QUICK HITS

 

• When the buyers of a $937,400 home backed out of the deal, they claimed the contract was void because deadlines had been missed.
• The court found that their actions—like paying deposits and not cancelling the agreement earlier—showed they intended to proceed until they later breached the contract. 
• The seller was awarded $232,400 in damages, the difference between the original price and eventual resale price. 

When a buyer fails to complete the purchase of a property, disputes often arise over who is at fault. In some cases, buyers may argue that the seller breached the agreement by missing deadlines. In such cases, the doctrine of repudiation of contract comes into play. It requires an objective evaluation of both parties’ actions, as demonstrated in the case Vandermolen Homes Inc. v. Mani.

Key facts of the APS

In January 2022, the defendant buyers signed an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) for the purchase of a single-family home in Exeter, Ont. from the plaintiff builder for $937,400, with a scheduled completion date of Aug. 31, 2022. The buyers paid a deposit of $5,000 upon signing.

The APS was conditional upon approval by the buyers’ lawyer and arrangement of suitable financing. The deadline for confirmation of the fulfillment of conditions was 6:00 pm on Jan. 20, 2022. A further deposit of $88,740 was due upon removal of the conditions.

On Jan. 20, 2022, the buyers offered to extend the conditional terms to Jan. 26, 2022.  The offer to extend was stated to be irrevocable until 11:59 pm on Jan. 21, 2022, failing which the offer to extend became null and void. The seller did not sign the confirmation of acceptance until Jan. 22, 2022. On Jan. 26, 2022, the buyers nevertheless signed a waiver of the conditions and paid the second deposit.

Breakdown in communication and escalation

Nothing further occurred until May 2022, when the seller began to email and text the buyers regarding interior decor selections, with no response. A dispute subsequently arose over whether the buyers had received these emails and texts.

The buyers took the position that since they heard nothing from the seller for several months following Jan. 26, 2022, they assumed the deal was not proceeding. However, there was no evidence that the buyers contacted the seller to request the return of their deposits or to notify them that they did not intend to complete the purchase during that time period.

On Aug. 10, 2022, the seller’s real estate lawyer wrote to the buyers’ lawyer asking how they intended to take title. On Aug. 12, 2022, the seller spoke to one of the buyers regarding a pre-delivery inspection. The buyer advised that he needed to speak to his wife (the co-buyer) who was in India at the time. He gave no indication that the purchase would not be completed.

Repudiation of the agreement and market impacts

On Aug. 17, 2022, the buyers contacted the seller and cancelled the pre-delivery inspection, which was scheduled for later that day.  On the same day, the buyers’ lawyer advised the seller for the first time that they would not be able to complete the purchase.

On Aug. 29, 2022, the seller’s lawyer spoke to and emailed the buyers’ lawyer to confirm whether or not the buyers were going to complete the transaction. The buyers’ lawyer confirmed that his clients were unable to close the transaction and requested that the property be re-listed so that “the damages can be lessened”.

The seller retained a Realtor and listed the property for sale for $849,000, but there were no offers. In February 2023, the price was reduced to $799,900, without success, and in April 2023, the listing price was dropped to $749,900. While conditional offers were received, the property did not sell.

In September 2023, the price was reduced again to $724,900 and the property was finally sold for $705,000 in October 2023.

The seller sued the original buyers for damages of more than $175,000 relating to their breach of the APS, and brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that this was a straightforward case of buyers’ remorse.

In response, the buyers took the position that the APS was “dead” when the conditions in the APS were not fulfilled by Jan. 21, 2022. As a matter of law, they pointed to the term in the APS which stated “time is of the essence”, which generally means that a time limit in an agreement is essential, such that breach of the time limit will permit the innocent party to terminate, or rescind, the contract.

Prior decisions have held that the effect of a party’s repudiation of an agreement depends on the election by the non-repudiating (or “innocent”) party as to whether or not to terminate the agreement. If that party treats the contract as still being in full force and effect, the contract remains in force and effect for both sides.  However, if the non-repudiating party accepts the repudiation, the contract is terminated, and the parties are discharged from future obligations.

Determining who is in breach of contract

To determine whether the party in breach has an intention not to be bound by the agreement, the courts assess whether a reasonable person would conclude that the breaching party no longer intends to be bound by it.

In the case at hand, the buyers argued that they had not expressly indicated that they wished to revive the APS after the deadline for waiving conditions. The court was not persuaded by this argument, however, given the buyers’ own conduct in treating the APS as still being in force despite the deadline missed by the seller on Jan. 21, 2022.  

In that regard, the buyers delivered a waiver of conditions on Jan. 26, 2022, and paid the second deposit by cheque, which was cashed by the seller without any protest from them. The seller continued to construct the home over the ensuing months and the buyers did not request the return of the deposits totalling almost $100,000, prior to the commencement of the litigation. Viewed objectively through the lens of a reasonable person, the buyers did not demonstrate that they no longer wished to be bound by the APS.

The court’s assessment and damages 

The court therefore concluded that the APS became binding on Jan. 26, 2022. Although the APS could have been terminated by the buyers after the seller missed the deadline, they did not elect to treat it as at an end.  Rather, they continued to treat the APS as being in full force and effect until Aug. 17, 2022, when it was anticipatorily breached.

As for damages, the measure for contractual breach is generally “expectation loss,” namely the amount required to put the innocent party in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed as agreed.

Although the buyers contended that the seller had failed to take appropriate steps in marketing the property for sale, they did not obtain an appraisal to challenge the price obtained by the seller. It is well-settled law that the onus of proof to establish a failure to mitigate is on the defendants. The buyers failed to meet this onus.

The seller was therefore entitled to the full difference of $232,400.00 based upon the lower sale price of the home, along with property taxes and utilities paid during the relisting period, less the deposits paid. While this figure may seem high, the buyers are fortunate that the damages were not substantially greater. 

There have been many cases in Ontario in 2024 where the difference between the original contract price and the subsequent resale price obtained by a seller has been much larger due to the change in market conditions. 

QUICK HITS

 

• A Realtor misrepresented the location of a new-build property to buyers, leading them to believe it was in Brampton when it was actually in Caledon, three kilometres away. 
• After discovering the mistake, the buyers sued, and the Ontario Court of Appeal held the Realtor and their brokerage liable for negligent misrepresentation.
• The court ordered them to repay the buyers’ $120,000 deposit.

In some cases, misrepresentations made prior to the signing of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS), may allow a buyer to sue for damages, as demonstrated by Zhang v. Primont Homes (Caledon) Inc., in which a real estate agent was found liable to his clients for misrepresentation concerning the location of a development property.

Location mix-up in new build purchase

In February 2017, the buyers agreed to buy an investment property to be built in a new subdivision by a developer for $1.2 million, with a deposit of $120,000. The transaction was set to close in 2019.

The buyers had been told by their real estate agent that the property was located at or near a specific intersection in Brampton, Ont. However, in May 2018, the buyers drove by the intersection to check on the progress of the development and discovered that the property that they had agreed to purchase was not located at the site indicated by their agent but rather in Caledon, Ont., about three kilometres north of their expected site.  

Buyers take legal action

The buyers then took the position that they should not be required to close the transaction and commenced litigation against various parties, including their agent, his brokerage and the developer. The buyers argued that the defendants had misrepresented the location of the development and that they were entitled to refuse to complete the purchase of the property and recover their deposit. They also claimed damages for lost profits. The developer counterclaimed for damages flowing from the buyers’ repudiation of the APS.

Prior to the trial, the buyers settled with the developer and agreed that it was entitled to keep the $120,000 deposit. In exchange, the developer abandoned its counterclaim.

After a trial in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the real estate agent and brokerage were ordered to pay $120,000, the deposit amount, to the buyers, with interest, and costs of $30,000. The trial judge declined to award the buyers any damages for lost profits.

On appeal, the agent and brokerage argued that the trial judge erred in finding that they negligently misrepresented the property’s location or that the misrepresentation was the cause of any damages suffered by the buyers. The Court of Appeal for Ontario disagreed.

The first ground of appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding that the appellants negligently misrepresented the property’s location and whether the buyers relied on this misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge made findings of fact based on the divergent accounts of the parties’ interactions and communications prior to the signing of the APS. The trial judge assessed and preferred the buyers’ evidence concerning what the appellants allegedly communicated about the location of the proposed development. Further, the misrepresentation about the property’s location was a key factor in the buyers’ decision to invest their money in the development because they believed “it was in a ‘mature’ community with large houses and schools”. Had they known of the property’s actual location, the buyers would not have agreed to sign the APS or pay the deposit.

No expert evidence required

The appellants further argued that the buyers ought to have been required to adduce expert evidence on the standard of care of a real estate agent or broker to establish liability. As a general rule, expert evidence is required to support a claim against a licensed professional, such as a real estate agent.

A breach may, however, be established without the need for expert evidence concerning “non-technical matters or those of which an ordinary person may be expected to know to have knowledge. The trial judge found that the appellants’ representation that the property would be built near an intersection in Brampton as opposed to a completely different location three kilometres distant was an example of a “non-technical” matter. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that expert evidence was not required to find that the appellants’ misrepresentation was negligent.

Causation and legal principles 

The second ground of appeal advanced was that the trial judge erred in finding that the negligent misrepresentation was the legal cause of any loss to the buyers. The appellants argued that the buyers could not, as a matter of legal principle, recover against them without first recovering damages against the developer.

The Court of Appeal disagreed that the buyers were required to prove that they had the right to repudiate the APS as a condition precedent to any recovery against the appellants. The appellants relied on a British Columbia decision which also involved a buyer’s repudiation of an agreement due to alleged misrepresentations of the property’s boundaries. However, the court in the B.C. case had concluded that the buyer was not actually entitled to repudiate the contract.

The Ontario Court of Appeal did not agree that there was a general rule established by the decision in the B.C. case that any plaintiff who agrees to buy property based on misrepresentations of any kind by a third party, such as a Realtor or lawyer, is legally foreclosed from recovering damages for that misrepresentation if they fail to complete the purchase.

In the Court of Appeal’s view, the issue of causation was distinct from a plaintiff’s entitlement to assert a separate cause of action for negligent misrepresentation. In a case where a given wrong supports an action in contract and in tort, the party may sue in either or both, except where the contract indicates that the parties intended to limit or negative the right to sue. Nothing in the APS precluded the buyers from suing their own real estate agent or broker for negligent misrepresentation, whether or not they chose to pursue a claim in contract against the developer.

Consequences of misrepresentation

Lastly, the appellants argued that the buyers were themselves the authors of the damages they claimed since the property had increased in value between the time the buyers executed the APS and the trial. Had the buyers not repudiated the APS, they would have acquired a property worth $1,800,000, or nearly $600,000 more than they would have had to pay for it. The appellants argued that the buyers could have mitigated and avoided any financial loss had they not repudiated the APS.

The Court of Appeal noted that in claims of negligent misrepresentation, courts generally focus on the date that a misrepresentation is discovered.

In this case, once the buyers discovered the misrepresentation in 2018 (months before the scheduled completion date), they had to take reasonable steps to mitigate a potential loss, which involved deciding whether to proceed with the purchase of the property. They chose to take the position that the APS was null and void, alternatively, that they were entitled to repudiate it. Ultimately, this meant they were out of pocket for $120,000 after settling the claim with the developer.

Importance of accuracy in property details

The appellants’ position turned on the argument that the buyers should have foreseen that the property would increase in value when they discovered the misrepresentation, even though the property was not as well-situated and therefore not as attractive an investment as they had been led to believe. 

However, they did not obtain a retrospective appraisal showing that the property had already increased in value at the time the buyers discovered the issue with the property’s actual location, nor was there any evidence proving that the buyers should have realized that they would not suffer damages if they proceeded with the purchase. In the Court of Appeal’s words, “(The) appellants should not be able to escape the legal consequences of their negligence because the (buyers) did not take that risk and market conditions happened to improve.”

This ground of appeal and the appeal in its entirety were therefore dismissed.

The decision shows the potential consequences of misrepresentations that are made and found to have been relied upon by a party when deciding to enter into an APS.

The term “assignment” may be unfamiliar to industry newcomers. In real estate transactions, an assignment refers to the arrangement where the original buyer of a property, known as the “assignor,” transfers their rights and obligations under the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) to another party, the “assignee.”

Assignments: A quick brief

If a buyer assigns a property to another party prior to closing, the original buyer remains responsible until closing, acting as the assignor alongside the assignee (the new buyer) to the seller.

It’s essential to note that this process occurs before the assignor closes on the property and takes legal possession (title). In this arrangement, the assignee steps into the role of the buyer and completes the transaction with the seller, requiring minimal continued involvement from the assignor beyond the closing.

New build assignments require a complex, non-standard process

Assignments for new builds are particularly complex and must be handled differently than standard processes that real estate agents usually follow. When dealing with new build assignments, it’s critical to obtain the builder’s approval through their lawyer and thoroughly review the assignment agreement.

Having a lawyer review the document on behalf of either the assignee or the assignor is advisable, as many issues arise with the drafting of the Assignment APS. One key issue is the allocation of the purchase price. Buyers often misunderstand that, while paying, for example, $600,000 for a property — which includes payments to both the builder and the assignor — they must also reimburse the assignor for their original deposit to the builder. Consequently, the total cost effectively becomes $600,000 plus the return of the initial deposit, a detail that frequently leads to disputes during the Assignment Statement of Adjustments close.

Different, additional charges can lead to widespread buyer confusion & frustration

Also, the Statement of Adjustments provided by the builder may include various charges — such as for development, levies, Law Society fees and potential legal fees for discharging title charges — that can complicate the financial picture for assignees.

For condominium assignments, there will also be adjustments for common expenses and occupancy fees. The pandemic has caused significant increases in these charges, with utilities that once cost $1,500 now often exceeding much higher figures, creating points of contention between real estate lawyers and builders. A notable example is Ashton Meadows in Stayner, Ontario, where builders informed purchasers that they would require an additional $175,000 due to rising costs. Previously manageable development charges have surged from about $3,000 for condominiums and $5,000 for houses, up to $20,000 and more for various property types, leading to widespread confusion and frustration among buyers.

Vetting the seller: A key element

Another critical element in the assignment of new builds involves vetting the seller by requesting full disclosure, which is essential for ensuring your licence. This differs significantly from purchasing a resale home, as the typical issues usually come down to outstanding water or property tax bills that require resolution, which is easily discoverable through tax/water certificates obtained by the buyer’s lawyer.

Agents must ensure that all documents and communications from the builder to the assignor are collected and provided to the assignee, both for their review and their solicitor’s review. When requesting anything for an assignment, you must do so in writing via email so that there’s a proper paper trail. Miscommunication about financial responsibilities often arises from miscalculated Schedule B calculations or agents failing to convey accurate information, which can lead clients to mistakenly believe the cost covers the entire property without additional financial obligations.

Crucial to work collaboratively so both assignor and assignee can close

Having worked in a law firm, I’ve had exposure to the challenges faced by both legal (lawyers) and real estate (agents) professionals. It’s vital to work collaboratively to ensure that neither the assignor nor the assignee is left unable to close, as the builder’s assignment specifies that the assignor remains liable until the transaction concludes.

This continual responsibility highlights the importance of collecting all necessary information, obtaining the Tarion (warranty) certificate and the PDI (pre-delivery inspection) for deficiencies and ensuring a timely exchange of documents to prevent complications.

Intent matters significantly

During the assignment process, intent matters significantly. If the assignor originally purchased the property purely for investment while the assignee intends to owner-occupy it, the assignee may not qualify for the HST rebate.

In such cases, the assignee could face unexpected additional costs, especially if the purchase price exceeds $500,000, considerably increasing financial burdens. The intent of the assignor regarding occupancy and primary residency must be evaluated to determine its impact on the purchase price and the assignee’s eligibility for rebates.

If the assignee fails to close, the assignor might be compelled to complete the purchase or risk liability. Builders typically pursue payment from whoever they see fit, which can potentially lead to disputes and claims between the assignor and assignee.

These issues can be complex, underscoring the necessity for thorough documentation and complete disclosure to protect all parties involved. Ensuring strong collaboration and meticulous planning throughout the assignment process is the best defense against disputes.

While in attendance at the Wildfire Resiliency and Training Summit in Prince George, British Columbia, I learned a lot about the incredible people who protect our communities from wildfire risk and the barriers to wildfire protection of homes in at-risk areas.

By all academic, government and media accounts, 2024 is poised to be a record-breaking year for community impacts from wildfire.

The direct impact of property damage, the displacement of people, the government expenditure to respond and the impacts on the quality of life of people in our communities are stacking up to impact the availability of housing in all marketplaces affected by wildfire. 

Homeowner investment in risk reduction — including your advice — matters more as wildfire risk increases

Nova Scotia was not perceived to be a location of considerable risk prior to 2023. Last year’s distribution of catastrophic wildfire losses there is as shocking as the intensity of the losses to Fort McMurray in 2017.

Managing wildfire risk in Canada has shifted from the responsibility of governments to the shared responsibility of all of society. As the risk increases, the role of homeowner investment in risk reduction becomes increasingly important. And how you advise your clients is an important component of that!

Impacts on realtor business conduct

For the realtor community, there are some very real impacts on business conduct.

One example is how insurability precedes lending — in other words, getting a mortgage is generally conditional on getting insurance. When an active wildfire is present in a location (within a 100 km radius), finding an insurer can be very difficult or impossible, as new policies aren’t typically issued while an active wildfire is in proximity to a property.

So, if you have a looming closing date and an active wildfire near the property, your deal and your client could be in trouble.

Protect your clients with wildfire clause in APS

The BCFSA has created a resource for B.C. realtors to follow to protect their clients from risk. Critical recommendations include writing offers (and signbacks) with a wildfire clause in the Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS) for properties in proximity of potential wildfire.  

In conversation with British Columbia Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) a/director of policy, Emily Shaw, about resources B.C. realtors can use to protect their clients (both buying and selling) from risk, she shares, “Licensees are experts, and part of (sharing) that expertise is to talk to clients, colleagues and insurers about these issues.

Buyer agents should be talking to their clients about the wildfire clause for use in transactions in wildfire-at-risk areas. This conversation can lead to additional conversations that are important. Wildfires are a reality in our marketplace.”

Recommended clause from BCFSA 

If, as a result of a wildfire and despite the Buyer’s best efforts, the Buyer is unable to obtain fire insurance on the Property that is binding and effective as of the original Completion Date, on terms and at rates that are commercially reasonable, then the Buyer may, at their sole discretion, extend each of the Completion Date, the Adjustment Date and the Possession Date to a date that is the first day, other than a Saturday, Sunday or statutory holiday in British Columbia (“Business Day”) that is [30] calendar days after the original respective dates by providing written notice (the “Extension Notice”) to the Seller or the Seller’s agent at least [5] Business Days before the original Completion Date. 

If during the period between the delivery of the Extension Notice and [5] Business Days before the extended Completion Date the Buyer obtains fire insurance on the Property that would allow the Buyer to complete the purchase and sale of the Property before the extended Completion Date, the Buyer will immediately provide written notice of same to the Seller or the Seller’s agent (the “Insurance Notice”) and the Seller may, by providing written notice to the Buyer or the Buyer’s agent within [2] Business Days after the Insurance Notice is provided, elect to accelerate the Completion Date to a date that is [5] Business Days after the Insurance Notice is provided, and the Adjustment Date and the Possession Date will be adjusted so that they will occur with the same relativity to the new extended Completion Date as they had to the original Completion Date.

The parties agree that time will remain of the essence.

Shaw notes that a licensee should recommend their client obtain legal advice regarding how triggering this clause may affect any related transactions that are closing on their original completion dates. She advises licensees to consider using this clause together with the Fire/Property Insurance condition precedent.

Other suggestions to help protect your clients

“Licensees who are in areas affected by wildfire should advise clients to have conversations with their insurer and to acquire a binding insurance commitment as soon as possible. If a home in transaction is damaged by wildfire, it’s important for licensees to advise their clients to seek legal advice at the earliest opportunity. These are very complex issues that are beyond the expertise of licensees to handle,” explains Shaw.

She insists that the most important action is to have active dialogue in your community, encouraging licensees to become acquainted with FireSmart recommendations for property risk reduction: “It’s important for registrants and homeowners to be informed. FireSmart BC has some excellent resources that licensees can share with clients.”

Encouraging fire-smart practices is an important, proactive opportunity for practitioners to help clients keep their families safe and their assets protected. There are plenty of videos and other content ideal for client communication from FireSmart Canada and other organizations. Use them to inform yourself of the risks to you and your clients.

This is an important and emergent issue that is affecting the industry and the businesses within it. We need to stay on top of it.

As an active back-country canoeist, I’m seeing the changes in the forest. Everywhere in Canada is changing. Seasonally, I personally observe the changes in the ecosystem. Coastal rainforests are being recategorized by geologists. The ferns in Ontario’s forests are getting crispy with drought in July. As the ecosystem evolves, the advice we give to clients also evolves. Wildfire will continue to impact the business of real estate in Canada, in all regions. It’s an important reputational knowledge category and a relevant errors and omissions discussion that realtors can have a very positive influence on.

It’s my strong suggestion that you explore these conversations in your in-office mastermind discussions and find a strategy that works in your marketplace and for your business.

As 2023 comes to a close, REM is celebrating its top 10 posts. Take a look at how the year played out in Canadian real estate and what you found most interesting.

10. OREA membership fees expected to surge over 700% after ORWP approval

“Following a decisive vote in favour of the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP) on Tuesday, a mandatory insurance and benefits program for realtors in the province is set to be implemented on Jan. 1, 2024.

To fund the ORWP, annual dues will increase for Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) members. The cost per individual is expected to be around $660 annually on top of regular fees. Based on the current membership of approximately 96,000, the ORWP would result in an additional $63.3 million in dues being collected.”

Check out the rest of the story here.

9. Overbidding trend in the GTA has ‘totally reversed’

“The Greater Toronto Area’s (GTA) real estate market has witnessed a swift transformation, shifting from rampant overbidding earlier this year to a surge in underbidding in August. Wahi’s recent analysis reveals that 70 per cent of the 245 GTA neighbourhoods have now entered underbidding territory.

To put that into perspective, nearly 70 per cent of neighbourhoods were in overbidding territory at the beginning of the summer, and according to Wahi, August saw the highest share of underbidding neighbourhoods since February.”

Learn more about this market change here.

8. Town’s offer of $500 serviced lots boosts population

“When it came down to do or die, they chose to do. The progressive town of Smooth Rock Falls in northern Ontario came up with a plan to offer $500 serviced lots as a way to draw residents and reverse its declining population.

In 2006, after the main and only employer, Tembec Mill, closed after being in business for over 100 years, there was an exodus of residents, says Mayor Sue Perras. “People sold their houses for whatever they could get. Some just left their homes behind.”

The residents who remained wondered about the town’s future, and so did its community leaders. Something had to be done.”

Find out what Smooth Rock Falls did here.

7. Cyclical bottom in sight for Canada’s housing market: RBC

“According to a new report from RBC, the start of 2023 in Canada’s housing market has been a continuation of the quiet trend seen at the end of 2022. 

In the company’s latest special housing report, Robert Hogue, assistant chief economist with RBC, notes that January results from some of Canada’s real estate boards show persistent weak activity and price declines across the country, with few exceptions.

Calgary remains one of the few markets where demand and supply conditions remain “remarkably tight,” though sales volume is down from last year’s “sky-high” levels.”

Learn more about RBC’s findings here.

6. Sellers awarded $210,000 after buyers fail to close due to “unforeseen circumstances”

“In a collapsing real estate market, buyers who fail to complete a purchase can face substantial liability exceeding their deposit; the case of Switzer v. Petrie arose from a failed real estate transaction in Ontario in July 2022.

The buyers backed out due to “unforeseen circumstances,” prompting the sellers to resell the property at a lower price; they later sued for the price difference, totalling $212,302.11.”

Read about the case details here.

5. Realtor sued for misrepresenting identity of buyer

“In Ker v. Deol, a motion judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered whether the buyer’s real estate agent could be added as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by the seller arising from an aborted transaction.

While an agent should not lie about who they are acting for, it is not clear whether a representation about the identity of a party entering into an APS will always give rise to a duty of care based upon reliance by the other party as to the person signing the APS.“

Find out what happened here.

4. Canada amends foreign homebuyer ban regulations

“Only months after it first took effect, the Canadian government announced amendments to the regulations surrounding the country’s foreign homebuyer ban. 

While temporary, the act and its regulations have caused confusion and unintended consequences for Canada’s real estate industry, including some developers shelving plans to build new housing.

The changes, announced Monday, expand exceptions to allow non-Canadians to purchase residential properties under certain circumstances and seemingly address many of the concerns raised over the last few months.”

Learn about the changes made here.

3. Ontario realtors face mandatory health benefits program: What you need to know

“The Ontario Real Estate Association (OREA) assembly, made up of representatives from member boards, will hold a special meeting on Jun. 20 to vote on the Ontario Realtor Wellness Program (ORWP), which, if approved, will take effect Jan. 1, 2024. 

OREA president Tania Artenosi sent a message and video to local boards a while back explaining that the program would be the first of its kind in North America. Surveys have indicated to OREA that far too many of its members currently don’t have private health insurance and that a safety net is a top desire, Artenosi notes.”

Read more on the ORWP here.

2. REM EXCLUSIVE: Havre’s $4 billion Calgary realty team leaving Re/Max

“One of Calgary’s top-producing realtors, Justin Havre, and his team are leaving the Re/Max Canada brand to join forces with eXp Realty, the world’s largest independent real estate company.

Havre is one of the most prominent realtors in Calgary with a team consisting of 60 agents and 18 staff. His team has been beyond successful for years, selling almost 9,000 homes in Calgary since 2016.”

Find out more about Havre and his team here.

1. Canada will have 1.45M new homebuyers by 2025. Where will they live?

“New research from Statistics Canada points to a painful but unavoidable truth. Canada wants lower home prices and higher immigration, but we can’t have both, at least not without significant changes.  

What kind of changes? Well, we desperately need changes to zoning in our biggest cities to accommodate new arrivals, especially in Vancouver and Toronto.”

See what else REM’s columnist had to say on the issue, here.

Well, there you have it — the most read of REM in 2023. What do you think the biggest stories will be in 2024? Share your thoughts in the comments below!