Editor’s note: REM reached out to MREB for more information on the SGM, its outcome and the decision to move forward with the Cornerstone amalgamation. As of the time of writing, we have not heard back. Any information received will be added here.
On Monday, July 1, the Cornerstone Association of Realtors (Cornerstone) began its operations.
This follows a special general meeting (SGM) held by the Mississauga Real Estate Board (MREB) on June 26, where a vote in favour of terminating its amalgamation with three other Ontario boards as Cornerstone took place.
SGM vote to reverse decision didn’t stop amalgamation
However, MREB’s amalgamation has moved forward, as confirmed in a July 2 email to Cornerstone members from Bill Duce, CEO of Cornerstone:
“Like any amalgamation, this is not about endings but rather new beginnings. All four partnering associations, Hamilton-Burlington, Waterloo Region, Simcoe & District and Mississauga will continue into Cornerstone. We take our extensive and celebrated past into new beginnings to become better together.
Nothing about this was easy, and by no means is the heavy lifting finished; it is just beginning. As you are likely aware, there has been some eleventh-hour angst at one of our partner associations when some vocal members tried to withdraw from the amalgamation. These members were engaged, passionate and cared deeply about their association. While some of their concerns were absolutely on the spot, others were based on misinformation that created fear, uncertainty and doubt.”
‘(MREB) did not honour the mandate of the SGM verdict nor communicate to membership what steps they took after’
Tahir Qureshi, broker of record and president of City-Pro Realty Inc., Brokerage, was one such concerned member. Quershi left the new association on July 2. “I have terminated my brokerage membership and designated TRREB as my home board,” he explains, despite supporting and partaking in MREB, his local board, for years.
“The painful part is the SGM reversing the amalgamation was not considered by the board … (They) did not honour the mandate of the SGM verdict nor communicate to the membership what steps they took after the SGM mandate.”
Tehreem Kamal, broker with Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd., Brokerage, echoes this sentiment and shares: “The Mississauga Real Estate Board of directors having chosen to disregard the members’ mandate is a serious violation of the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) and Mississauga Real Estate Board bylaws.
Also important is that the chair and three other directors had a direct conflict of interest in this matter from the start. When the then-president decided not to be on the task force, the president elect was appointed to the task force along with the chair and two other directors. It was determined at the last two meetings of the board (late last year) that the task force would become the (Cornerstone) board once the individual boards were dissolved.”
‘Amalgamations between real estate associations are not about MLS systems alone’
In his email, Duce goes on to explain that Cornerstone is fully aware of the concerns regarding access to MLS information:
“While the province’s inefficient and arbitrary ‘MLS system boundaries’ are actively shifting, members are still required to access two or more MLS systems. We are actively working on this issue and will continue until a satisfactory solution is reached.
Cornerstone staunchly believes that all Ontario realtors must have access to all Ontario MLS information to fulfill their fiduciary duties to their clients. It is not about how much data one has access to or having more data; you need all the data — full stop.“
He states that the amalgamation task force saw a presentation from PropTx, but that their “immediate attention is on completing the remaining tasks of our amalgamation while ensuring we provide our users with a robust and stable system … Amalgamations between real estate associations are not about MLS systems alone. We see multiple examples of associations within the same MLS system still pursuing amalgamations to provide additional efficiencies and excellence to their members.”
Duce’s wrap-up reiterates that real estate is local and that Cornerstone believes boards need to be as well.
Emma Caplan-Fisher is an editor and writer for REM. She has over a decade of experience in various content types and topics, including real estate, housing, business, tech, and home & design. Emma’s work has also been featured in Cottage Life, the Vancouver Real Estate Podcast, the Chicago Tribune, Narcity Media, Healthline, and others. She holds a Certificate in Editing from Simon Fraser University.
Without Prejudice: Not-for-profit organizations arise when dedicated individuals join forces to pursue a common goal, often resulting in tax exemption status. Elected representatives are responsible for creating and ratifying by-laws and policies during the Annual General Meeting to ensure effective governance. By taking oaths, elected directors commit to upholding laws and by-laws, and are obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest. In any Not-for-Profit organization, the president or Board Chair cannot unilaterally make decisions against the members’ mandate, as this would undermine democracy and good governance. It is also important to seek independent legal advice when agreeing on behalf of the organization. Honest and timely communication is a key factor that helps build bridges between members and elected representatives to avoid misgiving between them.
Failure to adhere to the members’ mandate by elected directors sets a negative example and dissuades others from volunteering for similar roles. Therefore, it is essential for the Board of Directors of any Charity or Not-for-Profit organization to undergo training to comprehend their responsibilities and drive the institution forward towards progress and prosperity.
Directors can always learn from past leaders who have successfully run Not-for-Profit organizations and could be a guiding tool for the continuity and success of the association.
With all due respect Mississauga did hold an AGM in January of 2024. At that meeting the over whelming vote was to join Cornerstone. If you were an engaged member you would have attended this meeting. A last minute Hail Mary SGM to overturn an amalgamation that was well past the point of return is not a violation of a directors duties. As a matter of fact if one looked at the bylaws of the Mississauga Board it would state that the SGM held was not within those bylaws or policies based on time alone. And even if it was held within bylaws and policies,, backing out at the last minute would have bankrupted the Mississauga board and they would be left with no MLS provider. And, you were currently a member of 2 boards anyway. Mississauga as well as Toronto. So becoming a member of Cornerstone is no different. Other then the important fact that your sales reps would now have access to almost all the data in you trading areas. So your decision (IMO) is short cited and based on emotion rather than critical thinking. And to top it all off Mississauga was a small board with limited resources. They brought the least to the table. RAHB has well over 10 million in cash and asserts , and KWAR was flush as well. Both owning their own buildings. You are missing out on a great opportunity for your sales reps and a step forward to the end goal of a Province wide MLS system. But you can now bow to the ruler and kiss the ring. Maybe there will be a Gold Star in it for you.
For Clarity without Prejudice:
Majority of former MREB members were dual members including myself with TRREB as well, approximately 80%. I attended the first SGM in 31 Jan 2024, 102 members attended, ninety-eight voted in favour to amalgamate including myself. Circumstances changed in the marketplace, and past presidents who supported the amalgamation-initiated efforts to Board to temporarily halt the amalgamation, re-assess strategy and not sign Agreement. Board of Directors proceeded with Amalgamation Agreement despite concern expressed by past presidents. As a result, more than 10% of the members as per section 4.2 by-laws submitted a petition to call for SGM with one agenda to terminate the amalgamation and take legal steps to seek court injunction if need to stop the amalgamation. An SGM was held on 26 June. 126 members registered, 125 members attended, 119 voted to terminate the amalgamation, two voted against the termination and four abstained. The MREB Corporate lawyer who was appointed by the Board of Directors was asked if he has reviewed the Amalgamation Agreement signed by the Board, his answer was NO. This alarmed all members that Board unilaterally signed the Amalgamation Agreement without independent legal advice from its own lawyer. To learn more what transpired in the SGM, request to former Board under Freedom of Information Act to sharing the recording of the SGM to set the record straight. Board never shared the minutes of the SGM and what steps taken by them to respect the fresh mandate of its membership. Second SGM 119 members voted to terminate the Amalgamation as compared to ninety-eight who voted in the first SGM. But no action was taken by the Board of Directors.
Intimidation and fear mongering approach does not work in a democratic society. Majority makes rules to protect minority. CREA has established a Legal Fund to support REALTORS®. The amalgamation proceeded without any action by Board or its lawyer. The 70 years of MREB’s proud history that we celebrated this May 2024 washed away against the mandate of its members.
We always either learned from our mistakes or run from it. The choice is us to make. Local identify is as important as data sharing. Consumers has more data at one location whereas members must join multiple boards. This disparity must end to make life easy for all REALTORS®
Not For Profit Corporations. Mreb, as well as RECO, Orea and TRREB are indeed not for profit Corporations.
In recent years TRREB, Orea and now Mreb ‘appear’ to be acting independent’s/ contrary to the wishes of their members.
I have been searching to discover exactly who/what holds a not for profit corporation to task?
Who can members turn to in order to control a not for profit?
Some say is the Public Guardian and Trustee, some say the 2011 Legislation made that point unclear – I see that the Province clamped down on RECO after a disapproving Auditor General’s report, who/what can do the same to OUR not for profits?
How are you going to just accuse the chair and four directors of having a conflict of interest without elaborating on that accusation? That’s pretty sloppy and unprofessional “journalism.”
Since the four (not five) individuals were on the task force and the task force became Cornerstone’s board, as quoted, I believe that’s where this accusation comes from.
I don’t understand how that constitutes a conflict of interest.
For Clarity without Prejudice:
It is well known fact that Four Directors became Directors of new corporation that did not even exist and negotiated an Amalgamation Agreement without consulting MREB corporate Lawyer bypassing to protect the interest of its institution or membership. When 2nd SGM was held, 26 June 2024, two Key Directors including the Chair did not attend MREB SGM. Apparently, new amalgamation agreement included a clause that only give power to the board of directors to terminate the amalgamation. Board of Director did not take any action for new mandate to reverse the termination. Do you know why it happened? All four of them are director of new corporation.
Thank you Tahir. That would have been good information to include in the article accusing them of conflict of interest.
I’m confused.
I attended the meeting on June 26th where nearly 99% of members present voted to end the amalgamation in a very heated setting.
When I received an email on July 2nd or 3rd that the amalgamation had gone through I called the board and was told that they had no new information or answers about why the board had decided to completely contravene the members wishes.
I’m disappointed in the complete lack of respect for member’s wishes.
I, for one, will vote with my feet. This complete disregard for the member’s wishes is not something I wish to support.
By the way – it’s always, always, always about the data. That is why we take dual (costly) membership in local boards.
Your confusion is rooted in your apathy. Mississauga did hold a vote to amalgamate in January 2024. That vote overwhelmingly was in favour of the amalgamation. Then on the 26th of June 2024 a group of upset members call a last minute SGM. And that SGM was probably not even within the bylaws or policies of the MREB. A heated meeting at the 11th hour! Way past the cut off to back out of any agreement. That would be like a buyer backing out of a firm sale because their bratty kids were all of a sudden upset about moving. Backing out would have left all the MREB members without an association. Did you never consider that fact? Secondly MREB brought the least to the table. RAHB has well over 10 million is cash and assets. They own their own building. So did KWAR! KWAR was flush as well. You were already a member of 2 associations and as a member of Cornerstone think of all the data you now have access to! Way more than back in May. So your Data, data , data comment should read. Excellent I have access to way more data then ever by being a member of Cornerstone. And did you ever think that now TRREB may possibly have a different perspective on cooperating with other associations in Ontario? Look at TRREBS track record. Took over Barry. A small board with limited to no resources. LakeLands. A small board with limited resources. Brampton. A small association with almost no resources. And next would be Mississauga. Another small assocition with limited resources. Now you are a part of a significant association with a data bank growing by the month. Something TRREB cannot get it hands on. Can registrants not see the larger picture in Ontario! Oakville/Milton does not want to join Cornerstone. Maybe now that the amalgamation is complete they should think about joining with Cornerstone. That would be the best move for their members? Or will Oakville Milton just be thinking of their individual brokerages?
I don’t know where you are getting your information there are only 4 directors on Cornerstone board not 5 from MREB and how can there be any conflict when the board elected three of them to be on that board and fourth was appointed by 2023 President There was no Cornerstone board as it was only a task force until July 1st. . These volunteers are giving their time to their professional associations instead of being thankful people are insulting them. Most of the people with their own agenda are spreading false rumours. Members would have received the answers at June 26th meeting if any one allowed them to answer any questions. There are by laws and the directions followed them and did what was their duty not a shouting MOB who did not let any one else speak as they think they know more than everyone else. I saw the meeting and It was not a professional meeting. Emma with due respect you should check your facts before you print them. Just because some one gives you the info unless it verified it is not print worthy.
That statement is attributed to Tehreem Kamal, as quoted, not REM (and only four individuals are mentioned in the article, not five. That was an error that’s now corrected in earlier comments). We tried to get MREB’s take on what was mentioned, including the conflict of interest accusations, and have not received a response to date.
Without Projudice:
Emma, please ask former MREB to share the video recording of the SGM that was held 26th June 2024 to set the record straight. You can ask under the Freedom of Information ACT, freedom of speech and for clarity.
For Clarity without Prejudice:
The SGM of 26 June was requested by MREB members only with one agenda to move a motion to give authority to the Board of Directors to terminate the amalgamation. Unfortunately, the key persons including Chair decide not to attend the SGM. Over 250 members signed the petition. The board tried to turn that SGM into a town hall meeting contrary to the SGM notice sent to members. No doubt, it was hot and debated due to a lack of effective communication. The motion was passed by 119 Members voting yes to terminate, 2 voted against the motion and 4 abstained. It would have been nice if the Chair had attended and clarified why they wanted to proceed and explained why they did not consult with an MREB Corporate appointed lawyer and use a new corporation lawyer to represent them. In a democratic society voice of the people matters and whoever has good logic to persuade the people becomes the winner. In this case, the membership that bestowed their trust in them was defeated due to a lack of action by their elected officials. To provide more clarity, you should ask former MREB to share the video recording of the SMG to set the facts straight.
“…It’s all about MLS data and access. That’s what we need as working realtors”. Indeed, without the MLS data and access, a realtor’s business will eventually die. But it is way too late to back out last minute and there are consequences.
Leadership retraining will help. However, leadership changes from time to time, if not often.
Moreover, the Three-Way-Agreement is a road block to a better environment for the real estate industry. Under the protection of the Three-Way-Agreement, the current business model is this: If realtors do not pay (health) protection fees, they suffer from business interruptions – i.e, all system access get cut off. Isn’t it a form of extortion like what happens in Chinatown? What has the leadership in CREA and OREA led the real estate industry into? Is this fair, professional, ethical? Are the associations truly non-profit seeking?
As Robert Ede said “…In recent years TRREB, Orea and now Mreb ‘appear’ to be acting independent’s/ contrary to the wishes of their members….Who can members turn to in order to control a not for profit?”
So true OREA is profit-seeking selling OWRP! And, sadly, there is nobody to turn to in order to control a not for profit.
What the industry needs are new legislations to keep the three levels of leadership on track; new legislations to ensure that the non-profit associations remain truly non-profit; new legislations to put the industry specific consumers like realtors under the Consumer Protection Act so that they will have the freedom to choose what they want to buy.
For a long term solution, please appeal to your local MPP to bring about legislation changes. The current non-profit-self-regulated business model needs to become a regulated business model. For the short term solution, stay on course and sort out the mess, make suggestions for solutions if you have any.
Agnes makes valid comments. The underlying factor that has hampered and hindered progress within Organized Real Estate in Cañada has always been the anti-competitive 3-way agreement. It hangs on the thread of the unnecessary need to use the CREA trademark terms MLS and Realtor to have a multiple listing service. . Restrictive trade practices are unique to resale real estate in North America. It is time to disband the Three Musketeers brotherhood in Ontario, if not Canada! The inmates have been running the asylum far too long.
The “Three Musketeers brotherhood”, LOL!
And speaking of non-profit, Realtor.ca has been so profitable that CREA is looking into the future of Realtor.ca. There are profits to be made with data / technology. It is inevitable that technology is impacting the Organized Real Estate industry. Under the manual system, OREA Forms are necessary. Under the technology automation era, OREA Forms are obsolete.
Legislation must be made to regulate the Three Musketeers brotherhood. The Self-Governing Organized-Real-Estate’s “extortion-like” business model needs to be regulated. Please write to your local MPP to bring about legislation changes.
Statement by Bill Duce, CEO, Cornerstone Association of REALTORS
“One thing I can assure you of is that, as we all know, real estate is local, and we believe that boards also need to be.”
?? His this guy a joke… or is he for real???
Tahir I. Qureshi – Thank you for your comments. You are 100% correct.
Robert Ede – I agree!
D Reality –
Why are you in favor? Who are you?? For all we know, you might be the dictator and coward on the panel. The one who felt he needed to have security at the meeting!
For who’s benefit?? Certainly not for those in attendance!
Did the dictator have something to fear? The ignorance!
This kind of power-trip needs to be addressed and put to an end.
People like this need to be reminded that they work for the members and immediately removed and reminded that they need not “volunteer” for any position under the impression that allowed in only to serve their self-fulfilling needs or underlying selfish interests.
I’m out! Enough of paying for MREB bs!
For Clarity without Prejudice:
During the SGM on 26 June 2024, MREB’s lawyer announced that there would be a Board of Directors meeting after the SGM. The Board of Directors meeting was scheduled in the morning, and due to the SGM, it was decided to be held after the SGM. It is a fair practice to give priority to SGM due to the urgency of the matter and conduct a board meeting afterward. Not a big deal.
While we were finishing up the lunch, a meeting of the Board of Directors was held in the presence of an MREB Corporate Lawyer, and a motion was passed by the Board of Directors to terminate the Amalgamation as mandated by the 119 members in the SGM and we learned that the lawyer was instructed to proceed with termination. Did the lawyer notify the new corporation of the termination of Amalgamation soon after the board meeting? It is unknown but reasonably can be assumed that due to the urgency of the matter discussed in SGM and subsequent Board Meetings, the lawyer perhaps did it. Did the MREB lawyer approach the court for an injunction? It is unknown. Did the Board Chair stop the lawyer from proceeding with a court injunction to stop the amalgamation? It is unknown and why? Was there another Board of Directors meeting to continue with the amalgamation after the SGM? It is unknown. A corporate lawyer is appointed by the Board of Directors, not the Board Chair thus Board of Directors can terminate his services. What happens? Was the Lawyer’s terminated by who? NO minutes of SGM. No Minutes of Board of Directors. No Court Injunction. Amalgamation happened against the mandate of membership. These are questions in the minds of hundreds of MREB members. Why 70 years of the proud history of MREB that we celebrated on 23 May 2024 was washed away in six months since this board took over?
It is very important to learn from this what went wrong and why so this does not happen in our democratic society. We elected Member of Parliament by vote. We vote for Provincial Members of Parliament and elect them. We vote for Mayors and City Councils in the Municipal Elections. We vote and select the Board of Directors for a Charity or Not-for-profit organization, and MREB was no different. Our voice was silenced undemocratically.