on mundane items.
Here’s the issue.. we don’t vote. We don’t read the material. We don’t attend.
We’re up in arms and will show up this week to preserve our right to vote but 6 months from now at the fall meeting none of those same people who wanted to keep their vote so bad will inform themselves and then show up to actually use that vote.
At the last AGM there was a proposal to increase dues (very slightly to a level still WELL under that of ANY other real estate board) with very clear reasons why. Only 600 out of over 70,000 members showed up to vote. And do you think it was the productive members who want the board to be investing in technology or increased professionalism or do you think it was the ones who haven’t sold a home all year and had nothing better to do?
The board is made up of dues paying members just like us. If they raise fees they have to pay the increased fee as well. So they keep it as tight as possible. The difference is they are informed and aware of what it costs to run the board.
Don’t get me wrong I would love to get to a point where a significant portion of the membership informed themselves, participate and showed up to vote. But since that’s not going to happen we need to turn they control over to those that do.
Instead we rile up everyone to come out today and vote this down, but they won’t back back to vote on the real issues. Which these leaves the organisation stagnated and unable to provide the valuable services needed to move the profession forward.
Not proud enough to put your name up.
There seems to be a lot of “modernization” of bylaws by real estate industry organizations in recent years. The questions is, what does modernization mean exactly? Why are old democratic principles, which have stood the test of time for thousands of years (yes, democratic rule is that old), all of a sudden outdated? The BOD of one organization I belong(ed) to gave themselves the power to unilaterally suspend membership with no hearing, no charges, no details and no notice to membership. After 50 years with not one member ever being suspended, five have been suspended in under two years.
There is always a compelling reason for these changes that always accumulate power in the hands of the few. That is why the best set of bylaws ever written, the US Constitution, is designed to disperse power – that is the safest protector of good management.
Who cares. No one listened when orea screwed us so why bother now. Just sheep along as usual.
Membership dues strikes at the heart of members interest. And the governance considerations, best governance practices get short shrift in the discussion under the seemingly, easily thought of as more important ‘we have always done it this way’; meaning the dues have been decided by members.
Ask, however, what company whose purpose is to benefit shareholder interests (in the case of ORE it is “members”) has ever had shareholders decide the goods and services consumer pricing. Answer – none, or so rare as to be none.
TRREB has 73k in members. Practically impossible to intentionally achieve awareness to make a decision on market pricing that is nimble in response to the market. Of course in the case of ORE it is argued the market need not be nimble, a belief that is foolishly applied.
Add to this members are professional REALTORS® who collectively lack expertise in managing the financial operations of multi-million dollar corporation activity. And members have a short term bias, such as responding to the present income capacity to them personally, thus ignoring long-term interests.
Successful governance structure, even if sometimes there is not success, is founded on the principal members elect a Board of Directors, the Board oversees a high-level strategy for the corporation which they make a CEO accountable to deliver, and management implements the tactics to achieve strategic outcomes.
If anything, the bylaw (which I have not read but take as moving dues decision from the membership vote to a Board of Director directed method) should not reference setting dues at all…it is a management function.
ORE has lived in a bubble for so long, it cannot find its way to being more successfully profitable to its shareholders. While understandable there is disinterest in a dues increase in the present economic malaise, perhaps also in good times, the arguments against this change should be about not leaving it to the Board to decide.
If members wish to limit the Board’s extraction of wealth from their practices into the hands of the organization, the fastest way to do that would be to require ORE to adhere to the income tax act and its limitations on reserve funds.
You are not wrong. However, the issue is in fact not governance for members it’s a lack of trust. Building over many years for many reasons, this being the culmination of those transgressions, real or perceived.
You are not wrong. However, the issue is in fact not governance for members it’s a lack of trust. Building over many years for many reasons, this being the culmination of those transgressions, real or perceived.
Not even a close comparison.
The shareholders of for-profit corporations are at the very most, a small percentage of the consumer of the corporation’s product. Their first and foremost care is that they make a profit, the higher the better. The consumer of for-profit corporations is transient because they care about saving on costs, the lower the better.
There are no shareholders in the not-for-profit organized real estate industry as you well know, but rather stakeholders who happen to be the only consumers of the products that are locally produced, sold and controlled by their corporation and necessary to produce the stakeholders’/consumers’ Ontario output. Neither are they transient consumers because the local product they need is at best only somewhat available to them via any of the other 14/15 remotely located other such corporations.
The only cost saving available to them of the product they pay to have produced is to keep the overhead of same low.
What I happened today at The
meeting was not about the dues,
rather a complete distrust between the members and the board of directors. This needs a serious thinking and work to build trust and hold accountable especially the board of directors for their actions. So sad to see this.
Volunteering is a quiet, self-fulfilling and humble action most people make in furtherance of a cause that is not about themself. Those who find it necessary to come out and tout that they are volunteers, show they volunteer not out of humility but for recognition, particularly when it turns into a years long venture for the prize of a one year role as the presidency/chair role within affiliated organizations.
Unless you’re doling out assistance of any sort to people in need, not many care and remember, no one twisted your arm to get you to volunteer. Worse, the protestation comes across as passive aggressive admonishment to the crowd being addressed, which doesn’t and isn’t helping your cause. Let’s face it, it’s likely 99% of the organized real estate membership have no clue how many directors or committee volunteers there are much less their names.
Just as bad is when your defense for decisions made as a ‘volunteer’ is to suggest that because you pay membership dues you have the best interest of the membership at heart. That only insults the sensibilities of the non-volunteering members who also pay the same dues as it insinuates that your dues payment carry greater weight and opinion. Not only does it not, the role of directors of a corporation is to act in the best interests of the corporation and while that as an organization existing on membership dues inherently means there is a direct correlation between retaining members and the corporation as a growing concern, your email starts out confessing that said membership never ever hear from you, (unless of course you are looking for their vote).
Here’s a thought. If the coffers need to be bolstered to pay for ‘class action lawsuits’ it would be more prudent to have policy practices and standards that are so well vetted by extremely knowledgable external counsel, they do not invite viable class action lawsuits.
But while only class action lawsuits are mentioned, when in the last 15 years or so has this real estate association not been involved in lawsuits, either against them as with class actions or, governmental or, launched against others including against their own dues paying members?
One last thing, speaking of misinformation, it is ironic that there is a lot of misrepresentation of the new proposed by-laws within the directors’ email.
Point of order. For the directors to say that “we your elected Board of Directors have a duty to act in the membership’s best interest” is not only misleading but wrong. Once elected, the Directors’ fiduciary duty is to the corporation, not to the members. Therefore, they might have to raise dues if they think that the organization needs it, and their feelings about paying their own dues are irrelevant.
Since when does a non-profit organization need to make profits? TRREB created a for-profit subsidiary, REALM. Is this not enough to save the organization from the consequences of financial troubles? Are we to expect our membership dues to go up and then see REALM fees go up independently, thus increasing total cost even more?
Lack of transparency and accountability around the ORWP fiasco (discontinuing existing life insurance, not consulting with members on their wishes before making crucial decisions, etc.) should give every member enough of a pause before approving of the proposed by-law changes and giving the BOD more power.
If they wanted members to vote then they wouldn’t make it an in person event in order to vote. Most productive agents can’t fight traffic to be downtown to register at 8:15am just to vote on issues. And again to go the same in the fall at the fall meeting. And yes having the same people run the non profit and for profit organization is totally absurd and should not be allowed.
Point of order. For the directors to say that “we your elected Board of Directors have a duty to act in the membership’s best interest” is not only misleading but wrong. Once elected, the Directors’ fiduciary duty is to the corporation, not to the members. Therefore, they might have to raise dues if they think that the organization needs it, and their feelings about paying their own dues are irrelevant.
Lack of transparency and accountability around the ORWP fiasco (discontinuing existing life insurance, not consulting with members on their wishes before making crucial decisions, etc.) should give every member enough of a pause before approving of the proposed by-law changes and giving the BOD more power.
I recall reading this now 73,000-member organization posted a $7.65-million deficit in 2024, according to financial statements. Simple math would info a deficit per member of $ 105. How is a $60 per member increase with expected declining membership going to offset? Is there more near-term added deficit news coming the board does not wish to return to the members for approval in the near future? More clarity needed for me. On the increase amount, REALTORS are a business, to those who make it a real business, not just a part time tax dodge, a $60 justified increase based on probable forward costs should not be problematic whether or not we are at a trough in the inevitable real estate sales cycle or not. Maybe those who find this increase, if fully justified, an excess may be in the wrong line of work?
And about representation, members are responsible for electing the Board. How many members make the effort to review candidates and vote? The fact that only 600 or so make the time to attend a well publicized AGM out of 73,000 indicates pathetically low interest. Is the problem in the mirror?
The real question how did the BOD ,more than one . Run up a 7 million dollar deficit . What is John doing ??
Vote NO a send the BOD back to the table with a knife to slash the budget !!
First I read…73,000-member organization, which posted a $7.65-million deficit in 2024, and then I read…Syrianos explains that TRREB has always managed a very tight ship! Hmm thinking that tight ship has a leak somewhere!
Anyone knows who’s the former TRREB director that has sent out the email?