Radon gas isn’t a new issue for REALTORS^®, but during this time of the year it gains importance as fall and winter are the ideal seasons to test for radon.

Understanding and helping mitigate radon risks is more than just a professional responsibility for REALTORS^®. It's also an opportunity to provide clients with valuable information to help them make informed decisions.

There are many resources available to help support REALTORS^® in building knowledge and awareness on radon, including an updated and accredited self-paced professional development course, BCFSA’s Radon Checklists for Buyers' Agents, Sellers' Agents, and Property Managers, a Radon FAQ and Testing Checklist, and some other online resources to incorporate into their practice.

Radon: Frequently Asked Questions and Checklists

Get a basic understanding of what radon is and how can you protect consumers in our blog, REALTORS^® and Radon: Protecting Buyers and Sellers.

BCREA has also created a FAQ document on Radon with the support of Dr. Noah Quastel from the BC Lung Foundation. The document addresses common questions and provides external resources on the topic, including:

• what is radon;
• where radon is found in BC;
• which kind of homes need to be tested;
• and more.

And as a joint effort with the BC Lung Foundation and the Canadian National Radon Proficiency Program (C-NRPP), BCREA has designed a checklist for REALTORS^® and the public to help ensure they follow the correct procedures in testing for radon.

Also, BCFSA provides guidance to help discuss the importance of radon with clients depending on the side of the transaction you’re in. See the checklists below:

• Radon Checklist for Sellers’ Agents
• Radon Checklist for Buyers’ Agents
• Radon Checklist for Rental Property Managers

Learn More About Radon and Your Responsibilities as a REALTOR^®

Radon is an important consideration when buying a home. REALTORS^® are expected to demonstrate competency and show skills when providing real estate services to their clients. Having knowledge about environmental conditions and signs of alert can help ensure you are taking the right steps to provide an exceptional experience.

BCREA has created a Radon for REALTORS^® course, in which REALTORS^® can deepen their understanding of radon and how it relates to the real estate transaction. By the end of this course, learners will be able to:

• understand and identify how radon enters a dwelling,
• know what influences radon levels,
• recognize the effects of radon on human health,
• understand Canada’s radon awareness initiatives,
• identify applicable laws and emergent policies on radon in BC and,
• much more

Demonstrate Your Radon Knowledge and You Could WIN!

In the spirit of inspiring and supporting REALTORS^® to educate themselves about radon, BCREA is holding a contest. All you have to do is take and submit a short quiz demonstrating your radon knowledge, and you could win one of five lüft® Long-term Radon & Indoor Air Quality Monitors.

Deadline to complete: Friday, November 28, 2025, at 5 pm PT

Join the BC Lung Workshop: Radon: Collaboration for Healthy Communities

The BC Lung Foundation is hosting its annual virtual workshop to discuss the various actions individuals, families, researchers, communities, and government can do to address and prevent radon.

This webinar is eligible for two self-directed Professional Development hours.

Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Time: 10 am to 11:30 am PT

A recent case illustrates the pitfalls awaiting brokerages and REALTORS® when choosing to act as a limited dual agent.¹

A couple engaged a brokerage and REALTOR® to assist them in the purchase of a house (the Grandview property). The Contract of Purchase and Sale for the Grandview property was subject to the sale of their existing house (the Carter property). The Contract of Purchase and Sale also contained a clause enabling the seller to require the couple to remove all of the subjects in the event the seller received another bona fide offer. After the acceptance of their conditional offer to purchase, the couple listed the Carter property with the same brokerage and REALTOR® that represented them in the acquisition of the Grandview property.

The REALTOR® was approached by an unrepresented prospective buyer who was interested in purchasing the Carter property. The REALTOR® had the prospective buyer sign a Limited Dual Agency Agreement and then prepared an offer to purchase the Carter property. The offer was delivered to the couple together with the Limited Dual Agency Agreement. The couple signed the Limited Dual Agency Agreement, as well as accepted the offer.

For unrelated reasons, the sale did not complete and the Carter property was eventually purchased by another buyer represented by the brokerage. Upon closing, the couple withheld a portion of the brokerage's commission alleging, among other things, a breach of fiduciary duty by the brokerage and the REALTOR®.

The court found that the REALTOR® had acted as a limited dual agent in preparing the offer to purchase before the concept of limited dual agency had been discussed with the couple and before they had consented to the brokerage and REALTOR® acting as limited dual agents. The court concluded that the REALTOR® should have obtained the informed consent of the seller prior to the preparation of the offer. This breach resulted in the brokerage's claim for commission being reduced by half.

Interestingly, the REALTOR® attempted to claim, at trial, that he did not act as the agent of the prospective buyer in preparing the offer to purchase and that the Limited Dual Agency Agreement was entered into "out of an abundance of caution." The court understandably rejected that argument given the wording of the Limited Dual Agency Agreement in which the brokerage acknowledged that it was the agent for both the seller and the buyer.

In addition to the court's finding as to the timing of obtaining the seller's consent to limited dual agency, this case further illustrates the practical challenges associated with limited dual agency.

In this case, limited dual agency could have been avoided as the buyer was unrepresented when the REALTOR® was first approached. The brokerage and REALTOR® could have declined to provide agency representation to the buyer and continued to act as the sole agent of the seller. Given the submissions of the REALTOR® at trial, it is possible that is what was intended.

However, by entering into the Limited Dual Agency Agreement, the brokerage and the REALTOR® became the agent for the buyer as well as the seller. This fundamentally changed the legal relationship the brokerage and REALTOR® had with both the buyer and the seller.

Licensees must be aware of the difference between, and the implications of, acting as a limited dual agent for an unrepresented buyer and not providing agency representation to that buyer.

1.

Homelife Glenayre Realty Chilliwack Ltd. v. Williams, 2010 BCPC File No. C6297.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Edward L. Wilson
Lawson Lundell LLP

Many REALTORS® assist buyers in locating and negotiating the purchase of new condominiums in pre-build situations. The developer’s form of contract is generally used and such contracts often provide for staged deposits, often over long periods, which invariably contain “time is of the essence” clauses.

A buyer entered into a typical developer’s form of contract in August 2004 to purchase a condominium in a complex to be built by the developer.¹ The contract provided for a purchase price of $1.26 million and a deposit of 25 per cent, payable in three instalments.

The buyer paid the first instalment of $62,750, but paid $75,000 toward the December (second) instalment of $125,500 one month late. The developer wrote to the buyer in early March 2005 demanding payment of the balance of the December instalment by mid-March, but the buyer failed to pay. A further written demand followed in May, insisting on payment of the balance of the December instalment with interest, plus the third instalment of $125,000, by June 15, 2005.

The buyer made no payment in June and the developer's lawyers sent a letter in late June demanding full payment of the outstanding balance of the deposit by early July. The buyer said he did not receive that letter, but paid $50,500 on July 16.

A further letter was sent by the developer’s lawyers on August 17 acknowledging receipt of the $50,500, stating that a balance of $138,416 remained owing and extending the payment date to August 24. That letter also stated: “This is absolutely the last extension offered to you. If you fail to make the payment by such time, our client has instructed us to terminate the Contract immediately and retain the deposit you have paid on account of damages, without further notice to you.” The buyer said he did not receive that letter, either, and that he was shocked when he learned the developer had purported to terminate the contract on August 30. The buyer said he had understood from discussions with the developer that the July payment of $50,500, with payment of the balance in the fall of 2005, was acceptable. The buyer sued for a declaration that the contract was valid and subsisting.

In reversing the trial decision, the Court of Appeal found the right of the developer to cancel the contract on August 30 was governed by clause 7.7 of the purchase contract, which provided that time was of the essence and that the developer had the option of cancelling or electing to complete the transaction in the event of the buyer’s default.² Unless all amounts were paid when due, the developer could cancel the contract and do so at any time during the continuance of the default, even if the developer had previously elected to complete the transaction. Clause 7.7 was perhaps harsh from a buyer’s perspective, but it was not commercially unsustainable and the parties had agreed to it. The contract was properly brought to an end.

The message for buyers (and their REALTORS®) is simple: deposits must be paid on time. The dates established for payment of deposits are not mere suggestions, but must be complied with strictly; otherwise, the deposit and the contract are at risk. When advising developers, REALTORS® should carefully administer the receipt of deposits and document any late payments, discussions about extensions or waivers of strict compliance of the terms of the contract and demands for payment.

	1.	Hinkson Holdings Ltd. v. Silver Sea Developments Limited Partnership, 2007 BCSC 118.
	2.	Hinkson Holdings Ltd. v. Silver Sea Developments Limited Partnership, 2007 BCCA 408.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

A request has been received for an update of the current law relating to the use of the above phrases in the preparation and enforcement of interim agreements.

Column No. 3 written March, 1981, referred to a case where an offer to purchase made by "the undersigned, Century 21 Real Estate Ltd. or nominee" was held to be unenforceable. One reason for this decision was the uncertainty as to who was the intended purchaser. The transaction was quite unusual in that the vendor retained the right to arrange the first and second mortgage financing required to pay out the vendor. This meant that the identification of the purchaser was important since it was his financial strength or creditworthiness that would determine whether the financing would be made available.

Since that case, there have been five reported decisions in British Columbia of which I am aware, in which one party to an agreement to purchase land has argued that these phrases render the agreements void for uncertainty. The uncertainty cases appear to have sprung from a case in which a proposed tenant entered into an agreement to lease with the landlord. The tenant stated that he did not intend to be personally liable, but that the liability would be that of a company to be incorporated by him. The landlord had a different understanding as to the liability of the tenant, and the Court concluded that the uncertainty created by these difference understandings meant that no contract had been concluded and the tenant was absolved from any personal liability.¹

A general rule seems to be evolving from the most recent decisions in the cases where the argument was unsuccessful. That rule is that if it can be established that the purchaser's decision to nominate someone else to take title is not intended to relieve the purchaser of his obligations toward the vendor, then the agreement is not void for uncertainty.²

An example would be circumstances in which the purchaser intends to incorporate a company to take title, but understands that he remains liable personally until that happens.

If, however, the evidence establishes that the purchaser never intended to bind himself in contract to the vendor personally, but instead intended that the vendor and a third party to be nominated by the purchaser were to contract with each other, then the contract would probably be void for uncertainty. An example of this is the landlord/tenant case referred to above.

The problem in putting this rule into practice is the difficulty in proving the intentions of the purchaser. If a purchaser wishes to have a nominee take title, then to avoid the uncertainty argument, the agreement should contain a sentence similar to the following:

"The purchaser agrees to remain liable to the vendor under this agreement notwithstanding that the purchaser may nominate a third party to complete this purchase."

If the vendor intends to take back a mortgage, then the sentence could be amended as follows:

"The purchaser agrees to remain liable to the vendor not only under this agreement but also as a guarantor under the said (first) (second) mortgage notwithstanding that the purchaser may nominate a third party to complete this purchase."

	1.	Causeway Shopping Centre Ltd. v. Muise, (1967) 63 D.L.R. (2d) 26, affirmed 70 D.L.R. (2d) 720.
	2.	Kemp v. Lee, 44 B.C.L.R. p. 172.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Very occasionally a prospective purchaser for whom an offer to purchase is being prepared, asks for the insertion of a condition in the agreement such as "subject to financing..." because he is not entirely certain whether he wants to buy the property. The reasoning of course is that if he decides that he doesn't want it, the condition precedent prevents the contract from becoming binding, even though financing would be available. This stratagem may not be used as much or at least will be used more carefully, if knowledge of two decisions of the Supreme Court of British Columbia becomes more widespread.

In one, prospective purchasers sought the return of a $50,000.00 deposit paid under a letter of agreement between the parties. The deposit was paid on condition that it would be refunded should the proposed sale fail "due to no fault" of the purchasers. They claimed the sale fell through because they could not obtain financing, and that this was due to no fault on their part. The Court interpreted "fault" as meaning that the purchasers had to use their "best efforts" to meet all of the conditions which would have enabled the sale to be completed. The onus was on the purchasers to show why their efforts to obtain financing had failed. Their own evidence of their attempt to obtain financing through the Federal Business Development Bank satisfied the Court that their failure to obtain financing was due to their failure to present an unusual proposition in a business-like way.¹

The second case dealt with a complicated agreement involving a land assembly by a developer for the expansion of an existing shopping centre owned by the developer. There were a number of conditions in the agreement, including obtaining zoning approval, a building permit and final approvals from the municipality and Province for the expansion of the shopping centre by July 31st, 1979. Failing satisfaction of these conditions, the land developer had the option of declaring the agreement null and void. In mid-April 1979, the land developer decided to abandon the idea of the expansion, primarily because of his difficulty in finding an anchor tenant. That had not been one of the conditions to which the agreement was subject. In August, the land developer declared the agreement null and void and the vendor sued for specific performance or in the alternative, for damages.

The vendor was successful, the Court holding that there was an implied obligation on the part of the land developer to use its "best efforts" to bring about the fulfillment of the conditions in the agreement of purchase and sale. By failing to take any bona fide action from mid-April on, to bring about the proposed development, the land developer breached this implied obligation. The agreement was subject to the purchase by the land developer of properties from two owners of lands other than the Vendor who was sued. The Court found that the land developer had not made any concerted effort to purchase those properties. It held that the land developer could not rely on its own failure to use its best efforts to purchase, as an excuse for non-fulfillment of its obligation.²

	1.	Thorsten and Tate v. Gill,19 B.C.L.R. 389.
	2.	BEM Enterprises Ltd. v. Campeau Corporation, 24 B.C.L.R. 244.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

In November, the BC Government announced it will be introducing a “cooling off period” for real estate transactions involving residential resale properties and newly built homes in BC beginning next spring. BC Minister of Finance Selina Robinson announced the policy without any details or advanced consultation with the public or real estate sector, resulting in significant confusion and uncertainty both within the sector and amongst the public. This lack of advance planning has led to concerns that this policy and others under consideration could result in unintended negative consequences for buyers and sellers.

“From the day this measure was announced, real estate brokers and real estate boards in BC have been inundated with questions about how this upcoming measure is going to affect their day-to-day work and their clients,” says British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) Chief Executive Officer Darlene K. Hyde. “While we would have liked to answer these questions clearly and concisely, we simply can’t because of the way this decision was made. There really are no answers yet and that’s causing a lot of concern.”

Recent media reports have erroneously made suggestions that the new “cooling off period,” also known as a recission period, will adopt the same parameters as the seven-day period already in place for pre-construction condominium sales, adding to the uncertainty caused by this announcement.

“The assumptions we are seeing are untrue and are purely a result of the lack of information out there about what could be a substantial change to the real estate transaction,” Hyde adds. “Instead of educating Realtors and the public, we now have to focus on stopping rumours . All this could have been avoided if proper processes were followed prior to this decision being made.”

BCREA supports thoughtfully designed, properly-vettedand evidence-based policy that protects consumers and enhances professionalism and transparency within the real estate sector. Policies addressing market conditions should consider the interests of all parties in a transaction, changing market conditions, regional nuances, potential unintended consequences and should also include a defined process to monitor efficacy of the measures introduced.

Prior to further decisions being made on a “cooling off period” or any other measures related to the real estate transaction or market, it is imperative that thorough consultation with the real estate sector and research is conducted in advance to address factors that may negatively impact home buyers and sellers in BC.

-30-

For more information:

Shaheed Devji
BCREA Senior Communications Specialist

[email protected]

778.847.7424

Vancouver, BC – September 9, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association’s (BCREA) latest Market Intelligence report, The Unusual World of Pandemic Economics, points to uneven job losses across sectors, an increase in many households’ rate of savings, swift government aid, a tighter-than-ever housing supply and low interest rates as the drivers behind BC’s recent housing market highs.

“The COVID-19 recession has battered many sectors of the BC economy. However, looking at recent data in the housing market, it would be difficult to tell there was a recession at all,” says BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “In a typical recession, we would see falling demand and rising supply, but this recession is anything but typical.”

Previous BCREA forecasts anticipated housing prices would return to the pre-COVID-19 baseline in early 2021. However, a surge of pent-up demand into an undersupplied market has prices at pre-COVID-19 levels well ahead of schedule.

“Pandemic economics are proving to be very unusual. Many of the trends we are seeing are without precedent and significant uncertainty remains, but we are cautiously optimistic that this housing recovery will continue,” notes Ogmundson.

To read the full report, click here.

-30-

For the PDF of this news release click here.

For media enquiries:
Shaheed Devji
Marketing Communications Specialist
[email protected]
604.757.7260

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

To view the full interactive BCREA Market Intelligence, click here.

To view the latest Market Intelligence report PDF, click here.

Summary of Findings:

• A tariff on all Canadian imports to the United States would have serious consequences for the Canadian and BC economies.
• A 25 per cent tariff would push both the Canadian and BC economies into recession, and the impact could be compounded by a broader trade war and retaliatory tariffs by Canada.
• Under the most likely scenario, the BC housing market would see a temporary decline in activity before posting a robust recovery as mortgage rates decline substantially, thereby unleashing pent-up demand.

Until quite recently, the Canadian economic outlook appeared clear. After a relatively “soft landing,” Canada was braced for a stronger 2025, driven by higher consumption and business investment on the back of lower interest rates.

However, that outlook has become much cloudier following the results of the American election. More specifically, threats of tariffs from the newly installed American administration have sent bond markets, economists, and the Bank of Canada into a frenzy of uncertainty. Given the strong bilateral trade activity and integrated supply chains that underpin both economies, broad-based American tariffs, coupled with potential Canadian retaliation, could have serious implications for the Canadian economy and the housing market.

This Market Intelligence report seeks to unpack the uncertainty surrounding potential tariffs by exploring several potential tariff scenarios and their implications for the BC housing market.

For more information, please contact:  

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

Amit Sidhu
Economist
Direct: 604.677.9345
Email: [email protected]

To view the full interactive BCREA Market Intelligence report, click here.

To view the latest Market Intelligence report PDF, click here.

Vancouver, BC – January 26, 2026. The latest economic report from the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) indicates that immediate government action is required to encourage housing starts and avoid rapid home price increases toward the end of this decade.

According to a new BCREA Market Intelligence report, today’s housing market shows signs similar to the 2010s housing cycle, which ultimately led to severe undersupply and a dramatic deterioration in affordability. 

Summary of Findings:

• BC risks repeating the post‑Global Financial Crisis housing cycle, where weak demand boosted inventories and slowed construction – only to leave the province severely undersupplied when demand rebounded, triggering rapid price escalation and worsening affordability.

• Unsold new inventory has surged to a 30‑year high, especially concentrated in the apartment segment, and developers are delaying or cancelling projects because weak pre‑sales make financing nearly impossible. This dynamic threatens a future supply crunch.

• BCREA model simulations show a significant upside risk to prices, with home prices potentially rising up to 27 per cent (inflation-adjusted) by 2032 as current construction shortfalls collide with recovering demand later in the decade.

• Policy action on both demand and supply sides is needed now, including measures to strengthen pre‑sales, reconsider foreign‑buyer participation in new construction, and reduce development costs. Without this, BC is likely to enter another prolonged affordability crisis.

Read the Report

“Unsold inventory of new homes is rising to levels not seen since the late 1990s, which, along with crippling taxes, is discouraging future development,” says BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “This puts BC at risk of chronic undersupply when demand inevitably returns and a repeat of the 2010s cycle of accelerating home prices.”

The report concludes that expanding supply remains the most important ingredient to both sustainable development and moderated price growth over the foreseeable future, while also noting that there is substantial benefit to reducing the existing excess of unsold new inventory as quickly as possible.

For more information, please contact:  

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

Amit Sidhu
Economist
Direct: 604.677.9345
Email: [email protected]

The following letter was emailed to all BC REALTORS^® on Friday, September 19, 2025.

Dear BC REALTORS^®,

As you may be aware, the provincial government has begun the public phase of engagement on the Heritage Conservation Act Transformation Project (HCATP). The stated aim is to update the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) to ensure it is consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and improve its implementation in a way that benefits all people in BC.

For years, First Nations and stakeholders have raised challenges with the HCA and its administration. Significant changes have not been made to the HCA since 1996. Several concerns have been raised within BC’s real estate sector regarding the province’s current heritage conservation approach as well as the proposed changes that this stage of engagement centres upon.

Reconciliation is an important process that we support, but it’s essential to conduct this work in parallel with the development of much-needed housing in this province. We are concerned with a variety of aspects related to the proposed HCA changes to the degree that we believe the HCATP process should be paused immediately, and a plan put in place to increase consultation and examination of these potential issues.

We would urge you to review and echo these concerns within the framework of the public consultation, which includes an easy-to-access survey (more on that at the bottom of this email).

Broadly, we are adamantly opposed to archaeological data checks being conducted by REALTORS^® before property sales because:

• REALTORS^® are responsible only for a fraction of all property sales in the province,
• the majority of property sales, including apartment and townhouse stratas, would not benefit from an archaeological data check, and
• the sale of a property does not automatically suggest that an archaeological data check will be of any benefit at all.

Proposed HCA Changes and BCREA’s Top Concerns

We have outlined our additional concerns in point form below:

Make Your Voice Heard!

One of the main reasons I’m writing today is to strongly encourage all BC REALTORS^® to respond directly to the government’s public consultation to use your voice to help amplify our concerns around this consequential initiative. Feel free to echo BCREA’s concerns as well as any others you may have. Particularly if you have first-hand experience with the HCA’s implementation, your insights are vital.

You can browse this website for more information about the proposed changes and to access the Heritage Conservation Act Survey. The deadline to complete the survey is Friday, November 14, 2025, at 4 pm PT.

BCREA and various member boards and associations are monitoring these policy changes and actively engaging with the government to ensure REALTORS^®’ perspectives are heard in this consultation process. We will share relevant updates and any future engagement opportunities with you as they become available.

Should you have questions, concerns, or general feedback about this topic, please don’t hesitate to contact our department at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Trevor Hargreaves
BCREA Senior VP Government Relations, Policy Research, Marketing & Communications

In 2025, the provincial government announced a series of intended changes to the Heritage Conservation Act (HCA), which the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) quickly identified as problematic. BCREA promptly submitted a detailed consultation response and engaged directly with the senior executives and policy staff helming the initiative.

Numerous other organizations voiced their own concerns, with many echoing the same issues we had raised. We worked in close collaboration with a variety of housing organizations to amplify and align our advocacy efforts.

As a result of this collective feedback, the government postponed the introduction of its proposed HCA amendments that had originally been anticipated for spring 2026 to allow for additional time to review feedback and chart a revised course.

On Thursday, March 26, 2026, the Ministry of Forests released a technical policy paper outlining updated proposals for change to the HCA. The revised proposals reflect substantive changes informed by stakeholder feedback, and, to the Ministry’s credit, many of BCREA’s prior concerns have been addressed. Most significantly, the paper does not include the prior references to “intangible heritage.” Protections for culturally significant sites will be addressed through existing agreements or designation processes that require thorough documentation, analysis, and consultation before government decisions are made. This addresses one of the primary issues we identified.

We continue to have concerns regarding the potential application of archaeological checks at point of sale. The originally proposed mandatory archaeological checks at the time of sale would be inefficient and overly burdensome, creating a high risk of delays and transaction uncertainty. Instead of this approach, BCREA has recommended an accessible mapping tool or database that supports due diligence at a time when it makes the most sense. 

The technical policy paper outlines the intention to move forward with targeted archaeological data checks that would apply only to building permits or property sales involving ground disturbance, not unaffected properties like upper-floor condos. That said, regulations could still require checks at point of sale or land transfer for certain entities and circumstances, with the intention of improving access to heritage data through third-party systems. BCREA intends to meet with the project team shortly to discuss this proposal in further detail, including how remaining point-of-sale risks can be mitigated in practice.

Another potentially problematic issue was the lack of government capacity to effectively deliver changes as originally proposed. The technical policy paper makes the case that the newly proposed project-based permit model would streamline HCA approvals by reducing duplication and enabling conditional and concurrent authorizations. We will be following up to discuss additional practical specifics on this topic.

We previously raised the need for additional engagement and education, which was acknowledged at various points in the updated proposed changes, with a commitment to further engagement on specific items of interest, such as archaeological data checks.

We also have ongoing concerns around unintended housing supply consequences, policy abuse, and avoidance risks, the need for regulatory review, and the lack of archaeology professional capacity that could cause process constraints.

Although engagement on this file is ongoing, the positive news is that the revised proposals are far less onerous for our sector and more practically designed. We will continue to keep you updated on this file as it evolves, but we’re optimistic about the current direction.

BCREA and organized real estate continue to work diligently to ensure the government takes our concerns seriously as it modernizes the HCA. In particular, we are focused on ensuring that any mandatory archaeological data checks at point of sale are as non-cumbersome as possible. We know this is a concern for you and your clients, as it places an undue burden on sellers, especially in distress sales where properties must be sold quickly.

Please stay tuned for further updates in the coming weeks. 

To view the full interactive Mortgage Rate Forecast, click here.
To download the PDF, click here.

Highlights

• Canadian fixed mortgage rates face upward pressure as geopolitical instability sends oil soaring.
• Tariffs and the Iran conflict are driving growth and inflation concerns.
• The Bank of Canada is walking a tight rope of double-sided risks.

Mortgage Rate Outlook
After sliding lower through most of February, Canadian and American bond markets have responded to the Iran war with trepidation as five-year bonds have risen back to levels last seen near the end of 2025.

Given the impact of a volatile geopolitical environment on bond yields, fixed mortgage rates have also retraced after initial declines this year, with uninsured five-year fixed rates stabilizing around 4.6 per cent. With the five-year yield rising above 3 per cent, we expect five-year fixed rates to rise slightly over the next quarter as markets price in an expected monetary policy response to rising oil prices as well as a rising risk premium. Guidance from the Bank of Canada at its April meeting will be key to the ultimate direction of fixed rates. If the Bank signals a willingness to look though a temporary rise in inflation, we could see fixed rates moderate.

Variable mortgage rates have remained steady following three consecutive rate holds from the Bank of Canada. The average variable rate being offered by Canadian lenders has held at 4.1 per cent, or 35 basis points below the prime business rate. Heightened risk and elevated uncertainty mean lenders are unlikely to meaningfully change their discounts on variable rates. Ultimately, variable rate adjustments hinge on rate decisions that currently depend on the depth and length of the oil price shock. Therefore, we cautiously expect the variable rate to remain at 4.1 per cent throughout 2026.

Economic Outlook
The Canadian economy contracted in the fourth quarter of 2025 by 0.6 per cent on an annualized basis, falling short of the Bank of Canada’s forecast for flat growth. The underperformance was driven largely by a drawdown in inventories, partially offset by strength in household and government spending. However, modest export recoveries were insufficient to offset earlier declines stemming from the implementation of tariffs, resulting in a net contraction in overall trade for 2025. Trade uncertainty continues to linger, while business investment remains weak, leaving little scope for robust growth in the near- to medium-term.

Ongoing tensions between the Canadian and US governments over tariffs have, at least temporarily, taken a back seat to the emerging supply-shock effects of the Iran war. As an oil-producing and exporting nation, Canada may see some short-term, uneven regional benefits from higher oil prices. However, rising fuel costs will weigh on household budgets and increase business input costs, leading to a negative overall economic impact even before accounting for monetary policy implications.

At the same time, a pronounced slowdown in population growth – driven by changes in immigration policy – is further constraining Canada’s growth drivers. While the country is actively pursuing new trade relationships and large-scale national infrastructure projects, the economic effects of these efforts are unlikely to materialize within the forecast horizon. Taken together, we expect below-trend growth in 2026 in the range of 1 to 1.5 per cent.

Bank of Canada Outlook
Following a brief rate-cutting cycle, the Bank of Canada has held its overnight rate at 2.25 per cent over its last three meetings. Prior to the Iran conflict, financial markets broadly expected the Bank to remain on hold through 2026. There was even a growing case for rate cuts this year, given the economic momentum observed at the start of 2026. Core inflation continues to decelerate, with three-month measures falling again in February and now averaging just over 1 per cent. Economic growth is also likely to come in below the Bank’s relatively optimistic first-quarter forecast, while Canada has just recorded its weakest monthly employment growth since 2022.

That said, the recent war-driven spike in oil prices and its potential downstream cost pressures complicate the outlook. The Bank of Canada must now assess the inflationary impulse from a possible supply shock and the risk that higher energy costs could pass through to broader inflation expectations – an argument for caution. Our estimates suggest that a prolonged period of elevated oil prices could add up to 1 percentage point to inflation, potentially pushing consumer price growth back above 3 per cent.

The critical question is whether such an increase would compel the Bank to raise its policy rate. In a timely speech, Bank of Canada Deputy Governor Sharon Kozicki highlighted that the appropriate monetary policy response to a supply shock depends on both its magnitude and persistence. A large and prolonged shock risks becoming embedded in inflation expectations – a dangerous outcome seen during COVID-era supply disruptions – while temporary price increases may not warrant a policy response.

While it remains possible that the Bank could look through a temporary price shock and focus instead on a weakening economy, uncertainty remains too high to form strong conviction around the future direction of policy.

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
[email protected]

Amit Sidhu
Economist
Direct: 604.677.9345
[email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

BCREA's Radon for REALTORS^® online course is worth three accredited PDP hours. In it, REALTORS^® explore radon – the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers – and how it relates to the real estate transaction.

Radon is a pressing issue, and as a REALTOR^® you are expected to demonstrate competency and apply reasonable care and skill when providing real estate services to your clients, which includes being knowledgeable about environmental conditions and taking the appropriate steps to alert clients of known health or environmental concerns.

REALTORS^® must recognize that radon measurement is crucial for each home, as radon maps only indicate likelihood, not certainty, and those newer buildings, despite tight construction, may still provide hidden gaps for radon to enter the structure. Testing should span more than 48 hours, considering seasonal fluctuation and the inadequacy of short-term results for accurate assessments.

Learning more about this invisible, odourless gas can help ensure you take the right steps for your clients.

By the end of this course, learners will be able to:

• understand where radon comes from;
• identify how radon enters a dwelling;
• know what influences radon levels;
• locate areas in Canada and in BC with higher exposure to radon;
• recognize the effects of radon on human health;
• understand Canada’s radon awareness initiatives;
• identify applicable laws and emergent policies on radon in BC;
• grasp radon matters in real estate transactions;
• identify the role of REALTORS^® around radon;
• understand how a home can be tested for radon; and
• share information on radon mitigation techniques with clients.

Although the primary goal of this course is to provide the radon knowledge REALTORS^® need to support and guide clients through a real estate transaction, the information presented can also be valuable for the health and safety of clients and REALTORS^® alike.

Learners will earn three accredited PDP hours upon completion of the course. Register here.

To view the full interactive BCREA Market Intelligence, click here.

To view the latest Market Intelligence report PDF, click here.

Summary of Findings:

• Uncertainty related to the threat of tariffs has depressed home sales through the first quarter of 2025. 
• As that uncertainty subsides, the path of sales activity will depend on the prevailing tariff regime and the ultimate impact of tariffs on the economy.
• A strong monetary policy response from the Bank of Canada could counteract the negative impact of tariffs, leading to a stronger, faster housing market recovery. 

The economic uncertainty engendered by the stochastic trade policy of the United States under President Donald Trump has upended what was set to be a return to normalcy in the British Columbia housing market. However, that uncertainty, while still elevated, appears to be subsiding. So, what comes next?

In this Market Intelligence report, we’ll explore some potential scenarios for the BC housing market amidst a cloudier-than-usual outlook.

For more information, please contact:  

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

Amit Sidhu
Economist
Direct: 604.677.9345
Email: [email protected]

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

One of a licensee's more difficult tasks is setting the date for completion of the sale of property, which is in the process of being subdivided, and to provide for an enforceable extension of closing should registration of the subdivision plan be delayed. Several recent decisions have revolved around the interpretations of clauses giving the vendor or the parties the right to extend the date for closing.

While the developer wants this flexibility, a purchaser, who is prejudiced by delay, will only be able to terminate the contract if the purchaser takes the correct steps in response to multiple extensions of closing not authorized by the contract. What follows may lead you to conclude you have joined Alice and the cheshire cat in Wonderland.

A contract, under discussion in an Ontario case, contained a clause that gave the developer the right to extend the closing date to a date designated by the vendor or the vendor's solicitor.

The vendor extended the closing date, but then followed with seven further extensions over a period of about three months. Three purchasers declined to close, two of whom had raised no objection until they were advised of the eighth extension. All three purchasers argued that since the contract referred "to a date" rather than to "a date or dates", the vendor could only exercise the right to extend the date once.

The judge's agreement with this argument did not help the two purchasers.

The fact that one party is in breach of a fundamental term of a contract does not mean that the contract comes to the end. The other party may elect to keep it in force or to declare it ended. In this case, the two purchasers inaction in the face of the seven extensions was held by the judge to be their election to keep the contract force.

This gave the vendor the right to set the final date for closing contained in the eighth extension. The vendor's notice of this new date when given to the purchasers reinstated "time is of the essence". The two purchasers refusal to close then became their breach of contract which entitled the vendor to damages.

In contrast to the inaction of the two purchasers, the third purchaser objected to the fourth extension. He established a new date for closing which the judge found was reasonable. By doing this the purchaser had established time as being of the essence. This time it was the vendor who rejected the new date for closing, and it was this rejection that enabled the third purchaser to be relieved of any obligations to complete.¹

***

In a British Columbia case the clause in the Contract of Purchase and Sale provided for a fixed completion date. If delay was likely, a new date for finalization of the subdivision was to be mutually agreed upon between the vendor and purchaser.

Delay did occur and the vendor requested a twenty-two day extension which the purchaser refused to grant. The vendor then fixed a completion date, approximately six weeks after the date set in the contract, and advised the purchaser of that date. When no response was received the vendor commenced an action for specific performance or damages, put the property back on the market, completed the subdivision and eventually sold the property at a loss.

The purchaser's argument was that the vendor was. unable to complete on the closing date and since the contract stated that time was of the essence, the purchaser was entitled to terminate the contract.

The court rejected the argument, saying that the purchaser's refusal to negotiate with the vendor was a breach of the contract.

The judge's comments with respect to the "time is of the essence" argument was that the extension clause removed the "time is of the essence" requirement. As a result, the vendor acted properly in setting a new and reasonable date upon which the closing would take place and received damages in the amount of $18,500.

In passing the judge also dealt with the inability of the parties to mutually agree upon a new date by saying that it would be open to the court under the circumstances to fix a reasonable time for completion by both parties.²

	1.	Wong vs. Reemark, Sterling E Ltd., 26RPR (2d) 93.
	2.	Beks vs. Share, S.C.B.C., Victoria Registry 1297/93, January 16, 1994. (I am advised that the Flack vs. Sutherand case referred to in Column #214 has been appealed).

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B

Section 164 of the Strata Property Act gives a strata unit owner or tenant the right to challenge an action completed or threatened, or a decision of a strata council that is "significantly unfair" to the owner or tenant. This phrase has been interpreted to mean that the action complained of ". . . had to be burdensome, harsh, wrongful, lacking in probity or fair dealing, has been done in bad faith, and/or has been unjust and inequitable."¹ Several owners tried to use this section over the past year and saw mixed results.

An owner of three strata lots in a recreational development planned to build an exclusive fishing lodge. The plans were frustrated by the passage of a strata bylaw that limited the use of all strata lots to residential purposes. After an analysis of the many uses permitted by the pertinent zoning bylaws and the building scheme, both of which were referred to in the Disclosure Statement, the judge decided that the strata bylaw was significantly unfair and could not be enforced against the owner.²

In another case, the owner of a residential strata unit in a strata corporation that limited rentals applied for relief of hardship under sections 144 and 164 of the Strata Property Act. He had been transferred to Europe and was not prepared to sell his unit at a substantial loss. The limited financial information provided by the owner indicated that his employer paid his basic rent in Europe and that he incurred personal expenses of $1,426 per month. The judge concluded the strata council had acted correctly when it decided the owner failed to show that the rental bylaw caused him hardship.³

The following factors have been relevant for consideration by strata councils in decisions involving hardship claims:

• sale value exceeded purchase price;
• units were purchased for investment and tax shelter purposes, which would have been impeded if units could not be rented;
• inability to sell at various prices and the devaluation of the Canadian dollar vis-à-vis the US dollar;
• economic hardship in conjunction with a "leaky condo" issue;
• units listed for 20 per cent less than purchase price; the financing for these units required the owners to put mortgages on their homes as collateral security, and the owners faced financial ruin if the rental income to service the debt ceased;
• substantial decrease in sale value when a ban on rentals was put in place and the value of the unit is a substantial part of the owner's assets; and
• duplication of monthly expenses arising from the maintenance of two homes; applies to all non-resident owners, but only becomes a consideration for a specific owner if the duplication creates hardship that cannot be avoided or afforded.

	1.	Reid v. The Owners, Strata Plan LMS 2503, S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry, Reasons for Judgment, November 14, 2001.
	2.	Winchester Resorts v. Strata Plan KAS2188, S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry, August 6, 2002.
	3.	Als v. Strata Corporation NW 1067, S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry, Reasons for Judgment, January 29, 2002.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 14, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 3,047 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) systems in January 2023, a decrease of 50.3 per cent from January 2022. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in 2023 has seen a dip to $872,934, down 16.1% compared to the average price of over $1 million in January 2022, which was recorded near the peak of the market. The total sales dollar volume was $2.7 billion, representing a 58.3% decrease from the same time in the previous year.

“Provincial sales are off to a slow start in 2023 as activity continues to be weighed down by high borrowing costs,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While average prices have flattened out in many markets over the past few months, year-over-year measures reflect the decline that occurred from the peak in 2022, as well as a marked shift in the composition of sales away from more expensive homes.”

The total number of active listings has significantly increased compared to the record low level recorded at the start of 2022. However, at just under 22,000 total listings, the inventory of homes for sales remains well below normal for January as a scarcity of new listings in many markets has muted the impact of slow sales activity.

-30-

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 13, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 4,775 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) systems in February 2023, a decrease of 46.5 per cent from February 2022. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in 2023 was 941,575, down 14.7 per cent compared to the average price of over $1.1 million in February 2022, recorded at the market's peak. The total sales dollar volume was $4.5 billion, representing a 54.4 per cent decrease from the same time in the previous year.

“While activity across provincial housing markets remains well below normal,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “There are encouraging signs that the market is balancing out. Home sales rose month-over-month in most markets, and prices appear to be firming up in the face of low supply.”

Worth mentioning, the provincial MLS^® average price was up 8.5 per cent month-over-month to its highest level since July 2022, partially due to a more stable market but also because of the composition of sales reverting to a more normal mix following low sales of single detached homes through the Lower Mainland in January.

-30-

The 2019 British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) Annual Report is now available for viewing.

This year, the report was created in the form of a microsite and can be accessed at bcreaannualreport.ca.

With 2020 in full swing, the 2019 Annual Report explores the key focus areas and outcomes achieved at BCREA last year in collaboration with our partners. Most importantly, it highlights BCREA's commitment to resiliency, collaboration, and innovation so we can provide the best service to the province's 11 real estate boards and 23,000 REALTORS®.

The report includes:

• a video message from BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde and President Michael Trites,
• a year-in-review video highlighting the key organizational and departmental successes from 2019,
• a feature article with commentary from BCREA staff, and
• a link to the 2019 Audited Financial Statements.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

This year was full of significant changes for the real estate sector in BC. REALTORS^® continued to navigate the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and many assisted communities hit by historic rainfalls in a number of ways, including fundraising to support the Red Cross.

2021 was also filled with significant government interventions impacting the sector. Here’s a recap of significant actions by the BC Government from this past year.

Cullen Continues Inquiry into Money Laundering

The Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in BC (Cullen Commission) continued to examine a series of sectors, including real estate, throughout 2021. BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde and Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson were participants in the Cullen Commission, during which they answered questions about the real estate sector and demonstrated how BCREA has supported Realtors by equipping them with tools to help identify and combat money laundering. These tools included developing a course for managing brokers and compliance officers, and providing resources on filing Suspicious Transaction Reports and other FINTRAC requirements.

Oral submissions to the Cullen Commission ended in October 2021. The Cullen Commission was recently granted an extension for submitting their final report, which will now be published on May 20, 2022. We look forward to the release of the final report and will continue advocating for smart policy to ensure integrity and transparency in supporting Realtors to help identify and combat money laundering in real estate.

BC Real Estate Sector Moves to Single Regulator

For the second time in five years, the real estate regulatory system was restructured. In March 2021, the government passed amendments to the Real Estate Services Act, resulting in a new regulatory body for real estate, the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA). In addition to real estate, BCFSA also regulates credit unions, trust companies, insurance companies, mortgage brokers and pension plans.

At BCREA, we are hopeful about the potential of the shift away from a dual-regulator model, which had its challenges. We do, however, have several ongoing areas of concern that we are continuing to advocate for as we continue regular meetings with senior staff at BCFSA. We will continue to call for the creation of a Professional Standing Committee to establish licensing qualifications and provide on-the-ground insights into all proposed changes to real estate practice.

Actions Taken to Improve Housing Supply

While there is no single solution to housing affordability in BC, governments can have the greatest impact by encouraging increased housing supply. A recent BCREA Market Intelligence report estimates in March 2021, 67,000 buyers were searching for homes across BC while only 24,000 listings were available. In November 2021, total active residential listings were down 40 per cent year-over-year an all-time record low for the province. These numbers highlight the undersupplied housing market in the face of surging demand.

There has, however, been some progress made by the provincial government on increasing housing supply in the past year, including:

• speeding up local government’s development approvals processes by removing the default requirement for local governments to hold public hearings for zoning bylaw amendments that are consistent with Official Community Plans,
• enabling local governments to delegate decisions on minor development variance permits to staff so they can also work towards decreasing approval times and
• providing grants to local governments to create more efficient development approvals processes.

Undoubtedly, there is still much more to be done to reduce the imbalance between housing supply and demand in BC. We are calling for the government to implement other supply-side measures and calls to action made by the Development Approvals Process Review and the Expert Panel on Housing Supply and Affordability alongside fulsome consultation with the real estate sector.

These are just a few significant developments from the BC Government and on which BCREA will continue to focus on closely into the new year. Other policies that will reverberate into 2022 is the recently announced cooling off period and the fallout from the federal election, which included a promise by the Liberal Party to introduce a Home Buyers’ Bill of Rights.

With 2022 now in the rear-view mirror, BCREA’s Government Relations department reflects on a busy and eventful year.

2022 was filled with regulatory change and shifts in the provincial political landscape impacting the real estate sector. Public and media interest around housing affordability intensified greatly across the year, often portrayed as escalating crises. As a result, governments have felt pressured to act quickly – at times rashly, announcing policies with varying degrees of advanced research and sector collaboration.

Amidst this backdrop, the BCREA Government Relations department has adopted an increasingly research-oriented approach, adding original data and policy research to media and governmental discourse. Our goal has been and continues into 2023 to go beyond asserting opinion, but rather providing evidence-based sectoral thought leadership. Here’s a recap of our activities from the past year.

A Better Way Home

In response to the provincial government’s announcement of a Home Buyer Rescission Period, BCREA released a research-focused white paper titled “A Better Way Home.”

After months of rigorous research and analysis, the report provided 33 recommendations to improve consumer protection and transparency in the real estate transaction process. The report was released in 2022, along with a press conference and a comprehensive communications, public and media engagement plan. The campaign was well-received and extensively covered by national and regional media outlets. Many of the proposals were echoed in the BC Financial Services Authority’s (BCFSA) report “Enhancing Consumer Protection in BC’s Real Estate Market.”

Despite the aligned recommendations of BCREA and the BCFSA, the provincial government moved forward with legislative change announcing that the Home Buyer Rescission Period would take effect in January 2023. Throughout this process, BCREA worked closely with the regulator and other stakeholders to ensure that REALTORS® have the resources to understand and comply with the changes. We continue to monitor this process closely and maintain an ongoing dialogue with the regulator around real and potential issues tied to this legislation.

Provincial Government Leadership

In June 2022, Premier John Horgan announced that he would be stepping down as soon as the BC NDP elected a new leader. After the disqualification of an “outsider” leadership candidate, David Eby was sworn in as premier on November 18. During his campaign, Eby focused much attention on BC’s housing crisis, and echoed many of BCREA’s concerns about a chronic housing undersupply and protracted approval process for new housing projects.

Upon taking office, Premier Eby announced the creation of a stand-alone Ministry of Housing and appointed Ravi Kahlon as its first Minister. Other new and major cabinet portfolios went to Minister of Finance Katrine Conroy, Attorney General Niki Sharma and Minister of Municipal Affairs Anne Kang. Ministers remaining in their portfolios include Minister of Health and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs Adrian Dix, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General Mike Farnworth, and Minister of Transportation and Public Infrastructure Rob Fleming.

Having worked with Eby closely in recent years, we are optimistic about his approach in the coming year. As a policy forward, hands-on leader, we expect a closer relationship with the Premier’s office and better collaboration around potential policies in the months ahead. This is a much-needed change from the prior administration.

On the issue of housing affordability, we have spent the last few years countering the narrative that BC affordability issues are closely related to foreign ownership. The metrics simply do not support this assertion, given that foreign ownership has fallen to less than 0.5 per cent in the last two years. Our focus has been on demonstrating that a supply drought is the main causal indicator – and we have had strong success in convincing the Minister of Housing (now Premier) David Eby to adopt this position.

Under this lens, our focus increasingly turned to influencing change at the municipal level. A primary challenge point of increasing supply is inefficiencies at the municipal level. To this end, we have been and will continue into 2023 focusing efforts on change at this level of government. Streamlining approval processes, better structures to deal with the “NIMBY” attitude at the community level, and more aligned provincial leadership leveraging provincial and federal funding as being tied to regional development have been particular areas of focus.

Local Government Shake-up

In October 2022, British Columbians went to the polls to elect their local government representatives. A new wave of mayors and councillors brought significant change to many municipalities in the province.

In Victoria, the retirement of Lisa Helps brought wholesale change to council, as Marianne Alto captured the mayoralty, and a virtually entirely new council will helm the city for the next four years.

In Vancouver, Ken Sim rolled over incumbent mayor Kennedy Stewart with a resounding landslide victory, and four new councillors will join the six who were re-elected.

Wholesale change was also the theme in Surrey, with incumbent Doug McCallum and his running mates all but erased from council.

New mayors also won elections in Kelowna, Kamloops, Port Moody, Langley Township, Prince George, and Abbotsford (among others).

Union of BC Municipalities

In September 2022, BCREA attended the annual convention of the Union of BC Municipalities in Whistler. This year, for the first time, BCREA invited its member boards to participate. Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver has been a long-time attendee on its own, and delegates from Fraser Valley, Interior, Northern and Vancouver Island all participated, making for a strong presence at the convention. BCREA created materials to hand out to delegates and hosted several important meetings on-site with various mayors and provincial officials.

Federal Foreign Buyers Ban

In much the same manner as the provincial Home Buyer Rescission Period, the federal government quickly announced and passed the Foreign Buyers Ban legislation with insufficient research or consultation.   

Ottawa’s decision to release the accompanying regulations a mere ten days prior to implementation left REALTORS^® across Canada scrambling to understand and comply with the new regulations. Many sectoral thought leaders (including BCREA) have drawn attention to the “political, rather than practical” nature of this policy, which is not expected to have any meaningful impact on its intended purpose to make housing more affordable for average Canadians.

What’s Coming in 2023

BCREA’s Government Relations department anticipates another intensive year amidst governmental pressure tied to issues of national housing affordability. Both the federal and provincial governments are paying particular attention to housing policy issues and are often skirting the necessary research and analysis to draft comprehensive legislation that will achieve stated goals. We will be continuing and expanding detailed, research-based advocacy on behalf of all BC REALTORS^®.

We are committed to representing the voice of BC REALTORS^® in advocating for the common goals of improving housing, implementing a regulatory system that works for REALTORS^® and their clients, and ensuring that policies are based on evidence and adequate consultation.

To get in touch with us, please contact us at [email protected].

The Standard Forms Launch aims to address the needs of REALTORS^® in this dynamic environment by revising and creating new forms and clauses to help support the profession while minimizing the number of changes throughout the year.

Today’s release encompasses updates that ensure BCREA Standard Forms are consistent and reflect current practice requirements and the various requests received from real estate practitioners.

Some highlights of the release include:

• The addition of a new counterparts term,
• New heritage and archaeological questions in the Property Disclosure Statements,
• A new Releasing Trust Account Deposit Funds Clause,
• The use of additional language to provide greater clarity, and
• Housekeeping and formatting updates.

The revised Standard Forms and new clause are now available on CREA WEBForms^®.

Prior to the release, BCREA incorporated launch process safeguards, developed a communication plan for post-launch communications, reviewed current practices for updates, and tested for quality assurance with CREA’s WEBForms^® team.

BCREA extends a big thank you to all the volunteers.

Launch Package

To help prepare REALTORS^® and managing brokers integrate the new and revised Standard Forms into their practice, BCREA’s Launch Package includes watermarked versions of the revised forms highlighting the changes, guides, and a summary of the revisions.

Standard Forms Toolkits and Professional Development Courses

In addition to the launch, we’ve updated the Standard Forms Toolkits page and are working with our Instructors to update our Professional Development courses on CREA’s Learning Hub (login required).

If you have form or clause-related questions, email us at [email protected].

If you have questions about CREA’s WEBForms^® or require support, please email CREA at [email protected].

On February 6, 2023, Lieutenant Governor Janet Austin opened the fourth session of the 42^nd parliament with a Throne Speech outlining Premier Eby’s governmental priorities.

While vague in specific policy deliverables, the Throne Speech outlined several broad initiatives directly impacting BC’s real estate sector.

Increasing Housing Supply

Budget 2023, which is set to be tabled on February 28, 2023, is promised to make record-level investments in housing for middle-class families. Pointing to investment and speculation as primary causes of rising housing costs, the government plans to invest in increased housing supply and services near transit hubs province-wide.

The provincial government also intends to launch a refreshed housing strategy and work with local governments and stakeholders to ensure this strategy results in more affordable homes for middle-class families, seniors, and those with the greatest need. The fall session will introduce laws to turn this strategy into new affordable housing.

Throughout the above-noted consultation process, BCREA is committed to advocating on behalf of BC REALTORS^® and ensuring the voice of REALTORS^® is heard loud and clear.  

Anti-money Laundering

The Throne Speech reiterated the BC government’s commitment to supporting “people who work hard and play by the rules.” It announced that legislation will be introduced to crack down on money laundering. This legislation will likely be inspired by the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in BC’s Final Report.

The government promises that this year’s multi‑billion-dollar surplus will be used to support British Columbians “now and for the long term,” so we can expect many new initiatives from the BC government in the coming year.

We understand the importance of staying informed and educated on policy matters that directly impact BC REALTORS^®, and we are committed to keeping you informed on the latest policy developments.

As the new provincial government rolls out these new initiatives, we are dedicated to staying at the forefront of these changes and providing REALTORS^® with policy updates.

Please refer to the full Throne Speech here for more information on Premier Eby’s key governmental priorities.

The 2024 BC Property Assessments are now available online through BC Assessment, and homeowners can now check theirs on the website and expect to receive their notices in the mail by the end of January 2024.  

REALTORS^® are often a valuable source of information for both buyers and sellers in helping them understand tax assessments and how they are used to calculate property taxes.    

"Most homeowners around the province can generally expect about a -5 or +5 per cent rise in assessment values when they receive their notices in early January,” says BC Assessment assessor Bryan Murao. “Most homeowners can expect only modest changes in the range of -5% to +5%. These assessment changes are notably less than previous years.”  

It is important to note that an increase in a property's assessment value does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes for homeowners. In most cases, property taxes are only affected if a property's value is above the average value change for the community.  

If a property owner is still concerned about their assessment after speaking to a BC Assesment appraiser, they may submit a Notice of Complaint (Appeal) by January 31st, for an independent review by a Property Assessment Review Panel.

For more information about assessments and trends in your area visit BC Assessment.  

Managed Forest Land 

BC Assessment has also issued an Important Notice to Purchasers of Private Managed Forest Land to make them aware of two aspects of tax law that have caused significant concerns for some purchasers:

1. Purchasers of managed forest land may be responsible for paying taxes on timber previously harvested by the Vendor; and,
2. Purchasers of managed forest land may be responsible for paying exit fees to the Managed Forest Council if the property is removed from managed forest class.

Prospective purchasers of privately managed forest land are advised to inquire about previous timber harvesting and its potential property tax implications. Exit fees may be incurred if the property is removed from managed forest land class before 15 years of enrollment.  

For more information, visit the Managed Forest Council website or contact BC Assessment at [email protected] or call 1-866-valueBC (825-8322). 

The 2025 BC Property Assessments are now available online through BC Assessment, and homeowners can now check theirs on the website and expect to receive their notices in the mail by the end of January 2025.  

REALTORS^® are often a valuable source of information for both buyers and sellers in helping them understand tax assessments and how they are used to calculate property taxes.    

"Across the Lower Mainland and throughout BC, the overall housing market has generally stabilized in value for a second consecutive year," says BC Assessment Assessor Bryan Murao. "Most homeowners can expect only modest assessment changes in the range of -5 to +5 per cent."

For the Lower Mainland region, overall assessments have generally remained flat from about $2 trillion in 2024 to $2.01 trillion this year. Almost $27 billion of the region's updated assessments are from new construction, subdivisions, and property rezoning. The Lower Mainland region includes all of Greater Vancouver, the Fraser Valley, the Sea to Sky area, and the Sunshine Coast.​

It is important to note that an increase in a property's assessment value does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes for homeowners. In most cases, property taxes are only affected if a property's value is above the average value change for the community.  

If a property owner is still concerned about their assessment after speaking to a BC Assessment appraiser, they may submit a Notice of Complaint (Appeal)Notice of Complaint (Appeal) by January 31, for an independent review by a Property Assessment Review Panel.

For more information about assessments and trends in your area visit BC Assessment.  

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 13, 2025. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that 4,221 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) Systems in January 2025, up 6.4 per cent from January 2024. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in January 2025 was down 1.0 per cent at $949,560 compared to $959,191 in January 2024.

The total sales dollar volume was $4 billion, a 5.3 per cent increase from the same time the previous year. BC MLS^® unit sales were 12 per cent lower than the ten-year January average.

“As expected, 2025 is off to a better start in most regions across BC,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “January’s pickup in sales and listings may foreshadow a stronger 2025, caveated by global uncertainties which may trigger higher or lower rates from the Bank of Canada.”

Active listings in January 2025 climbed to 30,896 units, a 27 per cent increase from the same month last year. Normalizing trends in new listings, coupled with stronger sales activity in the past few months, have led to an accumulation of inventory. Moving forward, it remains crucial for supply to keep pace with growing demand to keep markets balanced and prevent rampant price appreciation.

Managing brokers have so many things on the go and so many things to do that finding the time to sift through all the possible resources that suit their interests and growth can easily slide to the bottom of the to-do list.

On Monday, October 20, 2025, the PacificWest Managing Brokers Summit* sponsored by BCREA, is a pre-conference event offering a hand-selected treasure trove of top-of-mind subjects presented by leaders in the sector.

Featuring 16 speakers and leaders in the profession, our curated presentations are on topics like:

• Navigating Change: Leadership and the Road Ahead;
• Managing Broker Support LIVE In Person – Gloves Off, Wisdom On;
• Unlock Venture Capital and Tech Strategies; and
• Broker Power Hour: Risk Management Tools & Tips From E&O.

View the entire Managing Brokers Summit details here.

This is a great opportunity to cut through the noise, spend time expanding your expertise, network with peers, and gain practical and timely insights. Remember, the Managing Brokers Summit is an add-on ticket to the 2025 PacificWest Conference, so double-check that you select it at registration.

* eligible for three self-directed Professional Development Program hours.

Keep an eye out on BCREA’s LinkedIn page for more details over the coming weeks!

At the PacificWest trade show, our Professional Services Advisors, Marty Douglas, Ken Magel, and Jim McCaughan, along with Professionalism & Practice Initiatives Director Ryan DeLuca and Professional Development Strategy & Practice Advocacy Manager Carmen deFoy, will be onsite to host “Managing Broker Support LIVE.” This is a unique opportunity to engage with them directly, ask practice-related questions, and receive tailored advice.

Find us at trade show booth #307 and spin our prize wheel to win!

Managing brokers don’t just manage offices; they help shape the future of real estate. That’s why at the 2025 PacificWest Conference, BCREA is giving you a space designed exclusively for your leadership growth and impact.

Beginning on Monday, October 20, 2025, the Managing Brokers Summit, sponsored by BCREA, is a pre-conference event. This exclusive full-day will give you practical insights on risk management, leadership, and regulatory issues – everything you need before the main event even starts. The Managing Brokers Summit is an add-on ticket to the 2025 PacificWest Conference, so double-check that you select it at registration.

Then, from Tuesday, October 21 to Wednesday, October 22, find us on the 2025 PacificWest Conference trade show floor, where BCREA’s Managing Broker Support LIVE and Communications team will be ready to connect. Whether you have practice-related questions, challenges you’re working through, or ideas on how we can better support you, we want to hear them. And if you’re a REALTOR^® looking for resources to strengthen your business, we’ve also got you covered.

Don’t miss this opportunity to learn, connect, and grow!

The 2026 BC Property Assessments are now available online through BC Assessment, and homeowners can now check theirs on the website and expect to receive their notices in the mail by the end of January 2026.  

"The softening housing market is being reflected in 2026 property assessments," says BC Assessment Assessor Bryan Murao. "Many homeowners throughout the Lower Mainland can expect some decreases in assessed value with most changes ranging between -10% to 0%." 

“Vancouver Island and the Southern Interior are generally flatter in value with changes ranging between -5% to +5% while the North and the Kootenays are varying more broadly in the -5% to +15% range," adds Murao. 

For the Lower Mainland, total assessments have decreased from about $2.01 trillion in 2025 to about $1.92 trillion this year. Almost $24 billion of the region's updated assessments is from new construction, subdivisions and the rezoning of properties.

The REALTOR^® Role

REALTORS^® are often a valuable source of information for both buyers and sellers in helping them understand tax assessments and how they are used to calculate property taxes.    

It is important to note that an increase in a property's assessment value does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes for homeowners. In most cases, property taxes are only affected if a property's value is above the average value change for the community.  

If a property owner is still concerned about their assessment after speaking to a BC Assessment appraiser, they may submit a Notice of Complaint (Appeal) by Monday, February 2, 2026, for an independent review by a Property Assessment Review Panel.

For more information about assessments and trends in your area, visit BC Assessment. 

Managed Forest Land

BC Assessment has also issued an Important Notice to Purchasers of Private Managed Forest Land to make them aware of two aspects of tax law that have caused significant concerns for some purchasers:

1. Purchasers of managed forest land may be responsible for paying taxes on timber previously harvested by the Vendor; and,
2. Purchasers of managed forest land may be responsible for paying exit fees to the Managed Forest Council if the property is removed from managed forest class.

Prospective purchasers of privately managed forest land are advised to inquire about previous timber harvesting and its potential property tax implications. Exit fees may be incurred if the property is removed from managed forest land class before 15 years of enrollment.

For more information, visit the Managed Forest Council website, or contact BC Assessment at [email protected] or 1-866-valueBC (825-8322).

Every year, the Earth does its best to remind us that “Yes, climate change is a real thing,” by increasing the frequency and intensity of atmospheric rivers, heat waves, and wind events, which – in turn – increase the frequency and intensity of floods and wildfires.

Here’s what you need to know about these extreme weather events as we get into spring and summer.

When Are Floods and Wildfires Most Likely to Occur in BC?

As we’ve seen with the recent atmospheric river event, floods can happen at any time of year in BC. However, according to ClimateReadyBC, the most severe floods usually occur in spring and early summer due to heavy rain and melting snow.

Meanwhile, the BC wildfire season typically runs from the spring to the fall, with peak danger coming in the summer.

What Will 2026 Hold for Floods and Wildfires in BC?

While it’s impossible to accurately predict the severity of an upcoming flood or wildfire season, one big variable that we can observe is the amount of the snowpack. The Province has a network of Automated Snow Weather Stations (ASWS) and regularly updates a webpage that provides a bi-weekly summary of snow conditions, graphs, links to other sites, and more.

So, if you’re a true geo-climatological geek, check out the site and amaze your friends, family, and co-workers with obscure trivia about the current level of the snowpack in your local mountains.

All kidding aside, the snowpack has a dramatic influence on both flooding and wildfires. Obviously, a very high snowpack, coupled with a rapid melt (due to a sudden spring heatwave) can result in high freshet volumes and potential for downstream flooding. For example, regions in northern BC currently have snowpack levels exceeding 100 per cent of normal levels.

On the other hand, areas with below-average snowpack levels are at higher risk of a severe wildfire season. Less snow means that soil will dry out faster, resulting in higher potential for early-season fires, or even reactivation of “zombie fires,” which can remain active underground through the winter. Also, a low snowpack makes a region more vulnerable to mid-late summer drought conditions by eliminating the moisture buffer that makes the soil more resistant to drying.

Much of BC is currently experiencing lower-than-average snowpack levels, the worst being Vancouver Island (48 per cent of normal snowpack levels), West Chilcotin (49 per cent), South Coast (61 per cent), and the Okanagan (62 per cent).

What Other Predictive Tools Exist?

The Province has also developed the BC Disaster and Climate Risk and Resilience Assessment to help residents understand the potential risks they face from various climate hazards in their region. This webpage helps inform the public, as well as equips REALTORS^® with tools to assess the impacts of these hazards and guide clients with their buying and selling decisions.

With extreme weather events on the rise, our sector has a clear obligation to ensure buyers and sellers make informed, “eyes-open” decisions about exposure to climate-related risks across regions, neighbourhoods, and individual properties.

For the complete statistics release, including detailed tables, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 11, 2026. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that 3,314 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) Systems in January 2026, down 22.9 per cent from January 2025. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in January 2026 was down 1.9 per cent at $924,239 compared to $942,384 in January 2025.

Total MLS^® residential sales dollar volume was $3.06 billion, down 24.4 per cent from the same time the previous year. BC MLS^® unit sales were 30.97 per cent lower than the ten-year average for the month of January.

“British Columbia’s housing market kicked off 2026 with its second weakest January since 2016, with sales in almost every region falling short of historical averages,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Despite a slow start, we expect stable rates and improved affordability conditions to release pent-up demand with sales picking up over the course of 2026.”

Active listings in January 2026 climbed to 32,626 units, a 5.6 per cent increase from the same month last year. Weak sales activity over the past several quarters have led to an accumulation of inventory, which should accommodate demand pressures in the short term. However, dampening sentiments concerning new home construction in BC leave the housing market vulnerable to long-term demand growth, a pattern which will be monitored over the next few years.

By Victor Khong, REALTOR^®

Uber has finally arrived in BC! While it may appear to be an industry disruptor, what it really offers is as old as time: exceptional customer service. Here are five things REALTORS^® can learn from this so-called industry disruptor:

1. Provide timely communication – Part of the appeal of Uber is how much communication you receive about your ride. Uber lets you know what you’ll be charged upfront, when the car will be there and when it arrives, and even prompts you to rate your driver at the end of your journey. This shows the importance of timely and consistent communication with your clients throughout a transaction. From initial contact to completion, consumers want to know where they are en route to their destination.

2. Smooth the process (without reducing your fiduciary duties) – Uber makes the process smooth and straightforward for their customers, without cutting any corners. When looking for ways to ensure a smooth and seamless experience, make sure you take the time to get to know your clients and understand what’s important to them. For example, some clients prefer the convenience of electronic signatures, while others want the security of signing in person.

3. Be accountable – Just as Uber sends its customers an electronic receipt with the fare breakdown and route taken, your workflow should document and communicate your efforts to your clients. For example, the Disclosure of Remuneration form for buyers and the Disclosure to Sellers of Expected Payment form for sellers are accountability tools.

Uber also gives every customer a chance to review their driver and takes this feedback seriously (Uber will de-activate drivers who have cumulative ratings of 4.6 or below). Similarly, it’s a great idea to conduct a completion interview at the end of every transaction and use the feedback you receive to hone your skills and process.

4. Offer added value – Uber understands that value isn’t all about saving money. REALTORS^® who offer negotiation strategies and advice on market price, and perform the due diligence of investigating title, land use, compliance, and material latent defects, provide their clients with added value. Make sure to invest in your education and continue to grow your skillset so you can ensure this added value for your clients.

5. Embrace change – Ultimately, the only constant in life is change and the real estate industry will continue to change and grow, just as the ride-hailing industry will evolve over time. In the same way Uber will adapt to meet the needs of its customers, be flexible in your approach, stay current on real estate and consumer trends and embrace industry best practices in the face of change.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

When a buyer refuses, for a legitimate reason, to remove a subject clause because of a bad inspection report, what is the listing licensee to do with that knowledge?

This was the issue in a recent case where the court found the listing licensee liable for $47,000 in damages for failing to fully tell subsequent buyers about problems revealed in an earlier inspection report.

In Gundersen v. Savoy, the property was a modified single-wide manufactured home on land near Cranbrook¹. The sellers had built an addition to the home.

In June 2004, the sellers listed the property. In their Property Disclosure Statement (PDS), the sellers said they were not aware of any moisture problems.

In February 2005, the sellers accepted an offer subject to inspection. When the buyer received a negative inspection report, she collapsed the deal. In his report, the inspector cited some mildew in the basement under the addition. The inspector said that a vapor barrier should be installed over the exposed earth under the home, and the area treated with a solution to kill mildew. He also found that the furnace was too small. Later, the buyer's agent told the listing licensee that the buyer collapsed the deal because the inspector reported mould in the home. With the inspector's report in mind, the sellers took steps to repair the problem by covering the exposed earth with poly and applying a mildew-killing solution.

In January 2006, new buyers viewed the home twice. On January 29, the sellers entered a Contract of Purchase and Sale to sell the property for $178,000 to the buyers. There was no subject-to-inspection clause in the contract. The sellers also updated their PDS to certify they were not aware of any moisture or water problems in the walls, basement or crawl space.

When the buyers moved in, they discovered widespread mould and mildew. For health reasons, they apparently abandoned the home after roughly six months. The buyers sued the sellers, the listing licensee and his brokerage. The court dismissed the claim against the sellers, but found the licensee liable for deceit. The brokerage was vicariously liable for its licensee.

At trial, the listing licensee claimed that he told the buyers that the black poly was there because the earlier inspector had noticed mildew on the underside of the addition. He testified that he told the buyers that the sellers had received advice to spray underneath the floor with a solution, and to insulate and cover the area with a vapour barrier. According to the licensee, he told the buyers that the sellers had apparently remediated the mildew problem on the inspector's instructions. He also told them the furnace was too small. The licensee testified that this was when the buyers decided to proceed without a subject-to-inspection clause.

The court, however, preferred the buyers' evidence, rejecting the licensee's version. The wife of the buying couple testified that when they suggested making their offer subject to inspection, the listing licensee said that an inspection had already been done, and that all was fine except the furnace was too small. She was adamant – the furnace was the only deficiency that the listing licensee told them about.

The court found that the licensee persuaded the buyers by half-truths not to seek an inspection, when he knew that an inspection would be prudent, especially given the property's mildew history. The court said that if the licensee really believed that the seller had remediated the property, he should have told the buyers about all of the inspector's findings. Instead, the licensee edited his information, keeping silent about that which might worry the buyers most.

Generally, whether a seller responds to a legitimate negative inspection by repairing the problem or not, the listing licensee should disclose the situation to a later buyer. The licensee should also consider whether the problem is a material latent defect within Section 5-13 of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia Rules², in which case the licensee must disclose the situation in writing before the buyer enters an agreement to buy the property.

	1.	Gundersen v. Savoy, 2012 BCSC 1047.
	1.	Licensee Rules.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA), with support from the province’s real estate boards, has published a white paper and series of sweeping recommendations for the BC Government aimed at addressing current concerns with the province’s housing market, the real estate transaction process and consumer protection.

The white paper, called A Better Way Home: Strengthening Consumer Protection in Real Estate, offers more than 30 recommendations spanning four areas: addressing housing supply issues, enhancing consumer protection in real estate transactions, evolving the real estate sector and contributing to the creation of a world-leading regulatory structure. It incorporates findings from seven focus groups with consumers and REALTORS®, years of survey data, and a detailed analysis of economic and secondary literature, including the impacts of attempted housing market interventions worldwide.  

“BCREA shares consumer and government concerns that current housing market conditions are untenable. Our recommendations include long-term measures to create more housing options for British Columbians, as well as immediate steps to give consumers in the market today more peace of mind,” says BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene K. Hyde. “As the voice of BC’s 24,000 Realtors, we want consumers to have full confidence in real estate transactions.” 

BCREA’s recommendations to support consumer confidence in real estate transactions include:

• Giving buyers time to research a property before making an offer by introducing a mandatory “pre-offer period” of a minimum of five business days from when a property is first listed. During this period, offers cannot be made.
• Helping consumers make more informed decisions in multiple offer scenarios by collaborating with real estate sector stakeholders to establish a process that balances offer transparency for buyers with privacy concerns.
• Ensuring prospective buyers have immediate access to relevant information by making property disclosure statements mandatory and available upon listing.
• Mandating that all documents related to strata transactions are made available with the listing, including strata bylaws, depreciation reports, status of contingency funds, strata council correspondence and the Form B.
• Raising entry qualification standards for new licensees to ensure consumers are supported by a profession that is evolving along with the changing market.

While A Better Way Home is based on years of feedback, data and market analysis collected by BCREA and regional real estate boards, we have published it in response to the government’s announced plans to introduce a mandatory “cooling off period” in real estate transactions as soon as this spring. We are deeply concerned that this decision was made without first conducting thorough public consultations with the real estate sector and consumers, a problem statement or supporting rationale. 

BCREA supports measures to increase consumer protection in real estate transactions, but it must be done in a way that is evidence-based, regionally nuanced and considers buyers, sellers and changing market trends. Without these best practices, policies are likely to result in unintended negative consequences for consumers and the real estate market as a whole.  

“A ‘cooling off period’ is not the answer to alleviating the stresses consumers are currently facing in real estate transactions,” adds Hyde. “It won’t stand the test of changing market conditions, regional market differences and doesn’t equally serve buyers and sellers. It also does nothing to address the root of BC’s housing affordability problem; namely, lack of supply.” 

An analysis of “cooling off periods” in other global jurisdictions has shown the policy to be ineffectual at best. The provincial government announced plans for a “cooling off period” in real estate transactions on November 4, 2021, without broad consultation with the housing sector. BCREA strongly believes that consumer interests are best served when the government invites in-depth input from housing sector stakeholders before announcing potential policies. 

“With access to extensive data and expert analysis on housing market conditions, on-the-ground insights into consumer experience, close working relationships with other housing sector stakeholders, and a commitment to enhancing consumer confidence in the Realtor profession, BCREA is uniquely positioned to support the government in identifying a ‘better way home’ for all British Columbians,” says Hyde. 

To read BCREA’s whitepaper and view the full list of recommendations, visit bcrea.bc.ca/betterwayhome. 

To download a media kit, visit bcrea.bc.ca/betterwayhomemedia.

Additional Quotes: 

“We support measures that strengthen consumer protection and improve housing affordability and supply in our region. To find policy approaches that benefit current and hopeful home buyers as well as home sellers and owners requires a thorough understanding of how real estate transactions occur at every stage. Policymakers can only strike this delicate balance by consulting industry experts. This is why we urge our regulator and provincial government to deeply consider BCREA’s recommendations before implementing new requirements for home buyers and sellers in BC to follow.”  

Taylor Biggar 
Chair, Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver 

“The BC Government’s recently announced “cooling off period,” while well-intentioned, may result in unintended consequences. We’ve seen in the past that well-meaning proposals such as the vacancy tax, speculation tax, and foreign buyers’ tax have done little, if anything, to stem a burgeoning market. The issue is supply, plain and simple. The government has ambitious plans to increase housing inventory by 114,000 units over the next decade. To put this in perspective, to achieve a balanced market would require an inventory injection of 25,000 additional units today. This is a fundamental challenge and by an order of magnitude far greater than any stop-gap measure like a “cooling off period" could address.   

“Today’s record housing market is driven not by any single element. It’s the result of a combination of factors: rock-bottom interest rates, major shifts in lifestyle and work habits due to a global pandemic and record low inventories. This is an issue of complex interdependencies in need of an equally well-formed strategy to resolve. If we are to achieve a long-term solution, we require a coordinated, collaborative approach, one that includes all stakeholders – regulators, Realtors, builders, and local governments – as equal partners.   

“Fraser Valley Realtors have been an integral part of building communities for the past 100 years. We’ve been through numerous market peaks and troughs over the decades. We bring proficiency and insight into the mechanics and workings of real estate market transactions and a particular expertise in understanding what drives market trends, including the all-important intangible elements. This knowledge is critical if we are to establish a solution with staying power.” 

Larry Anderson 
President, Fraser Valley Real Estate Board 

“The BC Northern Real Estate Board supports BCREA’s recommendations to enhance consumer protection and improve housing affordability. The "cooling off period" recently announced by the BC Government was made without consultation from the real estate sector and appears to be a “one-size-fits-all” solution based on current market conditions in specific parts of the province. 

“However, markets conditions vary across time and geography, especially in the north where there are currently buyer, seller and balanced markets. A poorly planned policy could undermine consumer protection in the face of a swiftly changing environment. We ask the government and regulator to review BCREA’s recommendations and to consider the protection of all consumers, both buyers and sellers, regardless of where they reside.” 

Alex Goseltine 
Executive Officer, BC Northern Real Estate Board 

Media contact:

Shaheed Devji 
Sr. Communications Specialist 
778.847.7424
[email protected] 

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

A recent Court of Appeal decision concerning the validity of a lease, while affecting only a few landlord/tenant relationships, may have serious consequences for those few. The property in the lease in question was part of an unsubdivided larger parcel of the landlord's land. A building was erected on the part.

After a series of disputes which led to the landlord's refusal to renew the lease, the tenant brought an action to force the landlord to do so. The landlord's defense was that the lease was illegal because it was in breach of section 73 of the Land Title Act.

Section 73 states that except in compliance with the Land Title Act, no person shall subdivide property into smaller parcels for the purpose of ... leasing it for a term exceeding three years. The term of the lease was 51 months. The Land Title Act deines subdivision to mean a division of land into two or more parcels by plan, apt descriptive words, or otherwise. By this definition the landlord's property was subdivided when the parties signed the lease. Since none of the governmental consents that may be required for a subdivision were obtained, the subdivision did not comply with the Land Title Act.

The reason why section 73 may only affect a few leases is because it does not apply to a lease of a building, or part of a building.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the lease was illegal because it was made in breach of the public policy underlying the prohibition contained in section 73. That public policy is the regulation of land development and its use in the public interest, which can only be protected if municipalities and other governmental authorities responsible for zoning and related public interests retain control of the process of subdivision.

Italso decided not only that an illegal lease cannot create a leasehold interest in the land, but that the parties could not enforce the contractual rights and obligations contained in the lease. (For example, the landlord's right to receive rent, and the tenant's right to possession or renewal.)

A significant fact upon which the Court of Appeal based its decision, was that neither party was aware of the requirements of section 73. If the landlord had such knowledge and deliberately broke the law, the court would have found it very difficult to allow the landlord to repudiate its obligation to renew the lease, and might have tried to find some way to support the tenant's rights.

The Law Society thought the case to be sufficiently important that it brought it to the attention of lawyers with the suggestion that they advise their clients, both landlords and tenants, of the need to review existing leases that may now prove to be unenforceable.

One example of illegal leases may be found in the purchase of recreational property by a group of individuals in the name of a company of which they are the shareholders. Subdivision in the customary manner is unobtainable. The company then leases to each individual an area of land which each is entitled to occupy exclusively.

Or, a one-story, non-strata titled warehouse building is divided into separate units, each of which is then leased together with the land in front of each tenant's unit. Each tenant has the exclusive right to the use of this land. This appears to fall within the section 73 prohibition. If the tenant does not have exclusive use, but only a right to access and parking, the lease would be outside the section 73 prohibition.

What is the validity of a lease in which, as is often the case, the tenant is given the exclusive right to a number of parking spaces? Does this mean that if the spaces are within the building, the, lease is valid, but if they are outside, the lease is illegal?

Since this would be an absurd result the courts may accept one or two arguments in support of the validity of the lease. The first is that the general public interest underlying section 73 is not harmed by inclusion in a lease of exclusive parking rights in favour of a tenant. The second argument would be that since section 73 does not apply to a lease of a building, or part of a building, the granting of exclusive parking rights is too minor and ancillary to the main purpose of the lease to be a breach of section 73.

Factors a court may have to consider will be the size and use of the land in relation to the building. If Supreme Court judges concluded that they have to follow strictly the decision of the Court of Appeal, then an amendment to section 73 which has been part of the Land Title Act since 1915, will be needed to provide a balance in favour of individual rights.1

1.

Intemational Paper Industries Ltd. v. Top Line Industries Inc., B.C.C.A., Reasons for judgment, May 21, 1996.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Summary of Findings:

• New listings in BC have fallen to 25 per cent below pre-pandemic norms.
• Most of the explanation for low listings is due to overall slow market activity, but a multi-decade high interest rate differential between old and new mortgages is playing a role.
• The situation should resolve with time, but the current period further highlights the structural problem of chronically undersupplied housing markets, which results in volatility and susceptibility to demand shocks.

The post-pandemic housing market has been notable for its stubborn refusal to track expectations. One of the most interesting and unexpected recent housing market trends has been the lack of new listings, which have been trending well below average in all areas of the province since the start of the year. At first blush, the lack of new listings is indeed counterintuitive. With borrowing costs at decade highs and high inflation squeezing household budgets, it seems reasonable to assume that new listings would hold steady, or even rise, as some overburdened households were forced to sell their homes. Instead, new listings have declined substantially in housing markets across Canada.

In this Market Intelligence, we show that the pattern of new listings we see is, in fact, a usual outcome of current market dynamics and underlying economic fundamentals. Contrary to expectations, we show that a sharp rise in interest rates has historically been a deterrent to homeowners’ listing their homes.

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
604.505.6793
[email protected]

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

An Ontario real estate salesperson made a number of material errors in an eighteen page brochure, prepared by him as part of an elaborate marketing scheme. Three of these, which led to particularly important misrepresentations, were sufficient to allow a buyer to rescind an accepted offer. The salesperson represented that he was an expert in commercial real estate listings, who had gained a reputation in his "one-year" as a salesperson, for the preparation of detailed marketing plans.

In a trial in which damages of $635,000 were awarded against the agency and the salesperson, the judge held that the salesperson had breached his duty to the sellers by failing to:

1. confirm in writing from the municipalities the three important representations in the brochure;

2. advise the sellers that the representations made by him as their agent in the brochure would be binding upon the sellers, and that misrepresentations made by him would give a buyer the right to rescind the contract;

3. insert a waiver or disclaimer in the brochure.

Number 1 elevates a prudent practice to a positive duty.

Had the salesperson obtained these confirmations the errors should have been discovered and the problems resolved.

The duties referred to in number 2 are surprising, since they appear to be matters of law, which should be the responsibility of the lawyer acting for the sellers. Perhaps all the judge meant in this case was, that if this advice had been given to the sellers, they might have paid more attention to the details of the brochure.

It is unlikely that this duty would apply to an ordinary residential listing, but where does one draw the line? Licensees do have some responsibilities as professionals, familiar with contracts dealing with real estate, to be aware of some of the consequences of their actions and to explain them to their principals. An example is, in my opinion, the duty of a licensee to advise a party intending to make a counter offer that if that is done, the other party has the right to revoke the offer.

The agency was liable for failing to adequately superviseits salespersons and for lacking a policy requiring a waiver or disclaimer in the brochure. The reference to the disclaimer came asa result of a second brochure prepared by the salesperson when the first sale collapsed. It contained a very prominent disclaimer of liability.

This is not a common practice, but there is no doubt that adding a waiver or disclaimer can be of value to a seller. An instance of an effective disclaimer is discussed in Column #102 (April, 1987), which is repeated below.

"Above information is from sources believed to be reliable, but should not be relied upon without verification. N.R.S. assumes no responsibility for its accuracy."

The courts interpret disclaimers strictly against the person relying upon them as a defense. Therefore, the wording of the disclaimer must be carefully drawn, preferably by a lawyer acting for the client.

The judge's findings may be limited by the facts because the more expert the licensee, and the more elaborate the marketing strategy, the higher the duty.1

***

Column #249 referred to an assessment of tax by Revenue Canada of a licensee who waived his commission for an equivalent reduction in the sale price of property sold to a friend. That created correspondence and telephone calls with the single message, "Revenue Canada can't do that to us, we still have the right to work for nothing whether we want to or not." Discussions with a tax lawyer indicated that it must have been a peculiar transaction which led to this assessment, and speculation that perhaps there was some benefit to the salesperson.

***

A lawyer wrote to ask if there is any better way by which a deposit, in excess of a commission can be paid over in a timely manner to avoid a delay in registration which, in his case, almost gave the sellers the right to repudiate their sale. The sale involved a quick closing and barely sufficient time to have the consents of both the sellers and buyers delivered to the agency holding the deposit. His suggestion was that the agent or agents involved in the transaction have the parties sign the consents once an unconditional offer is accepted, or when the conditions have been removed from a conditional offer. These should be appropriate times since the names of the conveyancers acting for the parties must also be obtained for the sales record sheet.

1.

Samson v. Lockwood, 49 R.P.R., (2d) #18.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Energy retrofits are more than just a buzzword; retrofits are a smart investment for homeowners, offering a range of benefits beyond just lowering energy costs. Retrofitting involves upgrading existing homes to improve their energy efficiency, making them more sustainable and comfortable in the long run.

What is Retrofitting?

Retrofitting your home involves making modifications to improve its energy efficiency and sustainability. This can include upgrading insulation, replacing old appliances and heating equipment with energy-efficient models, sealing air leaks, and installing smart thermostats. The goal is to create a more comfortable, healthier living space while reducing energy bills.

Why Retrofit Your Home?

Improve Comfort: Retrofitting can enhance your home comfort by reducing drafts, maintaining consistent temperatures, and improving humidity control.

Increase Energy Efficiency: By upgrading to energy-efficient appliances and equipment, you can significantly reduce your energy consumption and lower your utility bills.

Improve Air Quality: Upgrading ventilation systems and using eco-friendly materials can improve indoor air quality, reducing allergens and pollutants.

Eliminate Fossil Fuels: Transitioning to renewable energy sources like solar panels or heat pumps can help reduce reliance on fossil fuels, contributing to a cleaner environment.

Increase Home Value: Energy-efficient homes are in high demand, and retrofitting can increase the resale value of your property while attracting eco-conscious buyers.

Retrofit 101

Navigating the retrofitting process can seem complex, but the Community Energy Association, in partnership with the City of Port Moody, the Capital Regional District, the Regional District of the East Kootenays, and BCREA, as well as funding from BC Hydro, has created a series of resources and materials consumers, REALTORS® and contractors can use to support their clients in their retrofitting journey.

Visit the Community Energy Association Retrofit 101 page for more guides, videos, and expert advice.

An anticipated result of the current economic situation has been in increase in litigation concerning condominium unit pre-sales. One such recent B.C. Supreme Court case relieved an unhappy purchaser from his obligations under the purchase agreement because the purchaser did not receive all of the amendments to the disclosure statement at the time of purchase.¹

In October 2007, the developer provided the purchaser, who was interested in buying a condominium unit, with a disclosure statement dated September 2005. However, the developer did not provide three amendments that had been made to the disclosure statement between September 2005 and October 2007. The purchaser subsequently entered into a purchase agreement for the unit accompanied by a $350,000 deposit. However, after gaining access to the partially completed unit, the purchaser realized that the view was not as represented. He also became aware of the three undisclosed amendments. He wrote to the developer, enclosing a notice of rescission and demanding the return of the deposit on the grounds that the developer had breached its obligation under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act (“REDMA”) to ‘provide a disclosure statement to a purchaser before entering into a purchase agreement’.

The purchaser argued that, under REDMA, an amendment to a disclosure statement becomes part of the disclosure statement and must be delivered at the time of purchase. The developer, while not disputing that the amendments had not been provided, claimed that a purchaser should not be able to rescind unless there has been a significant change in the developer’s promise or information regarding the development. It pointed to the distinction in REDMA between filing a new disclosure statement (required where there has been a material change to the value, price or use of a development unit or where the superintendent so requires) and an amendment to an existing disclosure statement (required in other cases, where the change is not material). It urged the court to find that this distinction limits a purchaser’s right of rescission to cases where the developer fails to deliver a new disclosure statement that discloses a material change.

The court did not accept the developer’s argument. It concluded that REDMA is consumer protection legislation and one of its primary objectives is ensuring that developers provide purchasers with all material facts when developments are being marketed. It found that the disclosure requirements of REDMA are not limited to material facts and all amendments to a disclosure statement must be disclosed as the purchaser is entitled to know what he or she is purchasing. The court found that REDMA’s definition of ‘disclosure statement’ included amendments and thus both the original disclosure statement and any amendments must be delivered to a purchaser. It held that REDMA provides a right of rescission to any purchaser who is entitled to a disclosure statement, including amendments, and does not receive it before entering into a purchase agreement.

Ultimately, the court found that the distinction between filing a new disclosure statement and amending an existing one does not affect a purchaser’s right of rescission. The court was of the view that requiring developers to provide copies of existing amendments along with the disclosure statement does not impose an onerous burden on them and is consistent with the legislative objective of consumer protection.

Yet to be decided is the developer’s claim against the listing brokerage for failing to provide the amendments to the purchaser although the listing brokerage alleges that it was specifically instructed not to do so.

1.

Dwane v. Bastion Coast Homes Ltd, 2009 BCSC 726.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

To view the latest Market Intelligence report PDF, click here.

As the Bank of Canada aggressively raised rates over the past year to fight multi-decade-high inflation, fears are mounting that tighter monetary policy will push the Canadian economy into recession. Indeed, central banks have a poor historical track record in achieving “soft landings” following tightening cycles. That is, amid high inflation, central banks often struggle to “thread the needle” of raising rates enough to bring inflation back down to 2 per cent without tipping the economy into a recession.

In this Market Intelligence, we summarize how past Canadian recessions have impacted the BC economy and housing market and look forward to how the BC housing market may perform during a potential 2023 recession.

Summary of Findings
High interest rates mean that recession anxiety is mounting:

• Historically, home sales tend to lead the business cycle, starting to decline many months before the start of a recession. By the time the recession begins, sales are typically near their nadir.
• Prices follow a less predictable pattern surrounding recessions. The early 1980s involved a large run up and crash in prices, but subsequent recessions involved a modest softening or plateauing of prices before the ascent resumed.
• Historically, home sales tend to post substantial recoveries following a recession as interest rates are cut to support the economy.
• Strong economic fundamentals and demographics support the housing sector in British Columbia.
  

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
[email protected]

Energy retrofits are more than just a buzzword; they represent a great way to lower energy costs for homeowners. Retrofitting involves upgrading existing homes to improve their energy efficiency, making them more sustainable and cost-effective in the long run.

REALTORS® familiar with retrofit benefits can help homebuyers and sellers make informed decisions about energy-efficient properties.

What is Retrofitting?

Retrofitting involves modifying a home's energy efficiency. This can include upgrading insulation, replacing old appliances and space and water heating equipment with energy-efficient models, sealing air leaks, and installing smart thermostats. The goal is to create a more comfortable, sustainable living space while lowering energy bills.

Retrofit 101

Navigating the retrofitting process can seem complex, but the Community Energy Association, in partnership with the City of Port Moody, the Capital Regional District, the Regional District of the East Kootenays, and BCREA, as well as funding from BC Hydro, has created a series of resources and materials REALTORS® and contractors can use to support their clients in their retrofitting journey.

Visit the Community Energy Association Retrofit 101 page for more guides, videos, and expert advice.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

In one case, the conditional clause in a Contract of Purchase and Sale required the buyer to satisfy himself as to the tax implications of Canadian/USA/international law upon his purchase of Canadian property. The buyer lived and worked in California, and the purchase monies from an inheritance were to be transferred to Canada from Iran.

This was such a broad area of law, and the buyer's decision to remove or not remove the condition was so subjective, that it was impossible for a judge to determine whether the buyer acted reasonably in not removing the condition. This fell within the whim and fancy type of conditional clause and the judge held that the contract was not enforceable.

The unusual aspect of this case was that the owner sold the property to another person, who took the title unaware of the first contract. The lawsuit was between the disappointed buyer and the titleholder, who kept the property because of the judge's decision.¹

In another case, the conditional clause required the buyer to obtain approval for building plans and permit to build. The plans were submitted, then withdrawn, and the condition was not removed. When the seller sued for the deposit, the evidence disclosed that the real reason for the buyer's withdrawal was his acceptance of a job in another city. This condition is a typical best efforts clause, which doesn't depend solely upon a buyer's subjective decision. It is narrow enough in its scope that the factors involved in the buyer's decision not to remove the condition can be examined.²

***

The importance the court attaches to the exact wording of a contract is illustrated in a case involving the sale of a large office building for $12,550,000, and how the addition of one word saved a seller approximately $90,000. The seller covenanted that, to his "present actual knowledge," the office leases were in good standing at the date of the contract and at the date of closing, unless the seller disclosed in writing that a tenant had defaulted before the latter date.

Two weeks prior to closing, the seller's property manager discovered a tenant had vacated without notice, which was a breach of the lease. The seller was not aware of this. The buyer took 14 months to find a new tenant and sued for loss of rent, tenant inducements, and commission totaling approximately $90,000.

Licensees are aware that at common law, knowledge of the agent is deemed to be the knowledge of the principal. Based upon that principle, the judge would have given the buyer what he was seeking, but for the word "actual." It was chosen carefully to distinguish between the knowledge of the property manager/agent, and the knowledge of the seller/principal.

While the buyer lost because he couldn't prove actual knowledge, there was no suggestion that the seller had deliberately absented himself to avoid being told of default. The result would likely have been different if there had been evidence of bad faith.³

***

In Legally Speaking column 332, reference was made to a special resolution that failed, even though the townhouse owners had sufficient votes to obtain the required majority. For the readers who wrote to ask why, a call to one of the lawyers for the parties disclosed a rare instance in this sorry story of leaky condos, where the majority subordinated their self-interest to the wider interest of reducing divisiveness amongst strata owners. Both factions agreed to let a judge decide this issue, and agreed that, instead of the winner obtaining an order for costs against the loser, each would pay its own costs.

	1.	Thompson v. Sellyn,SCBC, Vancouver Registry, Reasons for Judgment, February 16, 2000.
	2.	Saveheli v. Philip, 33 RPR (3rd) 149.
	3.	535951 BC Ltd v. Penlea Investments Ltd.,6SCBC, Vancouver Registry, Reasons for Judgment, January 8, 2001.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

2020 has already gotten off to an eventful start for REALTORS® – the new Professional Development Program framework came into effect on January 1 and the Real Estate Council of BC announced it has developed a new mandatory anti-money laundering course for all real estate licensees.

Here at BCREA, we’re rolling up our sleeves and looking forward to a new year of serving the province’s 11 real estate boards and 23,000 REALTORS®. Here are just a few initiatives to watch out for in 2020.

New Professional Development Courses

Our Education team will be releasing ten new learning opportunities in 2020, starting with a Rural Real Estate Essentials course and a course on cannabis, Cannabis and Real Estate – The New Paradigm. The Rural Real Estate Essentials course will help REALTORS® better serve their clients by providing an understanding of the unique nature of rural real estate, including sample clauses for rural transactions and specific risks to watch out for.

Cannabis and Real Estate – The New Paradigm, will provide REALTORS® an overview of current legislation as it pertains to real estate, both commercial and residential. REALTORS® will learn about disclosure duties, marketing implications and risk mitigation for buyers and sellers.

Both courses will be offered online and will become available later in the spring.

Ensuring REALTORS®’ Voices Are Heard

One of BCREA’s key mandates is to make sure REALTORS®’ voices are heard when it comes to provincial advocacy, including regulatory change. With that in mind, BCREA will continue to engage with the provincial government as they move toward a single regulator. We delivered our recommendations to the Ministry of Finance in December 2019 and will spend a lot of time this year reinforcing them.

As a participant in the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering, we’ll continue to support the government’s efforts to better understand money laundering risks in real estate. At the same time, we’re developing new FINTRAC workshops and a community of practice for managing brokers and compliance officers that will launch in early spring.

Expanding Economics Resources

Our Economics team will be releasing a new suite of sub-regional market charts to help REALTORS® better understand housing trends in their local markets. The charts will be provided monthly to each Member Board and will be made available on the BCREA website. February is the targeted launch date.

That’s not all. In the second half of 2020, we’ll launch Economics 101, a new course to help REALTORS® make the most of BCREA’s housing market analytics.

Enhancing Standard Forms Resources

BCREA Standard Forms are the foundation of real estate transactions and are used by REALTORS® in BC daily.  To help you and your clients understand the purpose and content of various commonly used real estate forms, BCREA is focussing on developing tools and resources to help you succeed.   With a focus on forms in 2020, you can expect to see toolkits complete with explainer videos, multilingual form guides, practical guidance on the use of forms, and more.

BCREA is committed to providing you with enhanced forms and resources to better serve you in practice.

New Resources for REALTORS®

Real estate practice is always changing and BCREA is here to provide real estate boards and REALTORS® with the resources to keep pace with these changes. Starting this month, we’re launching a new monthly podcast called Open House by BCREA that will bring you the latest industry headlines plus a feature conversation on issues related to real estate practice. Keep an eye out for the launch of our first episode at the end of January with Leslie Howatt from the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

The provincial government’s CleanBC plan has substantial impacts on homeowners through rebates and incentives, free energy coaching, new standards for building upgrades and exploring an energy rating requirement.

Introduced in late 2018, the plan aims to help the province achieve its goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 per cent by 2030. BC Budget 2019 laid out funding for CleanBC initiatives, totalling $902 million over three years.

Several rebates are in effect now, such as one for replacing electric, oil, propane or natural gas heating systems with a heat pump, upgrading wood-burning stoves through the Provincial Wood Stove Exchange Program, as well as financial incentives for commercial and multi-unit residential buildings for energy saving studies and upgrades.

Other grants will be available in the coming months, including a Clean Communities fund available to remote communities so residents can apply for grants to upgrade existing housing. Find the full list of funding opportunities, including pre-existing incentives here.

In addition to rebates and incentives, the province is also offering free energy coaching services for homes and businesses, including a phone and email hotline staffed by specialists.

Several significant long-term changes have been announced. There will be new standards for existing building upgrades to be developed by 2024, guided by the National Energy Code. The province is also exploring an energy rating requirement for homes and buildings across the province at the point of sale or lease, similar to what has been done on vehicles and appliances.

Another energy efficiency development that took effect in late 2018 was the BC Energy Step Code, which allows local governments to incentivize or require higher levels of energy efficiency in new construction.

BCREA appreciates the government providing incentives and rebates so homes can be more energy efficient. The free coaching will also assist homeowners in understanding how best to access the opportunities available and choose the most effective renovations. We strongly believe in the importance of energy efficiency through a voluntary approach.

Be sure to check out the full CleanBC plan and the Budget 2019 CleanBC Backgrounder.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Though many licensees are not aware of it, in a phased strata project the developer must contribute to the cost of common facilities until the final phase is deposited. The British Columbia Court of Appeal's recent decision in Strata Plan NES 97 v. Timberline Developments Ltd. is a good illustration.¹ In that case, a strata corporation in Fernie successfully sued the developer for roughly four years worth of unpaid contributions to certain expenses.

By developing in phases, a developer can add strata lots and common property over time. The Strata Property Act (Act) defines a common facility as a "major facility in a phased strata plan, including a laundry room, playground, swimming pool, recreation centre, clubhouse or tennis court, if the facility is available for the use of the owners."² Pending the filing of the last phase, Section 227 of the Act requires the developer to share the expense of common facilities with the strata corporation. Subject to the regulations, this is the formula for sharing expenses:

Unit entitlement of strata lots in phases not deposited Expenses attributable to the common facilities x Unit entitlement of strata lots in all phases whether deposited or not

In a phased project this divides the expense of common facilities between owners who purchase early in the development and the developer, where the developer serves as a proxy for those who will become owners in the future, after later phases are built.

In the Timberline case, the developer built the project in 11 phases. There were 175 strata lots in six buildings. There were also six hot tubs, each associated with a particular lodge. In addition, three of the lodges contained a common laundry room and four lodges had elevators. For several years, the owners paid all the expenses for the hot tubs, laundry rooms and elevators. The developer never contributed to these expenses.

Eventually, the strata corporation sued the developer, claiming that the hot tubs, laundry facilities and elevators were all common facilities and that the developer must reimburse the strata corporation for the developer's share of their expense. The strata corporation claimed reimbursement for a roughly four year period ending February 1, 2008, when the developer filed the final phase.

The critical question was whether the various features were common facilities within the meaning of the Strata Property Act.

The court confirmed that the hot tubs were common facilities and that the developer must reimburse the strata corporation for its share of their expense. The tubs were a major feature because they were important or significant to the facility and were available to all the owners. In particular, the hot tubs qualified as common facilities because they were optional features that enhanced the development's overall quality for the owners. The relevant expenses were attributable to the hot tubs for wear and tear over time, including the necessary replacement of one of the tubs, which was especially expensive.

For the same reasons, the laundry facilities qualified as common facilities within the meaning of the Strata Property Act. The court rejected the strata corporation's claim, however, because it could not prove that the particular expenses were clearly attributable to the laundry facilities.

Finally, the court found that the elevators were not common facilities because they were not optional. Instead, the elevators were a standard means of access, similar to a hallway or stairs.

In a development where the last phase is not yet filed, it is a good idea to ask if there are any common facilities, and if so, whether the developer contributes to their upkeep.

	1.	Strata Plan NES 97 v. Timberline Developments Ltd., 2011 BCCA 421 aff'g 2010 BCSC 1811.
	2.	Strata Property Act, s. 217 (definition of "common facility").

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

In the tradition of the wisdom of Solomon is a case involving an owner who in the course of excavating for a house foundation, damaged the roots of a tree standing on the boundary line between his and the adjoining owner's property to such a degree that the tree died. The judge decided that each owner had an interest as tenant-in-common in the tree and that damage to 50% of the root system which led to the fatality was a trespass for which the owner was liable in damages of $2,000 payable to the adjoining owner for his half interest in the tree.

Section 59 of the Real Estate Act states that an original purchaser of a lot from a developer is deemed to have relied upon the Disclosure Statement so that if it contains a misrepresentation, the original purchaser can sue the developer. That same right of action against the developer is not available to a subsequent purchaser of the lot.

A condominium owner who ruined the rug in the lobby of the strata building in which he lived when bleach leaked from a box the owner had left on the rug, was sued by the strata condominium's insurance company to recover the cost of replacing the rug. His defense was Section 54 of the Condominium Act which directs the strata corporation to insure against fire or such other perils as are usually the subject of insurance. This section also provides that not only the strata corporation but also the owners are deemed to be included as the named insured on the policy of insurance which is in force under this section. The advantage of being deemed to be an owner under the policy is that no claim could be made against this owner. The question was whether leakage of this kind fell within the perils which the strata corporation should have insured.

The judge decided it was an obvious peril and the breach of the strata corporation's duty to insure for this peril relieved the owner from liability to repay the insurance company.

***

A woman who stored goods in a mini warehouse and who was in arrears of rent was awarded damages of $18,000 to compensate her for the sale by the owner of the warehouse of her goods at auction to net $500. The owner was entitled to sell to recover rent arrears, but his liability arose because he failed to give her notice or to advertise the auctioning of the goods, and the sale at such a low amount breached his duty to exercise the same care that a careful owner who had custody of similar goods in similar circumstances would have exercised.

And to the committees of the boards arranging the annual summer golf tournaments, read on. The organizers of the Alpine Potato Festival 18 hole tournament which was held on July 1, 1986 in Edmunston, New Brunswick didn't expect to end up in a New Brunswick Court of Appeal three years later because of their refusal to deliver an $18,000 Toyota to a golfer who scored a hole-in-one on the second hole. Or was it the 1lth hole or the 18th hole?

The problem for the lucky winner was that the course had nine holes and a shotgun start found him teeing off on the third hole. (For non-golfers, a shotgun start has nothing to do with encouraging slow players to play faster), (a non-golfer is the person who, when asked what his best shot is says, "a scotch and soda".) The hole-in-one occurred on the 18th hole he played which meant that the ball disappeared into the second hole of the first nine or the 1lth hole of the second nine.

The committee invoked local rules to deny the winner his prize. The local rules lacked clarity so that the court reviewed the Royal Canadian Golf Association Rules which required the holes to be played in their correct sequence. Somehow this was, interpreted to mean that it was the second hole of the course rather than the golfer's second hole which mattered.

The lesson is that any deviation from the R.C.G.A. rules which are permitted by those rules should be published and brought to the attention of the contestants to avoid litigation.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Josh Froc from Work to Wellness, Guest Contributor

If trying to work harder or working less hasn't landed you the stress-reducing effects you hoped for, this article is for you. For almost everyone, being stressed doesn't feel good, and we want less stress – but as wonderful as it is, the world of real estate is stressful.  

Being results-oriented and genuinely caring about clients means that sometimes REALTORS^® stress about the never-ending to-do list and juggling our well-being in a challenging market. 

How much time do you spend feeling like that? What could you be doing instead if you could get back most of the time you spend worrying?  

A big portion of mental energy gets wasted worrying about things that aren’t helpful and don’t create change. In this article, you will find a simple tool to help you get that time and energy back. 

Helpful vs. Unhelpful Stress

Many of us stress about the same things over and over. Some things are worth worrying about because that stress leads us to do something about them, to solve the underlying problem. We'll call this “helpful stress.” 

Many other things are not worth stressing about because we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about them; they are not in our control, and worrying about them doesn't help us. We'll call this “unhelpful stress.” 

As you'll soon see, this stress can sabotage our efforts to deal with and learn from the helpful stress. It's been well established that those who focus on helpful stress (things you can control) typically do better from a mental health perspective than those who focus on unhelpful stress (things outside of their control).  

You can try it for yourself. 

Here is a simple exercise to help you spend more time on what you can control and regain the time and energy wasted on things you can't control. 

The Two Buckets Tool

This tool involves putting everything that stresses us out into two buckets.  

Bucket one is for things that are helpful to stress about (usually about 20 per cent of stressors) because that stress alerts us to something important we can do now to reduce future stress or improve our stress management. 

Bucket two is for things that are not helpful to stress about (usually about 80 per cent of stressors) – either because there is nothing we can do about it right now (out of our control) or because it's not something we want to take immediate action on. 

This tool is based on the assumptions that: 

1. Approximately 80 per cent of the things you stress about probably cause more harm than good, 

2. The remaining 20 per cent of the things you stress about are probably worth stressing about, and 

3. Within the 20 per cent, extra time and energy are spent worrying about the same things over and over. 

When we get stressed, our nervous system mobilizes resources to help us survive. Part of this shift involves inhibition of our prefrontal cortex, a part of the brain that helps us plan, make decisions, and think rationally. Using this tool we can decide ahead of time (before we get stressed) what is worth worrying about, and what to do about those stressors. By deciding from a calm, clear-headed place how to deal with stressors before they arise, we can give ourselves the tools to handle situations better and with much less stress when they do occur.  

If you've decided ahead of time how to respond to stress, then when a stressor shows up, and your (stressed) mind tries to convince you that you need to be very worried – you can likely recognize this thought and say "hey, I knew you were going to show up, what took you so long! I already have a plan for you!" With this awareness comes the power to stress yourself out significantly less and weaken the habit of stressing over time. 

The Process

Step 1

Pick a time in your day when you are most calm and productive. (For many people, this is first thing in the morning, before checking emails and social media).   

Step 2

List all the things you are likely to stress about that day. (Hint: If you're looking for inspiration, think about the things that have stressed you in the past!).

Step 2 (Alternative)

At the end of the day, list the things that caused you stress that day.   

Step 3

Go through the list and label each item as "helpful stress" (Bucket one) or "unhelpful stress" (Bucket two). Here's an example: 

You make a list, and one of the stressors on your list is: “The photographer called, and they need me to call them back ASAP.” 

The next step is categorizing this as ‘Bucket one’ (helpful stress) or ‘Bucket two’ (unhelpful stress). 

For this example let’s say you choose: Bucket one – “This is important I've got a house to list soon!” 

Now it’s time to “decide ahead of time” – this is where you choose what you'd like to do when this situation arises. When making that decision, ask yourself: what can I do about it, and what do I want to do about it? It might also be helpful to ask yourself, “Is this something that happens often?”  

With this reasoning, you can decide to stop whatever else you’re doing and call ASAP. Or you could choose to put two 15-minute slots in your calendar each day to "call people back and address any emergencies."  

Then, when it happens, rather than having to make a decision when you’re stressed and then worrying if you made the right decision… you can know you made a high-quality decision from a calm place when your brain was functional; it makes it much easier to deal with the consequences, no matter how you respond.  

The main lesson here is to decide from a calm and collected place. Using this method, you can make higher-quality decisions. You’ll find that a lot of the things you stress about now are not actually helpful, freeing you up to stop stressing about them (gradually, over time, as the habit fades). 

How Can I Apply This Tool?

You can use the two-buckets tool to perform a stress audit. There are three options for you below based on how much time you want to apply to this and how you want to divide that time. Whether you choose one or none of them (and decide to run with your own ideas), you'll likely end up making a list.  

Tools like the wellness wheel (below) can help you with the stress audit by organizing your thinking into different "life areas.” This can help you more quickly think of the things that stress you out and categorize them to remember them more easily. 

Here are three practical examples of how this tool could be applied:

Monthly Stress Audit (15-20 minutes per month)

Rate your stress on a scale of 1-5, one being the lowest and 5 the highest level. Ask yourself these questions when rating your stress level: 

• What are all the stressful thoughts you can think of that have been around these past couple of days or weeks?  
• What topics or areas of your life stress you out, and what are the thoughts associated with them?  

Just by writing down this list, you might see some patterns you weren't aware of, and it will help make it easier to recognize when those stressors come up, to automatically respond better. It also may provide some peace of mind to see it on paper. 

Then, circle the ones that you can actually control or that stressing about could actually help make the stressor go away. You will likely find that most things being stressed about are costing you much more mental energy and stress than they're saving. Do this once at the end of each month. Over each quarter, you can hopefully see that your stressors have been changing.

The Daily Stress Audit (One minute per day)

Each day, spend one minute and write down whatever is stressing you out right now. This is best done throughout your day when you are likely stressed out. It serves as a pattern disruption and will also help catch a snapshot of the stressful thoughts when they are fresh! It doesn't utilize the whole two-bucket tool – but this is a practical, easy piece to fit into a busy schedule and can eventually be turned into a routine. One way to make this easier is to set an alarm to go off mid-day each day as a reminder to write down what is stressing you out. 

Daily Pre-stress Plan (Five minutes per day)

Spend five minutes each morning thinking about “What things am I likely to stress about today?” then ask yourself the following questions: “Which of those stressful thoughts are helpful? Which are things that you can control or that, with effortful action, you can stop from coming up in the future? Which of those things are necessary to stress about?” 

What Next?

Start by applying the easiest strategy (for you) that you can, while still feeling like you're making progress. You should feel progress and a de-stressing effect even the first time you do this activity.  

Building awareness for the things in your life that you can and can't control (or don't want to) will automatically make it easier for you to stay calm in situations that used to stress you out. If you can make this habit stick, even if you're spending 10-15 minutes a month – it can save you a considerable amount of stress and time and ensure you're progressing each month and not getting stuck stressing about the same problems over and over. 

Stress is unavoidable in the 21st century. Reducing stress, removing stressors, and managing the stress we experience is becoming a critical differentiator between those who are successful and happy, and the rest. How does your strategy measure up? 

About Work to Wellness

The two-bucket tool is part of one of the mental health workshops offered by Work to Wellness: Building Resilience in Times of Stress. If you want more tools like this, you can look for further workshops they provide. If you're interested in booking a workshop for a group of REALTORS^® or have any questions, you can email [email protected].  

If you want individual help reducing your stress or using the tool outlined in this article, you can also book your individual stress audit! Click here to book your audit. 

A recent privacy case highlights the need to obtain consent before using an individual’s personal information. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada recently found that a licensee, in an advertisement, breached the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) by using personal information about two other REALTORS® without their consent.¹

What is PIPEDA?
PIPEDA is substantially similar to BC’s Personal Information Protection Act, which requires provincially regulated organizations, such as brokerages, to protect personal information. PIPEDA protects personal information collected, used or disclosed by federally regulated entities in the private sector. Before using someone else’s personal information, both statutes require an organization’s representatives to first obtain that person’s consent.

PIPEDA defines personal information, in part, as information about an identifiable individual, which includes any factual or subjective information about that individual (e.g., name, address, birth date, income, gender, religion, education, employment, etc.).² Apart from a few exceptions, PIPEDA prohibits using or disclosing this information without informed consent.³

The case
A representative wanted to advertise himself as a top-ranked REALTOR®. As a member of a real estate board, the licensee used the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) to get information about the listings and sales of other salespersons. Although the MLS® provided some data on the sales activities of other REALTORS®, it couldn’t rank representatives against one another. To rank the other REALTORS®, the licensee bought a report from an organization that sold real estate statistics. The report apparently ranked representatives by the number of units sold and dollar value. It contained each representative’s name, franchise name, number of units sold, each unit’s value, average time on the market and average sales price per representative.

Using the MLS® information and the ranking report as sources, the representative created an advertisement for his services, in which he ranked the top five REALTORS® in the area and listed the number of houses each had sold. Among the five, the licensee ranked himself first.

Two licensees named in the ad, ranked third and fifth, complained to the Commissioner that they hadn’t consented to their personal information being used.

According to the evidence, members of the real estate board signed an agreement to use the MLS® system. To the extent that MLS® information is associated with an individual, the board’s privacy policy considered it personal information, which, as much as possible, should be collected directly from the relevant listing broker or salesperson. Under the agreement with the board, personal information included the user’s name, phone number, business address and employer.

The organization that prepared the statistical report obtained its information partly from the MLS® database, but didn’t have a contractual relationship with the real estate board.

The licensee argued, in part, that since the MLS® information was available to users of the MLS® and the other organization from which he bought the statistics, the data shouldn’t be considered personal. In the representative’s view, real estate licensees provide business services and their business performance becomes public information.

The licensee’s argument was rejected by the Commissioner, who held that the licensee disclosed the other representatives’ personal information without their consent. Merely by using the MLS®, the other licensees didn’t consent to the use of their personal information (that is, information about their respective sales records) in their competitor’s ad. The case summary doesn’t say what remedy, if any, the Commissioner ordered, though PIPEDA contains various penalty provisions and a complainant may claim damages against a wrongdoer in the Federal Court of Canada.

	1.	PIPEDA Case Summary #303, Real estate broker publishes names of top five sales representatives in a city, May 31, 2005.
	2.	PIPEDA, s. 2 (definition of “personal information”) and Questions and Answers regarding the application of PIPEDA, Alberta and British Columbia's Personal Information Protection Acts (PIPAs). Office of the Privacy Commissioner, Ottawa. Last modified: November 5, 2004.
	3.	PIPEDA, Sch. 1, Principle 4.3.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – January 12, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a record 124,854 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in 2021, a 32.8 per cent increase from the 94,001 units sold in 2020. The annual average MLS^® residential price in BC was $927,877, an 18.7 per cent increase from $781,572 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume was $115.8 billion, a 57.7 per cent increase from 2020.

“Last year was a record year for BC homes sales with seven market areas setting new highs,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Listings activity could not keep up with demand throughout the year. As a result, we start 2022 with the lowest level of active listings on record.”

A total of 6,871 MLS^® residential unit sales were recorded across the province in December down 17.6 per cent from a record-setting December 2020. The average MLS^® residential price in BC passed the $1 million mark for the first time as the average price in three of the largest markets in the province were over $1 million in December. Total sales dollar volume was $7.1 billion, a 1.2 per cent increase year-over-year.

Total active residential listings were down 41.2 per cent to a record low of 12,179 units. The supply situation is particularly concerning in the Fraser Valley, Chilliwack and Vancouver Island where there is one month or less of supply at the current pace of sales.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 11, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 7,169 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in January 2021, an increase of 63.3 per cent over January 2020 and over a thousand sales higher than the previous record for the month of January. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $845,169, a 16.1 per cent increase from $728,269 recorded in January 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $6.1 billion, an 89.6 per cent increase from last year.

“It was once again a record-setting month for the provincial housing market,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While sales were strong across all regions of the province, the Fraser Valley, Interior and Vancouver Island regions shattered previous sales records and pushed January sales to new heights.”

Total active residential listings were down 21.5 per cent to 20,254 units in January, the lowest level of provincial active listings on record, going back to 2000. With strong sales and so few listings, market conditions are exceptionally tight with less than three months of total supply. 

“The supply of listings continues to be held back by the pandemic,” added Ogmundson. “With so few listings, markets are starved for supply and prices are under extraordinary pressure.”

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – July 13, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 7,884 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in June, a 32.5 per cent decrease from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $716,326, down 1.3 per cent from June 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $5.6 billion, a 33 per cent decline from June 2017.

“The impact of the B20 stress test is still being felt across the province,” said Brendon Ogmundson, BCREA Deputy Chief Economist. “Lower demand as the result of higher mortgage rates and stringent mortgage qualification rules are bringing most markets around the province back into balanced conditions.”

Although the supply of active listings in the province is on the rise, inventory remains low by historical standards and markets like Vancouver Island and the Okanagan remain undersupplied.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 18 per cent to $32 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales decreased 20 per cent to 43,863 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 2.4 per cent to $730,492.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Deputy Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Many licensees own condominiums; some also serve on strata councils. Strata property managers regularly encounter strata council members. Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada had the last word on the liability of some strata council members (the Members) for conflicts of interest.

The Strata Property Act requires a council member to fully disclose whether the member has any interest, direct or indirect, in any transaction involving the strata corporation. The Act prohibits the member from voting on the matter and requires the member to leave the meeting.(1)

Dockside Brewing Co. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837 involved a strata hotel in Vancouver.(2) The Members were part of an owners’ group that wanted to lease the strata corporation’s common property. When a competitor obtained the lease rights, the owners’ group sought the rights. The group took control of the strata council by electing their members to eight of nine council seats. Using their control of the strata council, the owners planned to cause the strata corporation to sue to attack the competitor’s lease rights so the owners’ group could acquire them.

Meanwhile, the owners’ group also made certain commitments to others concerning the leases. If the owners’ group failed to get the lease rights, they potentially faced a $600,000 claim.

The Members executed their plan to obtain control of the strata corporation’s affairs, for their own benefit, and to use the corporation’s funds for that purpose. While they didn’t personally take the strata corporation’s money, they spent those funds for legal services intended to benefit their owners’ group. They benefited by sharing the legal expenses with the other members of the strata corporation who were not part of their owners’ group. At general meetings, and at council meetings, the Members did not disclose the true use of the legal expenses incurred by the strata corporation. They didn’t disclose their conflicts of interest, including their potential $600,000 liability if the owner’s group failed to get the lease rights. They didn’t leave the meetings when the relevant resolutions were discussed and they didn’t abstain from voting.

Ultimately, other owners asked the court to order the Members to reimburse the strata corporation for the legal fees improperly spent pursuing the objectives of their owners’ group.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia found that the Members breached the statute’s conflict of interest provisions. They also failed to meet the standard of care expected of council members.(3) The court ordered the Members, jointly and severally, to compensate the strata corporation for approximately $190,399 in legal expenses and to pay, in addition, special court costs of roughly $150,000.(4)

The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the decision against the Members. When the Members asked the Supreme Court of Canada to hear their appeal, the court dismissed their application, bringing this legal story to an end.

Whether a licensee serves as a strata council member, or advises the council as its strata manager, the licensee cannot ignore the Strata Property Act’s conflict of interest requirements. Simply put, each council member must:

1. Disclose a conflict, immediately,

2.Leave the meeting (unless asked to stay to provide information), and

3.Not vote.

Lastly, the strata council member and the strata manager should ensure the minutes of the meeting record that the council member did these things.

	1.	Strata Property Act, S.B.C. 1998, c. 43, ss. 32, 33.
	2.	Dockside Brewing Co. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837(2005), 46 B.C.L.R. (4th) 153, 34 R.P.R. (4th) 113, 2005 BCSC 1209 aff’d (2007), BCCA 183, [2007] B.C.J. No. 583, leave to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed with costs (without reasons) September 27, 2007 [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 262.
	3.	Strata Property Act, s.31.
	4.	Dockside Brewing Co. v. Strata Plan LMS 3837, 2007 BCCA 183, at para. 84.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

In Swan Group Inc. v. Bishop, a $130,485 deposit was at stake.¹ The issue was whether a subject clause was a true condition precedent (TCP).

At common law, a TCP is an external condition whose fulfillment depends on the will or actions of someone who is not a party to the contract;² for example:

[s]ubject to the … necessary approvals of the Ontario Municipal Board … to the site plan … ³

Until a TCP is fulfilled, the obligation of all parties to carry out the transaction is suspended. If the particular event does not occur, the contract becomes void and they are all excused. Consequently, to waive a TCP, every party must consent. One party may not unilaterally waive a TCP.

There are two exceptions. First, in the contract, the parties may expressly give to one side the right to waive the particular TCP. Second, legislation permits one party to waive a TCP if these criteria apply:⁴

(a)	the subject clause benefits only that party,
(b)	the contract is capable of being performed without fulfilling the subject clause in question, and
(c)	the waiver occurs before the subject removal deadline.

By comparison, an ordinary condition precedent requires a party to do something; for example:

Subject to the buyer confirming that zoning for the property is RM-1 (Multiple Dwelling) …

An ordinary condition precedent does not affect the existence of the contract. Until that subject clause is fulfilled, it suspends only that party's obligation to perform his or her contractual obligations. Anytime before the subject removal date, that party may waive the condition and demand full performance from the other side.

In April 2007, the seller entered a pre-sale contract to construct and sell a condo to the buyer for $922,094. The buyer paid a deposit of $130,485. The contract contained this subject clause (Developer's Condition):

This offer is subject to the following Developer's Condition:

(a) the Developer shall register the Phased Condominium Plan creating the units shown on Schedule 1 on or before Sept. 30, 2008.

On May 6, 2009, the seller registered the condominium plan (equivalent to a strata plan in BC), roughly seven months after the September 30 deadline. The buyer did not object. Then, shortly before closing in November 2009, the buyer announced that he would not complete for lack of funds.

Both sides claimed the deposit. The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the Developer's Condition was not a TCP. Since this was an ordinary condition, the seller's failure to register the condominium plan by September 30 did not void the contract. Instead, the seller could waive it without the buyer's consent.

The Developer's Condition required the seller to register the condominium plan. The remote possibility that the registrar, a third party, might reject the seller's filings did not convert this into a clause whose fulfillment depended on the will or action of someone who was not a party to the contract. The wording did not make the contract subject to the registrar approving something. The contract was alive when the buyer announced that he would not complete. The seller was entitled to the deposit.

Swan Group offers a reminder to pay special attention to any subject clause whose fulfillment depends on the will or action of someone who is not a party to the contract (e.g., subject to the registrar approving the attached plan of subdivision). It is critical to expressly make the subject clause for the sole benefit of one party and to reserve that party's right to waive the subject clause. If not, one's client may be shocked to discover that he or she needs the consent of every other party to waive the subject clause, failing which the contract is dead.

	1.	Swan Group Inc. v. Bishop, 2013 ABCA 29, rev'g 2012 ABQB 146, rev'g 2011 ABQB 533.
	2.	Turney v. Zhilka, [1959] S.C.R. 578.
	3.	Barnett v. Harrison, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 531.
	4.	Law and Equity Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 253, s. 54.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Occasionally, a vendor who has agreed to carry part of the sale price on a mortgage, agrees to take a lower rate of interest than the current rate, because the remaining terms of the sale justify that decision. On the other hand, the vendor does not want the lower rate to be a temptation to the purchaser to delay payments. In that case, the vendor may stipulate that a higher rate of interest is to apply if default occurs on the part of the purchaser.

There is a right and a wrong way to ensure that this provision would be enforceable by the vendor/mortgagee. The wrong way is as follows:"The sum of $100,000.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of twelve (12%) per cent per annum, calculated half-yearly not in advance as well after as before default and maturity, computed from the 1st day of March, 1981; provided, however, that upon default in payment by the mortgagor, the rate of interest payable by the mortgagor shall be increased from twelve (12%) per cent per annum to sixteen (16%) per cent per annum."

The reason this would be unenforceable is found in Section 8 of the Interest Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. 1-18, which reads as follows:"8.(1) No fine or penalty or rate of interest shall be stipulated for, taken, reserved or exacted on any arrears of principal or interest secured by mortgage of real estate, that has the effect of increasing the charge on any such arrears beyond the rate of interest payable on principal money not in arrears."

The purpose of Section 8 is to prevent a lender from obtaining from a borrower an excess amount by way of an increased interest penalty because of the default of the borrower. The effective way of enforcing this provision is shown in the following paragraph:"The sum of 5100,000.00, together with interest thereon at the rate of sixteen (16%) per cent per annum etc....; provided, however, that the rate of interest shall be reduced from sixteen (16%) per cent to twelve (12%) per cent during the month immediately preceding a payment made by the mortgagor punctually on the date when such payment was due and payable to the mortgagee (this wording assumes monthly payments made on the 1st day of each month)."

Since this provides for a reduction in the event of prompt payment, it does not offend the Interest Act. It is not unfair to the purchaser as it would be if an inadvertent delay of one day in making a payment prevented the purchaser from obtaining the benefit of the lower rate of interest for the balance of the term of the mortgage.

This question arose in a recent case where the vendors took back a second mortgage which provided that no interest would be payable during the first three months, at which time if the mortgage remained unpaid, interest would accrue at eighteen (18%) per cent due and payable on a per diem basis. Payment was not made at the end of the three month period, as had been expected, and eventually foreclosure proceedings were commenced. The purchaser argued that the imposition of interest after three months was a penalty. The Court looked upon the transaction as one in which the vendors granted the purchaser a three month period of grace within which to pay, and at the expiration of that period of grace, interest began to accrue. In reaching this decision, the Court made a distinction between a vendor who secures part of the unpaid purchase price, and a lender loaning money on mortgage security. The Court felt that Section 8 was aimed at what perhaps can best be described as the usual commercial lender transaction. While agreeing that the result is right, one should not rely upon this distinction to justify the use of the "wrong way" clause.

1.

MacDonald v. Muncey, 13 R.P.R. 199.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On November 30, 2020, the Land Owner Transparency Act¹ (LOTA) came into effect, and with it, the Land Owner Transparency Registry (LOTR). Now, with every change in title to a property in British Columbia, a transparency declaration must be filed with the Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia (LTSA). Individuals acquiring an interest in land are responsible for completing the declaration. REALTORS^® should be aware of these new requirements so they can advise clients to speak to a legal professional as needed. Legal professionals will assist clients with the required filings on all future property purchases. 

On the transparency declaration, the transferee (i.e., the person or entity about to become the new registered owner) must declare if they are a reporting body. A reporting body is any one of the following:

• a relevant corporation;
• a trustee of a relevant trust; or
• a partner of a relevant partnership.

If the transferee is a reporting body, then a transparency report must also be filed. The type of information that must be included in the transparency report can include the following (depending on the type of reporting body): full names, citizenship of individuals, country of residence and address of principal residence, date of birth, social insurance number, tax number, last known address, the type of partnership, the address for the partnership, jurisdiction (laws) that governs the partnership, head office, and information about the settlor of a trust.²

Practically speaking, this means all properties owned by a company, or properties that are held in trust for another party under a trust (including a bare trust) or a partnership, are reporting bodies and therefore must file a transparency report to confirm who the interest holders of the corporation, the trust, or the partnership (as applicable) are. The Province introduced LOTR as part of its plan to address housing affordability in BC and “end hidden ownership.”

Here is an example of how LOTR works:

Pretend Holdings Ltd. purchases a property closing on December 18, 2020. The only shareholders of Pretend Holdings Ltd. are John Smith and Jane Smith. John and Jane each own 50% of the shares in Pretend Holdings Ltd.

On the closing date, before the transfer documents can be filed with the LTSA, a transparency declaration must be filed. Since a company is going on title to the property, the transparency declaration will confirm that the transferee, Pretend Holdings Ltd., is a reporting body since it is a relevant corporation. This means that a transparency report also needs to be filed. The transparency report will confirm who the interest holders of Pretend Holdings Ltd. are. A corporate interest holder is someone who owns 10% or more of the shares or voting shares in a relevant corporation. Therefore, in this example, the transparency report will disclose that John Smith and Jane Smith are the corporate interest holders.

All existing reporting bodies (where the transfer was filed prior to November 30, 2020) must file a transparency report by November 30, 2021, disclosing who the interest holders of the property are. Clients may wish to reach out to legal professionals for assistance with filing these reports.

Moving forward, if there is a change of interest holder, the reporting body must file a new transparency report, regardless of whether registered ownership changes or not. For example, using the fact pattern set out above, if Jane Smith were to sell her shares in Pretend Holdings Ltd. to John Doe, then Pretend Holdings Ltd. would need to file a new transparency report disclosing that Jane Smith ceased being an interest holder and that John Doe is now an interest holder in the property.

Public Registry

The registry will become publicly accessible beginning April 30, 2021. Similar to land title searches, a fee will be charged for all LOTR searches. According to the LOTR website, the search fees will be $5.00 per search.³   However, not all information filed with the registry will be available to the public, only primary information about interest holders. Secondary information including birth dates and social insurance numbers will only be accessible by those defined as a regulator, a taxing authority, or law enforcement.⁴

Summary

British Columbia has a new registry that records and discloses who the beneficial owners, or interest holders, of properties are. The registry will soon become publicly accessible. It is unclear at this time how the information noted in the registry will be used by the public, financial institutions, and the government.

Realtors need to be able to understand the basic principles of the LOTR and inform their clients as to what kinds of information will become publicly available through the registry. Realtors may also wish to help educate past clients who are reporting bodies, that they need to file a transparency report prior to November 30, 2021, for all existing properties that were acquired prior to November 30, 2020. If you believe your client is a reporting body, have them reach out to the legal representative to discuss LOTR filing and disclosure requirements. Note there are fines of up to $100,000 or 15% of the assessed value of the property, for offences, failure to file, or providing false or misleading information under LOTA.

For more information, visit the LOTR website, or click here to learn more about the implications for Realtors and real estate practice.

	1	<a" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Land Ownership Transparency Act, SBC 2019, Chapter 23.
	2	See https://landtransparency.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LOTR_Policy_Presentation-Nov-19.pdf and https://landtransparency.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LTSA-LOTR-FactSheet_Nov12.pdf
	3	See https://landtransparency.ca/search/
	4	See https://landtransparency.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/LOTR_Policy_Presentation-Nov-19.pdf

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

2019 was an eventful year at the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), and in the real estate sector as a whole. Building on new and existing relationships and driven by a commitment to innovation and collaboration, we continued to work hard to serve BC’s 11 real estate boards.

Here are a few of the highlights!

Fostering a United Sector Voice

The Advocacy team strengthened BCREA’s position as an important partner to government and other policy influencers by fostering a new level of collaboration across the real estate sector. In April 2019, the release of a series of anti-money laundering recommendations with four partner organizations gained both government support and significant media coverage.

“As we continue to face challenges and navigate change in organized real estate, the need to be collectively organized in our dialogue with government has only increased,” said Trevor Hargreaves, who joined the organization in February of 2019 as VP of Government Relations and Stakeholder Engagement. “The success of the joint anti-money laundering recommendations highlights the impact of a united sector voice.”

Areas of change from 2019, including the Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in BC, the review of the role of managing brokers, and impending regulatory changes, have carried into 2020. To navigate these changes, Trevor and the Advocacy team will continue to work with BC’s 11 real estate boards and other provincial and national bodies so that REALTORS®’ voices are heard.

Strengthening the Foundation for Communications

BCREA’s Communications team played a key role in the success of all BCREA’s core services, from media relations for the joint anti-money laundering statement and editorial management of all Economics publications, to creative input into Standard Forms resources and the development and execution of the PDP transition communications strategy with member board partners.

The team was proud to launch the new BCREA website in July 2019. The new mobile-friendly, content-focused website is the foundation for engaging with members and real estate sector stakeholders. “The relaunch of our website has been a key piece of BCREA’s long-term communications strategy,” said April van Ert, Communications Manager. “It allows us to provide boards and REALTORS^® with timely and user-friendly access to BCREA information and resources.”

Looking ahead, the team looks forward to continuing to bring innovation to BCREA’s communications. 2020 has gotten off to a great start with the launch of Open House by BCREA, a monthly podcast for REALTORS^® featuring real estate news and practical insights.

Collaborating on the New Professional Development Program

REALTOR^® interests, ways of doing business and learning styles have and continue to change. To ensure the Professional Development Program (PDP) continues to meet REALTOR^® needs, BCREA collaborated with real estate boards to create a new PDP framework that’s more flexible and innovative. 

“Putting together the new framework was the biggest highlight of 2019, not only because of what it represents – a new and better way forward for REALTORS^® – but also how it came about,” said Joanna Pedersen, Education Manager. “There were numerous stakeholders involved in the process and the commitment to collaboration was inspiring!”

The new PDP framework launched on January 1, 2020. With the framework in place, the Education team is working to develop new in-person and online learning opportunities to enhance REALTOR^® professionalism and increase professional development offerings available across the province.

Enhancing Standard Forms Processes and Resources

Standard Forms are the backbone of every transaction and they play a huge role in the daily practice of real estate professionals. That’s why in 2019, BCREA began refining our processes for creating and amending forms as part of our commitment to ensuring these forms provide continued value for REALTORS^® and their clients.

We also created new resources for managing brokers and REALTORS^®, including a privacy policy template for brokers and two explainer videos on the Privacy Notice and Consent form – one for REALTORS^® on working with the form and another to help REALTORS^® explain the form to their clients.

 “In 2020, we will continue the work we started in 2019 to make the Standard Forms processes more streamlined and work to make the forms more accessible in their usage and language,” said Corinne Caldwell, Chief Operations Officer. “We will also build out additional resources to support REALTORS^® in working with the forms and keeping up to date on form changes.”

Thought Leadership in Economics

The 2019 housing market saw substantial shifts over the course of the year. The Economics team continued to serve as thought leaders in the real estate sector, producing regular reports on provincial home sales and economic activity as well as critically examining government policies and initiatives targeted at the real estate sector.

This included an in-depth analysis of the impact of the B20 mortgage stress test on BC homes sales and the potential uptake of the First-Time Home Buyer Incentive.

“Government policy plays a large role in the housing market and it’s important REALTORS^® and consumers are informed of the impacts," said Brendon Ogmundson, who took over as Chief Economist in October of 2019. "We began 2020 by analyzing the impacts of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax on BC home sales and released our findings in the latest BCREA Market Intelligence Report."

With another busy year in the BC real estate sector already underway, the BCREA team is already hard at work! To learn more about our 2020 initiatives, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Column 328 referred to the landlord/tenant relationship resulting from the development of reserve lands. Once all levels of approval have been given, for example, to a residential project, a headlease is created between the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and a developer, as the tenant. This document provides the foundation for the subsequent sale of a right to possession of a residential unit, by way of a sublease, from the developer to the buyer.

The headlease is similar to an ordinary lease of commercial property. It sets out all terms and conditions intended to govern relationships which might exist for as long as 99 years. It also contains the formula for calculating the rent to be paid by the developer and, ultimately, by the buyer as a subtenant.

The formula may require prepayment of the rent for the whole term of the lease. This satisfies the Aboriginal group's need for revenue and, if the appropriate wording is contained in the headlease, meets the buyer's needs for security of possession and legal title, free from the developer's default under the headlease. However, that may be too much of a financial outlay for the developer to make.

Another headlease formula provides for rent reviews to be made every five or ten years, with the calculation of rent tied to the fair market value of the property at the date of the review. The publicity surrounding the Musqueam band and its tenants has made it clear that in a long-term lease, this formula creates uncertainty. It can lead to rent increases in excess of a subtenant's ability to pay, and default which ends in the loss of the right to possession. A variation of this formula is to tie rent reviews to the current Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Another formula for a phased development, which appears to meet the Aboriginals' need for revenue and buyers' security of tenure, and reduces the developer's initial cash outlay, has also found favour with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC). It requires an initial prepayment of rent by the developer toward the total rent payable under the headlease. As each unit is sold, the balance of rent is paid to the band.

There is always a possibility in a phased development that a developer who successfully completed one phase may default under the headlease during a future phase. This formula insulates the buyers in an earlier phase from the subsequent default, by providing that the prepaid lands are to be assigned to the homeowner's association of the completed phase. Each buyer automatically becomes a member of the association.

Since Aboriginal groups have the power to tax developed property, an important term of the headlease is the formula for calculating annual property taxes. To be competitive with adjoining non-reserve lands, the methods of determining mill rates, assessments and allowing for homeowners grants should result in a tax comparable to similar property in the adjoining regional district or municipality.

As a point of clarification, column 328 stated that provincial laws "such as the Strata Property Act and the Real Estate Act may not apply to reserve lands." Part 2 of the Real Estate Act does not apply to lands reserved for an Aboriginal group, an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The position of the Superintendent of Real Estate is that Part 1 of the Act applies, presumably because it is a law of general application, similar to traffic laws, which are not directed at Aboriginals, but apply to everyone.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

The importance of a homeowner's association was alluded to in Legally Speaking column 329. The association's role in a development is equivalent to that of a strata corporation. It provides the mechanism through which the owners of leasehold interests in a development, or a phase of a development, govern the administration of their properties. An example of this is the control of parking spaces and storage lockers, which are tied to the subleases.

The sale of Aboriginal lands creates new problems for both licensees and conveyancers - one of which arises from the fact, as noted in column 329, that registration in the Indian Land Registry takes several days. Normally, no funds will be advanced to either the buyer or lender until registration is complete. Licensees are the first to face this problem when they are fixing the dates for completion, adjustment and possession. This problem is intensified when the licensee is dealing with back-to-back transactions.

Conveyancers have developed several procedures to deal with this delay in registration. Where a lender is involved, the mortgage monies are advanced to the lender's lawyer when the borrower has satisfied all of the lender's requirements, except for registration. The sale closes upon the undertaking of the lender's lawyer to pay the mortgage monies to the buyer's conveyancer upon proof of satisfactory registration.

Another procedure involves the execution and delivery of the sublease and supporting documents to the Indian Land Registry a few days in advance of closing in the hope that they will be registered by the completion date.

The buyer signs an additional document - a reassignment back to the seller. This is held in escrow to be registered if the sale does not complete. If a mortgage were involved, the buyer's conveyancer would have to undertake not to draw down the mortgage monies and apply to obtain a discharge of the mortgage if it had been registered.

In concluding this overview of the sale of Aboriginal lands, there are two points I wish to emphasize. The first is that all of this discussion relates to reserve lands and not to off-reserve lands to which Aboriginals claim title.

The second is the importance of reading all the documents affecting a prospective buyer's interest in a subleased property. They may include the headlease, sublease, service agreements with municipalities, the application of municipal bylaws and a band's property tax bylaw. The Musqueam Indian Band's rent review clause of the rent payable over the term of a 99-year lease is the most recent example of the need to make your clients aware of the responsibilities they assume.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On June 26, 2014 the Supreme Court of Canada released a landmark decision concerning Aboriginal rights and title in the Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia¹ case.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the Tsilhqot’in Nation holds Aboriginal title to over 4000 square kilometers of land west of Williams Lake. This decision is significant because it is the first judicial finding of Aboriginal title in Canada.

In the Tsilhqot’in Nation case, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that in order to establish a claim to Aboriginal title, a First Nation must be able to prove “sufficient occupation” of the land in question at the time of European settlement. Of importance is the Court’s determination that “significant occupation” is not confined to specific settlement sites, as had been determined by the BC Court of Appeal, but extends to lands regularly used for hunting, fishing or otherwise exploiting resources and over which the First Nation exercised effective control at the time of the assertion of European sovereignty. The adoption of the broader “territorial” approach, as opposed to the narrower “site specific” approach, will probably result in larger title claims succeeding in the future.

Once Aboriginal title is established, the successful First Nation will have the right to decide how their land will be used, the right of enjoyment and occupation of their land, the right to the economic benefits arising from their land and the right to proactively use and manage their land. Such use will not be confined to pre-sovereignty uses and customs such as hunting and fishing only. Modern Aboriginal land holders will be able to use their land in modern ways. As Aboriginal title includes the right to reap the economic benefits of resources situated on Aboriginal title lands, successful claims will result in a diminution of resource revenues to the Province from those lands.

Of interest to many British Columbians is what effect, if any, this decision will have on private property situated on land that is subject to a First Nation claim. The simple answer is none. The Tsilhqot’in Nation did not include any privately owned land in their territorial claim, so how Aboriginal title can be reconciled with private property rights is a question for another day.

The Tsilhqot’in Nation decision does not change the basic principles of the Crown’s duty to consult with First Nations but it will compel the Crown to engage that duty more often as the geographical scope of Aboriginal title has been more broadly defined by the Court’s adoption of the “territorial” approach.

It is difficult to speculate about the implications of the Tsilhqot’in Nation decision. Initial reaction seems to range from “nothing has changed” to “the sky is falling.” While it clearly provides certainty to the Tsilhqot’in Nation, what will its effect be on the many other First Nation land claims in British Columbia? Will some First Nations abandon the treaty process and seek certainty through the Courts? How long will that process take?² Will the Crown’s broader duty to consult resulting from the adoption of the “territorial” approach enhance or impair resource development on Crown land in British Columbia? The answers to those questions will be revealed over time.

Hopefully First Nations, government and industry will seek ways to collaborate to shape the future of British Columbia. The Tsilhqot’in Nation decision repeated the oft-quoted words of Chief Justice Lamer in the Delgamuukw decision that Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals “are all here to stay.”

Brian Taylor
Bull Housser LLP

	1.	Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44 Docket 349866.
	2.	The Tsilhqot’in Nation trial commenced in November 2002 and took 339 hearing days over five years. After appeals, the total journey through the courts took almost 12 and half years.

In August, BCREA interviewed the Pembina Institute’s director for buildings and urban solutions, Tom-Pierre Frappé-Sénéclauze, to understand their perspective on making homes and buildings in BC low carbon, healthy and resilient.

Tom-Pierre was a coauthor of a July submission sent to the BC Government, “Accelerating BC’s economic recovery through building retrofits.” Closely aligned with BCREA’s recommendations, the Pembina Institute called for:

• boosting CleanBC incentives for deep retrofits in homes and buildings,
• accelerating retrofits and construction of social housing, and
• deepening renovations of public sector buildings.

The Pembina Institute’s recommendations aim to assist the BC Government achieve the province’s climate targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40 per cent below 2007 levels by 2030. The BC Government has an opportunity to work toward these climate goals while also stimulating the economy. According to Pembina, incentives for retrofits are effective tools for economic recovery because they create a high number of jobs per dollar, employ a range of skilled labour and use many local made-in-BC materials.

To achieve its climate targets, Pembina says BC will need more workers in the construction sector. “There are opportunities for laid-off workers to take upgrade courses and move into the sector,” notes Tom-Pierre. For example, more resources are needed for contractors to install heat pumps and insulation.

In July, BCREA and other real estate stakeholders provided the government with similar COVID-19 economic recovery recommendations to help the government achieve their climate goals, including:

• provide incentives for building retrofits,
• encourage energy-efficient materials by expanding the list of eligible energy conservation materials and equipment exempt from PST, and
• support skilled trades training.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

We are creating enhancements to our online account management system for all existing BCREA Mobile subscribers. Please check your inbox for an email from [email protected] which provides a username and temporary password in order for you to create an account and register your device on the upgraded system.

Please ensure you take action immediately once you receive the email so there is no disruption to your service. The new online account management system can be accessed here: https://bcrea.mywirelessconcierge.ca

If you have any questions or need assistance please contact the BCREA Mobility Team at 1.877.909.3612 from 8am to 8pm Monday - Friday or email [email protected]. 

FAQ

1. Why are you asking me to create a new account and register my device?

The BCREA Mobile online account management system that our wireless subscribers utilize for billing, device upgrades, etc is being improved. You will continue to have an online portal to manage your account and have a dedicated customer service team to assist you with any questions.

We ask you to follow the few steps outlined in our email to enable your account and register your device on the new online portal.

Exceptional service to subscribers remains a number one focus.

2. Will all my lines be under this new account?

Yes, everything will now be in this new portal for your convenience.

3. Why do you need my credit card details again?

In adherence to credit card compliance policy, we cannot port your credit card from the old system to the new one.

4. Will the monthly price change?

No, the price and your features will not change, everything remains the same in terms of the key features BCREA Mobile offers you.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Chutzpah is a Yiddish word meaning "brazen nerve". An example of chutzpa is the story of a young man who was found guilty of the murder of his parents and then at the time of sentencing, asked the Judge to show mercy because he was an orphan. Licensees who suspect from the spate of litigation that arose in the '80s, that dissatisfied vendors or purchasers of real estate will sue the licensees upon any pretext, will find support for their suspicions and another example of chutzpa in the report of the following decision.

Purchasers who wanted property with some outbuildings, were shown property which appeared to have a 35 foot backyard with one outbuilding. The vendor accompanied the purchasers on their examination of the property, and pointed out to them the spot where he assumed the cornerpost was located. The purchasers completed their purchase and subsequently discovered that the actual location of the cornerpost left them with little backyard and the outbuilding on the adjoining property. The purchasers were awarded damages for the fraudulent misrepresentation of the vendor.

The vendor then sued the agent for the agent's breach of duty to the vendors. While the reasons for judgement are silent, obviously the vendor's argument was that the agent had a duty to know the location of the boundaries because of the purchaser's wish to buy property with an outbuilding.

This case went to the Court of Appeal where the Court of Appeal said "it defies common sense that a principal that has been found liable in damages for a fraudulent misrepresentation may sue his agent, alleging that the agent failed to correct the misrepresentation. The vendor in this case was responsible for, and caused the loss to himself and to his wife". The action against the agent was dismissed.¹

* * *

The submission of offers to purchase property which is in foreclosure can often be baffling or frustrating to licensees. In one case John offered to purchase such property through an agent. A second purchaser, Mary, made a slightly higher offer through another agent. This was accepted by the bank, subject to Court approval. Both offers were submitted, but not accepted because the owner obtained an adjournment. The bank's solicitor suggested to John and Mary that they deliver sealed envelopes to him with their final offers, upon their understanding that this would be binding upon them. They did this, but over the objections of the second agent, both envelopes were opened by the bank's solicitor. He advised John and Mary that since John's offer was higher, it would be submitted to the Court.

Mary decided to submit a higher offer through the second agent. While the salesperson was uncertain initially whether the agency could lawfully or ethically do this, her manager concluded that the salesperson should submit the higher offer on behalf of Mary. At the hearing of the bank's application to confirm the sale, John objected to the Judge receiving the second offer because of the agreement made with the bank's solicitor. The judge directed both parties to submit further sealed bids by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon. When they were opened, Mary's offer was higher and accepted, thus the judge approved the sale to her.

John then sued Mary, the second agent, its manager and the salesperson. He alleged a breach of contract against Mary and as against the agent, damages for interference with contractual relations. At issue was the effect of the agreement made with the bank's solicitor. There was no doubt that there had been an agreement, but did it create a legal relationship between John and Mary which the Court could enforce?

The judge was critical of the arrangement proposed by the bank's solicitor because it might prevent the best price from being obtained for the property. He concluded that there was no consideration between the parties which would form the basis for the contract to exist, and dismissed the claim against Mary and the licensees.

This does not mean that parties such as John and Mary cannot contract to bind themselves to a similar arrangement. But if they do, and one of them breaches the contract and re-submits a higher offer, the Court may accept that offer to obtain the best price possible for the owner or creditors. However, while breach of the agreement may not give the injured party the property, it would give that party a remedy in damages against the defaulting party.²

	1.	Morrison v Century 21 Vernon Low Realty (1980) Ltd. B.C. Court of Appeal, Vancouver Registry C8009349 Reasons for Judgement Feb. 16, 1990.
	2.	Kerr v. Royal LePage Real Estate Services Ltd. Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry C891552 Reasons for Judgement Jan. 29, 1990.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Today, the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE) and the Real Estate Council of British Columbia (RECBC) announced changes to the Real Estate Rules to expand the use of administrative penalties (APs). OSRE first proposed these rule changes in September 2020, in a consultation that attracted nearly 600 responses – including a detailed submission from BCREA and all BC real estate boards.

What’s changing

These changes take effect on February 1, 2021. From that date, the number of contraventions subject to APs will double. These Rule changes don’t introduce any new requirements; they just change what’s eligible for APs and the amount of penalties that can be charged. APs will be sorted into four categories:

Category A – mostly business management infractions with low risk of harm to consumers and generally easily substantiated. First contravention, $1,000; subsequent, $2,000.

Category B – generally minor matters with no or immaterial harm to consumers, and where imposing an administrative penalty is in the public interest. First contravention, $2,500; subsequent, $5,000.

Category C – substantial duties licensees owe to clients and non-clients (e.g., section 3-3 of the Rules). First contravention, $5,000; subsequent, $10,000.

Category D (daily) – mostly minor matters that present a low risk of harm to consumers, and which have a time element. First contravention, $1,000; subsequent, $2,000. Plus, potentially $250 each day or part of a day to a maximum of $50,000.

In addition, section 3-4 of the Rules has been changed to separate acting honestly from reasonable care and skill. This will allow contraventions relating to reasonable care and skill to be eligible for administrative penalties and contraventions relating to honesty to be treated more severely.

What it means for REALTORS®

At a high level, the regulators expect expanded APs to speed up RECBC’s discipline process and lead to more predictable outcomes for licensees. It should also mean that RECBC can devote more resources to serious infractions.

For an individual licensee, these are five key takeaways:

• Before RECBC levies an AP, it will use the Administrative Penalty Guidelines to make sure APs are appropriate.
• The expanded APs only apply to contraventions starting on February 1, 2021; that is, these changes don’t apply to existing breaches of the Rules without the consent of the real estate professional.
• If you’re found to contravene a Rule subject to APs, and you don’t breach that Rule again over the course of five years, it will be removed from your record. If you are found to have breached the same Rule within five years, this will be a subsequent contravention and the higher penalty will apply.
• Within 14 days of when an AP decision is issued, a licensee can ask RECBC to reconsider the penalty.
• After reconsiderations are resolved, AP contraventions greater than $1,000 will be published on the Decision page of RECBC’s website for five years.

For more information, check out these resources from the regulators:

• AP fact sheet,
• Regulators’ news release,
• RECBC Administrative Penalty Guidelines (explain the process and the criteria),
• RECBC publication policy, and
• Results of the public consultation.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A, LL.B.

How do amendments to the Human Rights Act (HRA) affect a developer pre-selling strata residential units in an intended adult only development? Amendments to the HRA enlarged the definition of age to include anyone between 19 and 64 years inclusive, and added family status as one of the prohibited discriminatory practices in the rental of real estate.

The result of these recent amendments is that HRA still does not prevent restriction based upon age or family status in the sale of residential property. However, a landlord renting a rental unit in residential premises cannot discriminate on the basis of age or family status, unless every rental unit is reserved for rental to:

a person over 55 years of age or; two or more persons, one of whom must be at least 55; or a rental unit in a prescribed class of residential premises (none prescribed as yet).

The HRA does not define family status, but it probably will be broadly defined because human rights law, "is given as broad and liberal an interpretation as is necessary to achieve its remedial purposes." It will not be as narrow as the Residential Tenancy Act definition which has been repealed, that a family was "two or more persons who will live together and includes a parent and a child of that parent."

The developer of an adult only strata development can refuse to sell a unit to anyone under any age the developer chooses, or refuse to sell to a family because that family includes a child. The purchaser of a unit, who wants to rent it, cannot refuse to rent to any family containing a child. The purchaser can refuse to rent to anyone under age 19 because of that person's age, but not if that person is part of the family. (This will pose a dilemma for a purchaser, as landlord, when the prospective tenant is an underage mother and her child.)

The ideal bylaw amendment for an adult only strata corporation would be a bylaw which limited not only the number of units available for rent, but reserved each rental unit for one tenant over 55, and none of the other co-tenants could be younger than whatever age the developer considered appropriate to maintain the adult orientation of the development.

This amendment may not be possible. The Condominium Act allows a strata corporation to limit only the number of residential strata lots within the strata plan that may be leased by the owners. Apart from this right to limit numbers, the Condominium Act states that the bylaws may not operate to prohibit or restrict the lease of a strata lot. An amendment to restrict the age of tenants appears to be beyond the authority of a strata corporation.

The best the owner/developer may be able to do to retain the adult only residential strata development, would be to limit the number of strata lots available for rent. Developers will have to decide whether they want to tie their hands in this manner, or leave the question of limiting the number of units available for rent to the members of the strata corporation.

A developer or strata corporation that wanted to maintain an adult only building would have to decide whether the strata corporation, in exercising its power to limit the number of units to be leased, may prohibit leasing entirely. That question was raised in a B.C. case where the bylaws prohibited the rental of any residential strata lot except where the owner could prove hardship under Section 32 of the Condominium Act. In that case the strata council had the power to approve the lease.

An owner who objected to this bylaw argued that limiting was not equivalent to the prohibition which this bylaw imposed. The owner's argument was, in order to limit a number, some number more than zero is required. The judge, however held that the owner's right to a hearing and the strata council's obligation to hold such a hearing, under Section 32, gave the owner something more than zero. He held the bylaw to be valid.¹

(The question of existing strata bylaws limiting occupancy to people over a certain age will be discussed in the next column.)

1.

Von Schottenstein v. Owners, Strata Plan 730, 64 B.C.L.R., p. 376.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – May 14, 2019.The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 6,652 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) in April, a decline of 18.9 per cent from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in the province was $685,304, a decline of 6.2 per cent from April 2018. Total sales dollar volume was $4.6 billion, a 23.9 per cent decline from the same month last year.

“BC home sales were essentially unchanged from March on a seasonally adjusted basis,” said BCREA Chief Economist Cameron Muir. “Prospective home buyers continue to grapple with the decline in their purchasing power caused by federal government changes to mortgage policy.”

Total MLS® residential active listings increased 33.6 per cent to 38,672 units compared to the same month last year. The ratio of sales to active residential listings declined from 28.4 per cent to 17.2 per cent over the same period.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 29.8 per cent to $13.9 billion, compared with the same period in 2018. Residential unit sales decreased 24.5 per cent to 20,479 units, while the average MLS® residential price was down 7 per cent to $680,671.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

The frequency with which these columns are dealing with Section 30 of the Condominium Act, and the decisions the courts apparently feel obliged to make as a result of the wording of Sections 29 and 30, make one hope that a new Condominium Act will soon be before the legislature.

Bylaws which limit the right to occupancy of a strata unit to people over a designated age may no longer be enforceable, as the result of a decision involving a Vernon strata corporation whose bylaws prohibited any person under the age of 50 years from occupying a strata lot for more than 21 days in total in any year.

Section 29 of the Condominium Act states that, "subject to Section 30, the bylaws shall not operate to prohibit or restrict the transfer, lease, mortgage or other dealings with a strata lot." As discussed in column #230, Section 30 only allows the strata corporation to limit the number of units which can be leased. The judge decided that the bylaw was unenforceable because the age restriction was an attempt to restrict the lease of a strata lot, an attempt which did not fall within the limited exception contained in Section 30.

In reaching his decision the judge referred to another case where a strata corporation bylaw required owners to occupy their units for at least 12 months before they could apply to lease them. This bylaw was held to be unenforceable as a breach of Sections 29 and 30.

Since the decision was not appealed it will be left to either the Court of Appeal or a new Condominium Act, to decide whether bylaws creating adult-only strata corporations can be enforced. It would appear that this decision will prevent a strata corporation from adopting the Human Rights Act age restrictions for rental occupants of a strata unit referred to in column #210. It is unlikely that the legislature intended to grant an exemption from prohibition against discriminating on the basis of age in connection with a rental unit, unless every rental unit was reserved for rental to at least one person over the age of 55, and yet have a Condominium Act which is interpreted to mean that age restrictions such as these cannot be enforced.¹

***

In 1991 when the GST was relatively new and licensees had little knowledge of it, a licensee wrongly advised the buyer of rural property that no GST was payable. Since the buyer had relied upon this representation, the licensees were liable in damages equal to the amount of the GST of approximately $20,000. In reaching this decision the judge said that, as specialists in their field the licensees should be expected to be generally knowledgeable with respect to a number of basic matters concerning the property, including the taxes applicable to it and to its purchase.

In 1994, licensees honestly but mistakenly represented that no GST was payable upon the sale of a vacant lot owned by a company. Neither the seller nor the buyer were prepared to pay the GST, and the dispute came down to the completion date before it was resolved by an agreement which was made possible by the agent's decision to reduce its commission.

There is no doubt that there may be difficulty in determining whether GST is payable upon the sale of bare land, recreational or other personal use real property. Whether an exemption exists or not will depend upon a number of factors including how the property is owned, how it has been used, and how it will be used.

The judge may have been wrong in stating that, in his opinion, the buyers were entitled to assume that the licensee would know whether or not the GST applied to the sale of the property. There is no question, however, that he was right when he went on to say that if the licensee did not know, or was uncertain about the application of GST he should have made that clear to the buyer.

Since the answer to whether GST is to be paid depends so much upon the facts, a licensee should not hesitate to recommend that the owner seek the advice of a lawyer or accountant experienced in this area, and the owner should be prepared to take that advice to avoid potential litigation.²

	1.	453048 British Columbia Ltd. v. Strata Plan KAS1079, B.C.S.C, Reasons for Judgment, December 5th, 1994. and Cowe v. Strata Plan VR 1 3491992 B.C.L.R. (2d), p. 327.
	2.	Sainsbury v. Nanaimo Realty Co. Ltd., S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry #C917530, Reasons for Judgment, May 6th, 1993.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Usually you would assume that if you are making monthly payments on a mortgage to a mortgage broker, that you could safely pay the principal amount required to pay the mortgage in full to the broker, and obtain a release from the mortgagee. A recent case once again raises the question of the authority that the principal has given to an agent, and indicates the necessity for caution when dealing with the agent rather than the principal.

The plaintiffs in the action bought property subject to a mortgage in favour of Devon Mortgage Ltd., which had been transferred to a Bertha Glass. Both the mortgage and its assignment were registered before the sale was completed. Shortly after the purchase, the plaintiffs were advised by Devon to make all monthly payments to it and to provide fire insurance showing loss payable to Glass. Although the mortgage did not fall due until December 1, 1982, in February, 1982, Devon advised the plaintiffs that the mortgage would be payable on March 1, 1982, and as a result of that advice, the plaintiffs paid the mortgage balance to Devon. Payment was made through the plaintiffs' solicitors who forwarded the cheque to Devon upon trust to discharge the mortgage. Devon received the monies but failed to pay them to the mortgagee, Glass, who in turn refused to provide a discharge of mortgage. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that Devon was the agent for Glass who was bound therefore to provide a discharge of her mortgage to the plaintiffs.

The evidence established that Devon was the agent for Glass to administer her mortgage for a negotiated fee. It did not have actual authority to receive the pay out of the mortgage (actual authority arises out of a contractual relationship between a principal and agent). The question to be decided was whether the agent had apparent authority to act on behalf of Glass. Apparent authority commonly arises as a result of representation by conduct, as where the agent is permitted to act in some way in the conduct of the principal's business with another person.

The plaintiffs argued that by allowing Devon to collect nine monthly payments without her having made any direct contract with the plaintiffs, Glass represented to the plaintiffs that Devon had authority to request and to receive a pay out. The Court looked at a number of cases where the Court had to decide where the loss is to fall when a debtor pays money to a person other than his creditor, and the money is misappropriated by the person to whom it is paid. These cases establish the following rules:

1. If payment is made to the person other than a creditor, the onus is on the party making the payment to show by clear evidence that the payment was authorized by the creditor.
2. The mere authority to receive payment of interest does not prove authority to receive monies on account of principal.
3. Express authority to receive payment of principal before it falls due must be clearly proved. Such authority cannot be inferred from any ordinary course of dealings between the parties.

As a result of these precedents, the Court held that Glass was not obliged to deliver a discharge of mortgage until the amount owed to her had been paid by the plaintiffs. The result is not unreasonable in that the plaintiffs should have been aware from reading their own mortgage that it did not mature for another eight months. This should have alerted them, as well as their solicitors, to question the authority of the agent.

There are several other points to be gained from this case, if your mortgage is not held by an institutional lender. The first is to do a search of title before paying out a mortgage, to satisfy yourself not only as to who is entitled to receive the mortgage monies, but also as to whether the mortgagee may have judgements registered against his or her interest in the mortgage. The second is that wherever possible, try to exchange a cheque for a registrable discharge of mortgage.

1.

Kohn v. Devon Mortgage Ltd. and Glass,(1984) 1 W.W.R. 544. (Alberta)

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has already made parts of real estate practice easier. Some REALTORS^® use AI tools to help draft listing descriptions, organize information, summarize lengthy documents, prepare client education materials, build checklists, and reduce some of the pressure that comes with a busy practice.

Brokerages are also exploring how AI can support training, internal resources, knowledge management, and consistent access to information. Used thoughtfully, these tools can help REALTORS^® spend more time on the parts of their role that require professional judgement.

Agentic AI takes this one step further. Instead of simply generating content in response to a prompt, agentic AI can be designed to complete tasks, send communications, update systems, prepare documents, make recommendations, and take action on a user’s behalf.

There may be appropriate ways for REALTORS^® and brokerages to use agentic AI for lower-risk workflows, such as organizing internal information, prompting follow-ups, managing task lists, or supporting administrative processes where safeguards are in place. However, using agentic AI does not transfer responsibility for the work. If an AI system drafts, sends, posts, recommends, or updates something on a REALTOR^®’s behalf, the REALTOR^® remains responsible for reviewing that work and for the consequences of relying on it.

This distinction matters because real estate practice is not just a series of administrative tasks. Some uses of AI are lower risk, while others involve advice, judgement, contractual terms, legal risk, negotiation strategy, confidential information, or representations to the public. The more a task involves those elements, the more important close human review becomes.

This is especially true where an AI system has access to client or transaction information, BCREA forms, or other copyright-protected or confidential materials. Depending on the platform and its terms of use, uploaded information may be retained, processed, used to improve the system, shared with third parties, or reproduced in ways the REALTOR^® or brokerage did not intend or authorize. In some cases, this may create privacy, confidentiality, intellectual property, or record-management concerns, particularly where sensitive client information or proprietary materials are involved.

Preparing an offer is a good example. If agentic AI drafts an offer for a buyer and sends it directly to the buyer for signature, a small error may have significant consequences. An AI-generated offer may omit a financing subject, use the wrong completion or possession dates, miscalculate Home Buyer Rescission Period timelines, or include terms that do not reflect the buyer’s actual needs. Even if the error was created by AI, the document was still prepared and sent as part of the REALTOR^®’s practice.

Client communications raise similar considerations. AI can be helpful in preparing draft responses, or helping a REALTOR^® respond more efficiently to common questions. However, any information created or provided by AI should be reviewed before it is relied on or sent to a client. A response may sound polished and confident while still needing correction or additional context. It may also touch on issues that require closer review or input from an appropriate professional, particularly where the issue involves a client’s legal position, contractual obligations, confidentiality concerns, or transaction-specific risks.

These risks connect directly to a REALTOR^®’s regulatory obligations. Section 30 of the Real Estate Services Rules (the Rules) requires a brokerage and its related licensees to act in the best interests of the client. That obligation is difficult to meet if a REALTOR^® relies on an AI-generated document, recommendation, or communication without first reviewing it for accuracy, context, and alignment with the client’s instructions and interests. Sections 33 and 34 are also relevant. A licensee must act honestly and provide real estate services with reasonable care and skill. In practice, AI may assist with the work, but the REALTOR^® still needs to understand and assess what has been produced before it is sent, signed, or relied on.

Agentic AI can also create risks if it is used to publish, schedule, update, or distribute public-facing content on behalf of a REALTOR^® or brokerage. For example, an AI tool may update a listing description, post to social media, send a marketing email, or revise website content before the information has been reviewed. Section 41 of the Rules prohibits false or misleading advertising that the licensee knows, or reasonably ought to know, contains a false or misleading statement or misrepresentation. REALTORS^® should ensure AI-assisted public-facing content is reviewed before it is published or distributed.

For managing brokers, the issue is also one of supervision and protection of brokerage systems. Section 28 requires managing brokers to be actively engaged in the management of the brokerage, ensure the business is carried out competently and in accordance with the legislation and Rules, and maintain an adequate level of supervision. As agentic AI becomes more common, brokerages should consider how its use will be managed in practice. This may include developing policies on approved tools, prohibited uses, review requirements, documentation expectations, and when client or transaction information must not be entered into an AI system.

Agentic AI may become a valuable part of real estate practice, but it should not be treated as an independent professional. Used appropriately, it can support efficiency and consistency. Used without adequate review, it can create real risks for clients, REALTORS^®, and brokerages. AI can assist with the work, but professional judgement must remain with the licensee.

For more information, REALTORS^® and managing brokers may wish to review the BC Financial Services Authority’s resources on artificial intelligence:

Artificial Intelligence Guideline

Artificial Intelligence Information

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

A recent amendment to the Law and Equity Act may mean that the time-honoured method of selling property by way of an agreement for sale (right to purchase) may cease. Although its use has declined over the past few decades, largely because most sales require mortgage financing, its use has been continued because it fits certain circumstances. Those circumstances generally are where the vendor is receiving a low down payment and wants the benefit of the shorter "redemption" period allowed in actions for specific performance or rescission of an agreement for sale.

That "redemption" period was three months rather than the customary six months under a mortgage. Based upon the ultimate results of cancellation of an agreement for sale, there has been no logical reason why there should be a difference in the redemption periods - precedent, however, has preserved the difference until now.

The amendment proposes that default under an agreement for sale will have the same results as default under a mortgage. Specifically, the redemption period will be lengthened to six months.

The decision to provide the same remedies for default under an agreement for sale or a mortgage was hastened by a case which disclosed that an agreement for sale contained a booby trap for both the purchaser and the mortgagee of the purchaser's equity in the property.

The case involved an agreement for sale of land containing a clause that, if default occurred, the vendor had the right to give thirty days' notice to the purchaser to remedy the default. If the purchaser failed to do that within the thirty day period, the agreement was then stated to be void. The purchaser was in default of some monthly payments which, if paid, would have brought the agreement for sale into good standing. When that was not done, the vendor filed a petition seeking an order for the cancellation of the agreement for sale. The purchaser did not defend even though it appeared that a sale of the property might produce a surplus after payment of the amount owing under the agreement for sale, taxes and expenses. The reason for this failure lay in the mortgaging of the purchaser's equity to United Dominions Investments Limited, which did appear for the purpose of arguing that the agreement should not be cancelled.

It was argued on United Dominions' behalf that the Court had the power to grant time for redemption or to grant relief under the Law and Equity Act from the default that had occurred. The Court concluded that it had no power but to cancel the agreement because it specifically provided for cancellation when default continued after the thirty day notice period had expired.

The mortgagee then tried to have the Court order that the monies received by the vendor should be refunded to the purchaser. The Court has this equitable power under the Law and Equity Act. However, the judge held that United Dominions had no status to make that request, only the purchaser. In addition, the default had continued for sixteen months in respect of revenue producing commercial property. The judge decided that there was no equitable reason why it should require the vendor to repay the monies it had received from the purchaser.

The amendment does not cover all agreements for sale. If the purchase price is to be paid within less than six months from the time the contract was entered into, and if the purchaser is not entitled to possession of the land that is the subject matter of the contract, then the vendor can still seek a three month redemption period.

	1.	Oxford Development Group Ltd. v. Tahsis Estates Ltd. et al, 58 B.C.L.R. p. 47.
	2.	Bill 42,Second Session 33rd Parliament, Section 5.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) has introduced new Real Estate Services Rules (“Rules”) with respect to teams effective April 1, 2023. But, what’s new in them?

1. Teams names must be registered with BCFSA;
2. Family names, when used in joint advertising, where the family members are an unregistered team are no longer permitted as an exception;
3. Teams must be composed of at least two licensed members;
4. Team members must be associated with the team and must be licensed to the same brokerage;
5. Team members cannot provide trading services outside of their team;
6. All team members are collectively the designated agent of all the team’s clients;
7. Real estate professionals can only be members of one team at a time.

The regulator’s historical decisions on teams suggest that timely registration and notice to the regulator is important as, where real estate professionals have failed to register a new team or have failed to register a team following a brokerage change in a timely manner, penalties have been assessed by the regulator.

The regulator has published a lengthy FAQ to assist real estate professionals in various situations to assist in compliance with the new rules by the deadline (see Real Estate Teams FAQs)

Why do the Team Rules matter?

Forming a team expands your agency obligations, in that you will now owe agency obligations to all the current clients of all the existing team members.

When considering how agency works within the rules for teams, remember the motto by Alexandre Dumas in The Three Musketeers, “All for One, One for All”.

New Rule 42.4(5) clearly states that team members share their agency obligations.

The related brokerage of the members of a real estate team must, under section 32 [designated agency], designate all members of the real estate team to provide, as designated agents, trading services to or on behalf of any client of any member of the team.

  Before the team rules come into effect, teams are well advised to carefully examine how they are conducting day-to-day business to ensure they don’t create unnecessary conflict of interest.

Some examples:

1. Team Member A and Team Member B both show different buyers the same property on the same day;
2. Team Member A and Team Member B receive conflicting listing instructions from separating spouses;
3. Team Member B’s seller cancels a team listing and lists their property with another brokerage, Team Member A is contacted days later by a potential buyer to show the same cancelled listing. 

As illustrated by each of these situations and absent frequent and daily communication, a conflict of interest may arise.  Teams should have a process whereby client information is shared confidentially and regularly to ensure that each team member is aware of the business activities of the other team member.

Given the requirements of the Rules, timely communication of business activities between the team members will be required for regulatory compliance.

Real estate professionals may need to modify or stop some of their daily business activities to align with the new requirements.

Implied Teams – Be Careful with Business Practices

Rule 42.2 has been expanded with broad language to capture into the concept of “teams” those activities where real estate professionals are likely going to be perceived by the public as doing business together.  This rule may capture many real estate professionals who have historically not considered themselves to be part of a “team.”

Examples of business practice real estate professionals should consider that may create a “team” may include:

1. Licensed family members who advertise jointly or who otherwise have access to each other's files;
2. Employing a licensed assistant (they would be a defacto team member under the rules);
3. Referring the majority of your in-market referrals to a single REALTOR®;
4. Shared marketing;
5. Regularly co-listing properties or co-hosting open houses;
6. Regular meetings of two or more REALTORS® to discuss each other’s current business activities;
7. Sharing an office space outside a brokerage;
8. Ability to regularly access client data (paper or electronic) of another real estate professional;
9. Sharing an unlicensed assistant who has access to both of your client databases;

There are many more examples that can conceivably be caught by this expansive rule, so REALTORS® should review their own individual situations with their managing broker and ask the following question: If the activity in question were to be viewed by the public could they possibly assume that the two individuals in question were regularly working together?

Real estate professionals who are currently not on teams should examine their existing working relationships to ensure that they will not be a team under the new rules and if necessary, take those steps to ensure the separation of their business activities from other Real estate professionals or forming a team.

The new Real Estate Services Rules on teams go into effect as of April 1, 2023.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

It is not every circumstance when an agency will be liable for misrepresentations made by its employee/salesperson. An agency was drawn into legal proceedings when the buyer of a new home sued the agency and the salesperson, who was the builder of the home, on the contractual warranty or for an implied warranty of habitation, and for negligent misstatements by the licensee.

On the facts, the judge found that while the contractual warranty did not apply because it was only for one year, the house was incomplete at the time of sale and, for that reason, there was an implied warranty by the builder in favour of the buyer.

The buyer, however, was unable to establish misrepresentation by the licensee. The judge said that, even if the seller had been able to do that, the agency would not have been liable because the representations of the licensee were made in his capacity as a seller or builder, and not as a salesperson.¹

* * *

A member asked a question as to the legal responsibility of both members and sellers where an illegal activity is taking place on a listed property. Leaving aside for the moment the specific illegal activity, namely marijuana growing, the general rule is that no citizen has an obligation to report to the authorities an activity which may appear to them to be illegal. An exception to this general rule is an obligation to report to the authorities a child in need of protection.

With respect to the marijuana growing operation, a licensee would be covered by the general rule but would have to be careful not to appear to be aiding or abetting the carrying on of the illegal activity. Aiding and abetting is an offence if a person does or omits to do something for the purpose of aiding another person to commit an offence. it becomes an offence, however, only if there is a guilty intent behind the action or omission. There would be no guilty intent if a licensee, having observed the illegal activity, walked away from it because he or she did not want to become involved.

It would be different if the licensee continued to try and find a buyer for a property, knowing that a buyer would only be interested in the land and not concerned with an inspection of the house which the buyer intended to demolish. If, during this period, the plants grew to the point where they were harvested, this would be seen as abetting cultivation. The licensee, because of his or her duty to the principle of full disclosure and loyalty, must disclose the existence of the illegal activity to the seller.

In one instance, the Real Estate Council held a property manager to be negligent for having failed to periodically enter a house leased on behalf of the owner by the property manager where it was discovered that a growing operation had been conducted in the home, leaving it a wreck. The seller's responsibility to report to the authorities is a matter of self-preservation to avoid having the property seized by the Crown.

A licensee or seller, if asked by a police officer whether he or she is aware of a marijuana growing operation taking place on the property, can answer yes or refuse to answer the question. If, however, the question is answered falsely "No," when the licensee or the seller knows a marijuana growing operation is taking place, the offence of obstructing justice would have been committed.

This article first appeared in Board Briefs, the newsletter of the Victoria Real Estate Board.

1.

Chan v. Chadha Construction & Investments Ltd., et al., S.C.B.C. Vancouver Registry A923899, Reasons for Judgment, October 15, 1998.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) contains land where agriculture is recognized as the primary use and non-agricultural uses are restricted. The Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) is the independent administrative tribunal responsible for preserving land in the ALR.

In January, the BC Minister of Agriculture created an Advisory Committee tasked to make recommendations on revitalizing the ALR and ALC. The Advisory Committee is evaluating policy issues that impact the ALR and ALC, and consulting with stakeholders and the general public.

A discussion paper published by the Advisory Committee raises concerns about increased residential development on ALR land not related to agricultural use. The paper also notes the absence of provincial legislation restricting the sizing and siting of residential uses in the ALR.

REALTORS® across BC are involved in real estate transactions concerning land in the ALR every day, and changes to land use strategy that restricts residential uses may impact your ability to provide clients with properties that meet their needs.

Preserving agricultural land in BC is a worthwhile pursuit, and one that should consider the short- and long-term impacts on the real estate profession and the rights of private property owners.

The discussion paper, as well as opportunities to participate in the consultation, can be found online. The consultation period closes on April 30, 2018. Please take the time to share your insights and expertise.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has interpreted the rescission rights contained in Part II of the Real Estate Act which are available to the purchaser of a strata title property, in a way which may bring some limited joy to developers.

The case involved an accepted offer made March 1989 to purchase a condominium unit under construction by a developer who had filed a disclosure statement in January 1989. Two amended disclosure statements were filed February 6 and March 13, 1990, neither of which were delivered to the purchaser until June 19, 1990. The amendments changed the development to a phased strata plan, and the completion date from February 1990 to July 31, 1990, respectively.

When the purchaser received the two amendments he elected to rescind, an election rejected by the vendor. The purchaser sued for the return of a $56,000 deposit, arguing that he had a ' statutory right to rescind when a disclosure statement was amended, even if the amendment did not disclose a material change. He argued further that the developer had an obligation to deliver the amended disclosure statements immediately following filing with the Superintendent. The judge interpreted Part II to hold that a statutory right of rescission arises only upon the filing of the disclosure statement, not upon the filing of an amended disclosure statement.

In addition, the judge held that there is nothing in Part II which requires the developer to deliver the amended disclosure statement to the purchaser within any particular period of time. According to the judge that meant that the amended disclosure statement had only to be delivered prior to the actual date of sale.

This part of the judgement dealt only with the statutory right of rescission, and the argument then shifted to whether the rights of rescission contained in the Contract of Purchase and Sale helped the purchaser. That right was to terminate the contract within seven days after receipt of an amendment, "that materially affects the offering of units in...... On the evidence, the judge held that the delay of five months in the completion of construction was not sufficiently material to support the purchasers contractual right of rescission.'

This decision was applied in another Supreme Court of British Columbia decision where a disclosure statement had been filed containing the usual statutory three day rescission rights clause. It was followed by two amended disclosure statements which the purchaser admitted did not contain material amendments to the disclosure statement. At stake in this case was a $156,000 deposit. The purchaser's argument that any amendment triggered the right of rescission was rejected by the judge, for the reasons referred to in the first case.'

Since the first case was appealed but settled, it remains the law in British Columbia. It is probable that the appropriate amendments will be incorporated in a new Real Estate Act to clarify the rights of a prospective purchaser when a disclosure statement is amended.

Two other points to note came from the second decision. The first is that the statutory three day right of rescission should not be repeated in the amended disclosure statements. That was done in this case to meet the Superintendent's requirements. However, it gave the purchaser an argument that a new opportunity to rescind had arisen, an argument rejected by the judge.

The second point is that the deposit was so large, being 30% of the purchase price, that the judge was not prepared to order that it be forfeited to the vendor. Instead, he directed the parties to provide evidence to enable him to determine whether the deposit was a genuine pre-estimate of damages or whether it was a penalty for which relief from forfeiture could be granted.

	1.	Pirog et al vs. Camarvon and Fourth Development Limited Partnership, SCBC Vancouver Registry No. C903650.
	2.	Pyfrom, 363729 B.C. Ltd. vs. 347217 B.C. Ltd., SCBC Vancouver Registry, No. C902093, April 3, 1991.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

This news release was amended to correct inaccuracies regarding potential conflicts of interest, disclosures regarding remuneration and to add comment on the impact of the Rule changes. The corrections are italicized for clarity.

Vancouver, BC – June 15, 2018. On June 15, 2018, changes to Rules under the Real Estate Services Act that dictate how REALTORS® work with consumers will come into effect. The Rules, mandated by the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE) and finalized on April 27, 2018, have been amended to ensure that REALTORS® make adequate disclosures, so that consumers can make informed decisions.

“BCREA, together with the Real Estate Council of British Columbia (RECBC), has been hard at work to update the Applied Practice Courses for new licensees. BCREA has also been updating its continuing education courses and nearly two dozen standard legal forms that have been impacted by the changes,” said British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) CEO Darlene Hyde. “The new rules governing real estate practices mark a significant shift in how REALTORS® in BC work with their clients. It’s important that consumers know what to expect when the changes come into effect.”

REALTORS®, consumers and conflicts of interest
One of the changes is a ban on dual agency. Dual agency occurs when a REALTOR® represents more than one party in a real estate transaction. That can be a buyer and a seller, two or more buyers, or a landlord and a tenant. The ban was recommended by RECBC’s Independent Advisory Group in 2016. Exemptions will be possible in limited circumstances. Under the prohibition on dual agency a real estate agent cannot represent two clients with competing interests at the same time.

REALTORS®, consumers and compensation
From June 15, REALTORS® are required to make more disclosures on the commissions they receive on transactions. Once the amendment comes into effect, a REALTOR® must give the seller a copy of the disclosure form before presenting each offer or counter-offer from potential buyers. This form explains how the commission will be shared with other brokerages involved in the transaction (the buyer’s brokerage) and any other payments the REALTOR® expects to receive as a result of the transaction.

BCREA and the 11 member boards have been working with RECBC and OSRE to make these changes as seamless and as transparent as possible. We are actively working to educate REALTORS® on the implications of these changes so they can continue to serve consumers with integrity and professionalism when the Rule changes come into effect.

“These changes will profoundly alter for the foreseeable future the way consumers initially interact with their REALTOR® and the ban on limited dual agency will have a negative impact on consumer choice with respect to their selection of REALTOR® in some circumstances,” said Hyde. “BCREA has done its utmost to facilitate the transition to the new Rules and we stand behind a strong regulatory regime, informed and knowledgeable customers and professional REALTORS®.”

For more information on the Rule changes, visit Council’s Knowledge Base.

Click here for the PDF.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
April van Ert
Communications Manager
Email: [email protected]
604.742.2797

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

The amendment to the Residential Tenancies Act (R.T.A.), which allows a vendor, on behalf of a purchaser, to give a Notice of Termination to a tenant before title has been transferred to the purchaser, has cured a problem for the purchaser who requires residential premises for occupancy for himself at the earliest possible date. However, this cure does have one side effect which could be harmful for the vendor's bank balance. By Section 18(1) of the R.T.A., a tenant who has received that notice may, at any time during the period of the notice:

1. Give to the landlord at least ten days' written notice of a termination date earlier than that specified by the landlord; and
2. Pay the landlord on the date he gives the notice of termination under Paragraph (a), the proportionate amount of rent due up to the date the earlier termination is specified to be effective.

If the tenant takes advantage of this section, the vendor will be deprived of rental which he would have expected to receive, unless he had been advised that this was a possible result of his complying with the purchaser's request to give the tenant notice to terminate. If the Offer to Purchase imposes upon the vendor this duty, the following clause will help to protect the vendor against a loss of rental income:

"At the written request of the Purchaser (and following removal of the condition precedent referred to hereinbefore) the Vendor agrees forthwith to give notice to terminate to the tenant. If the tenant then terminates the tenancy upon ten days' notice to the vendor, the purchaser shall pay to the vendor on the completion date an amount equal to the difference between the rental received by the vendor for the period referred to in the Notice to Terminate given to the tenant, and the rental to which the vendor would have been entitled had no notice to terminate been given to the tenant."

And to protect the vendor further, we could also add:

"The Vendor shall not be liable to the purchaser for the refusal of the tenant to deliver up possession, whether or not that refusal arises from a Notice to Terminate which is found to be defective, and the vendor shall not be required to take any action to evict the tenant."

From the questions and comments which have been received, there is still some confusion as to when the vendor can give Notice to Terminate on behalf of a purchaser. Section 16(1) lists the following conditions which must be met:

1. There must be a bona fide agreement for sale and the condition precedent within it satisfied;
2. The purchaser must certify in writing to the landlord that he or his spouse or a child or a parent of his or hers will occupy the residential premises;
3. The purchaser must ask the landlord in writing to give the tenant notice to terminate.

The period of notice is to be no less than fifty-eight (58) days.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

The first case in Legally Speaking 362 discussed the liability of a buyer's agent who had submitted an offer containing a conditional inspection clause. He failed to notice the seller's counter-offer amended the inspection clause, which led to the buyer's loss of a $50,000 deposit. Although the agent was clearly negligent, he must have thought he had been misled by the seller’s agent because, according to the buyer's testimony, his reaction when he first became aware of the amendment was, "The bitch slipped it past me."

There is nothing in the reasons for judgment to indicate that the seller's agent, either innocently or otherwise, tried to mislead the buyer's agent. However, he may have misled himself since no changes had been made to the inspection clause in a similar offer/counter-offer between the seller and buyer two weeks earlier. The parties could not agree on price, and the buyer's agent might have thought that was the only outstanding issue that needed his direct attention.

Without excusing his failure, the problem would not have arisen if the seller's agent had advised him of all amendments made by the counter-offer. This raises the question of the obligation, if any, of a seller's agent in such a position to give this advice. If everyone agreed that the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," governs, then notice should be given. Since not everyone is likely to agree, what creates an obligation?

A brief survey of a few nominees in Victoria—an obviously representative group—suggests there is no standard practice or industry rule to impose an obligation to give notice of amendments. However, Article 29 of The Canadian Real Estate Association's Standards of Business Practices is broad enough to support giving notice as an accepted procedure. It states that the business of a REALTOR shall be conducted so as to avoid controversies with other REALTORS. Article 2, which requires REALTORS to deal fairly with all parties to a transaction, may also apply if the REALTOR's responsibility includes the parties and their agents.

The problem of the buyer's agent can apply to anyone. This is particularly so in the current busy market, as the potential for mistakes is increased by the number of offers and counter-offers amended on the original offer, which are faxed back and forth so frequently they become difficult to decipher. One board in another province had an addendum in which the amendments of either party were written chronologically, in a conversational way, such as:

1. I accept your offer if you increase the deposit to $10,000 and the price by $20,000 and change the possession date to XXX. (seller's signature)

2. I agree to increase the deposit to $10,000 and the price only by $10,000, to $210,000, but I cannot agree to change the possession date. (buyer's signature)

3. I accept your offer to purchase the property at $210,000, and withdraw my request to change the possession date. (seller's signature)

This might not be practical where there are other addendums in which amendments or additions are to be made. However, it has the clarity required by Article 6, namely that the parties' agreement is to be written in clear and understandable language that expresses the agreement between them.

The contract may be unenforceable if the written words are obscured because of repeated changes or the quality of the faxed contract and, if so, the licensee may be held to be negligent (see Legally Speaking 110 and 111).

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

2023 marks another year of regulatory changes in the real estate profession. Some of the most notable adjustments include:

1. Changes to the BC Strata Property Act effective November 2022 removing rental restrictions and age restrictions- with the exception of 55+ rules for strata properties (see the Legally Speaking issue on this topic from December 2022 #556);
2. The expansion of BC’s speculation and vacancy tax to several new areas in January 2023- Lions Bay, Squamish, North Cowichan, Duncan, Ladysmith, and Lake Cowichan;
3. The implementation of the Federal property anti-flipping rule where those who purchase a residential property and sell it within 12 months of that purchase may be deemed to have flipped and profit may be taxed as business income;
4. The Federal Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (“Foreign Buyers Ban”) which came into effect on January 1, 2023; and,
5. BC’s Home Buyer Rescission Period (“HBRP”) rules that came into effect on January 3, 2023.

This piece focuses on the HBRP with an overview, my two cents on where claims may arise, and my thoughts on how to avoid those claims.

Make a New Year’s Resolution:  Know the HBRP

Much has already been written by the BCFSA and the BCREA to assist licensees in navigating the HBRP launched and established under the Real Estate Services Act and the Real Estate Services Rules (and related Regulations and amendments to the Property Law Act).

For example, there are new and revised standard forms referencing the HBRP for use by REALTORS^®, guidelines, FAQs, blogs and a new course to assist:

• BCFSA Guideline, FAQs, Information sheet
• BC’s Home Buyer Rescission Period: Your Questions Answered
• To Rescind or Not to Rescind...
• The Home Buyer Rescission Period: What REALTORS^® Need to Know Course Now Live!

Similarly, there is an excellent introductory piece to the HBRP in Legally Speaking from November 2022 #555.

The Cole’s Notes Version of the HBRP

The HBRP came into effect on January 3, 2023, and it provides buyers with an opportunity to rescind a contract to purchase of residential real property for up to three clear business days after an offer is accepted.

If the buyer exercises their right of rescission during the rescission period, they must pay the seller 0.25% of the purchase price.

The rescission period applies to many forms of residential property. However, there are exemptions for property located on leased land, a leasehold interest, property sold at auction, property sold under court order or supervision of the court – as well as where other legislation applies such as for presale condominiums and strata titled properties under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

To inform clients and unrepresented parties alike, two disclosures are required. The first is made to all consumers in the Disclosure of Representation in Trading Services form, which touches on general information on the HBRP and where to go for more information. The second is made only to clients at the time of preparing or presenting an offer, this detailed information on the HBRP includes that the rescission period cannot be waived, provides information about the period during which a buyer can rescind, details the calculation of the rescission fee and when it must be paid, explains how deposits are dealt with, and highlights the exceptions to the right of rescission.

Where Do I See Claims Against Licensees Coming From…?

I do not have a crystal ball, but if I did, I think it would tell me that the following areas may generate claims:

1. not knowing the HBRP exists (impossible, right, given all the coverage?), its application, exemptions, that waiver is not allowed;
2. providing incorrect information or simply getting it wrong when it comes to describing the HBRP, when it applies or the exemptions;
3. not disclosing general information to consumers or explaining the detailed disclosure to clients in a transaction where the HBRP applies or failing to use the required forms;
4. making mistakes with respect to the mandatory mechanics of giving a rescission notice for a buyer or when receiving notice as a seller;
5. disputes between multiple buyers where only one wants to rescind and a conflict arises;
6. calculating the amount of the rescission fee incorrectly;
7. making mistakes in the calculation of the three clear business days for the rescission period; and
8. disputes on the rescission fee and its payment, on deposit releases generally and where there is no deposit in hand.

How to Avoid Claims

Get the Knowledge - To avoid these possible claims, it is of utmost importance to know all the details of the HBRP, its exemptions, and its application. Use the resources provided and take the courses available.

Use the Tools - Practically, it will be key to ensure that the disclosure forms are used, explained, and received by your clients as well as unrepresented parties while not crossing the line into implied agency by providing advice to unrepresented parties (See Legally Speaking #503 on Implied Agency).

Document the Discussion - Documented discussions must take place between the licensee and their client. Where there is any uncertainty, legal advice should be recommended in writing.

As part of those discussions, licensees acting for buyers must be clear that the rescission period does not necessarily assist with due diligence a buyer may want completed on the property. The rescission period and the time for removal of subject conditions run concurrently but the period itself does not mandate access to the property while certain conditions or terms added to the contract may provide for that. For example, the rescission period allows a buyer to rescind the deal during the rescission period for any reason, or for no reason, and does not require any explanation. However, after the period expires, if a buyer requires financing, wants a professional inspection, oil tank scan or water/septic testing, for example, the buyer must have conditions in the contract allowing them to do so.

Calculate Carefully - Care must be taken in both calculating the rescission fee and ensuring buyers are aware of the cost of rescinding the contract.

Further, careful attention must be taken in calculating the time that the rescission period runs and expires.  Consider what is defined as business days and holidays and that the day the offer is accepted contract does not count.  Be sure to use the BCREA day calculator provided for the HBRP (BCREA Access login required).  Written diaries and computer diaries should be kept for those important dates. 

Use Care & Follow-Up – Send the rescission notice by the method chosen by the seller which may be by email (with read receipt), fax, or by registered mail.  Consider that buyers, or their real estate professionals on behalf of the buyers, may prove service of notice by sending an email with a requested read receipt (can their/your email service send read receipt requests, can you evidence the read-receipt request was sent?).  Consider further, whether the seller received actual notice of that email or of a registered mail (which is deemed received when sent even if not received yet). Consider still further, the practicalities where a buyer makes a last-minute decision late on day 3 of the rescission period- can you serve the notice on time?  Lastly, what if you are representing a seller who has a back-up offer or wants to accept another offer and wants to know if the rescission period has expired with no notice delivered- can you be sure a rescission notice by registered mail is not on the way.  Better attempt to check with the buyer’s agent (in writing) and you may wish to tell the seller to get legal advice. 

The HBRP and its notice requirements mean you must confirm, confirm, and confirm…

Document the file –Great care must be taken in providing the rescission notice with the appropriate information, to the appropriate person and by the method set out in the contract.

Careful instructions must be taken and well documented for any rescission. This is particularly so when only one buyer is delivering the notice of rescission but not all.  You may act for multiple buyers and have conflicting instructions.  That conflict may need to be resolved with the buyers obtaining legal advice.

When no deposit has been paid, sellers may need legal advice to assist them in taking steps to claim the rescission fee through the courts.

Concluding Thoughts

As always, knowing the HBRP rules beforehand, having detailed and documented discussions with your client, and finally, recognizing your own limitations and recommending the appropriate expert advice is essential.

Hopefully, these New Years’ challenges drifting in the sea of change throughout 2023 do not cause you or your clients to drift into rough waters.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

Reporting entities, including REALTORS^®, have an obligation to report transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) when there are reasonable grounds to suspect (RGS) a connection to a money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion offence. And yet, outside the receipt of large amounts of cash or attempted payment in virtual currency, many REALTORS^® struggle to identify the types of activities or characteristics of a deal that could lead to RGS.

Given the importance of identifying and reporting suspicious transactions, this month’s article examines the themes of suspicious indicators that commonly appear in real estate deals

While the concept of RGS has been previously explored in more detail in our “AML Series: Suspicious Transaction Reporting Thresholds” article, it is worth restating that the presence of a single suspicious indicator does not necessarily require submitting a suspicious transaction report. However, the presence of each indicator should trigger the REALTOR^® to review the deal in light of that indicator, and any other indicators that are present, to determine if the RGS reporting threshold has been reached.

Unclear Sources of Funds

The importance of anonymity as a feature of a money laundering scheme cannot be overstated, and very often, in order to avoid detection, the parties that conduct the predicate offence are not the same as the parties that conduct transactions using the proceeds of that crime.

In a real estate context, this could take the form of a straw buyer arrangement, where a buyer purchases a property on paper, but there is a side arrangement with the true beneficial owner of the property, who is ultimately funding the purchase. One good indicator that a purchaser is not the true beneficiary of a real estate deal is if the buyer is purchasing a property beyond their apparent financial standing. This is especially true for clients who have non-income-generating occupations, such as students, unpaid interns, and unemployed persons.

When a purchase does not make sense within the context of a client’s occupation or nature of business, REALTORS^® must take measures to understand the source of the funding that will be used to purchase the property. 

Unusual Involvement of Third Parties

Keeping with the theme of anonymity, the involvement of third-party relationships is a common suspicious indicator relating to real estate transactions. Clients may be accompanied by another person who appears to be primarily directing the deal.  While there might not be anything particularly unusual in the case of a third party who is a parent, other types of relationships (e.g., lawyer and client) or business partners may not be so harmless.

Cases where the relationship between the parties is undetermined are particularly concerning, and REALTORS^® should always inform their brokerage’s compliance officer if they are not able to discern the relationship between their client and a third party.

Difficulties in Verifying Client Identity

Verifying the identity of their clients is one of the most important tools that REALTORS^® have in making the financial system inhospitable to would-be criminals.

When clients are reluctant to provide identifying information or if they provide contradictory information, this may indicate something unusual and possibly suspicious about the deal.

For example, imagine a scenario where a client provides a copy of their driver’s licence. When the REALTOR^® examines the licence, they notice that it has expired. When the REALTOR^® asks for another identification document, the client provides a copy of a passport. Upon examination, the REALTOR^® sees that the date of birth on the passport is different from the date of birth documented on the driver’s licence that was provided.

This inconsistency would go a long way towards reaching RGS. These indicators are more important than ever, as FINTRAC’s recently published 2025 Assessment of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risks in Canada paper listed mortgage fraud as representing a high-risk threat to the Canadian financial system. As mortgage fraud (especially title fraud) often involves the theft of a homeowner’s identity, it is essential that REALTORS^® clearly understand the reasons why any anomalies or discrepancies in identifying information obtained from their clients can be a red flag.

In Conclusion

Understanding the characteristics of a deal that could indicate potentially suspicious activity is key to ensuring the effectiveness of a compliance program, maintaining the integrity of the financial system, and avoiding FINTRAC enforcement actions.

While the presence of a single red flag does not automatically require a suspicious transaction report, each indicator should prompt REALTORS^® to carefully review the deal with consideration of client risk and other relevant context to assess whether the reporting threshold has been met.

Unclear sources of funds, unusual third-party involvement, and difficulties in verifying client identity are common warning signs that may point to money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion. By remaining vigilant and seeking clarification when anomalies arise, real estate professionals can play a critical role in detecting and preventing financial crime.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC).

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

As part of its mandate to facilitate the detection and prevention of money laundering, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) conducts periodic examinations of reporting entities, including real estate brokerages. These examinations aim to assess reporting entities’ compliance with federal anti-money laundering (AML) regulations.

Like many other regulatory systems, Canada’s federal AML regime has established an administrative monetary penalty system. This system allows FINTRAC to directly impose monetary penalties in response to regulatory deficiencies identified during an examination, rather than relying on the courts. The monetary amounts of these penalties can be significant, and as FINTRAC is required to notify the public when a penalty is levied, reporting entities may also suffer reputational damage.

This month’s article delves into the penalty regime and explores when and why FINTRAC levies these penalties, the magnitude of the penalties, and the measures available for contesting them.

When Does FINTRAC Issue an Administrative Monetary Penalty?

FINTRAC’s public policy on administrative monetary penalties (AMP) states that the purpose of an AMP is to encourage future compliance and promote a change in behaviour. In other words, the purpose of an AMP is not to punish a reporting entity’s historical non-compliance. In practice, we have seen certain patterns of non-compliance that are more likely to result in a FINTRAC examiner recommending the application of an AMP.

Significant Gaps in the Compliance Program

Remember that reporting entities need to maintain a compliance program that contains the following elements:

• the appointment of a compliance officer;
• a documented assessment of money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion risks;
• the maintenance of written policies and procedures;
• a program for providing training to staff and REALTORS^®; and
• a review of the program that must be conducted at least once every two years.

If FINTRAC determines during an examination that more than one of these program elements has not been substantially documented and / or implemented, it is more likely to take the position that a change in behaviour needs to be encouraged through the issuance of an AMP.

Unreported Suspicious Transactions

The collection of financial intelligence is one of the most important aspects of FINTRAC’s mandate. During examinations, a great deal of focus is placed on transactions that were not reported and for which FINTRAC has identified one or more indicators of suspicious activity. If, after the examination, an examiner concludes that a transaction should have been reported, an AMP is more likely to be recommended.

Repeat Deficiencies

Given that the purpose of the AMP regime is not intended to be punitive, identifying deficiencies during an examination does not automatically result in an AMP. However, FINTRAC expects that any cited violations will be corrected to prevent recurrence. If a reporting entity fails to address these findings, and the same or similar issues are identified during a subsequent examination, FINTRAC may determine that it needs to take enforcement measures to encourage the entity towards compliance in the future.

FINTRAC’s AMP Calculations

Once FINTRAC has determined that issuing an AMP for a reporting entity is warranted, it calculates the penalty amount based on the nature of the violation, FINTRAC’s assessment of harm, the reporting entity’s history of compliance, and the non-punitive nature of the AMP regime.

Nature of Violation

Violations of the regulations and legislation are classified as minor, serious, or very serious. Minor violations (e.g., failing to verify a client’s identity) carry a maximum penalty of $1,000 per violation. Serious violations (e.g., failing to document a risk assessment) carry a maximum penalty of $100,000. A very serious violation (e.g., not filing a suspicious transaction) carries a maximum penalty of $500,000 per violation for entities and $100,000 per violation for individuals.

Remember that REALTORS^® have an obligation to report suspicious transactions that is independent of their brokerage. So, while a brokerage that fails to report a suspicious transaction faces a maximum penalty of $500,000, the individual REALTOR^® who failed to report the transaction (or at least escalate the transaction to their compliance officer) could also face a maximum penalty of $100,000.

Assessment of Harm

In addition to considering the maximum penalty amount based on the type of violation, FINTRAC also considers the impact of non-compliance on the Canadian financial system and FINTRAC’s ability to carry out its mandate. Generally, FINTRAC’s assessment of harm is based on the degree to which a reporting entity has failed to meet its compliance requirements.

For example, a complete failure to document an assessment of money laundering and terrorist financing risk is considered more harmful than the documentation of a risk assessment that was missing certain key elements. FINTRAC has published a series of guides for how it assesses harm for different types of violations.

Compliance History and Non-Punitive Purpose

Given the non-punitive purpose of the AMP regime, once FINTRAC has assessed the harm done by a reporting entity’s non-compliance, it reviews previous examinations to determine if the entity has previously received an AMP for the same type of violation. If it is a reporting entity’s first AMP for the violation, it will reduce the amount by two-thirds, while second offences are reduced by one-third.

While the regulations and legislation require FINTRAC to consider the regime’s non-punitive nature and a reporting entity’s compliance history when determining the magnitude of an AMP, a recent court decision for an appeal of an AMP amount determined that FINTRAC cannot conflate these two factors.

In other words, simply reducing a penalty based on compliance history does not in itself make the penalty non-punitive. FINTRAC needs to demonstrate that the levied penalty amount is necessary to encourage the reporting entity towards future compliance.

Contesting an AMP

At the conclusion of an examination, a reporting entity may receive a letter from FINTRAC informing them that, based on the examiner’s recommendation, a monetary penalty is being considered. The entity has 30 days from the receipt of the letter to provide additional information and / or make arguments to influence FINTRAC’s decision.

If the initial representation to FINTRAC is unsuccessful, the reporting entity will receive a notice of violation (NOV), stating that a penalty has been levied. The entity then has 30 days to appeal the NOV to the Director of FINTRAC. This appeal may be made on the substance of the NOV (e.g., the facts on which it is based) and / or the amount. Should the Director reject that appeal, the reporting entity may appeal further in federal court.

Properly preparing representations to FINTRAC and, if necessary, appeals for federal court is time-consuming, and it is extremely important that reporting entities wishing to contest an AMP retain legal counsel as soon as possible from the date of receiving a findings letter.

In Conclusion

By imposing AMPs, FINTRAC underscores the importance of reporting entities to comply with their regulatory obligations, and these penalties are an important enforcement tool that helps FINTRAC carry out its mandate. However, levying a monetary penalty can have a significant financial and reputational impact on a reporting entity.

To protect their operational interests, it is essential for brokerages and REALTORS^® to understand the purpose and nature of this regime, as well as their avenues to appeal what they deem to be an unfair application of the penalty regime.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was recorded. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time. The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation. We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC). REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

Historically, one of the most significant weaknesses in Canada’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing is the siloing of financial intelligence. For example, if there are reasonable grounds to do so, a brokerage might identify a client as suspicious. However, even if the brokerage submits a Suspicious Transaction Report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), there is no mechanism for the brokerage to share the nature of that suspicion with other REALTORS^®, mortgage brokers, or lenders. If these other reporting entities had the benefit of that intelligence, they would likely view their transactions and interactions with their client through a different lens and would be better positioned to gather even more intelligence, which could be shared with FINTRAC. Sharing is caring after all!

As of this year, updates to federal anti-money laundering (AML) regulations have introduced an information-sharing framework. In this article, we’ll explore how this framework operates.

An Introduction to Federal Privacy Legislation

As the very purpose of an information sharing framework is to facilitate the sharing of personal information between reporting entities, it is essential that these frameworks comply with legislation governing the protection of personal information.

Canada’s federal privacy legislation governing the private sector is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA. PIPEDA holds businesses accountable for the personal information they hold in their records. Businesses must define the purpose(s) for which they collect personal information and limit that information to the elements required to achieve that purpose. For example, the information that a REALTOR^® might need for sales and marketing differs from the information required to comply with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. In instances where there is a breach of personal information held by a company and there is a risk that the breach could result in harm to a person, PIPEDA also requires businesses to disclose that breach both to the person, as well as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC), the government agency that is responsible for both administering and enforcing PIPEDA. 

What is a Code of Practice?

Under the amended AML regulations, in order to share personal information between themselves, reporting entities must operate within a Code of Practice. A Code of Practice is a documented framework that ensures information sharing is conducted in alignment with the principles outlined in PIPEDA. 

These codes must describe the following elements:

• The reporting entities that will be subject to the code: While the regulations permit a single reporting entity to develop a Code of Practice, practically speaking, a Code of Practice is more effective if it permits the sharing of information between reporting entities. Codes of Practice that cover franchise networks and regional, provincial, and national associations could be an effective way for REALTORS^® to share financial intelligence.
• The purpose for which personal information will be shared between the entities operating under the Code of Practice, as well as which types of personal information can be used and disclosed by those entities: In order to comply with PIPEDA, a Code of Practice must describe its use (e.g., to support the assessment of clients’ money laundering risk, as well as the sharing of financial intelligence with FINTRAC), and describe the personal information (e.g., name, date of birth, account numbers, etc.) that reporting entities operating within the Code of Practice may share with one another.
• The method by which the personal information will be shared: The Code of Practice needs to describe the situations in which information may be shared between the entities operating within the practice and how the information will be transmitted. For example, one reporting entity might request information from another entity about a potential client. Upon receiving approval, the requesting entity could be granted access to information about the client that is stored on a central database.
• The measures that will be taken to protect personal information: As Codes of Practice outline the framework for sharing personal information between reporting entities, they also need to describe the controls that will be in place to prevent unauthorized access to that information. Depending on how that information will be stored and transmitted, those controls could involve cyber and / or physical security measures.

Approving the Code of Practice

Once the Code of Practice has been developed, it must be submitted to the OPC for approval, and that approval must be provided within 120 days of the application. However, if, based on the information that is provided, the OPC is not able to determine whether the Code of Practice meets the requirements, it may suspend the application until additional information is provided.

Applicants must also notify FINTRAC upon making an application to the OPC and provide FINTRAC with a copy of the Code of Practice. While the OPC ultimately decides whether the code is approved, FINTRAC may provide feedback to the applicant and / or the OPC up to 60 days from the date the application is made.

Once a Code of Practice is approved, it must be recertified by the OPC at least once every five years. Additionally, organizations must inform FINTRAC and the OPC, and receive the OPC’s approval prior to making any changes to the Code of Practice.

In Conclusion

The new provisions for information sharing between reporting entities address one of the most significant gaps in Canada’s AML regime, and the implementation of Codes of Practice will aid in our national fight against financial crime. However, while these new powers enhance the security of the Canadian financial system, they must be balanced with individuals’ right to privacy. Due to the sensitivity of the information that reporting entities will share amongst themselves, Codes of Practice need to be designed to prevent the overcollection, misuse, or unauthorized access of that information.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time. 

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC). 

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

A lot is expected of REALTORS^® under the federal anti-money laundering (AML) regime: conducting significant client due diligence, maintaining records, and remaining on the constant lookout for indicators of suspicious activity; all while trying to do their job and establish a rapport with their clients.

When it comes to identifying and preventing financial crime in the real estate sector, all parties involved, including REALTORS^®, mortgage brokers and lenders, and lawyers, have a role to play. 

While each party has a different, yet complementary function with respect to a real estate deal, they work together to make the real estate sector an inhospitable environment for bad actors. This month’s article looks at how each participant’s role in the sector contributes to the protection of our financial system.

REALTORS^®

REALTORS^® spend more time with their clients than any other reporting entity. Between attending showings, supporting clients through disappointments, and celebrating a successful close, REALTORS^® get to know their clients on a level deeper than those in other sector roles.

Knowing your client is a crucial part of the fight against financial crime. The better that reporting entities understand their clients, the more difficult it is for would-be criminals to operate anonymously.

Greater knowledge within these relationships also helps to better understand and identify the type of behaviour and transactions that can be expected within those relationships, and therefore, those that are unusual and require greater scrutiny. For example, only a REALTOR^® would be aware if an unnamed third party accompanied their client on showings and provided input with respect to a deal. 

Mortgage Brokers

Unlike REALTORS^®, mortgage brokers might meet with their clients once, if at all. However, during the mortgage origination process, brokers obtain and review documents and information that provide a thorough understanding of a borrower’s financial profile. 

This allows them to obtain a greater view of their clients’ sources of wealth, as well as identify patterns of activity that appear inconsistent with a borrower’s financial pattern. For example, reviewing bank statements can reveal balances or deposits incompatible with a client's occupation.

Mortgage Lenders

Like mortgage brokers, lenders also conduct a detailed underwriting process, which helps them gain a detailed picture of a borrower’s financial situation.

However, while a mortgage broker ceases to gather new information about the business relationship once a mortgage application has been approved, lenders service the mortgage throughout the term of the loan, which allows them to identify unusual patterns of repayment. For example, if a mortgage lender receives a large prepayment, they can assess that payment to determine whether it makes sense in the context of the borrower’s financial picture, which was developed during the underwriting process.

Lawyers

While lawyers are not required to report to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) and are therefore outside the scope of the federal AML regulatory regime, FINTRAC has regular consultations with provincial law societies. Each of the societies has implemented ‘know your client’ requirements for its members that are similar to the obligations outlined in the federal regulations. 

Lawyers are unique in their role, as they are responsible for disbursing funds between the parties upon closing. This allows lawyers to detect financing structures that may be indicative of criminal activity. For example, lawyers are well-positioned to identify cash purchases (e.g., purchases without financing) or deals where a buyer has obtained financing from related private lenders.

In Conclusion

The fight against financial crime in the real estate sector is a shared responsibility, requiring vigilance and cooperation from REALTORS^®, mortgage brokers and lenders, and lawyers. Each participant brings unique strengths and perspectives to the table – from the deep client relationships fostered by REALTORS^®, to the financial scrutiny applied by brokers and lenders, to the transactional oversight provided by lawyers.

By working together and leveraging their complementary roles, these professionals create a robust defence against illicit activity, helping safeguard the integrity of the financial system. Ongoing collaboration, awareness, and adherence to regulatory standards are essential in making the real estate sector a hostile environment for financial criminals and ensuring trust in every transaction.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC).

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

As the real estate sector continues to evolve, so too do the responsibilities of REALTORS^® in safeguarding Canada’s financial system. Over the past year and a half, this Anti-Money Laundering (AML) series has explored the critical role that REALTORS^® play in the fight against financial crime by breaking down complex regulatory requirements into practical guidance. As we reach the final article, we’ll bring these insights together and review the key lessons learned.

Client Due Diligence

Conducting effective client due diligence is one of the most important steps that REALTORS^® can take in their role as gatekeepers to the financial system. Given that the ability to transact anonymously is the primary feature of any money laundering scheme, it is essential that REALTORS^® know who the parties involved in a real estate deal are and the relationships between them. 

Verifying the identity of clients, as well as any unrepresented parties, is the first thing that comes to mind when we think about client due diligence, but it is much more than that. REALTORS^® also need to determine if there are other people or entities giving instructions about a deal (e.g., third parties), as well as the relationship of those parties to their clients. Individuals engaged in illegal activity often work with straw buyers or other intermediaries to conduct transactions on their behalf, and REALTORS^® who fail to take measures to identify third-party relationships are vulnerable to exploitation by money launderers and other financial criminals.

A similar money laundering typology is the abuse of corporations or other types of legal entity structures by bad actors. In using these structures to facilitate money laundering, individuals committing unlawful acts often set up a corporation, trust, or partnership, or purchase an existing company and utilise that entity to purchase and sell real estate. This provides an opportunity for the criminal to hide the true beneficiary of a deal behind the entity. To remove this opportunity for individuals to obscure their identities, the regulations require REALTORS^® to attempt to understand who the individuals are who own and control the entities they deal with.

Along with verifying identity and identifying third-party relationships, recognizing individuals who are politically exposed is another important piece of the client due diligence framework. Corruption is a pervasive issue that affects every society, and it weakens citizens’ trust in institutions and the social fabric.

As custodians of our financial system, REALTORS^® must take steps to determine if their clients are politically vulnerable. This means they hold senior positions in the government, military, or an international organization, or they hold a judicial capacity. As such, clients who have the authority to set policy and determine the allocation of resources are a prime target for bribery. This is not to say that all politically exposed clients are suspicious, but REALTORS^® must keep these clients’ politically vulnerable status in mind and maintain a constant watch for indicators that the funding for a deposit is connected to the proceeds of bribery.

AML Series Resources: Due Diligence Requirements

• “The Importance of Knowing Your Client” video
• “How to Verify a Person’s Identity” article
• “How to Verify a Business’ Identity” article
• “Determining Beneficial Ownership” article

Sharing Intelligence with FINTRAC

In addition to preventing bad actors from transacting anonymously, in their role as gatekeepers, REALTORS^® are also required to report suspicious transactions to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC), even if that transaction is never completed.

A transaction or attempted transaction must be reported to FINTRAC when there are reasonable grounds to suspect (RGS) a connection to a money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion offence. RGS is a low threshold, and it does not require REALTORS^® to prove that money laundering, or any other financial crime, has occurred – only that it is reasonable to suspect that it may have.

In assessing whether there are RGS, REALTORS^® need to consider the facts of the transaction (e.g., amounts and methods of payment), relevant context (e.g., the client’s occupation and referral source, and / or whether they have a previous history with the client), as well as indicators of suspicious activity. The presence of a single indicator does not, in itself, constitute RGS; however, each indicator must be reviewed in consideration of the relevant facts and context. Each additional indicator that is present for a transaction increases the likelihood that there are RGS.

In addition, REALTORS^® are required to comply with Canadian sanctions legislation, which prohibits Canadian individuals and businesses from conducting or facilitating transactions with individuals and entities listed under a sanctions program. If a REALTOR^® determines that they are dealing with someone who is included on a sanctions list, in addition to submitting a Suspicious Transaction Report, they must also submit a Listed Person or Entity Property Report to FINTRAC, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

AML Series Resources: Sharing Financial Intelligence with FINTRAC

• “Sanctions and Sanctions Evasion” article
• “Terrorist Property Reporting article” (note: the Terrorist Property Report was renamed the Listed Person or Entity Property Report after this article was published)
• “Suspicious Transaction Reporting” article
• “Suspicious Transaction Reporting Thresholds” article
• “Why Money Launderers Love Real Estate” article
• “Common Red Flags in Real Estate Transactions” article

Documented Compliance Program

To ensure that REALTORS^® conduct proper client due diligence and assess transactions for RGS, each brokerage needs to have a compliance program that contains the following five elements:

1. Compliance officer: The brokerage needs to appoint a single person responsible for the oversight of the brokerage’s compliance program. This person needs to have sufficient knowledge, authority, and access to resources to fulfil this role.
2. Risk assessment: This assessment needs to be documented and needs to assess money laundering and terrorist financing risks associated with the brokerage’s operations, as well as how the brokerage identifies which clients represent a higher level of threat. For those areas of the business that are high-risk, the brokerage also needs to document the steps it takes to control that possibility. For example, a brokerage may conduct more thorough due diligence on a high-risk client than it would on a lower-risk client.
3. Policies and procedures: The brokerage must prepare a document that describes how it meets its client identification, reporting, and recordkeeping obligations, as well as how it maintains its compliance program and complies with directives issued by the Department of Finance.
4. Training: Agents and administrative staff are key pieces of a brokerage’s compliance program, and they must receive proper training that helps them understand their role in the compliance program, as well as the brokerage’s policies and procedures. Brokerages must document a plan that describes how and when this training is delivered, the contents of the training, and how the brokerage keeps records of training completion.
5. Two-year review:To ensure its effectiveness, the program must be tested at least once every two years. While testing can be conducted by an external party or a member of the brokerage, FINTRAC recommends that the review should not be led by the compliance officer or other brokerage members who are responsible for the oversight of the program. Regardless of whether an internal or external party leads the review, each aspect of the compliance program must be thoroughly tested, and the testing process and results must be meticulously documented.

AML Series Resources: Elements of a Compliance Program

• “Anti-Money Laundering With the AML Shop” webinar
• “The Life of a Compliance Officer” article

Conclusion

Over the course of this series on AML for the real estate sector, we have explored the practical steps and regulatory requirements that help REALTORS^® verify clients, identify risks, report suspicious activity, and maintain robust compliance programs.

We hope this series has provided you with valuable insights and guidance to support your compliance efforts. For more detailed information on any of the topics covered, we encourage you to revisit previous articles for further support. Thank you for joining us on this journey to strengthen AML practices in real estate.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC).

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

Reporting entities must submit suspicious transaction reports to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) when there are reasonable grounds to suspect a connection to a money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion offence. Sharing this financial intelligence with FINTRAC is one of the most important roles reporting entities have in Canada’s AML regime. While there are multiple ways to submit reports to FINTRAC, real estate brokerages and REALTORS^® typically submit these reports via an online portal called the FINTRAC Web Reporting System, or FWR. FWR uses a standardized reporting form that guides reporting entities through the specific information required when submitting a report. However, this form is common across all reporting sectors, which means that banks, jewellery stores, REALTORS^®, and every other reporting sector needs to figure out how the specific report fields apply to their business model and transaction flows. In this article, we will look at some of the key areas of the Suspicious Transaction Report form and how they could apply to a real estate transaction.

Transaction Information

The Transaction Information section requires reporting entities to provide basic information about the transaction, such as:

• the date and time of the transaction;
• where the transaction occurred;
• how the transaction occurred (e.g., in person, online);
• the purpose of the transaction (e.g., deposit for the purchase of a residential property);
• whether the transaction was completed. This is important, as reporting entities are required to report both completed and attempted suspicious transactions. For example, if a buyer attempted to provide a $20,000 cash deposit, the listing brokerage refused to accept the deposit, and the buyer walked away from the deal, the brokerage would still have an obligation to report the attempted transaction to FINTRAC; and
• the transaction reference number. For a real estate transaction, this is typically the deal number.

It’s worth noting that some reports might have multiple transactions, and reporting entities must include the details for each transaction. For example, if a buyer provides a substantial deposit to a brokerage’s trust account which is subsequently refunded to the buyer, the receipt and refund of the deposit are each treated as separate transactions. Similarly, if a person purchases a home and after a short time, sells that property to a related party at a price significantly above market value, both the purchase and sale of the property are considered separate transactions.

Starting Action

Each transaction has a Starting Action. The Starting Action refers to the activity that initiated the transaction, and that activity has either an incoming or outgoing direction determined based on the direction of the funds. For example, the receipt of a deposit cheque would be an incoming transaction, while the refund of that deposit would be an outgoing transaction.

In the Starting Action section of the Suspicious Transaction Report, reporting entities are required to provide additional information about the funds or other assets used to initiate the transaction, such as the type of funds (e.g., cheque, cash, domestic fund transfer), the amount and currency, and the details of any accounts involved in the Starting Action.

Conductor Information

Each Starting Action has a Conductor. This is the individual or entity who Conducts the transaction. For example, if a buyer’s brother drops off a deposit cheque at the brokerage, the buyer’s brother is the Conductor. If a deal fails to complete and the purchaser requests the return of their deposit, the purchaser is the Conductor. Reporting entities must document identifying information about the Conductor on the report form. It is also important to note that when a REALTOR^® submits a Suspicious Transaction Report for a person or entity, they are required to take reasonable measures to verify that person or entity’s identity. If they are successful, they must record the details associated with that verification (e.g., driver’s licence number, expiry date, jurisdiction of issue).

If a third party is involved in the transaction, reporting entities must include the information in their third-party record, such as the third party’s name, address, occupation, date of birth, and relationship to the Conductor. In the previous example of the buyer’s brother dropping off a deposit cheque at the brokerage, the brother would be listed as the Conductor, and the buyer would be recorded as the third party.

Completing Action

Just as each transaction has a Starting Action, each transaction also has at least one Completing Action. This is the activity or activities that are conducted to settle the transaction. For example, when a deposit cheque is received, the Completing Action is the deposit to the trust account. When a deposit refund is issued by cheque, the Completing Action is the cheque issuance. If a deposit is issued electronically, there may be multiple Completing Actions. For example, there might be a domestic transfer of funds, which is subsequently deposited to a bank account. Each of these Completing Actions must be recorded in the Completing Action section of the report.

Similarly to the Starting Actions, reporting entities must record information such as the amount, currency, and details of accounts involved in each Completing Action.

Beneficiaries

As brokerages and REALTORS^® are required to document information about the individuals and entities that Conduct the Starting Action, they are also required to record information about the individuals who Benefit from the Completing Action being Conducted. In many cases, this will be the same person or entity as the Conductor. However, this will not always be the case. In the example above of a purchaser’s brother dropping off a deposit cheque on behalf of their sibling, the purchaser’s brother is the Conductor, while the purchaser is the Beneficiary. A brokerage itself can never be listed as the Beneficiary of a transaction. For example, when a brokerage receives a deposit even though the funds are deposited to the brokerage’s trust account, they are ultimately held for the Benefit of the purchaser.

Nature of Suspicion

While many reporting sections require data to be entered in a highly structured format, the Nature of Suspicion section allows REALTORS^® and brokerages to use free-form text entry to describe their rationale for submitting the report. The unstructured format of this section makes it one of the most crucial sections of the Suspicious Transaction Reporting form as it allows REALTORS^® and brokerages to use the facts and context that have been provided elsewhere in the report to weave a detailed and coherent narrative of why this transaction (or series of transactions) reaches the threshold for reasonable grounds to suspect. 

REALTORS^® and brokerages must be as detailed as possible when describing the nature of their suspicion. Remember that the FINTRAC intelligence analyst who reviews the report will not have access to facts or context that have not been otherwise disclosed in the report; if there are additional details that contributed to the determination of reasonable grounds to suspect, be sure to include that information in the narrative. REALTORS^® should also list the FINTRAC indicators that contributed to their determination in this section. Lastly, remember that FINTRAC intelligence analysts are not real estate professionals, and it is important to avoid referencing acronyms and terminology specific to the profession or the brokerage.

Action Taken

In addition to filing a Suspicious Transaction Report, REALTORS^® and brokerages may elect to take additional measures to address and mitigate the risk of the suspicious activity. These Actions could include:

• adjusting the risk of the client and conducting enhanced monitoring,
• reporting the transaction directly to law enforcement, or
• cancelling the deal or transaction.

In this final field of the Suspicious Transaction Report, REALTORS^® and brokerages must describe any other mitigating actions that were taken. Similarly to describing the Nature of Suspicion, it is important to be as detailed and descriptive as possible.

In Conclusion

Accurately and comprehensively reporting suspicious transactions cannot be overstated. By providing detailed narratives and listing relevant indicators, REALTORS^® play a critical role in aiding FINTRAC's efforts to combat financial crimes and protecting themselves against FINTRAC monetary penalties.

The article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was recorded. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC). 

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

The sharing of financial crime intelligence with law enforcement is at the core of the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada’s (FINTRAC) mandate, and Suspicious Transactions Reports are the primary vehicle by which FINTRAC collects this intelligence. It is no surprise, then, that the largest monetary penalties are reserved for reporting entities that fail to submit a Suspicious Transaction Report. These penalties can reach a maximum of $500,000 per unreported transaction! However, many reporting entities fail in this area – not from a lack of care or malignant intent, but from a lack of understanding of when their obligation to submit a Suspicious Transaction Report is triggered. This month’s article will explore the threshold at which a Suspicious Transaction Report must be submitted.

What Are Reasonable Grounds to Suspect?

According to federal anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, reporting entities must submit a Suspicious Transaction Report when “there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the transaction or attempted transaction is related to the commission of a money laundering offence, terrorist activity financing offence or a sanctions evasion offence…”.

Many reporting entities misunderstand this threshold, believing that it requires them to have proof that criminal activity is taking place. Reasonable grounds to suspect is, in fact, a low threshold. It is more than a hunch but does not require knowledge or evidence of criminal activity, or even belief that such activity has occurred. It merely means that, based on the facts and context of the transaction (more on these ideas below), it is reasonable to suspect that the funds are connected to the proceeds of crime, or the parties involved in the transaction are connected to criminal activity. 

This graphic illustrates where reasonable grounds to suspect fit with respect to thresholds of suspicion:

Remember that as a REALTOR^®, you have an independent obligation to report suspicious transactions to FINTRAC, even if you merely have a simple suspicion. You should also inform your compliance officer in writing.

How Do You Know When Reasonable Grounds to Suspect Have Been Reached?

Reporting entities must assess each transaction based on the relevant facts, context, and indicators to determine whether the reasonable grounds to suspect threshold has been met. While there is a certain amount of subjectivity in assessing reasonable grounds to suspect, generally, upon reaching this reasonable threshold, the reporting entity should be able to articulate the nature of its suspicion in such a way that, based on the same information, a person of similar experience would reach the same conclusion. 

For example, imagine that a REALTOR^® represents a client who wishes to purchase a property listed at $1.5 million. After communicating with the client, the REALTOR^® learns that:

• the client is a student,
• she does not wish to view the property prior to making an offer, and
• she needs to close the deal within 30 days.

Facts

The relevant facts for this transaction include the price of the property, the client’s occupation, and her desire to close the deal quickly without first seeing the property.

Context

The context within which these facts need to be evaluated includes the financial standing that can reasonably be expected for a student and the typical period between signing an offer and the closing date.

Indicators

FINTRAC has published a list of indicators of money laundering and terrorist financing relevant to the real estate sector, as well as a bulletin including indicators of sanctions evasion. Based on these sources, the relevant facts and context can be used to identify the following indicators:

• the client appears to be living beyond their means;
• transactions in which the parties show a strong interest in completing the transaction quickly, without there being good cause; and
• the client purchases a property without viewing it.

The brokerage must now take steps to obtain additional information that will assist in evaluating whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect. In this case, the REALTOR^® might inquire about the source of funding for the purchase and why the buyer requires the deal to close so quickly.

Imagine that the client responds defensively and refuses to explain the source of the funds. Her explanation for the compressed timeline for the deal is complicated and contradicts information previously provided to the REALTOR^®. The brokerage has now identified the following additional indicators:

• the client has a defensive stance to questioning,
• the client presents confusing details about the transaction or knows few details about its purpose, and
• there is an insufficient explanation for the source of funds.

The additional information obtained during the brokerage’s review has failed to disconfirm its initial suspicion; in this case, it has even increased suspicion. Although the brokerage has not proven a connection to criminal activity, it can safely assert that it is reasonable to suspect that the transaction is connected to a money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion offence.

Imagine an alternate scenario in which the client responds to the REALTOR^®’s inquiries by explaining that her parents are successful professionals, and they are buying the property for the client so she can live close to university while she pursues her studies. She requires the deal to close quickly as she would like to ensure that she has time to move into her new home prior to the start of the new semester, which begins in five weeks. Given the tight timeline, she will not have an opportunity to view the property in person as she lives in another province.

In this alternate scenario, the brokerage might elect to conduct some due diligence on the client’s parents to better understand the source of the funds. However, in the absence of any additional indicators, the extra information obtained during the deal review would likely satisfy the brokerage’s initial concerns, thus moving it away from the reasonable grounds to suspect reporting threshold.

The Importance of Keeping Records of Transaction Reviews

During a regulatory examination, FINTRAC may request that a brokerage explain why certain deals or transactions for which they have identified indicators were not reported. Therefore, brokerages must always keep thorough notes detailing the rationale for their conclusions, regardless of whether a review concluded with a determination of reasonable grounds to suspect.

In Conclusion

Reporting entities need to submit a Suspicious Transaction Report when they have reasonable grounds to suspect a connection to a money laundering, terrorist financing, or sanctions evasion offence. Failing to do so can result in expensive monetary penalties.

Whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect are determined based on the facts and context of a transaction and relevant indicators of money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion. While there is a certain amount of subjectivity with respect to this reporting threshold, with practice and experience, reporting entities can learn to effectively and consistently identify reportable transactions and protect themselves both from monetary penalties and exploitation from financial criminals.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time. 

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation. We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC). REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

The appointment of a compliance officer is one of the key elements of an anti-money laundering (AML) program, as this person takes responsibility for the effective design, implementation, and ongoing performance of the program. Without a strong compliance officer to manage it, even the most well-designed compliance program is doomed to failure. Although a compliance officer may delegate certain responsibilities to other team members, they remain ultimately responsible for overseeing the brokerage’s compliance program.

The Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada’s (FINTRAC) compliance program requirements somewhat describe the expectations for a compliance officer; however, the guidance lacks the detail needed to understand what is required to fulfill the responsibilities of this office in practice. This article will fill that gap as we explore the key responsibilities of a brokerage’s AML Compliance Officer. 

Creation and Maintenance of Risk Assessments and Policies and Procedures

The compliance officer is responsible for all areas of the compliance program. This includes executing and logging the brokerage’s money laundering risk assessment and preparing and documenting the policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and its regulations. Together, these documents detail the design of the compliance program, and the compliance officer must draft the program in such a way as to maximize compliance effectiveness while minimizing the impact on clients and REALTORS^®.

Neither the risk assessment nor the policies and procedures are static documents. Risk is fluid, and the compliance officer must monitor for changes to their brokerage’s risk profile over time. For example, the opening of a new branch, the introduction of a new deposit payment method, or the implementation of a new sanctions screening system,  could all impact a brokerage’s risk. The documented risk assessment needs to be updated to reflect any such change.  

Just as risk is fluid, so is the regulatory environment, and the compliance officer needs to make sure that they are aware of any relevant regulatory changes and update the brokerage’s policies and procedures as needed. Subscribing to FINTRAC’s mailing list is a great way of keeping current with regulatory updates.

Training

Brokerages must deliver training to their staff and REALTORS^®, and the compliance officer must ensure that the training materials effectively communicate to trainees the information needed to fulfil their role in the brokerage’s compliance program.

Training is delivered when a new person joins the brokerage, as well as on an ongoing basis, and the compliance officer is responsible for ensuring that all staff and REALTORS^® complete their training in accordance with the brokerage’s policies and procedures. Integrating AML training into the onboarding process will help to support training completion for new staff and REALTORS^®. The compliance officer can maximize ongoing training completion by defining the training date at the beginning of the year, keeping detailed records of who has completed the training, and ensuring that there is a process for continually following up with those team members who have not completed training by the defined date.

Completion of Two-Year Effectiveness Reviews

Brokerages are required to ensure that the effectiveness of their program is evaluated once every two years. While the compliance officer is not necessarily responsible for conducting the review (in fact, FINTRAC has stated that as a best practice, the review should not be led by the compliance officer), they are responsible for ensuring that the review is conducted within the two-year timeframe and that it is led by a person with sufficient knowledge of the regulatory requirements, as well as FINTRAC’s expectations for conducting a two-year review. Review FINTRAC’s compliance program requirements for more information about conducting a two-year review.

Review of High-Risk and Unusual Files

Staff and REALTORS^® occasionally identify clients, deals, or transactions that represent a higher risk for money laundering or terrorist financing or exhibit behaviour or characteristics that could be indicative of financial crime. These files should be brought to the attention of the compliance officer for further review to determine if enhanced due diligence or an investigation of the file is warranted. Investigation could include instructing staff or REALTORS^® to obtain additional information or documentation from the client, conducting open-source research on the client, or reviewing existing information in the client file, such as their occupation. Ultimately, the compliance officer needs to obtain and review the information they need to determine if there are grounds to submit a suspicious transaction report.

Submitting FINTRAC Reports

If the compliance officer determines the threshold for submitting a suspicious transaction report has been reached, they are responsible for ensuring that the report is submitted promptly. While a compliance officer may choose to appoint an administrative staff member to complete the FINTRAC reporting form, the compliance officer should review the report to ensure its accuracy and completeness before the report is submitted.

Communicating with FINTRAC

FINTRAC occasionally contacts reporting entities to obtain information about their business and compliance program. This could be in the context of a compliance examination or an assessment of the reporting entity’s compliance risk. Communications with FINTRAC could be through in-person or online interviews, completing compliance questionnaires, or providing compliance program documentation or client or transaction records. As the person who is ultimately responsible for the compliance program, the compliance officer must ensure that FINTRAC is provided with the requested information. FINTRAC typically provides reporting entities with 30 days to fulfill an information request.

Quality Control

Many brokerages rely on their administrative staff to review the FINTRAC compliance forms and documentation prepared by REALTORS^®. This is an important function as it serves as a last line of defence in identifying gaps in the compliance records, as well as identifying potentially suspicious behaviour. A well-functioning quality control process can help compliance officers get a good night’s sleep. To ensure that the administrative team is effectively reviewing client files, the compliance officer should conduct periodic testing of files to ensure that the administrative team has not failed to flag any recordkeeping gaps or indicators in the file.

Primary Source of Compliance Guidance

Compliance can be confusing, and staff and REALTORS^® frequently have questions about how the regulations apply to a particular deal or situation. The compliance officer acts as the first port of call regarding FINTRAC enquiries, guiding staff and REALTORS^® to ensure that their actions align with the regulatory requirements and the brokerage’s compliance program. This requires the compliance officer to ensure that their regulatory knowledge remains up-to-date. Once again, subscribing to FINTRAC’s mailing list will be helpful, as the compliance officer will be notified when new guidance is published and about upcoming regulation changes.

In Conclusion

The role of a compliance officer is multifaceted and critical to the success of an AML program. From designing and implementing risk assessments and policies to ensuring ongoing training and conducting effectiveness reviews, the compliance officer must navigate an ever-changing regulatory environment. This key pillar of the compliance program protects the brokerage from potential risks and upholds the integrity of the financial system. As the regulatory landscape continues to evolve, the compliance officer's role will remain indispensable in safeguarding against financial crimes and fostering a culture of compliance.

The article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was recorded. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time. 

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC). 

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

The anti-money laundering (AML) regulatory landscape is constantly shifting, as legislators and regulators work to adapt our regime to address newly identified threats and technologies. It is essential that reporting entities remain abreast of the latest regulatory standards. Failure to do so can result in crippling monetary penalties, as discussed in our “FINTRAC Monetary Penalties” article. We can expect to see a higher-than-usual number of regulatory changes over the next one to two years as Canada prepares for its mutual evaluation by the Financial Action Task Force, scheduled for later this year, and works to address any findings from the evaluation. In some cases, several changes to the regime have already been proposed and approved. This month’s article explores the accepted and proposed amendments that will have a direct impact on the real estate sector.

Beneficial Ownership Registry

In order to prevent bad actors from using corporate structures to obscure their identities, REALTORS^® already have an obligation to try to understand and confirm who the individuals are that own and control their legal entity clients.

As of Wednesday, October 1, 2025, they will have an additional requirement when it comes to beneficial ownership: If a REALTOR^® has a client that is a federally registered corporation, and they determine that the client is high-risk, they must compare the beneficial ownership information obtained from the client against the information contained in the Corporations Canada database. If any material discrepancies are identified, including ownership information that is missing from the database, the client must resolve them either by providing the REALTOR^® or Corporations Canada with updated information. If the discrepancies are not resolved within 30 days, REALTORS^® must report the discrepancy to the Director of Corporations Canada. Identifying a material discrepancy in beneficial ownership information should also trigger a review to determine if there are grounds to submit a suspicious transaction report, especially if the discrepancy is not resolved within the 30-day period.

Unrepresented Parties

October 1, 2025, will also bring new obligations concerning unrepresented parties. Currently, REALTORS^® are required to take reasonable measures to verify the identity of parties that are not represented by a REALTOR^® during the course of a real estate transaction, such as a Sale By Owner.  In other words, REALTORS^® meet their obligations by simply attempting to verify the unrepresented party’s identity, regardless of whether the attempt is successful. However, as of October 1, the requirement to verify the identity of unrepresented parties will be mandatory, and REALTORS^® who fail to verify the identity of a represented party successfully will be out of compliance.   

Additionally, REALTORS^® will be required to maintain information records of all unrepresented parties. An information record is a record that includes the following details:

• name,
• address,
• date of birth (in the case of an individual), and
• occupation or nature of business.

While REALTORS^® have long been required to maintain these records about their clients, the amendments coming into force in October will require information records to be kept for unrepresented parties as well. Like the identity verification requirement, this new record-keeping obligation is mandatory, and the inability to obtain the required information will not be sufficient to meet the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)’s expectations.

Bill C-2

In June 2025, Bill C-2 was first read in Parliament. Should this bill pass into legislation, it will have a wide-ranging impact on Canada’s AML regime. Some of the more impactful changes include:

• Increased penalty amounts: FINTRAC penalties for minor, serious, and very serious violations are currently set at $1,000, $100,000, and $500,000, respectively. Bill C-2 proposes a drastic increase in these amounts, whereby minor violations would carry a maximum penalty of $40,000, serious violations could carry a penalty up to $4,000,000, and very serious violations could carry a penalty of $20,000,000. If the violator is an individual, the maximum cumulative penalty would be capped at the greater of $4,000,000 and 3% of the person’s gross global income, and in the case of an entity, the greater of $20,000,000 and 3% of the entity’s gross global income.
• Compliance agreements and orders: Bill C-2 will require reporting entities to enter into a compliance agreement with FINTRAC at the conclusion of an examination. These agreements will require the reporting entity to define the measures and timelines to address any findings identified during the examination. The measures and timelines will be subject to FINTRAC’s approval. If a reporting entity refuses to enter into or fails to meet the terms of a compliance agreement, FINTRAC may issue a compliance order. These orders will impose a deadline and require the reporting entity to publicly declare the measures that will be taken to address the identified violations. Failure to comply with a compliance order will result in increased penalty amounts.
• Registration with FINTRAC: While money services businesses are already required to register with FINTRAC, Bill C-2 would require all reporting entities to enrol in the FINTRAC registry. In applying for registration, REALTORS^® and other reporting entities would need to provide identifying information about their business and its owners. This registration would also need to be periodically renewed. FINTRAC will have the power to refuse to enrol a reporting entity or renew its registration if the reporting entity has yet to settle a FINTRAC penalty amount.
• Limits on cash transactions: Currently, if a REALTOR^® receives $10,000 or more in cash, they are required to report the transaction and keep certain records. Bill C-2 would prohibit these types of transactions entirely.

In Conclusion

The Canadian AML regulatory regime is evolving, and the shifting of the landscape can be expected to continue for the foreseeable future. Many regulatory changes have a direct impact on requirements for the real estate sector, and REALTORS^® must ensure that they keep up-to-date with the latest standards. Given the higher price for non-compliance due to the potential increase in monetary penalties, the role of the compliance officer is more important than ever. Brokerage compliance officers must protect their brokerage by ensuring that their compliance manuals remain up-to-date, and that staff and agents receive ongoing training in their role in the compliance program.   

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC).

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By The AML Shop, Guest Contributor

While money laundering is a growing challenge across many professions, BCREA recognizes the unique risks it poses to real estate and takes those impacts seriously. Real estate continues to be an attractive target for money launderers; however, through education, compliance tools, and resources such as those developed by BCREA and others within organized real estate, meaningful progress is being made. This article is intended to help deepen awareness of how money laundering operates in the sector, while underscoring the critical role REALTORS^® play in safeguarding the integrity of our profession.

Did you know that buying and selling real estate is one of the principal methods that drug traffickers, human traffickers, and corrupt politicians use to give their ill-gotten gains a sheen of respectability? An Expert Panel on Money Laundering, commissioned by British Columbia’s Minister of Finance in 2019, estimated that 5.3 billion dollars of real estate transactions in that province in that year alone were the result of money laundering. While the amount of criminal proceeds laundered through Canadian real estate is difficult to quantify, experts agree that somewhere between 43 and 113 billion dollars of criminal proceeds pass through the Canadian real estate market annually.

Money launderers are not constrained by the same cost considerations as most other real estate parties. While money laundering certainly doesn’t account for the entirety of the current housing affordability crisis, the 2019 British Columbia Expert Panel on Money Laundering estimated that the introduction of the proceeds of crime contributed to a five per cent increase in pricing.

This begs the question: Why do money launderers love real estate? This month’s article examines this question to gain an understanding of the features of the sector that make it such an attractive vehicle for laundering the proceeds of crime.  

High Value Assets

Real estate is generally the most expensive item a person will purchase over their lifetime. This makes it an especially attractive asset to organized crime groups that need to launder hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars each month. A great deal more effort goes into schemes requiring dozens of lower-value transactions as compared to a real estate deal that allows millions of dollars of criminal proceeds to be laundered in a single transaction. Further, each interaction that a money launderer has with the financial system represents an opportunity to be detected, so a real estate deal, which typically consists of a single transaction, presents a lower risk. 

Market Driven Pricing

One of the methodologies that criminals use to launder money through the real estate sector is mispricing by overvaluing or undervaluing (usually overvaluing) a property. In this strategy, value is transferred between co-conspirators outside of the traditional channels, such as wires, bank drafts, etc.

For example, imagine that Ms. Y is the head of a crime syndicate. One of her lieutenants, Mr. X, has accrued a million dollars from the drug trade that he needs to transfer to his boss. The criminal syndicate maintains a stable of properties that it uses to launder its criminal proceeds, and Ms. Y has recently purchased such a property for two million dollars. She now sells the property to Mr. X for three million dollars, thereby completing the transfer of value from Mr. X to Ms. Y.

If real estate properties had a defined value, this typology would be easy to detect. However, the market determines the worth of a property. In other words, a property is worth what a buyer is willing to pay. This makes it more difficult to discern if a property is being intentionally mispriced.

Sales Driven Environment

Unlike professionals in many other reporting sectors, real estate professionals rely on sales commissions as their primary source of income. The real estate profession is also one that is particularly relationship-driven, as REALTORS^® need to build a sense of trust with their client. Bad actors are aware of this dynamic and take advantage of the fact that their REALTOR^® is disincentivized to ask questions that are likely to make their clients uncomfortable, such as the source of the funds for a purchase.

This incentive environment is therefore attractive to a money launderer, as it is more likely that the true nature and motivations of the transaction will not be identified. Criminals also know that a brokerage does not have the same resources to dedicate toward the prevention of money laundering as a financial institution does, which additionally reduces the risk of their detection.

Long-Term Growth of Real Estate Assets

The process of money laundering can be a costly one, and an organized crime group can expect to pay up to 30 per cent of its take to clean its funds. However, rather than representing a cost, laundering money through real estate represents an opportunity for criminal groups to turn a profit, as real estate tends to appreciate over time.

Furthermore, even after the initial purchase, real estate offers criminals continuing opportunities to launder additional funds. For example, a criminal enterprise can use properties to provide housing to its members, while portions of the proceeds of its criminal activities are deposited into its bank each month as “rental income.”

In Conclusion

Real estate presents a highly attractive vehicle for money laundering due to its high value, market-driven pricing, sales-driven environment, and long-term growth potential. The ability to launder large sums of money through single transactions, coupled with the inherent complexities and opportunities within the real estate market, makes it a preferred choice for criminals.

As such, it is crucial for REALTORS^® to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying and mitigating money laundering activities within this sector. By understanding the methods and motivations behind these illicit activities, REALTORS^® are better placed to detect incidences of money laundering and to protect the integrity of the profession and the Canadian financial system as a whole.

This article is provided by The AML Shop for BCREA, member boards and associations, compliance officers, managing brokers, and BC REALTORS^® for informational purposes only, and is based on The AML Shop's understanding of the regulatory and legislative standards in place at the time it was written. Those standards and FINTRAC's enforcement of them vary and change over time.

The AML Shop is not a law firm, and this article does not constitute legal advice. This summary may also not be applicable to your specific situation.

We encourage readers to verify the information’s accuracy and relevance before relying on it for professional or legal decisions.

This resource is made available with the generous support of the Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC).

REFBC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. REFBC funds projects, connects people, and shares knowledge. Learn more: refbc.ca.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

Legally Speaking 359 considered a licensee's successful claim for commission when his principals argued that he breached the standard of care and fiduciary duty owed to them by failing to act upon and disclose information that might have benefited them. The judge decided that the licensee owed no duty to call other agents who had expressed an interest in the property to advise them of a substantial price reduction.

In reaching this decision, the judge relied upon the evidence of an expert in real estate practice and conduct who testified that there is no industry standard or accepted practice to contact other agents following a price reduction. This decision depends upon the particular facts of the case and should be used cautiously as a guide to a licensee's conduct following a price reduction.

The expert witness also said that each situation is governed by market conditions relating to the property and the specific needs and interests of the sellers. This is consistent with the general rule of law with respect to disclosure: namely, that an agent must disclose "everything concerning the contract that a reasonable man with the information known to the agent would consider likely to influence the conduct of the principal." The judge agreed there may be circumstances relating to a price reduction which would create a duty, but they were not present in this case.1

***

In another commission case, the sellers acknowledged that the agent was the effective cause of sale, but argued he was disentitled to a commission because the relationship he created had "not merely been dislocated or postponed, but broken."

The sellers signed a standard Multiple Listing Contract and a Property Disclosure Statement Residential (PDS Residential) prepared by the buyers' agent on October 5, 2000. The PDS Residential contained a comment about a septic field problem and a contractor's solution for it. The sellers accepted a conditional offer, dated November 23, 2000, for the full price of $249,900. The important conditions were the resolution of the septic field problem by December 4, 2000 and to the sale of the buyers' home by January 1, 2001.

The sale collapsed when the sellers refused the buyers' request to hold back $10,000, pending repair to the septic field. The listing salesperson continued to show the residence, but no offers were received before the listing expired on February 20, 2001. The sellers later remedied the septic field problem.

The buyers looked at other properties but made no offers. They were still interested in the residence; however, they did not contact the sellers again until June 1, 2001, following an agreement for the sale of their home. They made an offer to purchase the residence at the same price, on the same forms, with essentially identical terms as those prepared by their agent for the original offer. This offer was accepted by the sellers and the parties gave no thought to the possibility of a commission claim.

The critical factors favouring the agent in this case were:

• the buyers' knowledge of the property, which enabled them to make an offer directly to the sellers;
• the similarity of terms of the two offers, which were due to the efforts of the agents;
• the buyers' continued interest in the residence; and
• the lack of any serious attempt by the sellers to sell it.

The judge decided that the chain of relationship had been dislocated, as that term is commonly known as being put out of order, disturbed or upset. However, the arrangements between the buyers and sellers were not completely broken, so commission was ordered to be paid to the claimants.2

For other effective cause cases, see columns 233, 271, 275 and 314. Since not all commission cases are reported, I would welcome hearing about your experiences. Please e-mail your comments to [email protected].

	1.	Central Realty v. Holmes and others, S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry, Reasons for Judgement, March 24, 2003.
	2.	Re/Max v. Friesen et al., B.C.P.C., Prince George Registry, Reasons for Judgment, June 19, 2002.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

After last year’s successful Managing Brokers Stream at PacificWest, we're proud to introduce the 2025 PacificWest Managing Brokers Summit sponsored by BCREA.

Held on Monday, October 20, 2025, this dedicated day of leadership-specific learning takes place before the full conference, giving managing brokers space to focus on the unique challenges they face without missing a beat of the PacificWest 2025 Conference.

The Managing Brokers Summit is an exclusive full-day event featuring updates and guidance from key regulatory and sector organizations, including the BC Financial Services Authority and Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation. 

BCREA’s senior leadership team will also share key insights on Advocacy priorities, market intelligence, and the supports and resources available to help managing brokers succeed.

The event also highlights our popular Managing Broker Support LIVE, a special Community of Practice in-person session where attendees can ask their most challenging practice-related questions directly to BCREA’s Managing Broker Support Line team. 

With curated content designed with managing brokers in mind, plenty of opportunities to network with fellow brokers from across BC, and lunch included, the 2025 PacificWest Managing Brokers Summit sponsored by BCREA promises to be a pre-conference hit.

Vancouver, BC – January 19, 2026. The Association of Interior REALTORS^® (AOIR), in partnership with the British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA), is renewing calls for the federal government to exempt several major ski resort communities in the province from 2022’s Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act (also known as the Foreign Buyer Ban).

Under current federal regulations, the Foreign Buyer Ban applies to areas designated by Statistics Canada as Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) or Census Agglomerations (CAs). In BC’s Interior, this classification captures nine communities and their surrounding regions. While the legislation aims to curb foreign speculation in major population centres, using CMA and CA boundaries as the determining factor has inadvertently swept up a number of geographically distinct areas.

Specifically, the Foreign Buyer Ban has caused unintentional economic difficulties for some ski communities. In already challenging market conditions, preventing foreign investment in tourism-focused areas is a needless hindrance. Yet despite federal awareness of this issue, the government has been slow to act.

“Another year has gone by and we’ve yet to see any action on this,” said AOIR Director of Government Relations and Communications Seth Scott. “The Interior has some of the province’s most important tourism regions and most popular ski hills. Homes on these mountains serve a different purpose than those in the centre of communities. With another ski season underway, now is the time for government to step up with an exemption and keep these areas economically viable in an already challenged economy.”

Currently, the Foreign Buyer Ban doesn’t encompass other large BC ski resort areas and municipalities, including Whistler and Big White, or other ski communities outside the province, such as Mont Tremblant.

“This is a matter of fairness and consistency,” said BCREA Senior VP of Government Relations, Marketing & Communications Trevor Hargreaves. “Including some ski resort areas and excluding others simply by chance really isn’t good policy making. Providing an exemption for all ski communities in BC is a simple fix and the right thing to do. This is an urgent issue, and it’s one that Canada’s Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, Gregor Robertson, should get to work on fixing immediately.”

AOIR and BCREA are urging Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada as well as the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to issue a regulatory exemption for Sun Peaks, Apex Mountain, Silverstar, and similar Interior ski resort areas as soon as possible.

-30-

For more information:

Seth Scott
Director of Government Relations and Communications
Association of Interior REALTORS^®
[email protected]

Trevor Hargreaves
Senior VP, Government Relations, Marketing & Communications
BC Real Estate Association
[email protected]

REALTORS® are committed to doing their part to ensure that money laundering has no role in the real estate sector.

BCREA has worked with other real estate sector organizations to create a joint statement on money laundering, with shared recommendations to government. Recommendations included that government and regulatory agencies better utilize on-the-ground experience of real estate professionals to develop compliance resources and test policy ideas. The Attorney General and Ministry of Finance responded by applauding BCREA's anti-money laundering work, issuing a joint statement congratulating our "practical and valuable actions".

On May 9, the BC Government published two long-anticipated reports on anti-money laundering and real estate, one by Peter German, a former commissioner of the RCMP, and one by the Expert Panel on Money Laundering in BC Real Estate. The panel consisted of chair Maureen Maloney, Tsur Somerville and Brigitte Unger, who are all leading experts in their respective fields of policy, real estate economics and money laundering. BCREA actively participated in both reviews, providing recommendations and best practices for REALTORS®. The reviews reflected some of BCREA's recommendations, including bringing more transparency and accountability to all professionals involved in real estate transactions and improving regulatory structures.

Days after the reviews were published, the BC Government announced the initiation of a public inquiry, which will help to explain how we got to where we are today. BCREA is continuing to request that some recommendations be implemented before the public inquiry concludes. This includes a request that provincial and federal governments, along with relevant government agencies, coordinate their actions and share information to create a more effective enforcement regime. We are also asking for mandatory anti-money laundering education for REALTORS® to help improve their abilities to identify and report suspicious transactions.

We will continue to work in collaboration with government to help create an environment support regulators and law enforcement in decisive and immediate action to stop anyone abusing our economy.

Be sure to check out:

• BCREA's joint statement on money laundering
• Government's response to BCREA's joint statement
• Government news release on expert panels

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Background

Resources

Advocacy

Last updated: February 10, 2021

Ensuring REALTORS^® have the resources to meet anti-money laundering requirements is an important step towards keeping money from criminal activity out of BC’s housing market. BCREA has created this dedicated page to help Realtors access BCREA’s anti-money laundering resources. Throughout the fall, we’ll add to these resources with new blog, podcast and video content on anti-money laundering topics.

Background

Money laundering is an issue of significant concern for all British Columbians. At BCREA, we take the issue very seriously. We continue to be active participants in the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia, where we have been providing information, documentation, and expertise. We are scheduled to give public testimony in early spring 2021. BCREA is committed to ongoing sectoral efforts that foster increased awareness, understanding and best-practice compliance around money laundering as a strategic priority. By strengthening our practices, we can assist government in assessing and minimizing this issue while also better protecting our communities.

We recently introduced a new educational initiative called Mastering Compliance: Anti-Money Laundering Training for Brokers, a blended learning program focused on best-practices and anti-money laundering compliance. The program launched on Monday, October 5. Click here to learn more.

Below, Realtors can access BCREA's resources, communications and advocacy materials related to this issue.

Resources

News Releases

• BCREA Calls for Increased Federal/Provincial Cooperation to Tackle Money Laundering in BC (February 26, 2020)
• BC’s REALTORS® Welcome Government Recommendations (May 13, 2019)
• BC Real Estate Sector Submits Anti-Money Laundering Recommendations to Government (April 15, 2019)
• BCREA Supports BC Government’s Money Laundering Investigations (November 27, 2018)
• BCREA Supports Government's Reviews of BC Real Estate (September 28, 2018)

Blog Posts

• BCREA Set to Represent REALTORS® at Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering (February 10, 2021)
• How REALTORS® Help Prevent Money Laundering in Real Estate: Identifying and Reporting Suspicious Transactions (January 13, 2021)
• How REALTORS® Help Prevent Money Laundering in Real Estate: Reducing the Risks (December 17, 2020)
• How REALTORS® Help Prevent Money Laundering in Real Estate: Setting the Landscape (November 25, 2020)
• New Form Helps Brokerages Meet Anti-Money Laundering Requirements (October 20, 2020)
• Transparency Registers Effective October 1 (September 8, 2020)
• Signs You Should File a Suspicious Transaction Report (September 3, 2020)
• Register Now for Mastering Compliance: Anti-Money Laundering Training for Brokers (August 26, 2020)
• BCREA Combats Money Laundering Through Participation in Cullen Commission (May 28, 2020)
• New Anti-Money Laundering Initiatives in Development (December 5, 2019)
• BCREA Brings REALTOR® Perspective to Inquiry into Money Laundering (November 18, 2019)
• Real Estate Professions Taking the Lead to Curb Money Laundering (May 17, 2019)
• Anti-Money Laundering: Opportunities for Action (May 17, 2019)
• Anti-Money Laundering in Real Estate Sector (May 1, 2019)
• FINTRAC Compliance? There's an App for That! (March 7, 2019)
• Focus on Anti-Money Laundering (March 1, 2019)
• Understanding Money Laundering Vulnerabilities (February 13, 2019)
• The Role of REALTORS® in Helping the Government Stop Money Laundering (January 4, 2019)
• Real Estate Transparency to Build Public Confidence (November 1, 2018)

Media Coverage

• British Columbia Real Estate Association calls for co-ordinated effort to tackle money laundering (Real Estate Magazine, March 11, 2020)
• What BCREA wants the government to do about money laundering (Canadian Real Estate Magazine, February 28, 2020)
• Canada must expose hidden company owners to end 'snow washing,' inquiry hears (CBC, February 27, 2020)
• Acceptance of cash deposits rare in real estate, money laundering inquiry hears (BNN Bloomberg, February 26, 2020)
• B.C. money laundering inquiry to begin amid hopes for answers, accountability (CBC, February 23, 2020)
• Mandatory anti-money laundering course rolls out for B.C. realtors (CBC, January 1, 2020)
• Darlene Hyde: Realtors are part of the solution to fighting money laundering (Vancouver Sun, May 24, 2019)
• ‘Swiss cheese’ regulatory system allows dirty money into real estate: BCREA CEO (Vancouver Courier, May 15, 2019)
• Joint statement on anti-money laundering commitments by real estate industry (BC Gov News, April 15, 2019)
• Real estate groups issue recommendations on money laundering (The Globe and Mail, April 15, 2019)
• Real estate sector proposes changes to fight money laundering (Vancouver Sun, April 15, 2019)
• B.C.'s real estate professionals on what they need to stop money laundering in housing (CBC, April 15, 2019)

Advocacy

Submissions
In 2019, BCREA actively participated in Peter German’s review of money laundering in gambling, luxury cars and real estate and Maureen Maloney’s Expert Panel on Money Laundering. View our submissions below:

• BCREA submission to Expert Panel on Money Laundering (March 4, 2019)
• BCREA submission to Peter German (March 4, 2019)

BCREA also monitors the BC Government’s various anti-money laundering initiatives and provides feedback on behalf of Realtors, as necessary. See the following recent documents for more information:

• Letter to Minister of Finance Carole James regarding the Land Owner Transparency Registry (August 13, 2020)
• Response to consultation on proposed corporate beneficial ownership registry (April 29, 2020)

Recommendations
In 2019, BCREA brought together four other real estate sector partners to combat the issue of money laundering. This collaboration resulted in a commitment from all organizations involved to pursue shared best practices and recommendations for government, which you can find here.

To follow BCREA’s advocacy work on anti-money laundering and other issues, contact [email protected] to subscribe to the Advocacy Update, published every two weeks.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

A public inquiry into money laundering has now been ordered. This has been a media favourite for a long time, and certainly since the reports of Peter German and the Expert Panel on Money Laundering in BC Real Estate were published on May 9. Here's a quick summary of BCREA's actions, analysis and how we're supporting REALTORS®.

In recent months, BCREA participated in both of the provincial government reviews, commissioned a vulnerability assessment of residential and commercial transactions and worked with four other real estate sector organizations on joint AML best practices and recommendations.

Both Peter German and the Expert Panel criticize REALTORS® for not filing many suspicious transaction reports and for poor compliance statistics with FINTRAC. To be clear, they also criticize FINTRAC for not providing the best feedback, data and resources. And both reports call out many other professions and the provincial and federal governments. The Expert Panel also explains that real estate is complex and it can be difficult to identify criminal activity in a context where most people are legitimate. While some media reports have focused on REALTORS® and “real estate firms,” the reports don't.

The Expert Panel makes 29 recommendations (Peter German only reports his findings and observations), and BCREA's perspective is reflected in 16 of them. We agree with the Expert Panel that lawyers and other professionals involved in potentially vulnerable aspects of real estate transactions should become part of the anti-money laundering monitoring and compliance system. We also strongly support coordination among governments and government agencies, the need for regulators to educate professionals about their reporting obligations and improved public reporting by FINTRAC.

Here are a few more Expert Panel recommendations that haven't been reported (the following language has been simplified):

6. The BC government should implement the recommendations of the Perrin report to improve BC's real estate regulatory framework. The Perrin report recommends a single regulator under the Financial Institutions Commission (instead of the dual system we have now), and the government is already moving in that direction

7. Individual real estate licensees—rather than managing brokers—should be responsible for their own compliance with the Real Estate Services Act and the [federal] Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. This is a new direction.

8. Developers should be licensed under the Real Estate Services Act and the exemption from the Act for developers' employees should be eliminated. BCREA's always been on record that people who work for developers should be licensed; the biggest question we have about licensing developers is how that would impact our own regulatory system.

We're optimistic that, if implemented, the Expert Panel's recommendations will help create an efficient, comprehensive system to keep the proceeds of crime out of real estate. But that could take a long time, since many of the recommendations are complicated and require legislative changes at the federal and provincial levels.

In the meantime, BCREA is representing the REALTOR® voice as the government considers these recommendations. We're also working with member boards on resources to help REALTORS® meet their FINTRAC compliance requirements. More information will be available soon, and we welcome feedback and suggestions at any time.

Find the Expert Panel and Peter German reports below, as well as BCREA’s submission to the Expert Panel and our response following the release of the two reports:

Expert Panel report – Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate

Peter German report – Dirty Money – Part 2: Turning the Tide – An Independent Review of Money Laundering in BC Real Estate, Luxury Vehicle Sales & Horse Racing

BCREA submission to the Expert Panel (March 4, 2019)

BCREA news release (May 13, 2019)

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

As of May 1, 2020, British Columbians can apply here for the BC Emergency Benefit for Workers (BCEBW). The BCEBW is a one-time, tax-free $1,000 payment for British Columbians whose ability to work has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. If you are eligible for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) you are likely eligible for the BCEBW.

Eligibility requirements

To be eligible for the BCEBW, you must:

• have been a resident of British Columbia on March 15, 2020;
• meet the eligibility requirements for the CERB (click here to learn more);
• have been approved for the CERB, even if you have not received a benefit yet;
• be at least 15 years old on the date of application;
• have filed, or agree to file, a 2019 B.C. income tax return; and
• not be receiving provincial income assistance or disability assistance.

How to apply

As of May 1, you can apply here for the BCEBW at any time, and payments are expected to be received within 10 business days of your application. To learn more, visit www.gov.bc.ca/workerbenefit.

Other financial aid

There are several financial aid programs available to Realtors and brokerages who have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to the CERB, the Canadian government is also offering the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) and the Temporary Wage Subsidy (TWS) programs, as well as other financial supports available to small businesses. You can find more information about these programs on our COVID-19 resources page, under financial aid.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

BCREA is seeking REALTOR® and Public Directors to join our Board of Directors for the 2024-2025 term. 

As a BCREA Director, you will have the opportunity to make a meaningful impact on the future of the REALTOR® profession and guide the real estate sector on provincial issues. 

With your sectoral expertise and governance experience, you will help set BCREA’s strategic focus and provide counsel on a broad range of governance issues, including financial oversight, risk mitigation, and succession planning. 

“As a director on the board at BCREA, there is an unmeasurable sense of pride,” says BCREA Chair Darren Close, “Working collectively with a group whose talents and skills are blended in such a way to create opportunities to learn, grow, and give back to the profession which truly does treat us so well.”   

“It has been and will continue to be a privilege for me,” Close adds. 

Whether you have a background in accounting and finance, law, insurance, human resources, commercial real estate, managing a brokerage, or serving on boards of directors, your experience and leadership will shape the profession’s vision for the future. 

Please contact us at [email protected] If you have any questions. 

**Please note the application was closed on Monday, December 4, 2023.  

About BCREA 

BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.  

BCREA is seeking REALTOR^® and public Directors to join our Board of Directors for the 2023-24 term.

As a BCREA Director, you will have the opportunity to make meaningful impact on the future of the REALTOR^® profession and guide the real estate sector on provincial issues.

With your sectoral expertise and governance experience, you will help set BCREA’s strategic focus and provide counsel on a broad range of governance issues including strategic goals and objectives, financial oversight, BCREA’s business and activities, material risks and overseeing succession planning to ensure continued leadership.

“Serving on BCREA’s Board of Directors has helped me broaden my experience, expand my knowledge and learn from my peers,” says BCREA Chair Janice Stromar.

“The most rewarding part about being a Director is getting to meet different people from across British Columbia and getting to know their different experiences about the issues that face organized real estate today.”

Whether you have a background in law, land information, IT, communications, insurance, managing a real estate brokerage, or serving on boards of directors, your experience and leadership will shape the profession’s vision for the future.

If you are interested in learning more about being a BCREA Director, click here to register for our information Zoom webinar on Monday, October 31.

Please contact us at [email protected] If you have any questions.

Apply Now

To apply to be a REALTOR^® Director, click here.
To apply to be a public Director, click here.

*Please note the application was closed on Thursday, December 1.

About BCREA

BCREA is the professional association for over 25,000 commercial and residential REALTORS^® in BC. Our mission is to empower the province’s eight real estate boards by sharing our expertise and providing professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic research and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected and proud of their profession.

Learn more at www.bcrea.bc.ca/about-bcrea/about-us.

Applications are now being accepted for individuals interested in becoming a REALTOR® or public director on the BCREA Board of Directors for the 2021-22 term.

To request an application package, contact your local real estate board or email [email protected]. Deadline to submit your application package is January 15, 2021.

“We’re really here to help guide the industry and work for REALTORS® around the province. So, no matter where you’re from, what board you’re from, at the end of the day we’re here for the betterment of the profession,” says BCREA Chair Anthony Bastiaanssen.

“What is really important in coming to the Board of Directors is the diversity of the perspectives and background that people come from and recognizing that your unique perspective and way of thinking is likely going to be something that the Board of Directors can use.”

If you are interested in learning more about being a BCREA director, including time commitments, roles and responsibilities, and more, watch the recording of an information session hosted by BCREA on November 30.

The session, held via Zoom, was hosted by Chair of the Nominating Committee Tanis Read, a featured comments BCREA Board of Directors Chair Anthony Bastiaanssen, BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde, and BCREA Director Cory Raven.

Questions about the application package and process can be sent by email to [email protected].

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

In order to apply for the new Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB), expected to launch April 6, you must first have an online account with Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), called CRA My Account. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) recommends that all REALTORS® who intend to apply for CERB and who do not yet have a CRA My Account create one immediately, even if you’re not yet sure if you will qualify.

Signing up for CRA My Account

You must have a CRA My Account to apply for CERB. It can take up to ten days to receive a security code from CRA once you have applied for an account. Delays in setting up this account mean you will have to wait to apply for CERB. If you have a My Service Canada Account, you do not need to register for a CRA My Account.

How do I create a CRA My Account?

Click here to learn how to apply for a CRA My Account. You will need to have the following information available to complete the online application.

• your social insurance number,
• your date of birth,
• your current postal code or ZIP code, and
• an amount you entered on your income tax and benefit return, so have your return on hand (the line requested will vary and it could be from the current tax year or the previous one).

Remember, once you complete the application, you will have to wait to receive your security code in the mail, which could take up to ten days. You won’t have access to your account or be able to apply for CERB until you have received the security code.

I don’t even know if I will qualify for CERB. Should I still get a CRA My Account?

Yes. BCREA will provide details more details on qualifying for CERB and other financial supports in the coming days. By signing up for CRA My Account immediately, you are ensuring quicker access to emergency relief funding.

How will I know if I will qualify for CERB?

Self-employed individuals will qualify for CERB but BCREA is still working to provide clarity on two issues:

1. Whether REALTORS® who are self-employed but also have other jobs qualify for CERB. If not, then Employment Insurance may be an option.

2. Whether REALTORS® who have incorporated as Personal Real Estate Corporations (PREC) and receive a wage from their PREC can apply. In this case, the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy may apply instead of CERB.

For more information on CERB, go to https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/ei/cerb-application.htm.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B

John and Joan were looking for revenue property which they found in 1980 thirteen miles east of Smithers Iying between the Yellowhead Highway and the Bulkley River. In addition to the house they intended to occupy, the parcel of land contained eighteen mobile home pads and a recreational camping ground for overnight use by persons towing housetrailers upon the land. The parcel of land had been represented to contain 29.54 acres.

Two years later, a surveyor employed to assist in determining the subdivision possibilities of the land, advised John and Joan that the area of the parcel was only 21.6 acres. A lawsuit for negligence was brought against the vendor, its real estate agency, the two salespersons employed by the real estate agency and an appraiser.

All of the defendants honestly believed that the true acreage was 29.54 acres. The shape of the land was irregular, consisting of a fairly flat area bordering the river with the back part of the parcel rising to high cliffs toward the highway. This made it difficult to estimate the size visually. It was also difficult to estimate the size by an examination of the plans, because the parcel John and Joan purchased was the residue remaining after a number of earlier subdivisions.

The Assessor's Rolls kept on microfiche in the real estate agency stated the acreage to be 29.54 and that is where the search for the misrepresentation began. The search ended with the discovery that the Department of Highways had taken eight acres for road purposes some years earlier, but that information was not forwarded to the Land Title Office. Therefore, the title upon which the assessment authority relied for its information was wrong.

The appraiser's report accurately estimated that the flat area of the property contained something less than 20 acres in the mobile home park and in the campground area. The appraiser was asked to explain why it didn't occur to him that the hillside could not have contained 9.54 acres and that the 29.54 acre figure contained in his report must have been wrong. The appraiser responded by saying that because he thought the hillside portion to be valueless, its existence would not have affected his opinion as to value even if he had directed his mind to this discrepancy.

The judge decided that the appraiser's physical examination of the property could not have been as thorough as his report made it appear. This decision was reached at least in part by the fact that an earlier appraisal by another appraiser contained a number of minor errors which were repeated in the appraiser's report. The judge felt that the question he had to answer was whether the appraiser had a professional duty to pay sufficient attention to the upper parts of the property which he considered unusable, so as to realize that the acreage given to him was grossly in error or, at least somewhat in error. The appraiser's lawyer argued that if the judge were to hold that the appraiser had this duty, it would mean that every appraiser providing an opinion as to the value of unsurveyed land would have to have a survey done. He argued that the appraiser's duty was only to inform competently as to value.

The judge disagreed, saying that in these circumstances the appraiser, by his conduct and words, had assumed a duty to exercise his skill and judgment, upon which he knew the client was relying, to alert the client to the fact that something was radically wrong with the lot size. The judge held that the appraiser was negligent and in breach of his contractual obligations and therefore liable in damages to the purchasers.

The real estate agency and its employees were held not to be negligent for relying upon the accuracy of the assessment authority roll for their information. They gave evidence that they had never found any errors in the records and that the use of the assessment authority rolls for an accurate legal description and notation of acreage was accepted practice in Smithers. No expert evidence was given to show that such reliance was inappropriate or unreliable. However, it was evident that the judge reached his decision with respect to the licensees with some hesitation because he directed that they bear their own costs, even though they were successful.¹

1.

Cleemput v. Northcountry Realty Ltd., et al., B.C.S.C., Smithers Registry, No. 103/82.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Any well drawn commercial lease containing an option to renew at a rent to be agreed upon during the renewal term either provides a formula by which the rent can be calculated, or provides that the rent will be fixed by an arbitration done pursuant to the provisions of the Commercial Arbitration Act. If the lease does not provide a mechanism for calculating the rent in the renewal period, then the renewal will be void for uncertainty.

Many renewal clauses require the tenant to exercise its option to renew no less than six months before the term ends, and if the parties cannot agree upon the rent to be paid within the three months following this exercise, then the arbitration process starts.

This happened in a case where notice was given prior to July 1, 1988 to renew a lease for a five year term beginning January 1, 1989. The parties failed to agree upon the rental by October 1, 1988 and an arbitrator was appointed in February, 1989. The arbitrator chose October 1, 1988 as the proper date to value the property in order to calculate the rent to be paid during the renewal. His reasoning was that this was the date when the parties became entitled to submit the rental dispute to arbitration. The problem with the selection of the October 1st date is that rents generally increased by ten percent between October 1 and January 1, 1989. That meant a difference in the tenant's favour of $54,000 over the renewal term. The arbitrator referred in his decision to the general increase but elected to ignore it since it took place after October 1st.

Under the Commercial Arbitration Act, the landlord had to obtain leave from a judge to appeal the arbitrator's decision. It had to satisfy the judge that the results of the arbitration justified intervention upon a point of law which, if not heard, might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that the point of law was important to the class or body of persons of which the landlord is a member, or of general or public importance.

Because arbitration procedures to determine rentals upon renewal of leases are widespread, the judge concluded that the appeal should be heard, because persons engaged in commercial real estate would be affected by the point of law in question. He decided that the arbitrator had made an error of law in choosing a date which preceded the renewal period as a date for valuing the property. The beginning of the renewal period was the date when the property should have been valued to fix the rent for the next five years.¹

* * *

A Vancouver property manager signed an agreement in British Columbia to manage an apartment building in the State of Washington. The building was owned by a Washington limited partnership whose general partner was a British Columbia resident. Work under the contract was done in both jurisdictions, although mainly in British Columbia.

The property manager was licensed in British Columbia under the Real Estate Act, but not in the State of Washington under comparable legislation. In that state, anyone who negotiated directly or indirectly for the lease or rental of real estate was compelled to first obtain a licence. The contract could be terminated on three month's notice but was terminated by the owner without notice.

The property manager sued successfully for damages for failure to give notice. The trial judge decided that it was not necessary for the property manager to be licensed as a real estate broker in the State of Washington. This decision was appealed. The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the property manager could enforce a contract valid in British Columbia for the payment of its fees if the performance of that contract in the State of Washington was illegal there. The Court analyzed the property manager's position as follows:

The work done in the State of Washington was essential to the performance of the contract, not incidental to it. It would have been unlawful for the property manager to have done this work in British Columbia without a licence and recover its fees. The State of Washington made it unlawful for a property manager to collect a fee unless licenced. The property manager could not legally do in Washington what it agreed to do under the terms of the contract.

As a matter of policy, the Court of Appeal decided that it would not enforce in British Columbia a contract illegal in the State of Washington, with the result that the property manager lost its claim for damages.²

	1.	CR. & P. West 8th Ave. Ltd. and Khamneipur and Mariposa Stores Limited Partnership, S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry #A891232, June 7, 1989.
	2.	Gillespie Management Corporation v. Terrace Properties,Court of Appeal, Vancouver Registry #CA009896, Sept. 12, 1989.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Are you interested in what’s going on with your profession? Do you follow the latest developments in real estate and talk to your fellow REALTORS® about leading our profession forward? If so, the British Columbia Real Estate Association is looking for you!

BCREA is the professional association for more than 23,000 REALTORS® in BC, focusing on provincial issues that impact real estate. Working with the province’s 11 real estate boards, BCREA provides continuing professional education, advocacy, economic research and standard forms to help REALTORS® provide value for their clients.

We are looking for several REALTORS® to sit on our Board of Directors to help set the organization’s strategic focus, engage in meaningful discussion about the future of the real estate profession and provide direction to BCREA’s professional staff on priority projects.

To learn more about this opportunity, click here. To request an application package, please email [email protected].

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

We can draw two conclusions from the facts described in a recent decision in which a buyer sued for damages because the area of the land purchased by the buyer was only 258.5 acres instead of 309 acres. The first conclusion is that one cannot rely upon the British Columbia Assessment Authority for accurate information about the size of a property. The second is that, where the area of the property is important to the buyer, or where the price per square foot or acre is an important fact in determining the total price, the Contract of Purchase and Sale should contain a warranty as to area.

The agent who prepared the offer in the first decision added, after the legal description, "309.17 acres." It was only after the sale closed and a survey was done that the buyers found the property contained the lesser acreage. The buyer sued for misrepresentation and breach of warranty.

It was clear from the evidence that the owners of the property did not know the actual area, but thought it to be about 300 acres. In an attempt to confirm this information, the listing agent telephoned the BC Assessment Authority which confirmed that the acreage, according to their records, was 309, but they had no way to verify this. The listing agent was referred to the Surveyor General’s office in Victoria which gave him an official survey plan that did not state the size of the property.

The buyer’s agent was told that no survey had been done and that neither the seller nor the listing agent could provide any more information concerning the actual area of the land. The buyer’s agent attempted to confirm the information concerning acreage but his only source was the same BC Assessment Authority.

It was also clear from the evidence at the trial that the buyer, who had been involved in a number of property transactions, was prepared to accept the information provided by the BC Assessment Authority as accurate. The seller successfully resisted the claim for damages for misrepresentation for two reasons. Firstly, the buyer admitted that he had been involved in the purchase of a number of properties and he had never run into a situation where the tax assessment data was wrong. He acknowledged that he assumed that data from this source was accurate. Therefore, he had not placed any reliance upon the information obtained from the sellers. In addition, the judge held that neither the sellers nor the listing agent had made a false statement, either negligently or at all.

The buyer’s next position was that the inclusion of the acreage in the legal description amounted to a warranty that the property would be that size. In examination for discovery, the buyer’s agent said that his practice when a warranty was intended was to use language such as "the vendor confirms" or "the vendor warrants" to indicate that the seller was making a promise about the property.

The judge concluded that the addition of the number of acres to the legal description was not a warranty as to the quantity of land being sold.¹

In reaching this decision, the judge had referred to, inter alia, a case where it was stated in the contract that 9 acres were being sold. Although it was subsequently discovered that the property was only 7.14 acres, the judge concluded that the buyer was interested in the particular piece of property, whether it contained 9 acres or not, and the reference to 9 acres did not amount to a warranty.

A judge came to an opposite conclusion in another case where the contract contained the following wording: "Legal description, see addendum attached 1110 acres Gabriola Island." The actual area was 57.6 acres less and the buyer sued to recover the difference, arguing that the price was negotiated on a per acre basis.

There was evidence of other transactions in which blocks of land had been sold by MacMillan Bloedel at prices that worked out to exactly $10,000, $5,000 or $4,000 per acre. The evidence also included a sale in which a rebate was voluntarily given to a buyer when it was discovered that the area of land was less by 19 acres and the price had been fixed at $5,000 per acre.

The judge accepted this evidence to hold that the reference to 1110 acres was not in the contract by way of a minor description of the property, but was the fundamental basis for determining the purchase price. As such, it was a warranty which entitled the buyer to damages equal to $4,000 per acre for the shortfall.²

	1.	Ocean Fresh Products Ltd. et al. v. Ewalt, BCSC, Penticton Registry, Reasons for Judgment, May 26, 1998.
	2.	Coastland Wood Industries Ltd. v. 528428 B.C. Ltd., 1997 B.C.J. #27110 (BCSC).

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B

A vendor innocently misrepresents the area of his lot as 10 acres when it is only six acres. If the purchaser relied upon this misrepresentation and discovered the mistake BEFORE completing his purchase, the probability of the purchaser being able to repudiate the contract is high. That probability may be reduced to zero if the discovery is made AFTER the sale is completed.

The following cases have these facts in common - each vendor had received the proceeds of sale, and title had been transferred to the purchaser before the discovery that the area misrepresented was less than the actual area.

1. A vendor innocently misrepresented the area of a parcel of farmland in Saskatchewan as 9.5 acres when it was only 5.2 acres. The purchaser walked over the property several times, knew where the boundaries were, and that a plan of survey existed which he did not examine.¹


2. Property in Nova Scotia was innocently misrepresented in an advertisement and in its legal description as 200 acres approximately, when its actual area was 110 acres. The boundaries of the property the purchaser examined consisted of a road on the west, line fences on the north and east, and a grove of trees on the south.²


3. A vendor innocently misrepresented a parcel of land as having 14 acres when it only had 9 acres. The purchaser told the vendor that he was buying the land because he needed 14 acres to carry on his business.³


4. A real estate broker in Toronto who had sold a three-storey home, examined the floor plans of a condominium under construction. The area misrepresented was 2,669 square feet which was the minimum area the broker felt would accommodate his family and furniture. The floor plan was irregular and difficult to measure. When they moved in and the furniture wouldn't fit in rooms where the plan showed sufficient space, a measurement revealed the actual area to be only 2251 square feet.⁴

While each purchaser sued for damages or rescission and proved the misrepresentations, only the last two purchasers were successful. The mixed results reveal the difficulty of seeking damages or rescissions for a deficiency in the area purchased after title has been transferred. The reason for this is that once monies and property have changed hands, the law prefers certainty and finality so that the parties are free to use or dispose of the money or property received.

This principle was applied in the first two cases where the judges decided that the purchasers bought on the basis of what they saw, rather than upon what they were told. The second two cases illustrate some of the limited exceptions to this general rule, including fraud, negligent misrepresentation, a warranty or an error in substance.

The purchaser in case 3 relied upon the last exception to seek rescission of his contract. An error in substance does not mean merely that if there is a substantial difference between the actual area and the area misrepresented, the Court will grant a purchaser damages or rescission. If it meant that, then the purchaser in case 2 should have been awarded damages. What it does mean is that if the difference leaves the actual area purchased valueless for the purpose for which it was to be used, then the Court will provide a remedy. Since the actual area was too small for his business, the purchaser obtained rescission.

The real estate broker relied upon another exception to the general rule, namely a negligent misrepresentation by the vendor. The broker was able to prove that the vendor had been told that the area of the condominium under construction was inaccurate, but did nothing to correct this. The broker obtained damages measured by the market value per square foot as determined by expert evidence, times the number of the missing square feet. He proved that as a knowledgeable and experienced broker and investor, he had purchased the condominium only after analyzing its fair market value per square foot, when compared to comparable units.

A legal description may not easily describe the property to be transferred - a metes and bounds description is an example. In that case, where the area is important to the purchaser, but the purchaser does not want to pay for the costs of a survey, then a warranty given by the vendor will give the purchaser a remedy in damages after completion. The vendor must be very certain of his facts before he agrees to give such a warranty. Having agreed to do so however, the clause to be added to the contract of purchase could be as simple as, "the vendor represents and warrants that the area of the property is no less than . . . "

	1.	Sisson v. Pak, 45 RPR 319.
	2.	Amos v. Helmke, 1981 45 N.S.R. (2) 69.
	3.	Freear v. Gilders, 1921, 64 D.L.R. 274.
	4.	Chapman v H.L.S. York Development Ltd. 64 OR (2d) 498.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

How should the assessed value of residential strata title apartment units, all in one building and all rented, be determined? Is it to be done by valuing the strata lots on the basis of their market value as individual units, if sold? Or is it to be based upon valuing all of the strata lots as components of an entire rental building? This question came before a Judge of the Supreme Court as a result of an appeal by way of a stated case, from a decision of the Assessment Appeal Board.

The facts were that the taxpayers were two companies registered as the owners of two strata title complexes in the West End in Vancouver, contained in two buildings made up of 75 and 66 rental strata lots, respectively. The assessor used the comparable sales approach to compare the units with similar strata title units, some owner-occupied and some rented, that were sold near the valuation date.

The appraiser acting for the owners used an income approach by capitalizing the net rental income of all of the strata lots in a building. The capitalization rate was a rate derived from the sale of entire strata complexes sold en bloc where all of the strata lots were owned by one owner. The appraiser then allocated the total value among the strata lots within the building.

The Assessment Appeal Board acknowledged that there was no difference in physical characteristics between the strata units in the complex and the properties used as comparables by the assessor. The principal difference was between the strata title units in buildings predominantly occupied by owners of the units,and strata title units in buildings occupied solely by tenants. The Board concluded, on the evidence before it, that a lower price per strata lot resulted from the sale en bloc of rental strata title units within one building, owned by one owner,than if the strata title units were sold individually and were in a block owned by a number of owners who were the predominant occupiers.

The judge agreed that there was evidence before the Board to support a difference in price between two strata title units of comparable size and other physical characteristics, if one were in a rental building and the other in a building mainly occupied by homeowners. He therefore approved the assessment based upon a capitalization rate, which determined the total value of each building, and then the subsequent allocation of that value among each of the strata lots in the complex.

Counsel acting for the assessor has advised that this decision is to be appealed. The assessor's argument is that the Assessment Act requires that each separate legal parcel must be valued for taxation purposes separately by comparisons with selling prices of similar individual units traded in the market. The assessor's opinion is that if this decision is correct, it will have unintended results. Those results might include a circumstance where there is single ownership of several adjoining properties that but for this decision would be assessed separately at a residential rate. The properties, however, if consolidated and if apartment zoning were permitted, would be assessed more as an apartment site. The assessor says that, in that circumstance, with this decision, would he have an obligation to assess the separate individual properties at a higher value based upon their potential apartment use.

This decision, if upheld on appeal, will still depend upon there being evidence that strata title units in buildings occupied solely by tenants are worth less than those in buildings occupied predominantly by owners of the units. That evidence may not be available in smaller communities where there may not be the same mix of strata title apartment unit buildings.

1.

Queens Plate Development Ltd. and Hearthside Manor Ltd. v. Assessor of Area #09-Vancouver S.C.B.C., Vancouver Registry, No. A863176.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

In a caveat emptor, or buyer beware, jurisdiction such as BC, buyers are required to conduct their own due diligence to satisfy themselves as to the condition of the property they are acquiring. They often employ experts such as home inspectors and environmental, structural and geotechnical engineers to assist them in this regard. These experts conduct their investigations and provide the buyer with a written report setting out their findings. Included in these reports one can usually find a variety of limitations and disclaimers. One limitation that is often included is the disclaimer that the report is being prepared for the sole use and benefit of the client and no one else. This is a rather uncontroversial limitation for a buyer but can be a dangerous pitfall for an assignee, as was demonstrated in a recent BC Supreme Court case.¹

In this case, the buyer was purchasing a commercial property and engaged an environmental consultant to assess whether there were any environmental concerns with the property. The consultant undertook a Phase I and II assessment. The Phase II report concluded that “environmental contamination was not discovered on the subject site.” It also contained the following disclaimer:

“[consultant] has prepared this report for the use of the Client to assist the Client in understanding the physical and environmental factors related to the subject property… [consultant] will not accept liability for any loss, injury, claim or damage arising directly or indirectly from any use or reliance on this report by any person or entity other than the Client”

The buyer/Client assigned the Contract of Purchase and Sale to another company (“Assignee”). Despite the assignment agreement recommending that the Assignee conduct its own due diligence the Assignee did not, relying solely upon that done by the buyer. The sale completed with the Assignee becoming the registered owner of the property. Five years later, the Assignee discovered environmental contamination and spent over $800,000 remediating the property. The Assignee sued the consultant for negligent misrepresentation to recover those costs.

To succeed in its claim of negligent misrepresentation, the Assignee would have to prove:

1. the consultant had made a representation that was inaccurate,

2. the consultant was negligent in making the representation,

3. the Assignee relied on the representation, and

4. the Assignee suffered loss as a result of the reliance.

At issue, of course, was the disclaimer. While the Assignee might have been able to establish points 1 and 2 above, the consultant argued that the Assignee could not have relied upon the report, and the representations therein, in light of the disclaimer. The Court agreed, finding that the disclaimer was clear and unambiguous, that it was the normal practice of the consultant to include such a disclaimer in all its reports, that the consultant did not know the report was to be relied upon by the Assignee and that the consultant had not consented to the Assignee relying upon the report. As such, the case was dismissed, and the Assignee did not recover the cost of the remediation.

What could the Assignee have done in this case to protect itself and what can assignees do to protect themselves, in general?

Firstly, the Assignee, or any assignee for that matter, could have conducted its own due diligence. However, that is not always as straightforward as it seems. Is there enough time to conduct further due diligence before the completion date in the Contract of Purchase and Sale? Does the Contract of Purchase and Sale allow for access to the property by the Assignee? If not, will the seller allow the Assignee to conduct its own due diligence? 

Secondly, the Assignee, or any assignee for that matter, could have sought the consent of the consultant to waive the disclaimer and enabled the Assignee to rely upon the report. If such consent is granted, it should be documented in writing.

Thirdly, the Assignee, or any assignee for that matter, could have required the buyer/assignor to warrant and represent in the assignment agreement that it adopted the findings of the consultant as its own. The buyer/assignor might understandably be reluctant to assume such liability and if they did, it would probably come at considerable cost to the assignee.

Fourthly, an assignee could roll the dice and proceed with the assignment transaction being unable to rely upon the expert reports provided to the buyer. That is unfortunately what the Assignee did in this case, with disastrous results.

Regardless of what option an assignee decides to take, they should be aware of the risks inherent in trying to rely on a report with a clear and specific client disclaimer. Licensees that are advising assignees should bring such limitations and constraints to their client’s attention and refer them for independent legal advice as to the consequences of specific limitation or disclaimer clauses found in a consultant’s report. Licensees who are acting for a buyer/assignor and dealing with an unrepresented assignee should be sure that the assignee has been served with the Disclosure of Risks to Unrepresented Parties form as required by the Real Estate Council of BC.

1. 0694841 BC Ltd. v Alara Environmental Health and Safety Limited, 2021 BCSC 128.

Bonus comment

While this case² is not precedent-setting, I report on it as it warmed my heart in these otherwise dark times. A pizzeria started in business in 1976 pursuant to a lease (1976 Lease). In 1998 it entered into a new lease which would expire in 2010 (1998 Lease). Business was good and the 1998 Lease was extended twice more with the final extension set to expire in 2026, a total term of fewer than 30 years. While many of us would laud the initiative and perseverance of operating a pizzeria from 1976 to 2026, not so the Ministry of Finance. It took the position that the 1998 Lease was an extension of the 1976 Lease and that the combined leases were for a term exceeding 30 years and, as such, a Property Transfer Tax of close to $150,000 was payable. If that pizzeria was anything like my local pizzeria, I am guessing the amount of the tax exceeded its annual profit. Fortunately, the court concluded that the two leases were separate, and the 1998 Lease had a term of less than, not more than, 30 years, and as such tax was not payable. Score 1 for the little guy.

2. M&N Hewitt Enterprises Ltd. v British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 93.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

A licensee with a deposit that is less than the commissions has always run the risk of either losing the remainder of the commission, or being forced to sue for it, because an unhappy seller instructs his lawyer or notary public (the conveyancer) to pay all of the proceeds of sale to the seller. The avoidance of that risk is one of the reasons the ML Contract includes paragraph 6, in which the seller has agreed to assign irrevocably to the listing agent from the proceeds of sale, the remuneration due to it.

However, for that assignment to be effective, notice of it must be given to the conveyancer from whom payment of the commission is expected. The question of what constitutes effective notice to a conveyancer was examined in a 1986 Ontario case where the contract for the sale of the property, contained an irrevocable instruction to the seller’s solicitor to pay commission directly to the agent from the proceeds of sale any commission remaining payable after the deduction of the deposit.

Notice of the amount of the commission, together with a copy of the contract, was forwarded to the seller’s solicitor whose attention was directed to the authorization for direct payment of commission to the agent. The seller revoked his instructions and received all of the sale proceeds from his solicitor, who was held to be personally liable for payment of the commission to the agent.¹

This decision supports the practice of giving notice of the amount of the commission and sending a copy of the standard form contract of sale to the conveyancer responsible for distribution of commission, provided that paragraph 22 is unchanged. This paragraph gives the conveyancer notice of the seller’s agreement to pay a commission as per the Listing Contract and contains the authorization for the buyer and anyone acting on behalf of the buyer or seller to pay the commission from the cash proceeds of sale. The notice would be ineffective if the authorization had been deleted, which is unlikely. What is more likely, is that the substance of paragraph 22 is absent from a non-standard contract used by the parties, for example, a commercial contract prepared by lawyers for the parties.

Paragraph 22 does not state that it is irrevocable. In my experience a conveyancer never receives a copy of the ML Contract and few are aware of paragraph 6. This means that the conveyancer, whose only knowledge of the documents signed by the seller is the contract of purchase and sale, would act upon a seller’s revocation of paragraph 22 and pay the balance of funds to the seller.

The twin possibilities of a revocable paragraph 22, and the use of a non-standard contract contributed to VREB’s decision to change the basis upon which commissions are distributed. The first change is the recognition that since the seller is responsible for the payment of commission, it is the seller’s conveyancer who should be responsible for payment of commission at the seller’s cost.

No information concerning the commission is given to the buyer’s conveyancer, which leaves the calculation of the commission to be deducted from the proceeds of sale to be done by the seller’s conveyancer. Removing the buyer’s lawyer from the commission payment loop avoids the question of what authority the co-operating agent had to instruct a buyer’s conveyancer to distribute a commission which had been assigned to the listing agent.

Where a listing and co-operating agent are involved in a transaction, both sign a confirmation of commission agreement be delivered to the seller’s conveyancer, which refers to the assignment of commission to the listing agent. In the letter sent by the listing agent to the seller’s conveyancer, in which is enclosed the contract of purchase and sale and the confirmation of commission agreement, the listing agent draws the attention of the conveyancer to the assignment in its favour. The same information is provided by a listing agent who double-ends a transaction.

The co-operating agent sends the deposit in excess of the co-operating agent’s share of the commission, to the seller’s conveyancer upon stakeholder undertakings, and forwards to the buyer’s conveyancer the copy of the contract of purchase and sale.

This system has been in effect for about two years and appears to be working to the satisfaction of both licensees and conveyancers and without complaint from the public.

1.

Family Trust v. Morra, 39 R.P.R. 187 (See Column 92).

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Licensees must ensure they read the terms of real estate contracts carefully and explain them to their clients. This is especially true when it comes to assignment clauses contained within contracts.

Within the past number of years, the government has imposed laws and regulations around assignments in order to protect sellers, prevent ‘shadow flipping,’ and ensure transparency. In May of 2016, the Real Estate Services Act was amended to impose a restriction on the Assignment of Contracts of Purchase and Sale unless the seller was provided with a specified form of notice. The new restriction was imposed to try and prevent ‘shadow flipping’ and ensure sellers were protected from potentially having the contracts to sell their homes assigned by buyer(s) in a heated market. As a response to this restriction, section 20.A was inserted into the Contract of Purchase and Sale form created by the British Columbia Real Estate Association. A few years later, in January of 2019, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act was amended to include policy statement 16, which requires contractual terms related to pre-sale assignments to be included in all pre-sale contracts, including that a developer must not consent to an assignment unless the developer collects and reports prescribed information about the assignor, assignee and the assignment.

While these new measures can assist in protecting consumers, assignment clauses still need to be considered carefully in contracts. A recent case, Lau (Re) 2020 CanLII 12248 (BC REC), highlights this. The licensee in Lau was disciplined for failing to advise a client about the assignment terms contained within a pre-sale contract. In Lau, the licensee told the buyer prior to entering into the contract that they could assign the contract prior to the completion date with the developer’s consent and that “pre-sale contracts have been known to be assigned prior to completion for a profit.”¹ However, the actual pre-sale contract entered into in Lau specified the buyer could only assign to a spouse, parent, child, grandparent or grandchild, provided two conditions were met. Firstly, the three deposits must have been paid in full, and secondly, the developer must have consented. The contract did not allow the buyer to assign to a non-arm’s length party. Additionally, the contract specified that the contract could not be assigned for a period of 12 months after the date of the contract. The licensee did not go through the terms of the contract with the buyer and admitted that he did not adequately explain the restrictions on assignment.

The buyer filed a complaint with the Real Estate Council of BC and told them that because she could not assign the contract prior to the completion date, she was forced to obtain an additional mortgage to help pay for the closing costs for the property.

Whenever reviewing or drafting contracts, licensees need to consider the application of existing laws and regulations, along with principles of contract drafting. When looking at assignment terms, licensees must consider both the restrictions/prohibitions and permissions contained in a contract. For example, what kind of assignments are permitted? Are there specific assignments that are restricted or prohibited? Are there conditions placed on the assignment? Recently a contract came across my desk that permitted a specific type of assignment (an assignment to an affiliated company) however, the language used in the assignment provisions did not contain a corresponding prohibition on other types of assignments, meaning the buyer could have assigned the contract to anyone which was not the drafters intent. Consideration also needs to be given for any conflicting assignment terms - this is especially true with the addition of clause 20.A. in the standard Contract of Purchase and Sale form.

Assignments have been a hot topic in British Columbia for a long time, and Lau highlights the importance of ensuring that agents review, understand and explain assignment terms to both buyers and sellers. Additionally, licensees must ensure that they do not become complacent in assuming standard (or required) assignment terms are contained in contracts.

---

1.

Lau (Re), 2020 CanLII 12248 (BC REC), at para 9 and 10

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

A nominee who called to report the successful defense of an action for damages brought by a purchaser, thought that publication of the brief details might provide a welcome balance to the cases, in which occasionally the licensee has been found wanting. He was full of praise for the professionalism of his salesman, who was able to produce as evidence a diary in which he recorded the times, dates and contents of discussions and meetings.

In addition, he went beyond merely having the sellers tick the boxes in the Property Condition Disclosure Statements. He also had them place their initials beside each tick as confirmation that the sellers were aware of each representation they made. It was this carefulness and thoroughness that impressed the judge and won the case.

***

A strata corporation and a company related to the developer who constructed the strata building, signed a lease in favour of the company giving it the use of all of the parking stalls for 99 years. The lease was signed on behalf of the strata corporation by an individual employed by the developer, who did some work for both the strata corporation and the company holding the 99 year lease.

Some four years after this lease was granted the strata corporation, on behalf of the dissatisfied owners who said that they were unaware of the lease and that they would have to pay for parking, applied for an order to declare the lease void. They were successful for a number of reasons, including the failure to have the lease approved by special resolution, since it was a disposition of the common property in which both present and future owners have an interest.

The principal reasons, however, had to do with the uncertain authority the individual had to act on behalf of the strata corporation. His relationship with the developer and the holder of the 99 year lease created the potential for a conflict of interest. If he acted as agent for the strata corporation to manage it, the lease was not in the best interests of owners. His execution of it was a breach of Section 116 of the Condominium Act and of his fiduciary duties to the strata corporation.

While this case is under appeal, it is a further example of the difficulties described in Columns #180 and #185 of finding a method acceptable to a judge, by which a condominium developer can reserve control over the common property parking.¹

***

There are a number of "illegal" suites in many homes in most communities in B.C. Generally, municipalities turn a blind eye to their existence and would only act on a complaint received by cityhall. When that happens, municipalities have a powerful remedy toprevent the continued renting of a building to more than one family.

In a Kamloops case, where a two-story house in a single-family residential zone was rented as an up and down duplex, following a complaint the owner was given two options. He could either convert the property to single-family occupancy, or seek approval for an amendment to the zoning bylaw to allow for a two-family dwelling in that location only. The owner was unsuccessful in his application to have the property rezoned and, following another complaint, the city applied for an interim injunction under Section 751 of the Municipal Act. It states that if a building is used in contravention of a bylaw, the municipality may commence court proceedings to prevent the continued breach of the bylaw.

In many instances where an injunction is sought by one person against another, the court will examine the balance of convenience in favour of either party, before deciding whether to grant the injunction. It may also look to see whether so many years have elapsed without any action having been taken to prevent the continuing breach that the application for the injunction should be denied.

Those arguments don't apply where the breach is one of a statute and the municipality was granted the injunction.2

***

With the exception of a contract for personal services, such as for example a contract with a singer or a hockey player, generally speaking, death does not frustrate a contract. That was the issue in a case in which a woman had made an offer to purchase property in her name alone. This was based upon an agreement with her partner, that both would contribute the down payment equally, obtain a mortgage which they would pay equally and register the property in their names jointly. If one died, the other would become the owner of the whole property.

Unfortunately, the partner died before the sale was completed. The estate of the deceased partner denied liability and since she was unable to complete the purchase, she negotiated a release from the seller. She then sued the estate for damages. No evidence was presented that the estate was unable to perform the partner's obligations. The trial judge had held that the death of the partner did not release the deceased's estate from liability. The Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge's order that the estate pay her the amount of damages.3

	1.	Strata Plan 1261 vs. 360204 B.C. Ltd., B.C.S.C., September 22, 1995.
	2.	Kamloops vs. Baines, S.C.B.C., April 12, 1996.
	3.	Butterfield vs. Todd, B.C.C.A., March 20, 1996.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC – September 26, 2023. As British Columbia continues to grapple with an ongoing housing crisis, a new economic report reveals how the province’s Homes for People housing plan can expand housing supply and improve housing affordability by following the blueprint of New Zealand’s Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

According to the latest Market Intelligence report from the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), following the aggressive housing liberalization and upzoning policy in Auckland would eventually improve affordability in BC by slowing home price growth and allowing incomes to catch up. Additionally, expanding the housing stock would lead to healthier resale inventories and balance markets while shifting the distribution of sales toward principal owners by reducing speculative activity.

Summary of Findings:

• New evidence from Auckland shows that policy change can achieve a 50 per cent increase in housing permits in less than a decade and successfully soften housing costs.
• Per capita housing starts in BC are historically low, and a 50 per cent boost in starts by the end of this decade would bring activity back to the level of the early 90s, but still well below the level of the 70s.
• BCREA’s Real Estate Policy Analysis Model model (REPAM) predicts that such a boom in housing starts would increase home completions by 37 per cent per quarter relative to a status quo baseline by Q4 of 2030, while the total housing stock would be 2 per cent higher.
• The model predicts that the increase in housing supply would pull average prices down by 4 per cent relative to a status quo baseline by Q4 of 2030, and slow long-run price growth, modestly improving affordability. 

“While it is promising to see that steps can be taken, affordability in BC deteriorated due to chronic underbuilding for decades, and will not quickly be remedied,” says BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Still, if policymakers can increase housing supply quickly and extensively through a combination of measures, there is hope that affordability can improve in the province again.”

“These results are encouraging, but the scale and immediacy of the problem are considerable,” Ogmundson adds.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, average home prices in BC have risen nearly 40 per cent, with new rental costs up by a similar amount. Listings on the MLS^® system have plummeted by nearly a quarter. However, the report shows that BC’s forthcoming housing plan has the potential to enable a building boom similar in magnitude to the AUP through a policy of re-zoning and incentives for new home construction. By bringing per capita starts back to a more historically normal level, the affordability ratio can gradually be bent in the right direction.

-30-

Click here for the news release PDF.

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
604.505.6793
[email protected]

Morgan Guo
Media Liaison
778.373.6483
[email protected]

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

It seems like a lifetime, but it is only 15 months since the Goods and Services Tax was implemented. Now that this intensive period of instruction in the intricacies of the legislation has ended, we can expect that the Excise/GST branch of Revenue Canada will be shifting more attention to its audit and collection functions. That means we have to re-examine some of the assumptions we made concerning the method of calculating the tax, because that is what the GST branch itself has been doing. Column 167, which was published in March, 1991, listed a number of calculations of the different fair market values which might result upon the sale of a house at $200,000, depending upon how GST was calculated. One assumption concerning the application of the new home rebate must be altered because of the method of calculation which the branch now applies.

Paragraphs one and two of that column are summarized below for easier comparison to the method of calculation now required by the branch:

Sale price including GST is $200,000, builder to pay GST:

1)  Sale price net of GST is $200,000/1.07      = $186,915.89
2)  GST is $186,915.89 x 7%                         =      13,084.11
3)  Newhomerebateis$13,084.llx36%              =       4,710.28
4)  GSTcosttobuilders$13,084.llorwithrebate   =       8,373.83

The GST branch says that it now accepts the calculation in (I.) above, using 1.07% as the denominator only if: (a) no one is entitled to the rebate, or (b) the purchaser claims it separately, or (c) if the contract price is reduced by the amount of the rebate.

If the builder has the benefit of the rebate, then 1.0448% is to be substituted as the denominator. Where did this come from you may well ask? .0448 is the percentage of GST payable after the rebate is made, that is to say 64% x 7% = 448 to the right decimal. Inserting that denominator in the above calculations obtains the following results:

1) Sale price net of GST is $200,000/1.0448             =    $191,424.20
2) GST is $191,424.20 x 7 %                                    =        13,399.69
3) New home rebate is 13,399.69 x36%                   =          4,823.89
4) GST cost to builder is $13,399.69 or with rebate   =   8,579.69
(36% applies on sales up to $350,000)

A comparison of both examples reveals an increase in the amount of GST and a decrease in the builders net of $205, an insignificant difference except for a builder selling a large number of units. However, the main problem for a builder who is audited is that if the calculations have not been done in accordance with this method, then there is a potential liability for interest and penalty.

Since the majority of rebate transactions involve a builder who pays the GST and credits the rebate to the purchaser, there will be spot audits only of this category of rebate. However, there will be an audit of each rebate claimed in category (21 and (3) above. The audits involve a "paper audit" in which production of the contract of purchase and statements of adjustments may be required.

Obviously, there will still be many questions for which answers are required from the branch. An example of that is the uncertainty surrounding the question of whether the sale of a vacant lot attracts GST. The branch has created a GST ruling service intended "to promote voluntary compliance, uniformity and self-assessment by providing certainty with respect to the interpretation and application of Part LX of the Excise Tax Act (Goods and Ser-vices Tax)." There are two types of rulings, an application ruling which is dealt with locally and an advance ruling for which a draft opinion is prepared locally and which is then sent to Ottawa for approval. These two rulings are binding within the limitations referred to in GST information memorandum 100-3.

In addition to these rulings, the branch will offer interpretation of specific provisions of the law to explain how, in general, the law would apply. Since there appears to be a very fine line between the facts which distinguish an application ruling from an advance ruling anyone interested in obtaining a ruling would be advised to obtain assistance from the branch as to the category in which the facts would fit before submitting a request in writing. There is no charge for a GST ruling, at least at the present time and the rulings are reviewed in the order in which they are received.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – September 13, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 6,743 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in August, a 26.4 per cent decrease from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $669,776, down 1.2 per cent from August 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $4.5 billion, a 27.3 per cent decline from August 2017. p>

“The downturn in housing demand induced by the mortgage stress-test is now largely behind us,” said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. “The BC housing market is evolving along the same path blazed by Ontario and Alberta, where the initial shock of the mortgage stress-test is already dissipating, leading to increasing home sales.”p>

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 19.9 per cent to $41 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales decreased 21.3 per cent to 57,674 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 1.7 per cent to $719,064.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

A recent BC Supreme Court decision (Shave v. Sommerey, 2022 BCSC 183) highlights the potential risks for REALTORS^® working with buyers whose residency or citizenship status is unknown or has recently changed.

The Property Transfer Act, RSBC 1996, c. 387 was amended in August 2016 to impose a surtax on the fair market value of the property at the time of purchase. Initially, a 15 per cent surtax applied only to the Metro Vancouver Regional District; but on February 20, 2018, the provincial government increased the surtax to 20 per cent and its geographical application extended to other regional districts, including the Capital Regional District, Fraser Valley, Nanaimo and Central Okanagan.    

The plaintiffs in Shave v. Sommerey moved from the UK to Kelowna in January 2018. In May 2018, they made an offer to purchase a home in Kelowna, indicating in the Contract of Purchase and Sale that they were not citizens or permanent residents of Canada. However, this offer collapsed for financing reasons and the plaintiffs indicated to their Realtor that they could not afford the purchase as they were still not Canadian permanent residents. 

Later in May 2018, the plaintiffs drove across the border into the US to finalize paperwork for their move to Canada. On learning of this trip, the plaintiffs' Realtor understood its purpose was for the plaintiffs to become permanent residents or citizens of Canada. 

In late June 2018, the plaintiffs made an offer to purchase a different home in Kelowna for $862,000. The Realtor filled in the Contract of Purchase and Sale, indicating “yes” to the question regarding the buyers' Canadian residency, based on the Realtor’s earlier understanding regarding the plaintiffs' US border trip. Unfortunately, this error was never corrected, although it turned out the US border trip had to do with the plaintiffs finalizing their Canadian work permits—and not with becoming residents or citizens.

The plaintiffs completed the purchase but were later assessed an additional $172,400 in tax. As a result, they sued their Realtor and their conveyancing solicitor. The solicitor had made no express inquiries to verify the plaintiffs' residency status. Nonetheless, the Court found the Realtor 70 per cent liable for the plaintiffs' damages, the conveyancing solicitor 20 per cent and the plaintiffs themselves 5 per cent. 

When working with buyers who have recently moved to BC and wish to purchase in one of the geographical areas subject to the 20 per cent foreign buyers’ surtax, it is important for Realtors to inquire into their residency status.

Where there is uncertainty, it would be advisable to refer the buyers to a lawyer or accountant to obtain advice on the applicability of the foreign buyers' tax as a condition or prior to entering into a Contract of Purchase and Sale. Documenting advice in writing is always a good idea.

In addition, more complicated situations, such as separation agreements, foreclosures, transfers to beneficiaries of estates or potential surtax rebate, etc., could also attract the foreign buyers' surtax.

There is a recent Court of Appeal decision concerning the liability of a conveyancing lawyer (Tellini v. Bell Alliance, 2022 BCCA 106) about the lawyer’s advice to a non-resident spouse respecting the timing of a separation agreement and subsequent transfer of the other spouse’s 50% share of the family home into her name. In this case, the spouse had lost the opportunity to get a refund of the foreign buyers’ tax she paid ($74,700) because she did not become a resident until more than a year after the transfer. The Court found that the refund possibility was not reasonably foreseeable.

In sum, it is essential to perform proper care and due diligence in knowing your client and their residence or citizenship status. Minor oversights can lead to costly mistakes when dealing with the foreign buyers' tax. Realtors should take caution to minimize any potential risks involved in real estate transactions.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) remains an area of misunderstanding that can create real risk at the end of a transaction. For managing brokers, an important best practice to reinforce with REALTORS^® is the need to raise GST considerations with sellers at the very beginning of the listing process.

Too often, GST is treated as an afterthought. However, whether GST applies to a transaction depends on factors such as the seller’s status, the nature and use of the property, and whether the property is considered taxable. These are not issues that can be resolved quickly under the pressure of closing. Early discussions allow sellers to obtain appropriate accounting or legal advice and make informed decisions about pricing and structure.

Having these conversations upfront significantly reduces the risk of unexpected GST liabilities surfacing at completion. When GST is not addressed beforehand, disputes can arise between buyers and sellers as to who is responsible for the tax.

It is also important to remind REALTORS^® of the default position under the Contract of Purchase and Sale (CPS), which states that GST is included in the purchase price unless otherwise indicated. Reinforcing this point highlights the significance of understanding GST obligations in the initial stages of the transaction, as this information will be crucial when reviewing offers. Where GST is payable but has not been clearly addressed in the contract, the seller may be required to remit GST out of the agreed purchase price, potentially resulting in a high unexpected cost.

The CPS, however, allows GST to be negotiated. The parties can expressly state that GST is in addition to the purchase price or allocate responsibility in another agreed manner. Clear drafting is key. Where GST may apply, the contract should explicitly address whether the price is inclusive or exclusive of GST and who is responsible for payment and remittance.

Managing brokers play a critical role in reinforcing these practices. Encouraging REALTORS^® to identify potential GST issues early, recommend appropriate professional advice, and ensure the CPS accurately reflects the parties’ intentions will help mitigate risk and support smoother transactions.

Initial awareness, clear communication, and proper documentation are the best tools to avoid GST surprises at closing.

The federal B-20 stress test is preventing many British Columbians from achieving their dream of home ownership.

The Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions enacted new mortgage rules in 2018, requiring borrowers to qualify for a mortgage at the higher of either the rate they’ve negotiated with their bank plus two per cent or the Bank of Canada’s five-year rate.

BCREA's Economics Department published a Market Intelligence Report concluding that, without the stress test, home sales in BC would have been about ten per cent higher in 2018. The stress test resulted in an estimated $500 million of lost revenue in BC.

We're calling on the next federal government to alleviate the negative effects of the stress test with two recommendations:

1. reinstate 30-year amortizations for both insured and uninsured mortgages, and
2. reduce the current risk buffer from two per cent to one per cent.

BCREA is meeting with Members of Parliament to ensure that the stress test and housing affordability in BC remain at the forefront during the federal election campaign. So far, we've met federal Liberal MP Randeep Sarai and senior advisor to the PMO Ben Chin to share our proposed amendments to the stress test. In early August we discussed housing issues with federal NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. We also explained our concerns with his proposed national foreign buyers tax here.

We're working with other real estate sector organizations to create a joint statement on the B-20 stress test and other housing affordability recommendations. The goal is to help candidates understand how to help make BC housing more accessible and affordable.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 12, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is calling on the federal government to revisit the B-20 stress test so that more BC families can achieve their dream of homeownership. Mortgage lending rules, known as the B-20 stress test, have eroded housing affordability by reducing the purchasing power of families by as much as 20 per cent. Introduced last year, the stress test forces even the most credit-worthy borrowers with large down payments to qualify at an interest rate that is two percentage points above the rate they negotiate with their bank.

“We would like to see a review and reconsideration of the current mortgage underwriting ‘stress test,’ as well as a return to 30-year amortizations for federally insured mortgages,” says BCREA chief executive officer Darlene Hyde. “These rules must be changed now before BC families are left further behind.”

The stress test has caused a sharp decline in the attainability of homeownership in Canada. Since its implementation, home sales have declined 18 per cent across the country. Canada’s largest urban centres, where lack of affordability was especially acute before the new rules came into effect, have been hardest hit.

Home sales have declined nearly 25 per cent in Toronto and more than 45 per cent in Vancouver over the same period.

“The B-20 stress test is also having a negative impact on homeowner equity, family spending and the housing stock itself,” adds Hyde. “There’s a knock-on effect to the overall economy as families who are worried about declining home equity cut back on retail spending, home renovations and other products and services.”

A sharp decline in housing demand also causes home builders to pull back on production, arguably when it’s needed most, leading to slower growth of the housing stock and yet another supply crunch coupled with upward pressure on home prices down the road. Accordingly, the Canadian Home Builders’ Association has expressed similar concerns regarding the B-20 stress test, and the Canadian Real Estate Association and Toronto Real Estate Board have recently made similar appeals.

When families are locked out of the housing market by the strictest of mortgage rules, even the BC government treasury is affected. The sharp decline in home sales caused by the B-20 stress test has cost the government $400 million in lost Property Transfer Tax revenues alone, money that could have been used for health care, education and affordable housing.

-30-

Click here for the PDF.

For more information, please contact:
April van Ert
Communications Manager
Email: [email protected]
604.742.2797

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

A vendor's decision to take a back-up offer can be risky to the vendor's financial health, as will be apparent from your review of the following facts.

An agent brought to an owner on November 8, 1983, an offer to purchase the owner's property for 54,550,000.00, calling for a deposit of $50,000.00 and completion December 30th, 1983. The offer, which was subject to conditions to be met to the purchaser's satisfaction only and to be removed on or before November 25th, 1983, was accepted by the owner.

Another agent brought to the owner on November 8, 1983, an offer to purchase the property for $4,700,000.00. This offer was subject to a number of conditions, the most important of which turned out to be the following one:

"This offer is subject to the non-completion or collapse of the offer to purchase from X, on or before November 25, 1983, that has been accepted by the vendor."

The owner accepted the second offer, an offer that gave the owner only slightly more money than the first offer because the owner was liable for commission on the second offer, while on the first offer, the purchaser was to pay commission.

On November 25, the owner told the agent who had submitted the back-up offer that the conditions had been removed and that no changes had been made in the now unconditional contract. Three days later, however, the back-up purchaser found that the deposit had been increased by $25,000.00 and the date for completion had been extended to January 16, 1984.

These changes arose as a result of the following sequence of events that took place on November 25. The agent acting for the first purchaser took to the owner a signed removal of conditions. He then presented a second document that also stated that the conditions had been removed, but that the purchaser had agreed to increase the deposit monies upon the agreement of the owner to extend the completion date. Thirdly, he took with him another offer which, had the owner agreed to it, would have resulted in a reduction of the purchase price.

The owner told the agent that he had a back-up offer and refused to reduce the price, but did agree to the altered terms contained in the second document.

Upon the discovery of the amended terms, the back-up purchaser took the position that the first sale had collapsed and the back-up offer was now a binding contract. The owner proceeded with the sale to the first purchaser and the back-up purchaser then sued the owner for damages.

The owner's main defence was that the sequence of events meant that the conditions were removed to convert the conditional offer into a binding contract. This seemed to be a reasonable argument, given that once the contract became unconditional, the parties could re-negotiate the contract if they were able to agree upon the altered terms.

The judge rejected this, finding as a fact that the events of November 25th resulted in the re-negotiation of material terms of the contract that amounted to the cancellation or non-completion of the November 8th contract. The Judge further held that the existence of the back-up offer created a commitment preventing the owner from making a different deal with the first purchaser to the one contracted for in the November 8th conditional offer.

The judge accepted appraisal evidence that the building was valued at $4,850,000.00 on December 23, 1983, the date when the solicitor for the owner advised the back-up purchaser that the owner intended to proceed with the sale to the first purchaser. Damages of $150,000.00 were awarded to the back-up purchaser.

This case will probably be appealed and, if not, its effect will be limited by its narrow facts. It does suggest, however, that an owner, by accepting a back-up offer, prevents himself from altering any of the material terms of the first offer. This lack of flexibility may work to the owner's disadvantage. On the other hand, if the owner tries to provide for this flexibility by giving himself the right in the back-up offer to alter terms in the first offer, the back-up purchaser must be very keen to purchase if he is prepared to add to the uncertainty that is already the principal characteristic of a back-up offer.

1.

B.D. Management Ltd. v. Tajico Holdings Ltd.,S.C.B.C., 1986 B.C.D. Civil 2268-01.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Roughly twice a year my heart stops when a claim comes to my attention. Why? Because a licensee reports that the seller has sold the property twice!

Naturally, the seller is upset. They only have one property to sell and two buyers demanding it. 

In these instances, the seller typically accepts an offer for the property with subject conditions and then accepts a second offer for the property, also with conditions. The two buyers remove conditions and then the trouble begins, when both buyers claim to have a binding contract. 

The seller alleges that the licensee did not ensure the second offer was accepted with appropriate terms, indicating it was a back-up offer and subject to the collapse of the first offer. 

Back-up offers

The Real Estate Council of BC’s Professional Standards Manual specifically addresses offers made after a previous offer has been accepted—known as “back-up offers”. When dealing with a back-up offer, a licensee should always include a back-up offer clause. The suggested clause is:

                        “Back-up Contract Clause

Subject to the seller ceasing to be obligated in any way under the             previously accepted Contract of Purchase and Sale on the subject             property on or before (date). 

This condition is for the sole benefit of the seller.”

Council recommends the licensee acting for the seller advise the seller to get legal advice if there are any attempts to renegotiate the first offer, as that may activate the back-up offer and create a risk that the property is sold to two buyers simultaneously. The licensee should also suggest the second buyer obtain legal advice under the same circumstances.¹

Singh v. Sidhu

Back-up offers were the subject of a recent case of Singh v. Sidhu.²

In this case, the licensee acted on behalf of the sellers. He entered into a listing agreement, provided advice to the sellers on a list price, marketed the property, and finally, obtained an offer (the “Singh offer”). The Singh offer was countered by the sellers and ultimately accepted with several subject conditions. Conditions were removed and the date for completion approached. Prior to completion, the sellers contacted the licensee and told him that their family circumstances had changed, and they did not want to complete the transaction. The licensee was asked to convey that information to the buyers who had no agency. 

Then the unthinkable happened—the licensee was told for the first time that the sellers had already accepted an offer for the property from a Mr. Sran (the “Sran offer”)! When both buyers asserted they had a binding contract, the parties headed off to court.

The sellers argued that the licensee was repeatedly told that any offers he obtained were to be back-up offers. The court found that the listing contract made no reference to back-up offers, the Singh offer made no mention of back-up offers, and the licensee was first told of the Sran offer two months after the sellers had removed conditions on the Singh offer. In doing so, the court added that it would have expected an amendment to the standard listing agreement if the licensee was told to only obtain back-up offers, as well as perhaps an amendment as to his right to commission on any offers that the sellers achieved through other means.

In the Singh decision, the court dismissed all claims against the licensee. The court awarded the property to the Singhs and ordered the sellers to pay damages to Sran for failing to deliver the property.

The court preferred the evidence of the licensee over that of the sellers, whose evidence was contrived, inconsistent and not supported by the documents. The licensee was found to have performed his duties properly, in conformity with the expectations of the parties and in line with his contractual obligations and ethics. Although this case was a clear win for the licensee, it’s a reminder that when you know you are dealing with a back-up offer, you should always include a back-up offer clause.

	1.	Professional Standards Manual at Part III, Trading Services, Acting for Sellers (h)(xi).
	2.	Singh v. Sidhu, 2019 BCSC 1551.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 14, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 6,405 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in October, down 26.2 per cent from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $690,161, a decline of 4.1 per cent from October 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $4.2 billion, a 29.3 per cent decline from October 2017.

“The BC housing market continued to grapple with tougher mortgage qualifications in October,” said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. “However, more moderate consumer demand has led to a much-needed increase in the supply of homes for sale.”

Total active residential listings were up nearly 30 per cent to 36,195 units in October, compared to the same month last year. While the BC housing market exhibited balanced conditions overall in October, market conditions do vary between regions and by product type.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 22.1 per cent to $49.7 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales decreased 22.8 per cent to 69,664 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 1 per cent to $713,662.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

…but there’s still time to register!

This year's Banff Western Connection (BWC) conference is taking place next week, from January 24 to 26, in beautiful Banff, Alberta. BWC is a great opportunity for REALTORS® from all over Canada and beyond to connect, network and grow their professional knowledge and skills. It is also eligible for 3 Category C PDP credits!

The event will feature educational sessions focused on the latest issues and trends for REALTORS®, including:

• The Future of Real Estate
• Technology Advancements in Real Estate
• Team Building and Mental Health
• REALTOR® Safety
• Women in Real Estate

There will also be several pre- and post-conference sessions, a tradeshow with over 30 exhibitors and several networking events. Click here for information about the pre-conference sessions on January 23 and 24, and follow this link to register today!

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Due to COVID-19 the 2021 Banff Western Connection Conference, which was to be held in January 2021 at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel in Banff, Alberta, has been cancelled. Banff Western Connection means so much to all of us at BCREA and we’re disappointed to share this news. However, it’s important that we all remain committed to slowing the spread of COVID-19.

Please note that there is no intention to host the 2021 event virtually. The Conference Planning Committee is exploring options for future Banff Western Connection events and will provide updates as more information becomes available.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B

Financial institutions often demonstrate a casual if not contemptuous disregard for requests for pay-out statements or delivery of an executed discharge of a mortgage. While they are quick to demand payment where default occurs, or interest if payment is delayed, they are not as quick to provide statements or discharges. Whether this results from insufficient staff or bureaucratic centralization remote from the customer's community, one judge's decision is a victory for the customer.

A couple with a mortgage against their home in favour of a bank decided to assign it to a trust company, not only to reduce their interest and payments, but because of the treatment they had received from the bank. They advised the bank of this and asked for a pay-out statement. In spite of that, the bank sent what was referred to as a "preliminary extension notice', In addition, it gave erroneous and conflicting pay-out figures, making the actual payment by the trust company to the bank impossible. The bank then commenced a foreclosure action, even though the trust company remained willing to pay the bank the amount owed to it. The judge who looked at these facts dismissed the foreclosure position, gave the mortgagors their costs and directed the bank to assign to the trust company the bank's mortgage, upon payment of the amount owed to the bank.

As the judge said "the Bank has created its own problems. As I say, these could easily have been avoided had the Bank been less arrogant and uncompromising."¹

* * *

A CMHC guarantee of a 95% mortgage helped the borrowers in an unexpected way. A Newfoundland couple offered to purchase a home on Long Pond in Conception Bay South, subject to obtaining a mortgage. The bank manager advised them that the loan could only be made if CMHC agreed that the appraised value was at least equal to the purchase price. They were told as well that CMHC would make a thorough inspection, and if any deficiencies were noted, there would be a holdback of sufficient funds to make any necessary repairs.

CMHC inspected the property and, in a report which CMHC knew would be given to the prospective purchasers, left blank the space in which any items of repair noted by CMHC on its inspection, would have been detailed. On the strength of this, the loan was approved, the purchasers removed the condition and went ahead with the purchase. They entered into contented occupation only to discover a few deficiencies which made continued living in the premises difficult. These deficiencies, which included a malfunctioning sewage system, unfit drinking water, spliced and taped wiring in the attic and a roof which leaked, resulted in an appraiser testifying that at the time of their purchase, the deficiencies reduced the value of the property by $8,000.00.

They sued a number of people, including CMHC, and at the trial level, CMHC was held to be liable in damages. CMHC appealed and argued that it should not be liable because CMHC was only acting for the bank. CMHC was prepared to pay the bank whatever was outstanding under the mortgage, whether or not CMHC was negligent. The borrowers said that they were relying upon the skill of CMHC in not only determining market value, but the amount that might have been required to do necessary repairs. They expected to receive the CMHC report and, had it listed the repairs that were required to be done, they would either have renegotiated the purchase price or not removed the condition as to financing.

In the result, CMHC was held to be liable to the borrowers for the cost of the repairs as a result of its negligent inspection.²

	1.	Bank of Montreal v. Duncan, Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver Registry, No. H870296.
	2.	Snow v. Cumby, 42 R.P.R., page 320.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – August 10, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 7,103 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) systems in July 2023, an increase of 25.9 per cent from July 2022. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $967,948, up 5.6 per cent compared to July 2022. The total sales dollar volume was $6.9 billion, representing a 33 per cent increase from the same time last year. 

“Home sales are up significantly since this time last year,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “That said, there are signs that the most recent Bank of Canada rate increases are slowing activity as mortgage rates climb to their highest levels in over a decade.”

Active listings in the province were flat compared with July 2022, at just over 31,000 total listings and were up for the second consecutive month on a monthly, seasonally adjusted basis, as new listings return to more normal levels and sales moderate. 

Year-to-date BC residential sales dollar volume was down 20.9 per cent to $46.3 billion, compared with the same period in 2022. Residential unit sales were down 16.3 per cent to 47,508 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was down 5.4 per cent to $975,232.

By Gerry Neely
B.A., LL.B.

There have been fortunately, very few bankruptcies among real estate agencies in British Columbia, but when they do occur, they have unpleasant consequences for salespersons sharing in commissions paid to the bankrupt firm. Usually the bankrupt agency had assigned its receivables to its bank to secure a line of operating credit, and it took the commission because of its security. The salesman's position was that of an employee who was owed an unsecured amount by the bankrupt agent.

Attempts to persuade the provincial government to amend the B.C. Real Estate Act to create a trust of the deposit or other commission monies in favour of the salespersons have failed because of the argument that this would give a preference to real estate salespersons that other employees do not have.

Even without legislative changes however, all may not be lost because of the able arguments made by an Ontario lawyer who appealed the decision of a trustee in the bankruptcy of a real estate agency. The trustee disallowed the claims of two salespersons for commissions in excess of $20,000. This was based on a line of cases which held that the employer/employee relationship between agent and salesperson resulted in only a simple debt owed from one to the other. The difference between these cases and the Ontario case is that the salespersons and the agent had signed agreements which satisfied the judge that the salespersons were independent contractors and not employees.

Although the agent received the real estate commission, by the terms of the agreements the agent had no right to the commission as such. The monies from which commission would be payable to the salespersons were received by the agent in trust for the vendor and purchaser until closing. Following closing, the agent then became a stakeholder or collection agent, holding the trust funds for other brokers and the independent contractor salespersons, subject to the agent's right to payment of an administrative fee and a percentage of the salesperson's commission. judgement was given for the salespersons.

There are differences between the Ontario and British Columbia Real Estate Acts which may make this part of the decision not as favourable for B.C. licensees. The Ontario act defines a salesman as a person employed, appointed or authorized by a broker -. The British Columbia act is more restricted, referring only to the word "employed". However the judge in the Ontario case noted that the act did not prohibit an independent contractor relationship and cited a number of cases where an independent contractor was described as having been employed by his employer.

The second alternative argument which was accepted by the judge was based upon the principle of unjust enrichment. The Bankruptcy Act excludes from property to be divided among creditors, any property held by the bankrupt in trust for any other person. The agency was only entitled to 36% of the commission. The trustee in bankruptcy claimed to be entitled to recover 1 00 % of the commission, more than the agency could have retained if it had remained solvent. This would unjustly enrich the trustee and other creditors at the expense of the independent contractor salespersons. The judge held that the trustee retained the excess commission in trust for the salespersons.

The unjust enrichment argument does not depend upon the interpretation of the British Columbia Real Estate Act, but only upon the interpretation of the agreement between the agent and the salesperson.¹

***

The Legally Speaking column #172 incorrectly stated that the reasonable period for a holdover clause should be 80 days; this should have been 60 days.

We are sorry if this error has caused any confusion.

1.

Scharby v. N.R. S. Elgin Realty Ltd., Estate 3 O.R. (3d) 129.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On August 1, the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) assumed the Real Estate Council of BC (RECBC) and the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE) to become the only real estate regulator. BCFSA is a ‘super-regulator,’ regulating not only real estate but also credit unions, trust companies, insurance companies, pension plans and mortgage brokers. A dual-regulator model has created challenges for the real estate sector, so we are encouraged at the potential of this amalgamation. The amalgamation implements the Perrin Report’s recommendation to streamline the regulatory system and create more transparency for real estate professionals and better protection for consumers. The BC Real Estate Association and member boards’ role and services are not affected by the change.

So far, there have been few changes to the rollout. The most significant change affecting the day-to-day practice of REALTORS® is that RECBC’s website no longer exists. Instead, resources have been moved to BCFSA’s website. Another change affecting daily practice is that the Real Estate Services Rules have been renumbered. If you come across any challenges with these changes, we encourage you to email us at [email protected] with your concern so that we can anonymize and forward the issue to BCFSA staff.

BCREA staff have been meeting bi-weekly with senior management of BCFSA for months leading up to this changes. While we’re hopeful that this regulatory change will ultimately result in more efficiencies for consumers and real estate professionals, we are continuing to advocate for areas of improvement. One key recommendation we continue to ask for is the creation of a Professional Standing Committee to establish licensing qualifications and provide on-the-ground insights into all proposed changes to real estate practice.

As additional changes continue to occur throughout the coming months, we will continue acting as the voice of Realtors to advocate for a regulatory system that is easy to understand and inspires confidence in the professionals it governs.

Additional resources:

• BCFSA’s Integration Update
• BCREA video update by VP Government Relations Trevor Hargreaves
• BCREA’s Managing Broker Community of Practice resources

On May 19, the British Columbia Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) published a status update regarding the integration of the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE) and Real Estate Council of BC (RECBC) into the BCFSA to create a single regulator for BC’s financial services sector.

In the news release published on its website, the BCFSA says the creation of a single regulator – which, in addition to real estate services, already includes credit unions, trust companies, insurance companies, mortgage brokers and pension plans – will “simplify accountabilities and enhance regulator oversight through more effective business processes, investigations, and enforcements.”

The BCFSA expects that the new regulatory model, which will be organized functionally with departments overseeing the entire financial sector, will come into effect this summer.

“We welcome the creation of a single integrated regulator for BC’s financial services sector and are optimistic about the efficiencies this amalgamation is expected to bring for real estate professionals,” says BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde. “We look forward to a collaborative and productive relationship with the BC Financial Services Authority as we continue to advocate for a regulatory environment that is informed by the REALTOR® perspective and results in increased consumer confidence.”

Over the coming weeks, BCREA will continue work with the BCFSA, OSRE and RECBC to understand the impact of the changes and to provide input at every opportunity, ensuring the collective voice of BC Realtors is heard throughout the next stages of the regulatory shift.

As a part of the future integration, current RECBC CEO Erin Seeley will take on a new role as Senior Vice President of Policy and Stakeholder Engagement, while current Superintendent of Real Estate Micheal Noseworthy will serve as Senior Vice President of Compliance and Market Conduct.

A full list of BCFSA’s future executive team can be found here. And an FAQ document, which includes more information about the integration of RECBC and OSRE, can be found here.

To learn more about what you can expect with the move to a single regulator, click here.

On February 22, 2024, Finance Minister Katrine Conroy introduced the provincial government’s Budget 2024. The budget unveiled several new housing related measures, including the BC Home Flipping Tax and various property transfer tax exemptions.

While BCREA commends the provincial government’s renewed commitment and efforts to improve housing attainability for British Columbians, the budget’s introduction of a “flipping tax” is unlikely to have a meaningful impact on housing attainability.  

Flipping Tax 

The BC Home Flipping Tax is a 20 per cent tax on the gain from sale of a home within a one-year time horizon and a pro-rated tax on sales up to within a two-year period. The tax will apply to both properties and assignments of contracts and is in addition to any existing federal or provincial income taxes incurred from the sale of the property, including the federal anti-flipping tax. Exemptions will be available for certain life circumstances that might motivate the sale of a property within two years, including for added supply through the creation of rental accessory dwelling units. 

The BCREA Economics Department’s preliminary analysis estimates the flipping tax will decrease home sales by between 1-2 per cent over a three-year period. Given the relatively small impact, prices and housing attainability are essentially unchanged by the tax. This is unsurprising, given that short-term flipping represents a low share of sales activity (less than 2 per cent in both Vancouver and Victoria). 

However, because the government has now implemented a disincentive to sell within a two-year period after purchasing, there will be some potential sellers that are prompted to delay listing, resulting in a lower level of listings inventory than without the tax. As a result, home prices may increase with the flipping tax compared to a no-tax baseline. Ultimately, the only way to prevent harmful short-term speculation in the housing market is to ensure housing is abundant. Our team plans to continue to analyze the flipping tax and provide updates when available. 

Property Transfer Tax Exemptions 

In principle, BCREA supports reduced property transfer taxes for first-time home buyers and people purchasing newly constructed homes. However, while we're in favour of measures that increase first-time home buyers’ abilities to purchase properties, it's critically important that housing supply is increased so they aren’t caught in bidding wars to acquire those homes. More detail is needed on property transfer tax exemption for purpose-built rentals to understand its impact on housing attainability for British Columbians. 

BCREA will continue to advocate for more thoughtful and evidence-based policies that can genuinely move the needle on housing attainability and alleviate the housing crisis facing British Columbians. 

Between March 10 and 12, BCREA and delegates from real estate boards across the province will be taking part in our annual Government Liaison (GL) Days in Victoria. During this time, we will be meeting with MLA’s representing all parties and advocating for the establishment of a permanent housing roundtable where stakeholders such as BCREA can advise on housing policy prior to its introduction and implementation.

BC’s Budget 2020 offers some new investments to assist homeowners and their communities, but falls short of substantial changes to improve housing affordability.

We’re pleased by the promise of an additional $419 million investment over three years to support CleanBC for home and workplace electric vehicle charging stations and new pilot programs to further reduce carbon emissions. An additional $195 million will also be invested over three years to help communities better respond to and recover from wildfires, floods and other emergencies.

These are the highlights of the few budget items related to housing:

• an additional $118 million in operating funding and $56 million in capital funding to support BC’s housing strategy. This will result in a planned $1.1 billion in total capital funding to support housing and homelessness initiatives over the next three years,
• a new exemption to the Property Transfer Tax that will be introduced for qualifying Canadian-controlled limited partnerships. Effective on royal assent, the Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to clarify the calculation of partial principal residence exemptions where the land is greater than 0.5 hectares or the property includes non-residential improvements, and
• amendments to the Land Tax Deferment Act to centralize program administration within the Ministry of Finance, effective May 1, 2020.

In BCREA’s response to the Budget 2020 consultation, we recommend fairness and effectiveness in provincial property taxes, such as increasing the First-Time Home Buyers’ Program Property Transfer Tax exemption threshold to $750,000 from $500,000. We also recommend more policies to help increase housing supply, such as exempting properties in the development process from the additional school tax using the same policy framework created to exempt development projects from the Speculation and Vacancy Tax. 

We will continue to advocate for housing affordability solutions through our submission to the Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability in April.

More government information on BC Budget 2020: https://bit.ly/2vGSXGa.

Photo: Minister Carole James delivers the 2020 Budget to stakeholders and journalists (Courtesy of Province of British Columbia/Flickr)

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On March 2, Bill 8: Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 2021 was introduced in the BC Legislature. With its introduction, the BC Government’s intention to create a single financial services regulator, including real estate, announced in September 2019, was finally made clear.

The bill creates the path for the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE) and the Real Estate Council of British Columbia (RECBC) to become part of the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA). According to the government’s news release, this is expected to happen “later in 2021.”

BCREA reaction

We welcome a more cohesive regulatory structure, which is something we asked for early in 2019. Unfortunately, the legislative changes introduced yesterday don’t include the creation of the Professional Standing Committee BCREA proposed more than a year ago.

When the BCFSA becomes the real estate regulator, administration of the Real Estate Services Act (RESA), Real Estate Development Marketing Act and parts of the Strata Property Act will be added to the BCFSA’s current regulatory responsibilities, which include credit unions, mortgage brokers and insurance. BCFSA’s Chief Executive Officer will become the new Superintendent of Real Estate.

As a result of the omission of the Professional Standing Committee, BCREA is concerned that real estate licensees will have fewer opportunities to provide input into rules and policies that impact the practice of real estate. Although the Professional Standing Committee isn’t included in the proposed amendments to RESA, we hope it will be implemented in the practical application of the new regulatory structure. We will continue to work with the BCFSA, OSRE and RECBC to this end. Our goal is to ensure a consistent, meaningful process for practitioner input.

Other changes

At a high level, the government also proposes the following changes, among others:

• expanding the administrative penalty system, including the option of requiring further education and doubling the maximum penalty (currently $50,000),
• eliminating discipline committees, and
• strengthening the new superintendent’s options for handling urgent circumstances.

Next steps

BCREA is carefully reviewing the proposed changes to RESA, including seeking legal analysis and meeting with government staff.

This bill – like all bills – will be debated in the legislature and subject to further changes as part of that process. Once it’s passed, it won’t take effect right away. Instead, the government will implement it at a later date by regulation.

As BCREA learns more about the proposed changes to RESA, we’ll provide updates in future blog posts. If you have any concerns, please contact Senior Policy Analyst Norma Miller.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On Wednesday, June 15, the BC Government publicly released the final report and recommendations from the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in BC.

The Commission was established in May 2019 to examine the extent of money laundering in BC. Areas of focus included real estate, as well as the gaming sector, financial institutions, the corporate sector, lawyers and notaries, accountants, luxury goods and virtual assets. Last year, former BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde and Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson represented BC’s real estate boards and Realtors by participating in the inquiry to provide context and insight into the functions of the real estate sector.

In the final report, Commissioner Austin Cullen recommends the creation of a provincial anti-money laundering unit and changes to FINTRAC. Additionally, the Commissioner was unable to find a link between money laundering in real estate and housing unaffordability.

“The commissioner’s findings, after more than a year of study, show that the volume of money laundering in our province is ‘enormous’ is profoundly concerning,” said BC Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Housing David Eby.

Read more about the findings and recommendations:

• Final Report
• Executive Summary
• Part IV: The Real Estate Sector
• Consolidated Recommendations

Focus on real estate

One of the many areas of focus of the inquiry and final report was money laundering in real estate.
In addition to finding no link between housing prices and money laundering, Commissioner Cullen highlighted that “the real estate sector is highly vulnerable to money laundering.” He also wrote that REALTORS^®:

• have a poor record of anti-money laundering reporting and compliance;
• display an inadequate understanding of, and hold misplaced beliefs about, how money laundering occurs in the real estate industry;
• are confused about how to comply with their federal anti-money laundering obligations; and that
• most real estate agents and brokers have no background in compliance or anti-money laundering measures, and there is significant frustration in the industry about the lack of guidance.

The report was also critical of FINTRAC, Canada’s financial intelligence unit, saying that “law enforcement bodies in BC cannot rely on FINTRAC to produce timely, useful intelligence about money laundering.” As a solution, Commissioner Cullen called for the “need for clear, simple guidance from FINTRAC about when transactions must be reported.”

BCREA continued advocacy

We know Realtors, as members of the public and trusted advisors for consumers are concerned about money laundering in real estate and your frustrations around the difficulties of the current compliance requirements. As BCREA continues to review and analyze the report and its findings, we will inform you of developments that impact your day-to-day work and the future of the profession.

We will also continue to advocate for more transparency and collaboration with the real estate sector from regulatory bodies to ensure that any changes to anti-money laundering requirements for Realtors are effective and created with careful consideration for the nuances of the real estate transaction and the protection of Realtors and their clients.

If you have questions about the Cullen Commission, email [email protected].

In the immediate wake of publicly voiced concern from BCREA, the BC Government has reversed course on two recent changes to the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA) as they relate to buyers of tenanted properties. 

The initial changes laid out in Bill 14, which came into effect on July 18, 2024, required four months' notice – instead of the previous two months' notice – for evictions due to personal or caretaker use. The legislation also raised the dispute period from 15 days to 30 days. 

Now the government is amending the regulation to lower the personal-use notice period to three months and the dispute period to 21 days for situations when a landlord gives notice to a tenant on behalf of a purchaser. These changes come into effect on August 21, 2024. 

"Since the amendments came into force, government has listened to feedback from industry stakeholders that a four-month notice period could prevent first-time buyers from purchasing a tenanted property," the government said in a statement on August 1, 2024. 

The BCREA Government Relations department is proud to have been a key part of the industry response, along with partners from the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – BC (CMBA-BC). In open letters and a joint press release, the two organizations pointed out the flaws with lengthening both the personal-use notice period and the dispute period, including their effect on first-time homebuyers. 

"We appreciate the government responding quickly to our concerns," said Trevor Hargreaves, BCREA Senior VP, Government Relations, Marketing & Communications. "This legislation caused confusion and concern amongst both REALTORS^® and the public, including buyers and sellers, and we're happy to see changes made to alleviate that." 

In BCREA's open letter, the organization reiterated its call for government to launch a permanent housing roundtable made up of housing policy experts and other stakeholders from across the BC housing sector, as it would have allowed for this round of feedback to be delivered before the legislation took effect. 

Related links:

To read the full statement from the BC Government, click here.
To read CBC coverage of these latest developments, click here.
To read BCREA's letter to the BC Government, click here.  
To read BCREA and CMBA-BC's joint press release, click here.  

For more information:

If you have questions or concerns about changes to the RTA or any other policy issue, please email Trevor Hargreaves at [email protected]. 

With demand significantly outweighing supply in many regions across BC, the cost of housing has risen dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) has maintained that increasing market housing supply is a key to making homeownership more affordable for British Columbians, which is why the provincial government’s recent announcement introducing proposed legislative amendments aimed at speeding up municipal development approvals is a welcomed, positive step.
 
“We have seen throughout the pandemic that housing for British Columbians is at a premium, both in terms of options and cost,” says BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde. “The most obvious and impactful measure that can be taken to address this is increasing supply. So, we are encouraged to see that the government is making this a priority.”
 
The changes announced by the government include the removal of requirements for local governments to hold public hearings for development proposals that already align with Official Community Plans (OCPs) and equip municipal staff to make decisions for minor development variance permits.
 
BCREA has long been advocating for measures to speed up development approvals and we are pleased to see them being put into practice. Our recent pre-budget submission to the government’s standing committee on finance specifically called for changes to the public hearing process. What remains, however, is the adoption of additional measures outlined in the Development Approvals Process Review (DAPR) final report, which the provincial government published in September 2019, but have yet to implement.
 
“Increasing housing supply is not a simple solution. It requires a coordinated and aligned effort from all orders of government and adequate incentives for municipalities to take action,” adds Hyde. “What is not addressed here are the undercurrents of hesitancy around development that exist within certain municipalities.”
 
BCREA recommends governments at both the provincial and federal levels work collaboratively to make infrastructure investments to local governments conditional on targets in OCPs. This is a recommendation that is echoed both in the DAPR final report and by the Canada-British Columbia Expert Panel on the Future of Housing Supply and Affordability in its final report. The province should also provide local governments with best practices for writing, adopting and amending OCPs, and municipalities should prioritize the creation of missing middle housing through the gentle densification of single-family residential neighbourhoods.

 
For more information, contact:
Trevor Hargreaves
BCREA Vice President, Government Relations 
[email protected]
604.375.8076 

The BC Government has created regulations that will enable a mandatory three-day Homebuyer Protection Period (HPP), previously called a “cooling off period,” on January 1, 2023. While BCREA supports enhanced consumer protection measures for real estate consumers, we are extremely disappointed by this announcement. We anticipate that the HPP will not be an effective measure, especially as market conditions are changing and becoming more balanced.

BCREA offered more than thirty alternative recommendations in our paper published in our white paper, “A Better Way Home.” Many of these recommendations aligned with the BC Financial Services Authority’s report, “Enhancing Consumer Protection in BC’s Real Estate Market,” which was published in May.

So far, the Ministry of Finance has ignored these recommendations, only choosing to move forwards with their Homebuyer Protection Period, which was announced before any consultation took place.

The decision to implement an HPP undermines the independence and expertise of BCFSA and is concerning to Realtors and British Columbians. For consumers to truly be protected in a real estate transaction in BC, the government needs to empower BCFSA to conduct its own research on policies’ effectiveness, otherwise, there will continue to be a lack of positive changes to BC’s housing market.

While there remain many unanswered questions, here are the details of the HPP upon the announcement:

Deposit

• if a deposit is held in trust, brokerages may release it upon rescission
• rescission fee amount is provided to the seller
• the balance (if any) is returned to the buyer, despite what may be provided in the contract. 

Exemptions and waivers

The HPP cannot be waived. Narrow exemptions include:

• sales subject to a 21 of the Real Estate Development Marketing Act
• sales of residential real property located on leased land
• sales of leasehold interest in residential real estate
• sales at auction
• sales under a court order or supervision of a court

Defining residential real estate

The policy will apply to the following types of structures:

• detached homes,
• semi-detached homes,
• townhouses,
• apartments in a duplex or other multi-unit dwelling,
• residential strata lots,
• manufactured homes that are affixed to land, and
• cooperative interests that include a right of use or occupation of a dwelling.

The HPP does not apply to presale properties already subject to a rescission period under the Real Estate Development Marketing Act.

Requirements to Inform Consumers

Licensees must provide general information on the HPP to all consumers through the Disclosure of Representation in Trading Services (prescribed content).

Service of Notice

Homebuyers must serv rescission notice on the seller in one of the following forms:

• registered mail
• fax
• e-mail with read receipt
• Personal service

Rescission Notice Content

Rescission notice must contain:

• address, PID or description of the property
• names and signature of the purchaser
• name of the seller(s)
• date of notice

Additional Disclosure

Licensees must also provide an additional mandatory disclosure at the time of preparing an offer on behalf of presenting an offer to a client, containing the following information:

• the HPP cannot be waived,
• the rescission period,
• dollar amount of the rescission fee,
• deposit handling, and
• HPP exemptions.

Records Retention
Brokerages must retain a copy of a rescission notice that it prepares or receives (enables audit and reporting).

BCREA staff have met with BC Financial Services Authority staff to receive a debrief from them and begin coordinating education resources for licensees. We will continue to collate questions and concerns, bringing them to the Minister of Finance.

BCREA understands the importance of consumer protection measures and continues to support enhancements to real estate transactions. REALTORS® consider consumer protection a top priority in their work with consumers every day, and improving consumer confidence, and trust in their home buying journey is something the profession is constantly working towards.

To learn more, read:
Home Buyer Rescission Period Regulation Order in Council
Disclosure of certain clients of the right of rescission Order in Council

As of January 1, 2025, the BC Home Flipping Tax is now in effect. REALTORS^® need to know this new tax is distinct from the existing federal property flipping tax and specifically targets short-term property sales within British Columbia. 

Here’s how it works: 

• The tax applies to income from sales of residential properties, presale contracts, or assignments owned for less than 730 days (two years). This includes properties bought before January 1, 2025, if they are sold on or after that date and owned for less than two years.  

• The rate is 20 per cent for sales within the first 365 days of ownership, gradually decreasing until it is eliminated at 730 days.  

• This tax applies to any person or entity (individual, corporation, partnership, or trust) selling property within BC, regardless of residency.  

• Exemptions include certain primary residences, though exemptions are subject to specific conditions and filing requirements.

The BC Government has released a new video about the tax. Check it out here.

To check out all the details on the BC Government website, click here.

For the BC Real Estate Association’s breakdown of the new tax, including a comparison with the federal flipping tax, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – January 12, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 103,763 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in 2017, a decline of 7.5 per cent from a record 112,211 unit sales in 2016. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $709,579 in 2017, up 2.7 per cent from the previous year. Total sales dollar volume was $73.63 billion, down 5.1 per cent from 2016.

"Robust housing demand in 2017 was underpinned by a strong economy, employment growth and rising wages," said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. "Above trend migration, both international and interprovincial, also bolstered housing demand, while broader demographic fundamentals added fuel to condominium sales in urban centres and to all home types in retirement-oriented communities."

The BC housing market ended the year with a strong December. Home sales increased 4 per cent from November, on a seasonally adjusted basis. However, the year-end results were likely pushed higher by some homebuyers advancing their purchases to avoid tougher mortgage qualification rules in the new year.

In December, a total of 5,738 residential unit sales were recorded by the MLS® across the province, an increase of 21.5 per cent from the same period last year. Total sales dollar volume was $4.2 billion, up 36.3 per cent from December 2016. The average MLS® residential price in the province was $734,108, up 12.1 per cent from the same month last year.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – December 14, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,179 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in November, down 33.1 per cent from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $718,903, a decline of 1.9 per cent from November 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $3.7 billion, a 34.3 per cent decline from November 2017.

“BC households continue to struggle with the sharp decline in purchasing power caused by the B20 mortgage stress test,” said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. “Most BC regions are now exhibiting relative balance between supply and demand.”

Total active residential listings were up nearly 31 per cent to 33,500 units in November, compared to the same month last year. However, it should be noted that this compares to 2017, when active listings for the month of November were at their lowest level in more than 15 years.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 23.1 per cent to $53.4 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales declined 23.6 per cent to 74,847 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 0.7 per cent to $713,302.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – October 11, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,573 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in September, a 33.2 per cent decrease from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $685,749, down 1.1 per cent from September 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $3.8 billion, a 34 per cent decline from September 2017.

“BC home sales continue at a slower pace compared to last year,” said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. “The impact on affordability and purchasing power caused by the mortgage stress test and moderately higher interest rates are negating the effect of the extraordinarily strong performance of BC’s economy over the last five years.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 21.3 per cent to $45 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales decreased 22.5 per cent to 63,251 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 1.5 per cent to $716,096.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – August 11, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,572 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in July 2022, a decrease of 42.4 per cent from July 2021. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $923,449, a 3.6 per cent increase from $891,376 recorded in July 2021. Total sales dollar volume was $5.1 billion, a 40.3 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“High mortgage rates continued to lower sales activity in July,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Many regions around the province have seen sales slip to levels well below normal for this time of year.”

As the pace of sales activity declines below normal levels, inventory is accumulating. Provincial active listings rose 28 per cent year-over-year, though from a very low level in July 2021. Inventories remain quite low, but the slow pace of sales has tipped some markets into balanced or even buyers’ market territory.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 20 per cent from the same period in 2021 to $58.7 billion. Residential unit sales were down 29.3 per cent to 56,801 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 13.2 per cent to $1.03 million.   

-30-

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – January 15, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 78,345 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) in 2018, a decline of 24.5 per cent from the 103,758 units sold in 2017. The annual average MLS® residential price in BC was $712,508, an increase of 0.4 per cent from $709,601 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume was $55.8 billion, a 24.2 per cent decline from 2017.

“BC home sales fell below the 10-year average of 84,800 units in 2018,” said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. “The sharp decline in affordability caused by the B20 mortgage stress test is largely to blame for decline in consumer demand last year.”

A total of 3,497 MLS® residential unit sales were recorded across the province in December, down 39.1 per cent from December 2017. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $695,647, a decline of 5.2 per cent from December 2017. Total sales dollar volume was $2.4 billion, a 42.3 per cent decline during the same period.

Total active residential listings were up 33.3 per cent to 27,615 units in December, the highest December inventory since 2014 when 33,995 active residential listings were recorded.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 15, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,306 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in January, an increase of 18.3 per cent from the same period last year. The average MLS® residential price in BC was $721,477, up 16.2 per cent from the previous year. Total sales dollar volume was $3.83 billion, a 37.4 per cent increase from January 2017.

"BC home sales dipped 10 per cent from December to January, on a seasonally adjusted basis," said Cameron Muir, BCREA Chief Economist. "New mortgage rules requiring conventional borrowers to qualify at a higher interest rate likely contributed to the decline in home sales last month. The impact was magnified by a strong December as many households advanced their purchase decisions ahead of the policy's implementation."

Despite the decline in January transactions, the seasonally adjusted annual rate of home sales was 101,800 units.

Compared to January 2017, market conditions tightened in all BC board areas except Victoria, where the sales-to-active listings ratio declined from 46.3 per cent to 40.5 per cent. Despite this decline, Victoria remains in strong sellers' market territory. Total active listings in the province were down 8.6 per cent to 20,901 units, compared to the same period last year.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – October 15, 2025. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that 5,782 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) Systems in September 2025, up 4.4 per cent from September 2024. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in September 2025 was up 0.4 per cent at $948,296 compared to $944,298 in September 2024.

Total MLS^® residential sales dollar volume was $5.5 billion, up 4.8 per cent from the same time the previous year. BC MLS^® unit sales were 21.4 per cent lower than the ten-year average for the month of September.

“Home sales in the province are gaining momentum following a slow first half of 2025,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “We anticipate sales will finish the year strong, aided by lower interest rates helping to unleash pent-up demand.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume is down 7.3 per cent to $51.8 billion, compared with the same period in 2024. Residential unit sales are down 4.2 per cent year-over-year at 54,594 units, while the average MLS^® residential price is also down 3.3 per cent to $949,203.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – June 14, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 8,221 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) in May, a decline of 7 per cent from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in the province was $707,829, a decline of 4.3 per cent from May 2018. Total sales dollar volume was $5.8 billion, an 11 per cent decline from the same month last year.

“BC home sales increased 9 per cent in May compared to April, on a seasonally adjusted basis,” said BCREA Chief Economist Cameron Muir. “However, consumers continue to struggle with the negative shock to affordability that stringent mortgage lending policies have created.”

Total MLS® residential active listings were up 23.2 per cent to 41,519 units compared to the same month last year. However, total active listings were down 2 per cent from April, on a seasonally adjusted basis, the first monthly decline since the B20 Stress test was introduced in January 2018.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 25.1 per cent to $19.8 billion, compared with the same period in 2018. Residential unit sales decreased 20.2 per cent to 28,711 units, while the average MLS® residential price was down 6.2 per cent to $688,339.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 14, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,242 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in October 2022, a decrease of 45.5 per cent from October 2021. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $932,979, a 3.1 per cent decrease from $963,011 recorded in October 2021. Total sales dollar volume was $4.9 billion, a 47.2 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“Sales activity remains slow across the province and inventories appear to be plateauing,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While prices have fallen from peak levels reached in early 2022, average prices have recently leveled off.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 26.3 per cent from the same period in 2021 to $73.3 billion. Residential unit sales were down 33 per cent to 72,824 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 10 per cent to $1.01 million.

-30-  

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – September 14, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total 9,507 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in August 2021, a decrease of 7.1 per cent over August 2020. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $901,712, a 17.2 per cent increase from $769,691 recorded in August 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $8.6 billion, an 8.9 per cent increase from last year.

“Home sales around the province have essentially returned to normal after a record setting spring,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “However, we continue to see a drought in the total supply of listings as well as downward trend in new listings activity.”

Total active residential listings were down 37.9 per cent year-over-year in August and were 42 per cent below normal levels for the month of August.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 102.2 per cent to $82 billion, compared with the same period in 2020. Residential unit sales were up 67.8 per cent to 89,980 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 20.5 per cent to $911,245.   

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – May 14, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 8,203 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) across the province in April, a 16.8 per cent decrease from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential pricein BC was $730,507, up 0.2 per cent from the previous year. Total sales dollar volume was $5.99 billion, a 16.7 per cent decline from April 2017.

"BC home sales were essentially unchanged in April compared to March, albeit up nearly 1 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis," said Cameron Muir, BCREA's Chief Economist. "The impact of more burdensome mortgage qualifications for conventional borrowers is expected to soften over the next several months as potential buyers adjust both their finances and expectations."

The supply of homes for sale in April increased 4 per cent from the previous month. However, total active listings on the market continue to remain low from a historical perspective. Most regions of the province have begun trending toward more balance between supply and demand, causing less upward pressure on home prices.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 6.7per cent to $19.9 billion, compared with the same period in 2017. Residential unit sales decreased 11.8 per cent to 27,135 units, while the average MLS® residential price was up 5.7 per cent to $731,661.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Cameron Muir
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2780
Mobile: 778.229.1884
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 12, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,741 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in February 2020, an increase of 26.3 per cent from February 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $758,863, a 12 per cent increase from $677,681 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in February was $4.4 billion, a 41.4 per cent increase over 2019.

“Housing markets in BC continued to trend near long-term average levels in February,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Recent declines in mortgage rates and favourable changes to mortgage qualifying rules may provide a boost to home sales heading into the spring, although there is significant economic uncertainty lingering over the outlook.”

Total MLS^® residential active listings fell 8.4 per cent to 28,303 units compared to the same month last year. The ratio of sales to active residential listings increased 20.3 per cent from 14.7 per cent last February. 

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 38.4 per cent to $7.6 billion, compared with the same period in 2019. Residential unit sales increased 24.8 per cent to 10,135 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 10.9 per cent to $745,501.   

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – July 15, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 6,960 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service® (MLS®) in June, a decline of 11.8 per cent from the same month last year. The average MLS® residential price in the province was $687,584, a decline of 4 per cent from June 2018. Total sales dollar volume was $4.8 billion, a 15.3 per cent decline from the same month last year.

“BC home sales moderated lower in June after a stronger showing in May,” said BCREA Deputy Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While mortgage rates offered by lenders have moved below 3 per cent, a static qualifying rate has limited the impact of the lower cost of borrowing.”

Total MLS® residential active listings were up 18.6 per cent to 42,625 units compared to the same month last year and were essentially flat on a seasonally adjusted basis compared to May.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 23.4 per cent to $24.5 billion, compared with the same period in 2018. Residential unit sales decreased 18.7 per cent to 35,679 units, while the average MLS® residential price was down 5.8 per cent to $688,080.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Deputy Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – May 12, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 8,939 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in  April 2022, a decrease of 34.9 per cent from a record April 2021. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $1.065 million, a 12.9 per cent increase from $943,765 recorded in April 2021. Total sales dollar volume was $9.5 billion, a 26.5 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“Canadian mortgages have sharply increased, surpassing 4 per cent for the first time in a decade,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “With interest rates rising, demand across BC is now on a path to normalizing. However, given existing levels of supply, markets conditions remain tight.”

Provincial active listings were 7.5 per cent lower than this time last year, though listings are starting to accumulate in some markets as demand fades. However, it will likely take a year or more for the supply of listings to return to balanced market levels.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 10.7 per cent to $38.4 billion, compared with the same period in 2021. Residential unit sales were down 24.2 per cent to 35,618 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 17.8 per cent to $1.078 million.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – August 11, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 9,663 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in July 2021, a decrease of 7.2 per cent over July 2020. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $891,687, a 17.1 per cent increase from $761,772 recorded in July 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $8.6 billion, an 8.6 per cent increase from last year.

 “Provincial market activity slowed in July with both sales and listings declining on a seasonally adjusted basis,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While sales remain robust, listings activity continues to be a concern as inventories trend near record lows.”

Total active residential listings were down 32.2 per cent year-over-year in July and continued to fall on a monthly seasonally adjusted basis.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 124.7 per cent to $73.4 billion, compared with the same period in 2020. Residential unit sales were up 85.4 per cent to 80,461 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 21.2 per cent to $912,379. 

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 12, 2025. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that 6,374 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) Systems in October 2025, down 10.2 per cent from October 2024. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in October 2025 was up 0.8 per cent at $978,658 compared to $970,483 in October 2024.

Total MLS^® residential sales dollar volume was $6.2 billion, down 9.4 per cent from the same time the previous year. BC MLS^® unit sales were 17.1 per cent lower than the ten-year average for the month of October.

“Sales activity in many regions of the province has recovered to pre-tariff levels, with more expensive regions continuing to lag behind,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “We expect demand to steadily enter the market as interest rates fall, driving a stronger final quarter of the year.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume is down 7.5 per cent to $58 billion, compared with the same period in 2024. Residential unit sales are down 4.8 per cent year-over-year at 60,954 units, while the average MLS^® residential price is also down 2.8 per cent to $952,273.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – December 15, 2025. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that 5,052 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) Systems in November 2025, down 13.3 per cent from November 2024. The average MLS^® residential price in BC in November 2025 was down 1.4 per cent at $965,914 compared to $979,774 in November 2024.

Total MLS^® residential sales dollar volume was $4.9 billion, down 14.5 per cent from the same time the previous year. BC MLS^® unit sales were 24.9 per cent lower than the ten-year average for the month of November.

“Market activity cooled throughout the province in November, with sales in every region falling short of historical averages,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While broader headwinds continue to linger, we hope stable rates and fading trade uncertainty with the US will stimulate sales moving into 2026.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume is down 8.1 per cent to $62.9 billion, compared with the same period in 2024. Residential unit sales are down 5.6 per cent year-over-year at 65,997 units, while the average MLS^® residential price is also down 2.7 per cent to $953,306.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 10, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total 9,593 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in October 2021, a decrease of 13.7 per cent from October 2020. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $964,777, an 18.9 per cent increase from $811,307 recorded in October 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $9.3 billion, a 2.6 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“The story across the province continues to be the record low number of listings,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Rising mortgage rates should start to temper sales activity next year, but even with a moderation in demand it will take quite some time for the inventory of homes to return to a healthy level.”

Total active residential listings were down nearly 40 per cent year-over-year in October, falling to an all-time record low for the province. Active listings have now fallen for five consecutive months on a seasonally adjusted basis.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume is up 69.7 per cent to $99.6 billion compared to the same period in 2020. Residential unit sales were up 42.8 per cent to 108,798 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 18.8 per cent to $915,833.   

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 11, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 10,918 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in February 2021, an increase of 89.1 per cent over February 2020 and over a thousand sales higher than the previous February record, set in 2016. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $889,584, a 17.3 per cent increase from $758,382 recorded in February 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $9.7 billion, a 121.8 per cent increase from last year.

“Near-record sales in Metro Vancouver, combined with unprecedented housing demand outside of Metro Vancouver, continues to drive a blistering pace of home sales in BC,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson.

Total active residential listings were down 28.7 per cent to 20,185 units in February, the lowest level of provincial active listings on record, going back to 2000. Fortunately, new listings have increased considerably, but given the pace of sales, total inventory of homes for sale remains severely depleted. 

“There is a drought of resale inventory across the province,” added Ogmundson. “With so few listings, and with so much demand for single-detached homes, average prices have increased dramatically.”

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 12, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 11,051 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in October 2020, an increase of 43.8 per cent from October 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC set a record of $812,960, a 12.5 per cent increase from $722,333 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in August was $8.98 billion, a 61.8 per cent increase over 2019.

“The provincial housing market sustained its blistering pace of activity in October,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While pent-up demand may be starting to fade, record low interest rates and a recovering job market are supporting strong sales.”

“A pandemic-driven shift in buyers’ preference for extra space is pushing average prices to record highs as larger value transactions account for a higher share of sales,” added Ogmundson. Prices are also being pushed higher by a lack of inventory. Total provincial active listings continue to trend lower and were close to 14 per cent lower in October 2020 compared to 2019.  

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 29.7 per cent to $58.7 billion, compared with the same period in 2019. Residential unit sales were up 16.3 per cent to 76,140 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 11.5 per cent to $771,085.   

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – December 14, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 9,416 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in November 2020, an increase of 42.1 per cent from November 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC set a record of $816,074, a 9.3 per cent increase from $746,310 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in November was $7.68 billion, a 55.4 per cent increase over 2019.

“Home sales were once again unseasonably strong in November with several markets setting records for the month,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While demand continues to be strong, the supply of listings has reached near-record lows in several parts of the province, with prices rising sharply as a result."

Active listings were down close to 14 per cent year-over-year in November, which contributed to a 34.8 per cent sales-to-active listings ratio. Consequently, the provincial average price rose 9.3 per compared to this time last year with many markets seeing even stronger price growth.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 32.3 per cent to $66.43 billion, compared with the same period in 2019. Residential unit sales were up 18.7 per cent to 85,625 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 11.4 per cent to $775,845.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – September 13, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,645 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in August 2022, a decrease of 40.8 per cent from August 2021. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $918,378, a 2.1 per cent increase from $899,428 recorded in August 2021. Total sales dollar volume was $5.2 billion, a 39.6 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“Housing activity across the province remains well below normal but is showing signs of stabilizing,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While inventory is up over last year, active listings have somewhat stalled at relatively low levels in most major markets and as a result we are seeing a healthier balance compared to last year.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 22.1 per cent from the same period in 2021 to $63.8 billion. Residential unit sales were down 30.5 per cent to 62,502 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 12 per cent to $1.02 million.   

-30-

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – July 14, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 8,166 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in June 2020, an increase of 16.9 per cent from June 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $748,155, a 9.1 per cent increase from $685,968 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in June was $6.1 billion, a 27.5 per cent increase over 2019.

“Sales around the province surged back to pre-COVID-19 levels in June,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While there are some temporary factors that may have pushed demand forward, we are cautiously optimistic that market activity will remain firm.”

Although listings activity has normalized along with sales, active listings are still down close to 20 per cent year-over-year and, as a result, many markets are seeing upward pressure on prices.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 0.6 per cent to $24.7 billion, compared with the same period in 2019. Residential unit sales were down 8 per cent to 32,875 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 9.4 per cent to $751,722.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – September 14, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 10,172 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in August 2020, an increase of 42.8 per cent from August 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $771,309, a 12.7 per cent increase from $684,093 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in August was $7.8 billion, a 61.1 per cent increase over 2019.

“Very strong provincial home sales continued in August,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “While pent-up demand from the spring is driving much of the increase, we anticipate a sustained strong level of sales through the fall.”

Total provincial active listings are still down more than 10 per cent year-over-year, with some markets even more under-supplied as the pandemic continues to keep listings low. As a result, prices are sharply rising around the province.

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was up 15.8 per cent to $40.4 billion, compared with the same period in 2019. Residential unit sales were up 4.9 per cent to 53,336 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 10.4 per cent to $757,504.   

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 13, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 4,426 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in January 2020, an increase of 23.7 per cent from the 3,579 units sold in January 2019. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $725,370, a 9.1 per cent increase from $664,633 recorded the previous year. Total sales dollar volume in January was $3.2 billion, a 35 per cent increase over 2019.

“Housing markets in BC are off to a strong start in 2020,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “We expect a much more typical year of home sales in 2020 as markets recover from the policy-induced slowdown of the past two years.”

Total MLS^® residential active listings fell 12.6 per cent to 25,790 units compared to the same month last year. The ratio of sales to active residential listings increased to 17.2 per cent from just 12.1 per cent last January. 

“While many markets are showing strong signs of recovery, the struggling forestry sector is having a clear impact on housing demand, particularly in the North and parts of Vancouver Island,” added Ogmundson.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

By Gerry Neely
B.A. LL.B.

Tribunal decisions made under the British Columbia Human Rights Code reveal a dramatic increase in complaints based on prohibited grounds of discrimination, from 61 in 2000 to 457 in 2004 and 591 in 2005.

Some of these complaints were made against strata corporations by physically handicapped persons under s. 8 of the Code. This section prohibits discriminatory conduct that would deny to a physically or mentally handicapped person an “accommodation, service or facility that is available to the public.”

Some complaints could’ve been avoided if the councils were aware that a bylaw, rule or regulation, intended to apply to all strata residents, may discriminate because it has an adverse effect on a physically handicapped person. In that event, a strata council’s duty is to accommodate the needs of the handicapped person to the point where doing more would result in undue hardship, “whether that hardship takes the form of impossibility, serious risk or excessive cost.”

The cases that follow in this and the next Legally Speaking column provide some guidance, if not certainty, for complaints involving s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.

A strata corporation had a typical intercom and entry system that enabled a resident to “buzz in” a visitor. Amid home invasion concerns in Greater Vancouver and Fraser Valley, the strata corporation had experienced one forced entry leading to theft from and damage to storage lockers. Although the forced entry might’ve occurred during the day, for security reasons, the strata council approved the installation of a lock timer that deactivated the system between 8 pm and 8 am. A visitor could still ring the unit, but the resident would have to go to the lobby to let in the visitor.

A doctor for a resident whose heart problems had required ambulance and hospitalization gave evidence that she’d be unable to walk to the lobby to let in emergency help, and any delay could be critical. She had home care ending at 10 pm. The strata council agreed to delay the timer for her to 10:30 pm and suggested she find someone in the building to phone to let in emergency assistance. She wasn’t prepared to rely on other residents, most of whom were elderly and had their own health problems.

That was the extent of the accommodation the strata council would make. Because the time of the forced entry was unknown, the Human Rights Tribunal questioned whether the timer installation would’ve prevented this incident and concluded removal of the timer wouldn’t expose residents to an unacceptable risk. The timer could be removed easily and inexpensively. The strata council didn’t provide sufficient evidence as to the cost of accommodating the resident’s needs and whether it would be prohibitively expensive.

The tribunal held that the provision of the intercom and entry system by the strata corporation to the resident was a service that created a public relationship between them. The strata corporation was ordered to remove the timer and pay $1,500 to the resident to compensate her for “injury to dignity, feelings and self respect.”¹

(to be continued in Legally Speaking 394)

1.

Williams v. Strata Council, # 768, 2003 BCHRT 17.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – October 12, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 4,977 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in September 2022, a decrease of 45.8 per cent from September 2021. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $927,119, a 1.7 per cent increase from $912,008 recorded in September 2021. Total sales dollar volume was $4.6 billion, a 44.9 per cent decline from the same time last year.

“Mortgage qualifying continues to be a significant hurdle for many potential buyers as interest rates rise,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “In addition, many trends that drove demand in smaller markets, such as remote work and the quest for affordable space, have faded in prominence. As a result, we see a stronger pullback in markets outside of major metropolitan areas.”

Year-to-date, BC residential sales dollar volume was down 24.2 per cent from the same period in 2021 to $68.5 billion. Residential unit sales were down 31.8 per cent to 67,547 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was up 11.3 per cent to $1.01 million.

-30-  

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – May 12, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 13,683 residential unit sales were recorded by the Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) in April 2021, an increase of 312.3 per cent over April 2020 when the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a lockdown of the provincial economy. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $946,606, a 29.1 per cent increase from $733,330 recorded in April 2020. Total sales dollar volume was $12.9 billion, a 432.2 per cent increase from last year.

“Although provincial home sales were down slightly from an all-time high in March, sales activity was the highest on record for April,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Home sales continue on a record pace, though we do see a calming environment compared to the frenzied activity of recent months.”

Total active residential listings were down 14.5 per cent year-over-year in April but did tick higher on a seasonally adjusted basis for the second consecutive month as new listings activity ramped up.

“We are starting to see very strong new listings activity in several markets,” said Ogmundson, “however, it will take quite some time for total listings to return to the level needed to balance out markets and temper growth in home prices.”

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
Email: [email protected]

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – November 14, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 5,373 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) systems in October 2023, an increase of 1.8 per cent from October 2022. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was $968,786 up 4.1 per cent compared to October 2022.
The total sales dollar volume was $5.2 billion, representing a 6 per cent increase from the same time last year.

“Home sales have slowed as expected given high borrowing costs and a punishing stress test,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “However, the inventory of homes for sale remains quite low, despite a modest uptick in new listings. Consequently, markets have found balance, though at a very low level of activity.”

On a seasonally adjusted basis, active listings in the province have increased for the fifth consecutive month, but still remain low by historical standards and fall short of what is typically required for a sustainable market balance in the long term.

Year-to-date BC residential sales dollar volume was down 13.6 per cent to $63.1 billion, compared with the same period in 2022. Residential unit sales were down 10.5 per cent to 64,936 units, while the average MLS^® residential price was down 3.4 per cent to $971,802.

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

Vancouver, BC – April 13, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) reports that a total of 7,118 residential unit sales were recorded in Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) systems in March 2023, a decrease of 38.3 per cent from March 2022. The average MLS^® residential price in BC was 961,451 down 11.6 per cent compared to the average price of close to $1.1 million in March 2022, recorded near the market's peak. The total sales dollar volume was $6.8 billion, representing a 45.5 per cent decrease from the same time last year.

“The BC housing market is currently characterized by slow sales but also still very low levels of listings,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “Consequently, even though home sales remain about 20 per cent below normal levels for this time of year, the average home price in BC has now risen two months in a row, reaching its highest level since May 2022 as markets tighten due to a lack of supply.”

Active listings in the province are up 25 per cent compared to this time last year but have fallen for the second straight month in the wake of a modest recovery in home sales and continued weak new listings activity.

-30-

As British Columbians head to the polls on October 15, BCREA is pleased to share the top housing affordability solutions that should be the policy focus of candidates running for office across the province.

Local Government’s Role in Addressing Housing Affordability
Local governments have many policy and planning tools they can use to address housing affordability in their communities, such as the Housing Needs Report.

As of April 2019, local governments are required to produce housing needs reports every five years. These reports provide an evidential basis for addressing housing needs tailored to individual communities. To find your community’s housing needs report here or visit your local government website.

Discerning how candidates plan to leverage these policy and planning tools for housing can help you compare different housing platforms. Understanding the housing needs in your community and learning more about your local candidates’ housing policy platforms can help you make an informed decision in this election.

Solutions to Improving Housing Affordability
BC needs more housing supply. While barriers to increased supply vary across the province, the evidence shows that local and provincial governments need to do more to increase housing supply more quickly.

British Columbians require more types of housing in more places (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and other Missing Middle housing types). This demand is demonstrated in many of the province’s housing needs reports.

The housing approval process also needs to be improved. Strengthening the Official Community Plan’s zoning powers and utilizing public consultation appropriately can streamline the approvals process.

Make Your Voice Heard – Get Out and Vote!
Elections BC maintains a list of candidates running for office across the province. Your local government website contains information about how, when, and where to vote, as well as more details about the candidates running for office in your community.

The struggle for affordable housing is province-wide and local elected officials play a crucial role in addressing this issue. Voting is our most important civic duty. We hope you consider these issues as you cast your vote on October 15.    

Vancouver, BC – February 9, 2026. The Association of Interior REALTORS^® (AOIR) and the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) are asking the BC Government for a full legislative review of the Strata Property Act and increased education for strata councils. 

As demand for smaller, more affordable housing grows, the prevalence of strata-titled properties has increased significantly. Current estimates put the number of people living in strata housing across British Columbia at over 1.5 million. This means that, with ever greater frequency, real estate deals require parties to a transaction to obtain and understand a number of important strata-related documents. 

Despite the increased prevalence of these documents in transactions, the legislation that governs stratas and the rules around strata document delivery remain unchanged and are unable to keep up with the evolving needs of consumers. Issues with obtaining these documents – including disputes on cost, long wait times, and incomplete packages – have become increasingly normal.  

“Meaningful reform must begin with a full review of the Strata Property Act,” said Seth Scott, AOIR Director of Government Relations and Communications. “REALTORS^® work with strata corporations and documents every day, and modernizing the legislation is essential to ensuring buyers are able to continue having accurate, reliable, and accessible information.” 

In a joint letter to the BC Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, AOIR and BCREA delivered six policy recommendations regarding the Strata Property Act, ranging from Form B costs, delivery timelines, and mandatory strata council education. The organizations also highlighted the operational challenges associated with obtaining strata documents prior to listing, emphasizing the need for change. 

The Strata Property Act has not undergone a comprehensive legislative review since its inception over a quarter century ago. As a result, REALTORS^®, strata management, and consumers are working with outdated requirements created before the widespread use of digital technology, which do not reflect the modern realities of strata governance, record keeping, and buyer expectations. 

“The legislation requires significant updates to ensure that document delivery timelines are manageable, and that rush fees are fair and transparent across the province,” added Scott. 

As part of the larger call to government, BCREA has created a proposal entitled, Mandatory Strata Training Program: Driving Excellence in Strata Property Management. Modeled on Ontario’s Director Training but tailored to BC, the proposal aims to create a training system to empower strata council members to make informed financial decisions, maintain buildings proactively, and resolve disputes with fairness and consistency. By introducing mandatory training and raising the standard of council education, this initiative could lead to safer, better-maintained properties, fewer surprise special levies, and a more harmonious living environment. 

“Civil Rights Tribunal decisions in BC repeatedly surface preventable governance failures with uneven bylaw enforcement, deferred maintenance, and misuse of insurance,” said Jasroop Gosal, BCREA Government Relations Manager. “It’s time to fix this with mandatory, no‑cost, multilingual strata council training that sets clear competencies and publicly registers certified council members. Backed by continuing education and government oversight, this evidence‑based approach will stabilize reserve planning and rebuild trust in strata governance.”  

AOIR and BCREA are urging the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs to conduct a full legislative review of the Strata Property Act before considering or proceeding with additional strata regulations. 

-30-

Learn More: 

To read AOIR and BCREA’s full letter to the BC Government, click here.
To read BCREA’s mandatory strata training proposal, click here.

Contact: 

Seth Scott 
Director of Government Relations and Communications  
Association of Interior REALTORS^®
[email protected] 

Jasroop Gosal 
Manager, Government Relations
BC Real Estate Association   
[email protected]

About the Association of Interior REALTORS^®  
The Association of Interior REALTORS^® is a member-based professional organization serving approximately 2,600 REALTORS^® who live and work in communities across the interior of British Columbia, including the Okanagan Valley, Kamloops, and Kootenay regions, as well as the South Peace River region. 
 
About BCREA 
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession. 

Vancouver, BC – February 9, 2026. The Association of Interior REALTORS^® (AOIR) and the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) are asking the BC Government for a full legislative review of the Strata Property Act and increased education for strata councils. 

As demand for smaller, more affordable housing grows, the prevalence of strata-titled properties has increased significantly. Current estimates put the number of people living in strata housing across British Columbia at over 1.5 million. This means that, with ever greater frequency, real estate deals require parties to a transaction to obtain and understand a number of important strata-related documents. 

Despite the increased prevalence of these documents in transactions, the legislation that governs stratas and the rules around strata document delivery remain unchanged and are unable to keep up with the evolving needs of consumers. Issues with obtaining these documents – including disputes on cost, long wait times, and incomplete packages – have become increasingly normal.  

“Meaningful reform must begin with a full review of the Strata Property Act,” said Seth Scott, AOIR Director of Government Relations and Communications. “REALTORS^® work with strata corporations and documents every day, and modernizing the legislation is essential to ensuring buyers are able to continue having accurate, reliable, and accessible information.” 

In a joint letter to the BC Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, AOIR and BCREA delivered six policy recommendations regarding the Strata Property Act, ranging from Form B costs, delivery timelines, and mandatory strata council education. The organizations also highlighted the operational challenges associated with obtaining strata documents prior to listing, emphasizing the need for change. 

The Strata Property Act has not undergone a comprehensive legislative review since its inception over a quarter century ago. As a result, REALTORS^®, strata management, and consumers are working with outdated requirements created before the widespread use of digital technology, which do not reflect the modern realities of strata governance, record keeping, and buyer expectations. 

“The legislation requires significant updates to ensure that document delivery timelines are manageable, and that rush fees are fair and transparent across the province,” added Scott. 

As part of the larger call to government, BCREA has created a proposal entitled, Mandatory Strata Training Program: Driving Excellence in Strata Property Management. Modeled on Ontario’s Director Training but tailored to BC, the proposal aims to create a training system to empower strata council members to make informed financial decisions, maintain buildings proactively, and resolve disputes with fairness and consistency. By introducing mandatory training and raising the standard of council education, this initiative could lead to safer, better-maintained properties, fewer surprise special levies, and a more harmonious living environment. 

“Civil Rights Tribunal decisions in BC repeatedly surface preventable governance failures with uneven bylaw enforcement, deferred maintenance, and misuse of insurance,” said Jasroop Gosal, BCREA Government Relations Manager. “It’s time to fix this with mandatory, no‑cost, multilingual strata council training that sets clear competencies and publicly registers certified council members. Backed by continuing education and government oversight, this evidence‑based approach will stabilize reserve planning and rebuild trust in strata governance.”  

AOIR and BCREA are urging the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs to conduct a full legislative review of the Strata Property Act before considering or proceeding with additional strata regulations. 

-30-

Learn More: 

To read AOIR and BCREA’s full letter to the BC Government, click here.
To read BCREA’s mandatory strata training proposal, click here.

Contact: 

Seth Scott 
Director of Government Relations and Communications  
Association of Interior REALTORS^®
[email protected] 

Jasroop Gosal 
Manager, Government Relations
BC Real Estate Association   
[email protected]

About the Association of Interior REALTORS^®  
The Association of Interior REALTORS^® is a member-based professional organization serving approximately 2,600 REALTORS^® who live and work in communities across the interior of British Columbia, including the Okanagan Valley, Kamloops, and Kootenay regions, as well as the South Peace River region. 
 
About BCREA 
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession. 

Vancouver, BC – November 4, 2024. November is Radon Action Month, and the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), BC Lung Foundation, and Real Estate Foundation of BC are announcing the launch of a new collaborative Radon Gas Public Awareness Campaign. 

Radon gas is a threat to homeowners and their families across British Columbia, with a traditionally low level of public awareness. Exposure to radon gas is estimated to cause over 3,000 lung cancer deaths in Canada each year. Homes with elevated levels of radon can be found in every region of the country, and some parts of BC – including the Kootenays, Okanagan, and Prince George areas – are known to have a high proportion of these homes. 

This new public awareness campaign directs British Columbians to a new landing page, RadonKills.ca/BC, where they can find crucial information about this hidden threat, including how to test for and remediate high levels of radon in their homes. 

“For a lot of people, radon flies under the radar until it impacts them directly. We want to make people throughout the province aware of the dangers of radon so they can head it off before it becomes an issue,” said Trevor Koot, BCREA CEO. 

Radon Action Month has been observed every November in Canada since 2013. The timing is particularly important because radon levels are highest in homes during the heating season between October and April, when windows are most often closed tight. 

“Radon is a leading cause of lung cancer in Canada, but there is still so much work to be done to educate British Columbians on its dangerous impacts. Knowing about radon and testing radon levels in your home can save lives,” says Christopher Lam, President & CEO of BC Lung Foundation. 

To spread the word about how British Columbians can protect themselves and their families, the public awareness campaign includes both digital and traditional advertising, with ads on social media and radio throughout the province, and roadside billboards in Chilliwack and Kelowna. The campaign also seeks to further educate BC REALTORS^®, an ongoing joint effort between BCREA and the BC Lung Foundation. 

“Not only can REALTORS^® help buyers and sellers be more aware of radon concerns and obligations in housing transactions, but they’re key conduits of information in their communities,” added Koot. “The more REALTORS^® and the public know about radon, the better for the province.” 

BCREA, the BC Lung Foundation, and the Real Estate Foundation of BC encourage all British Columbians to educate themselves and test for radon. Check out RadonKills.ca/BC for more information. 

-30- 

For more information: 

Craig Battle, Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist 
BC Real Estate Association 
[email protected] 
604.742.2790 

About BCREA 
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession. 

About BC Lung Foundation 
Established more than a century ago to fight tuberculosis, the BC Lung Foundation is dedicated to helping prevent lung disease and improving lung health. Through research, education, advocacy, and patient support initiatives, BC Lung offers hope, help, and a voice to the one in five British Columbians affected by a lung condition. For more information visit bclung.ca. 

About Real Estate Foundation of BC
The Real Estate Foundation of BC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. We fund projects, connect people, and share knowledge. 

Vancouver, BC – November 3, 2025. November is Radon Action Month, and the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), BC Lung Foundation, and Real Estate Foundation of BC are teaming up to urge the public to test their homes for radon gas.

Despite a traditionally low level of public awareness, radon is a threat to homeowners and their families across British Columbia. Exposure to the colourless, odourless radioactive gas is the second-highest cause of lung cancer in Canadians after smoking, estimated to cause over 3,000 lung cancer deaths in the country each year.

Running for the second straight year, this joint public awareness campaign aims to direct British Columbians to a landing page, RadonKills.ca/BC, where they can find crucial information about this “silent killer,” including how to test for and remediate high levels of radon in their homes.

“Radon is a risk that’s not going away,” said BCREA CEO Trevor Koot. “The threat is real, and the only way to know if your home has high radon levels is to test.”

While homes with elevated radon levels can be found across Canada, the BC Interior has some of the highest residential radon levels in the country, making the location of this awareness campaign particularly important. The timing is also important because radon levels are highest in homes during the heating season between October and April.

“Testing your home for radon can make all the difference in keeping you and your family safe. As the second leading cause of lung cancer, awareness of radon is so important, especially for areas in our province at greater risk,” said BC Lung Foundation President & CEO Christopher Lam.

To spread the word about how British Columbians can protect themselves and their families, the public awareness campaign will place ads on radio, TV, and social media throughout the province, and roadside billboards in Chilliwack, Kamloops, and Kelowna.

BCREA, the BC Lung Foundation, and the Real Estate Foundation of BC encourage all British Columbians to educate themselves and test for radon. Check out RadonKills.ca/BC for more information.

-30-

For more information:

Craig Battle, Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist
BC Real Estate Association
[email protected]
604.742.2790

About BCREA

BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.

About BC Lung Foundation

Established more than a century ago to fight tuberculosis, the BC Lung Foundation is dedicated to helping prevent lung disease and improving lung health. Through research, education, advocacy, and patient support initiatives, BC Lung offers hope, help, and a voice to the one in five British Columbians affected by a lung condition. For more information, visit bclung.ca.

About Real Estate Foundation of BC

The Real Estate Foundation of BC is a philanthropic organization working to advance sustainable, equitable, and socially just land use across BC. We fund projects, connect people, and share knowledge.

Vancouver, BC – July 25, 2024. The BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) and the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – British Columbia (CMBA-BC) are calling upon the BC Government to amend and refine recent changes to the Residential Tenancy Act (RTA). Both organizations published open letters outlining concern around unintended consequences and the high potential the changes will negatively impact homebuyers, rental-property owners, and tenants in the province.

Changes laid out in Bill 14, which amends the RTA and is intended to protect residential tenants from tenancies terminated in bad faith, came into effect on July 18, 2024. However, in their letters to government, BCREA and CMBA-BC noted a number of concerns and points of confusion that will create difficulties when using the rules in real-life transactions.

BCREA noted the following concerns, among others, in its letter to government:

• The new requirement of providing four months' notice – instead of the previous two months' notice – for evictions due to personal or caretaker use is posing a major hurdle. While this is a problem for all buyers, it's particularly problematic for high-ratio buyers, including first-time buyers, who generally need mortgage default insurance to secure their financing.
• The new legislation makes no distinction between a buyer of a tenanted unit who just wants to move into their new home and a landlord who might be using a bad-faith eviction as a tool to raise rents beyond the allowable limit.
• Combining a four-month eviction notice with a 30-day dispute notice produces an effective five-month period in which a buyer can't take possession of their new home. This is impractical for buyers moving from one home to another and is too long a period to wait between completions.
• Without default mortgage insurance, lenders require a minimum down payment of 20 per cent for rental properties. First-time buyers typically do not have the financial capacity for such a significant down payment. Furthermore, a default-insured mortgage holder must receive vacant possession to qualify for a default-insured mortgage and cannot close on a purchase where the former tenant has not vacated the home.
• A home must be owner-occupied to be eligible for homeowner insurance and also for mortgage insurance from Canada’s largest providers of mortgage insurance, including CMHC.
• Using a new web portal, landlords will be required to provide personal and confidential details about the persons moving into the home, which will then be shared with the tenant. This new requirement is raising serious implications for the privacy and security of owners.

For its part, CMBA-BC pinpointed several other concerns, including:

• Mortgage Approvals Timeline: The four-month notice period creates a misalignment with the typical 90 to 120-day rate hold period for mortgage approvals. Buyers, especially those with less than 20 per cent down payment, may face significant challenges in coordinating the vacancy of the property with their mortgage approval timeline, potentially leading to funding denials or increased costs for buyers. These changes will impact first-time homebuyers the most as these are the most typical buyers of previous rental properties.
• Increased Financing Risks: Buyers may be forced to remove financing conditions from their offers without a guaranteed mortgage approval due to the extended notice period. This leaves them vulnerable to interest rate fluctuations and other factors that could impact their ability to qualify for the mortgage, heightening their financial risk.
• Legal and Liability Concerns: The new timeline could increase the risk of purchase contract cancellations, as buyers may struggle to secure financing within the extended period. This could lead to legal disputes or lawsuits, adding stress and financial risk for all parties involved.

In light of these and other concerns, the two organizations have offered the following recommendations to government:

1. Adjust the notice rules for conventional mortgage buyers to allow for vacant possession within no longer than a three-month time period.
2. Allow high ratio insured buyers (including first-time buyers) who will be occupying the property to continue to have a two-month notice period because of the financial hardship caused by a longer delay in them taking possession of their property, and the likelihood of them running afoul of financing restrictions.
3. Require that the privacy of new buyers be protected. Use existing, publicly accessible systems as the source of information on new buyers to be reported by landlords to former tenants. Contracts of Purchase and Sale are confidential documents and should not be shared with tenants. A standard Statutory Declaration form should be developed to carry out any necessary disclosures.
4. Eliminate the reporting requirement for buyers who intend to occupy their own unit. The buyer’s intent could be documented by use of a Statutory Declaration or as part of the Property Transfer Tax return process. An early sale of the unit could be tracked through the Land Titles or BC Assessment systems.

BCREA also reiterated its past call for the BC Government to create a permanent housing roundtable comprised of housing policy experts and other representatives from organizations across the housing sector in BC. Such a group, the association said, would be able to provide early advice to government in the creation of new or updated housing policy, such as changes to the RTA.

-30-

Quotes:

Trevor Hargreaves, Senior Vice President of Government Relations, Marketing & Communications, BCREA –
“We appreciate the efforts to protect tenants from bad-faith evictions and the need to provide more rental supply, but are concerned the policy changes appear to have been crafted without adequate consultation with related sectors in terms of the multitude of related issues they will cause. These changes are inadvertently making it more difficult for all buyers, but especially first-time buyers, many of whom are currently tenants, to enter the housing market.”

Rebecca Casey, President, CMBA-BC –
“The Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association of British Columbia firmly believes that the amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act will exacerbate housing unaffordability and availability of rental units in our province by hindering purchase transactions for buyers with less than 20 per cent down payments, narrowing the eligibility of purchasers for properties that are currently tenanted. We appreciate the BC Ministry of Housing's commitment to addressing housing challenges and protecting tenants' rights. However, while we await accommodations or changes to the Act, we are concerned that these amendments will worsen these issues rather than alleviate them, potentially compromising the stability and affordability for current and prospective tenants and home purchasers.”

Learn More:

To read BCREA's full open letter to the BC Government, click here.
To read CMBA-BC's full open letter to the BC Government, click here.

Contact:

Craig Battle, Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist
BC Real Estate Association
[email protected]
604.742.2790

Sajjid Lakhani, CMBA-BC Public Relations
Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – BC
[email protected]
778.387.4647

About BCREA
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.

About CMBA-BC
As the voice for BC's mortgage brokers, the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – British Columbia (CMBA-BC) represents the province’s mortgage industry. Incorporated in 1990, the Association exists to support and enhance professionalism and ethical standards within the mortgage industry. Our members support housing affordability measures and CMBA-BC is committed to working with government and financial regulators to create mortgage and housing policies with solutions to help more British Columbians own homes.

Vancouver, BC – May 27, 2025. In BC’s current tariff- and trade-challenged environment, provincial priorities need to adapt. While affordable housing is a critical provincial issue, so are provincial economic wellbeing and the health of our tourism sector. When the Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act and its accompanying regulations were put into force, the province was extremely focused on creating additional housing by any lever possible. Since its implementation, however, short-term rental (STR) legislation has caused a series of economic challenges across the province that need to be addressed.  

With the current geopolitical environment expected to drive up domestic tourism this summer, now is the time to consider implementation of much-needed changes to STR legislation.  

Our sector understands the pressing and immediate need to address the housing crisis throughout the province and routinely advocates for increased housing supply across the entirety of the housing spectrum. Long-term rentals are a vital piece of the housing continuum, and thus we understand the impetus for changing STR governance in the province. That said, the following recommendations would craft a better balance between housing and economic needs in regional communities.  

Recommendation: Return Zoning Autonomy to Local Governments 

As it stands, local governments can opt out of the principal residence rule in the legislation if they provide adequate written notice and can prove their vacancy rate has been 3 per cent or over for two consecutive years. While this formula may work for some local governments, the provision has proven to be too restrictive for many communities.  

For example, Parksville has not experienced a 3 per cent vacancy rate in more than 20 years so would not have initially qualified for this exemption. Parksville Mayor Doug O’Brien pushed back in a letter to Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ravi Kahlon, arguing that a partial exemption was justified for several reasons, including that specific suites in the area had been purpose-built as STRs, with infrastructure designed for temporary and seasonal tourism usage.   

After a lengthy justification process, Minister Kahlon finally granted a partial exemption, demonstrating that communities have unique STR needs not previously contemplated by the provincial STR policies, and these needs must be taken seriously by the province.  

Similarly, while Prince George had a vacancy rate of 3.7 per cent in 2022, the number dropped to 2.8 per cent in 2023 – disqualifying it from an exemption. Councillor Brian Skakun noted how the regulations would hurt the city, which hosts many people who look for STRs, including healthcare and construction workers. Councillor Kyle Sampson argues the criteria to qualify for an exemption are arbitrary, suggesting instead an average over a number of years. 

Prior to the implementation of these rules, many local governments had areas and buildings zoned specifically for STR use. This allowed communities to balance their need for tourist accommodation with the need for long-term rental units.  

It stands to reason that the legislation should be amended to give local governments this power back. There would be significant benefit for local governments to be able to request exemptions for locations and buildings in their community that are zoned for STRs. Doing this would allow municipalities and regional districts the flexibility to shape short-term regulations to fit the nuances of their unique communities and end the false binary of being in or out as exists under the current legislation.  

Recommendation: Expand the Strata Hotel and Fractional Ownership Exemption  

The Short-Term Rental Accommodations Act provides an exemption from the principal residence requirement for strata hotels and fractional interest property. An exemption exists for these property types provided the property owner is unable to use their property as a principal residence due to a mandatory provision in a rental pool, rental management agreement, or fractional ownership agreement. These regulations were recently amended to include a number of other criteria based on building unit zoning, management agreements, covenants, and the presence of a staffed front desk. The regulation as implemented is confusing and currently excludes a number of strata hotels from acquiring much-needed exemptions.  

In order to accommodate tourists as well as owners who may wish to live in high-tourism communities on a part-time basis, a high number of unique ownership types such as strata hotels and fractional ownership properties exist across the Interior. These properties were designed to facilitate such short-term occupancy needs and are often ill-suited for long-term tenancy. While long-term occupancy is possible in some cases, the primary purpose of these buildings remains focused on tourism and short-term tenancy.  

The failure of current regulations to capture all strata hotel and fractional ownership has had severely negative economic consequences by removing tourist accommodations in tourist-reliant economies. It also creates confusion for REALTORS^® and consumers.  

It is our view that strata hotels and fractional interest property should be fully exempt from STR regulations. These properties were never intended to be part of the long-term rental market and current exemptions are much too difficult for many to understand.  

Recommendation: Geographic Exemptions for Areas in Close Proximity to Healthcare Centres   

Our members care about ensuring that the communities they live and work in remain vibrant and healthy. Many larger rural communities act as healthcare hubs for the regional districts and rural areas that surround them. For those travelling into these communities for necessary medical treatments, extended hotel stays may not be viable or appropriate.  

Additionally, unlike in larger urban centres, many communities across the North and Interior receive a high number of travelling nurses, locum doctors, and other healthcare professionals that service the community on a temporary basis. Due to the transient nature of their stay, longer-term tenancy agreements are not the best option for these individuals.

In order to ensure the healthcare needs of Northern and Interior communities are met, it is our view that an exemption to the principal residence rule should be added for STR units in close proximity to major healthcare centres and hospitals. The recently passed Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act could act as a good template in defining what geographic radius should be exempt around designated health centres and hospitals.  

Recommendation: Establish Broad Television and Film Sector STR Exemptions  

Amidst the uncertainty of Canada-US relations, it is imperative that government take steps to incentivize film and television projects to continue operations across BC. Current STR legislation has hindered the TV and film sector’s ability to house the sizeable transient cast and crew on these projects. It has created an over-reliance on already challenged hotel room inventories across the province, further lowering year-round vacancy rates, increasing consumer competition, and driving up average hotel costs.  

We recommend immediate implementation of broad STR exemptions for the TV and film sector across the province. 

-30- 

Quote:  

Trevor Hargreaves, Senior Vice President of Government Relations, Marketing & Communications, BCREA –    
"The BC provincial government has the challenging job of balancing housing policy with overall provincial economic wellbeing. Some key changes to current short-term rental legislation would help many people and communities across the province while maintaining the spirit of the original policy."

For more information: 
Craig Battle 
Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist 
[email protected] 
604.742.2790 

About BCREA 
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession. 

Vancouver, BC – September 23, 2024. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is calling for significant amendments to BC's short-term rental laws to mitigate the major disruption they've caused for specific business and tourism sectors across the province, the Association announced today.  

On May 1, 2024, the BC Government enacted a widespread ban on short-term rentals, with the intent of returning homes to the long-term rental market. However, as part of a new housing policy resource hub launched in the lead-up to the 2024 Provincial General Election, BCREA identified multiple groups of British Columbians negatively affected by the ban, including: 

• medical employees transferred to remote areas; 

• those receiving multi-week medical care as well as caregivers in urban areas; 

• film sector workers in town for weeks at a time; 

• those attending or employed by short-term but large events for which hotel space is inadequate (such as a Taylor Swift concert or the FIFA World Cup 2026); and 

• those needing short-term housing due to delays in being able to take occupancy of homes or apartments. 

As part of the analysis, the Association stressed that provincial and regional economies need to be factored into policy decisions of this magnitude. 

“While housing affordability is extremely important, there are additional considerations in communities across BC that have been paved over with the implementation of this policy,” said Trevor Hargreaves, BCREA Senior VP, Policy and Research. “There are numerous exemptions desperately needed to make this a workable and successful policy moving forward.” 

Hargreaves added, “There is no question that some of these short-term rental units should be functioning as long-term rentals, but there are some legitimate uses for short-term rentals that are no longer permitted under the legislation.” 

The Association proposed several exemptions from the ban across a wide variety of categories, including high-tourism areas and the groups listed above. 

-30- 

Learn More: 

For more information on short-term rentals and several other housing issues of concern, check out the BCREA Election resource hub. 

Contact: 

Trevor Hargreaves, Senior VP, Policy and Research 
BC Real Estate Association 
[email protected] 
604.742.2798 

Craig Battle, Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist 
BC Real Estate Association 
[email protected] 
604.742.2790 

Vancouver, BC – February 18, 2026. In the immediate wake of the release of BC Budget 2026, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) is raising concerns about budget housing measures that could exacerbate existing market issues.

In a provincial economy facing external headwinds and uncertainty, it is unsurprising that the BC Government is running a sizable deficit. However, the lack of a clear plan to return the provincial debt-to-GDP ratio to a sustainable path raises concerns about the province’s fiscal health. Mounting debt and rising debt-service costs will constrain the ability to provide tax relief for BC households or fund worthwhile programs.

These realities made Budget 2026 an important inflection point, particularly for housing affordability across the province. Unfortunately, the budget failed to address either the growing tax burden or the province’s housing issues. When faced with a potentially significant slowdown in new home construction, the government has opted to further burden the development sector with tax increases, imperiling the ability of the province to meet its own long-term housing supply targets.

Instead of policies to lower the cost of development, Budget 2026 doubled down on policies that have already proven ineffective at improving affordability:

• Higher school taxation rates on development lands, which will increase costs that will be downloaded to buyers and further hinder project viability.
• Applying PST to professional housing-related services, increasing soft costs and further challenging the economic viability of projects.
• Increasing the Speculation and Vacancy Tax to four per cent for foreign residents and others at a time when BC badly needs to attract capital to increase housing supply.

These tax increases will only make an already challenging development climate more difficult.

“There is unfortunately not a lot to like from either a macroeconomic or housing perspective in this budget,” says Brendon Ogmundson, BCREA Chief Economist. “We understand that the province is in a difficult position and needs to raise revenues, but doing so on the back of an already struggling housing sector will ultimately prove to be self-defeating.”

-30-

Contact:

Craig Battle
Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist
BC Real Estate Association
[email protected]
604.742.2790

Vancouver, BC – February 18, 2026. In the immediate wake of the release of BC Budget 2026, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) is raising concerns about budget housing measures that could exacerbate existing market issues.

In a provincial economy facing external headwinds and uncertainty, it is unsurprising that the BC Government is running a sizable deficit. However, the lack of a clear plan to return the provincial debt-to-GDP ratio to a sustainable path raises concerns about the province’s fiscal health. Mounting debt and rising debt-service costs will constrain the ability to provide tax relief for BC households or fund worthwhile programs.

These realities made Budget 2026 an important inflection point, particularly for housing affordability across the province. Unfortunately, the budget failed to address either the growing tax burden or the province’s housing issues. When faced with a potentially significant slowdown in new home construction, the government has opted to further burden the development sector with tax increases, imperiling the ability of the province to meet its own long-term housing supply targets.

Instead of policies to lower the cost of development, Budget 2026 doubled down on policies that have already proven ineffective at improving affordability:

• Higher school taxation rates on development lands, which will increase costs that will be downloaded to buyers and further hinder project viability.
• Applying PST to professional housing-related services, increasing soft costs and further challenging the economic viability of projects.
• Increasing the Speculation and Vacancy Tax to four per cent for foreign residents and others at a time when BC badly needs to attract capital to increase housing supply.

These tax increases will only make an already challenging development climate more difficult.

“There is unfortunately not a lot to like from either a macroeconomic or housing perspective in this budget,” says Brendon Ogmundson, BCREA Chief Economist. “We understand that the province is in a difficult position and needs to raise revenues, but doing so on the back of an already struggling housing sector will ultimately prove to be self-defeating.”

-30-

Contact:

Craig Battle
Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist
BC Real Estate Association
[email protected]
604.742.2790

We are proud to announce that BCREA has again been named one of the Best Workplaces in British Columbia™ for 2023.

This year's designation marks the fourth consecutive year BCREA has received this accreditation, after a thorough, independent analysis conducted by Great Place to Work^®.

The list is based on direct feedback from employees of the hundreds of organizations that were surveyed by Great Place to Work^®. To be eligible for this list, organizations must be Great Place to Work- Certified™ and have exceptionally high scores from employees on the Trust Index^® Survey.

Thank you to our entire team for making BCREA a certifiably great place to work. As we continue our mission to empower BC’s eight real estate boards and 26,000 REALTORS^®, BCREA remains committed to delivering an excellent workplace culture with engaged staff. BCREA displays excellence in the workplace through professional development initiatives, team building, competitive compensation and benefits, and flexibility in adapting to a hybrid working model.  

About BCREA
BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province’s real estate boards, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.

About Great Place to Work^®
Great Place to Work is the global authority on high-trust, high-performance workplace cultures. A global research and consulting firm, Great Place to Work^® provides the benchmarks and expertise needed to create, sustain, and recognize outstanding workplace cultures. In Canada, Great Place to Work^® produces both industry and demographic specific Best Workplace™ lists and represents the voices of 500,000 employees across the industry. This is part of the world’s largest annual workplace study, recognizing the world's Best Workplaces in a series of national lists including those published by The Globe & Mail (Canada) and Fortune magazine (USA).

We are proud to announce that BCREA has been named one of the Best Workplaces™ in Real Estate & Construction for 2024.

This year's designation marks the fifth consecutive year BCREA has received this accreditation after a thorough, independent analysis conducted by Great Place to Work^®.

The list is based on direct feedback from employees of the hundreds of organizations that were surveyed by Great Place to Work^®. To be eligible for this list, organizations must be Great Place to Work-Certified™ and have exceptionally high scores from employees on the Trust Index Survey.

We appreciate our entire team for contributing to BCREA's outstanding workplace environment. As we continue our mission to empower BC’s eight real estate boards and associations, and REALTORS^®, BCREA remains committed to delivering an excellent workplace culture with engaged staff. Our commitment to excellence is evident through initiatives in professional development, team building, competitive compensation and benefits, and our flexibility in embracing a hybrid work model. 

About BCREA

BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.

About Great Place to Work^®

Great Place to Work^® is the global authority on high-trust, high-performance workplace cultures. It is a global research and consulting firm with a mission to build a better society by helping companies transform their workplaces. Great Place to Work® provides the benchmarks, framework, and expertise needed to create, sustain, and recognize outstanding workplace cultures.

In Canada, Great Place to Work^® produces both industry and demographic specific Best Workplace™ lists. This is part of the world’s largest annual workplace study, which culminates in a series of national lists in over 50 countries, including the study’s flagship list of 100 Best Companies published annually in Fortune magazine.

Globally, this survey represents the voices of 11 million employees, which are the primary determinant in selecting winners. There’s only one way to get on this list – your employees have to put you on it.

The BC Real Estate Association has again been certified as a Great Place to Work^® in Canada. The designation in 2022 marks the third consecutive year BCREA has received this accreditation. The Great Place to Work Certification^® recognizes organizations as “employers of choice” for their outstanding workplace culture.  

In addition to supporting BC’s eight real estate boards and 24,000 REALTORS^®, BCREA is committed to delivering an excellent workplace culture with engaged staff. BCREA displays excellence in the workplace through professional development initiatives, team building, competitive compensation and benefits and flexibility in adapting to a hybrid working model.  

In 2021, BCREA was also named one of the Top 50 Best Places to Work™ in Canada.  

About BCREA 

BCREA is the professional association for over 24,000 commercial and residential REALTORS^® in BC. Our mission is to empower the province’s eight real estate boards by sharing our expertise and providing professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic research and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected and proud of their profession. 

About Great Place to Work^®  

Great Place to Work^® is the global authority on high-trust, high-performance workplace cultures. It is a global research and consulting firm with a mission to build a better society by helping companies transform their workplaces. Great Place to Work^® provides the benchmarks, framework, and expertise needed to create, sustain, and recognize outstanding workplace cultures. 

In Canada, Great Place to Work^® produces both industry and demographic specific Best Workplace™ lists. This is part of the world’s largest annual workplace study, which culminates in a series of national lists in over 50 countries, including the study’s flagship list of 100 Best Companies published annually in Fortune magazine. 

Globally, this survey represents the voices of 11 million employees, which are the primary determinant used in selecting winners. There’s only one way to get on this list – your employees have to put you on it. 

We are proud to announce that BCREA has again been named one of the Best Workplaces™ in British Columbia for 2024.

This year's designation marks the fifth consecutive year BCREA has received this honour after a thorough and independent analysis conducted by Great Place to Work^®. 

The list is based on direct feedback from employees of the hundreds of organizations surveyed by Great Place to Work^®. To be eligible for this list, organizations must be Great Place to Work—Certified™ and have exceptionally high employee scores on the Trust Index survey.

Thank you to our entire team for making BCREA a certifiably great place to work. As we continue our mission to empower REALTORS^® and BC’s eight real estate boards and associations, BCREA remains committed to delivering an excellent workplace culture with engaged staff. BCREA displays excellence in the workplace through professional development initiatives, team building, competitive compensation and benefits, and flexibility in adapting to a hybrid working model. 

About BCREA

BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard for the benefit of consumers and communities across BC. By working in collaboration with the province’s real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession.

About Great Place to Work^®

Great Place to Work^® is the global authority on high-trust, high-performance workplace cultures. A global research and consulting firm, Great Place to Work^® provides the benchmarks and expertise needed to create, sustain, and recognize outstanding workplace cultures. In Canada, Great Place to Work^® produces both industry and demographic-specific Best Workplace™ lists and represents the voices of 500,000 employees across the industry. This is part of the world’s largest annual workplace study, recognizing the world's Best Workplaces™ in a series of national lists including those published by the Globe & Mail (Canada) and Fortune magazine (USA).

We are proud to announce that BCREA has been named one of the Best Workplaces™ in British Columbia for 2025.

Following a thorough and independent analysis conducted by Great Place to Work^®, BCREA has once again earned a spot on this list, marking our sixth consecutive year of receiving this honour.

The list is based on direct feedback from employees of the hundreds of organizations that were surveyed by Great Place to Work^®. To be eligible for this list, organizations must be Great Place to Work-Certified™ and have exceptionally high scores from employees on the Trust Index™ survey, which measures trust, fairness, and camaraderie in the workplace.

This recognition belongs to every member of our team whose dedication and spirit make BCREA a truly great place to work. As we continue our mission to empower REALTORS^® and serve BC’s eight real estate boards and associations, we remain dedicated to fostering an environment where employees feel engaged, supported, and proud of their contributions.

BCREA displays excellence in the workplace through Professional Development initiatives, team building, competitive compensation and benefits, and flexibility in adapting to a hybrid working model. 

About BCREA

BCREA is the provincial association for BC REALTORS^®. As a champion for the real estate sector, BCREA advances REALTOR^® professionalism and ensures the REALTOR^® voice is heard, for the benefit of consumers and communities, across BC. By working in collaboration with the province's real estate boards and associations, our mission is to provide professional development opportunities, advocacy, economic and policy research, and standard forms so REALTORS^® are trusted, respected, and proud of their profession. 

About Great Place to Work^®

Great Place to Work^® is the global authority on high-trust, high-performance workplace cultures. A global research and consulting firm, Great Place to Work^® provides the benchmarks and expertise needed to create, sustain, and recognize outstanding workplace cultures. In Canada, Great Place to Work^® produces both industry and demographic specific Best Workplace™ lists, and represents the voices of 500,000 employees across industry. This is part of the world’s largest annual workplace study, recognizing the world's Best Workplaces™ in a series of national lists including those published by the Globe & Mail (Canada) and Fortune magazine (USA).

Vancouver, BC – June 1, 2026. As British Columbia continues to confront clandestine drug production, the use of residential and often rural properties for these operations places future occupants increasingly at risk. Just this past week, the RCMP issued a news release about a Chilliwack fentanyl operation and an Abbotsford MDMA laboratory that were raided and shut down, both operating out of outbuildings on rural properties. 

In light of this news, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) is renewing its call for the creation of a provincial drug home remediation policy. 

“Once a home has been used for illicit drug production, owners often face significant challenges completing remediation and restoring the property for safe occupancy,” says Trevor Hargreaves, BCREA VP of Policy, Research, and Government Relations. “What’s more, the homes themselves become stigmatized. In these cases, banks are hesitant to lend and insurers are reluctant to provide coverage, which makes the prospect of purchasing these homes a challenge for many buyers.” 

Compounding these issues is the disjointed manner in which homes are remediated. Currently, BC municipalities set their own processes for the remediation of homes used in drug production. 

“There needs to be a standardized process that outlines steps from identification through to full repair and remediation,” says Hargreaves. 

In both 2018 and 2024, BCREA partnered with the University of the Fraser Valley Centre for Public Safety and Criminal Justice Research to review current practices throughout the province. The reports found significant inconsistencies in municipal remediation requirements across BC. 

The recent Abbotsford and Chilliwack cases highlight differences in remediation standards: Each city has distinct cleaning and disinfection requirements, as well as differences in the scope of substances covered under their remediation policies. The full 2024 report and its findings can be viewed here.  

BCREA continues to advocate for the establishment of a single province-wide multi-step process that will ensure public safety by standardizing identification and repair protocols. Notably, a more standardized approach is in use in Alberta when identifying and repairing homes used for drug production. 

This proposed standardization would make lenders and insurers more willing to work with these properties, helping homeowners to list them for sale and buyers to secure necessary financing and insurance. All steps could be completed under a lens that best protects the public by ensuring thorough and consistent environmental remediation. 

-30-

For more information:

Craig Battle
Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist
[email protected]
604.742.2790

 Vancouver, BC – October 7, 2024. With the British Columbia election less than two weeks away, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) is calling for major housing tax reform aimed at increasing affordability and fairness in the province, the Association announced today. 

As outlined on their housing policy resource hub launched in the lead-up to the election, BCREA noted that BC housing taxation levels are some of the highest in the world and have risen sharply since 2016. This has had a significant negative effect on the cost of housing in the province. 

BCREA recommendations include: 

• a systematic review of the Property Transfer Tax (PTT), which was launched in 1987 as a “luxury tax” and intended to only apply to five per cent of real estate transactions, but now applies to nearly 100 per cent in the Lower Mainland and roughly 70 per cent even in the relatively more affordable areas of the province; 
• a review of policies related to foreign investment, including the Foreign Buyer Tax, to ensure that the province continues to attract investment from outside of Canada as a means of reaching aggressive housing targets; and 
• the immediate repeal of both the Speculation and Vacancy Tax (SVT) and the yet-to-be-implemented Residential Property Short-Term Holding Profit Tax (Flipping Tax), which are both duplicated at the federal level. 

Trevor Koot, BCREA CEO, noted that a vital first step would be the review of the PTT, which now accounts for $1.95 billion in annual tax revenue for the province. 

“The Property Transfer Tax was originally supposed to be a ‘luxury tax,’ but it’s evolved into a heavy burden for all British Columbians,” Koot said. “The PTT has far outlived its original purpose without ever facing a systematic review, and the time has come for that to change.”

While taxes are a necessary tool for funding public services, Koot added, they shouldn’t be a barrier to homeownership or add unnecessary complexity to real estate transactions. The way forward is a long, hard look at the current policies, which must be undertaken by BC’s next government to ensure fairness for British Columbians. 

-30- 

Learn More: 

For more information on housing tax reform and several other housing issues of concern, check out the BCREA Election resource hub. 

Contact: 

Craig Battle, Senior Marketing & Communications Specialist 
BC Real Estate Association 
[email protected] 
604.742.2790

The Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC) recently announced the finalists for its 2022 Land Awards recognizing outstanding projects and standout leaders who work to build healthy, resilient communities and natural environments.

The awards are presented in five different categories across BC. BCREA is proud to recognize  the Association for Interior Realtors and Vancouver Island Real Estate Board for being named finalists in the Real Estate category for championing sustainable and health initiative programs for REALTORS^® and homeowners across the province. The BC Lung Foundation, which with BCREA worked to develop resources on radon gas, was also nominated.

Learn more about the finalists and the respective projects below.

Association of Interior Realtors – Building Climate Resilience in the Okanagan: A Homeowner’s Resource Guide

“Building Climate Resilience in the Okanagan: A Homeowner’s Resource Guide” offers comprehensive and valuable information addressing pressing needs in the region regarding the effects of extreme weather events. In collaboration with municipalities, First Nations , NGOs and conservation groups, this unique guide offer homeowners insight into flooding, wildfire, drought, biodiversity and energy efficiency.

Read the guide here.

Vancouver Island Real Estate Board – Real Estate Energy Efficiency Program

The Vancouver Island Real Estate Board’s Real Estate Energy Efficiency Program is a rebate program for homeowners. The rebate program encourages homeowners in this region to ensure their homes are energy efficient through insulation, draft proofing and space heating.

Click here for more details about the Real Estate Energy Efficiency Program.

BC Lung Foundation – Radon in Real Estate: Transforming BC’s Indoor Environments

In partnership with BCREA, the BC Lung Foundation created Radon for REALTORS^®  to support Realtors in better understanding radon gas and how it relates to the real estate transaction. This course helps Realtors demonstrate competency and apply reasonable care when working with clients, such as being knowledgeable about the environmental condition and taking appropriate steps to alert clients of known health and safety concerns.

(BCREA Access Login Required)

The course is part of a series of resources for real estate sector created by the BC Lung Foundation.

Award winners will be announced at the 2022 Land Awards Gala hosted in New Westminster on June 9, 2022. Learn more about the event here.

The BC Government has announced a review of BC’s real estate regulators to ensure that consumers in the real estate market are effectively protected.

While more details are still to come, this review will examine the roles and responsibilities of the two co-regulators, the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate.

This co-regulatory model was established in 2016, following the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Group. BCREA recognizes the importance of consumer protection and welcomes robust regulatory powers, but we believe that the regulatory design could be streamlined.

In the current system, the role of each regulator is unclear, which creates uncertainty for consumers and licensees. These dysfunctions do not help or protect BC consumers.

BCREA raised these concerns in a productive meeting with the Minister of Finance in April, and we are pleased to see the BC Government is addressing this issue. The review ends on June 15, 2018, and we look forward to participating constructively.

More information:

• Review of real estate regulators to strengthen protections, BC Government News Release
• BCREA position on real estate regulatory design (April 2018)

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On April 18, 2018, the BC Government announced a review of the province's real estate regulators. This review will examine the roles of the real estate regulators to ensure that consumers in the real estate market are effectively protected.

Currently there are two co-regulators: the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE). This unique model was quickly implemented following the recommendations of the Independent Advisory Group in 2016.

BCREA and REALTORS® welcome robust regulatory oversight, but we believe there are dysfunctions in the current regulatory system. The roles of Council and OSRE are unclear, and the division of rule-making and rule-interpreting powers has resulted in confusion for REALTORS® and consumers.

As well, a lack of industry representation on Council means that there isn't enough real estate expertise around the table when decisions are being made.

A streamlined regulatory system with clearly defined roles and greater industry involvement would create more certainty for REALTORS® and better protection for consumers.

BCREA is working with the real estate boards to gather feedback from REALTORS® across the province, which we will use to prepare an official response to the review. We welcome your input directly at [email protected].

The Minister of Finance will receive the recommendations of this review on June 15, 2018.

More information:

BC Government news release

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC - April 15, 2019. Organizations representing key professions in the BC real estate sector submitted joint recommendations to the provincial and federal governments today to help protect BC’s housing market from money laundering.

The participating organizations include the British Columbia Real Estate Association, the Appraisal Institute of Canada – BC Association, BC Notaries Association, Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – British Columbia, and the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver.

In their submission, these organizations also commit to shared best practices to help keep the proceeds of organized crime out of the economy. Their efforts focus on helping protect the real estate market from unscrupulous operators and ensuring the public can have full confidence in BC’s real estate market. All of the organizations have fully supported and participated in the government’s investigations into money laundering and real estate.

A real estate transaction involves multiple professionals. It will take a coordinated effort by all involved, working in collaboration with government, to stop money laundering. The joint recommendations and best practices submitted by these organizations reflect their commitment to the professionals and consumers they serve.

-30-

Read their submission to government:

Real Estate Sector Anti-Money Laundering Statement

As a group of real estate organizations representing industry professionals, we are committed to a transparent real estate market and to ensuring that the public can continue to have full confidence in the real estate industry. Illegal funds have no place in BC’s real estate market. We are supportive of the government’s investigations into money laundering and real estate, having actively participated in Peter German’s review and the Expert Panel on Money Laundering.

As an industry, we have come together to commit to shared best practices and make recommendations to government. By aligning as an industry and working in collaboration with government, we can help facilitate an environment in which consumers are well-served and industry professionals can thrive.

Anti-money laundering recommendations Our collaboration has resulted in a commitment from the undersigned organizations to pursue the following shared best practices and recommendations for government:

1. Accept only verified funds – For sectors of real estate that are not already required to do so, we recommend that they accept funds only in forms that are verifiable through Canadian financial institutions.
2. Mandatory anti-money laundering education – We recommend the introduction of mandatory anti-money laundering education for all real estate professionals subject to the reporting requirements administered by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to ensure that those professionals are trained in recognizing and reporting suspicious transactions. FINTRAC should work with sector organizations, regulators and the provincial government to improve existing resources so that they better reflect real-world situations and improve compliance.
3. Smart regulation – We recommend that the federal government amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to allow FINTRAC intelligence to be made available to additional regulatory authorities, including the BC Securities Commission and the Financial Institutions Commission (FICOM). Optimally, the federal and provincial governments, as well as their respective agencies, should coordinate their actions, share information, such as the provincial assignment registry, and create a comprehensive, efficient enforcement regime.
4. Ongoing engagement – We recommend governments and regulatory agencies, including FINTRAC, better utilize on-the-ground experience of real estate professionals to develop compliance resources and test policy ideas. This will result in well-crafted, practical regulation and foster a culture of compliance to protect consumers and the economy.
5. Timely and transparent reporting – We recommend that FINTRAC implement a framework to identify and report trends on a regular basis and in language that is consistent and understandable to professionals, the public and media. This reporting system should also include consistency in examinations with immediate feedback designed to help industry professionals improve their compliance systems.

For a backgrounder to the statement, click here.

Click here for the PDF.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On October 6, 2023, BC REALTOR^® Jayden Lee is set to run 162 km to raise $150,000 for BC Children’s Hospital Foundation.   

Jayden was not always a serious runner, but the determination to give back to his community motivated him to get out of his comfort zone and go the distance for children receiving treatment at BC Children’s Hospital. 

When he was 16 years old, Jayden was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia and started his years-long journey with cancer. This year marks five years since Jayden’s last chemotherapy treatment and on October 6 at 3 pm, he will have his last check-up at BC Children’s Hospital, closing out a transformative chapter in his life. To celebrate that, Jayden will run 162 km back to his home in Chilliwack after his appointment and has set a goal to raise $150,000 for BC Children’s Hospital Foundation.  

Earlier this week, BCREA CEO Trevor Koot sat down with Jayden to learn more about Jayden’s remarkable journey and how other REALTORS^® can help support the cause. Take a look: 

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jk8XLVDq78Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"][/iframe]

This is not the first time that Jayden has found ways to give back to the hospital that saved his life and inspire kids who are still fighting for theirs. On October 2, 2021, Jayden held a fundraiser and ran 103 km from Chilliwack to the BC Children’s Hospital in Vancouver and raised over $125,000.  

We encourage REALTORS^® from across the province to answer Jayden’s call to action and help him reach his fundraising goal of $150,000. Your support will make a meaningful impact to help BC Children’s Hospital provide transforming care to kids with cancer. 

To donate, please visit BC Children’s Hospital Foundation’s fundraising page, here (Donation link is open until Wednesday, November 1, 2023). 

The BC Real Estate Association’s annual Government Liaison Days (GL Days) event was held from Sunday, March 10 to Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at the Hotel Grand Pacific in Victoria.

Bringing together 65 attendees consisting of government relations (GR) staff and REALTOR^® committee members from all of the regional boards/associations, BCREA GR staff, and Board Members, the event provided delegates an opportunity to hear from a wide range of speakers, learn about advocacy meeting best practices, and meet with their regional Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

This year, we were pleased to hear from all four provincial party leaders: Premier David Eby, Kevin Falcon from the BC United Party, John Rustad of the BC Conservatives, and Sonia Furstenau from the BC Greens, as well as BC Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon, and federal Conservative Housing Critic Scott Aitchison. Non-political speakers included our media panel guests, Richard Zussman and Katie DeRosa, pollster Mario Canseco from Research Co., and Dil Puar from the Canadian Real Estate Association.

At Monday night’s reception at the Steamship Grill & Bar, the second annual Provincial Advocacy Awards were handed out to Tore Jacobsen (GR REALTOR^® Volunteer Award), Greater Vancouver REALTORS^® (though, given that the award is for 2023’s work, the award was presented to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver) for the Real Estate Board GR Committee Award, and Seth Scott of the Association of Interior REALTORS^® (Real Estate Board GR Staff Award). BCREA greatly appreciates the work of our dedicated members and partners in delivering advocacy messages to various levels of government.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. The serious work was meeting with MLAs and delivering our key messages in the form of two “asks.” First, we re-vamped our previous recommendation for a Permanent Provincial Housing Roundtable. With the numerous and complex housing policies announced by the government, it is necessary to ensure that they will accomplish their goals “on the ground” and not generate negative unintended consequences.

Our second ask was for the government to replace its current Home Buyer Rescission Period with a Pre-Offer Period to provide improved consumer protection for buyers and sellers during over-heated market conditions. A Pre-Offer Period would allow buyers to complete their due diligence prior to making an offer rather than after an offer has been accepted.

BCREA will continue to advocate for more thoughtful and evidence-based policies and will follow up with MLAs on these two recommendations to support REALTORS^® GL Days lobbying efforts as we move towards the provincial election, scheduled for October 2024.

The BC Real Estate Association’s annual Government Liaison Days (GL Days) event was held from Sunday, March 10 to Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at the Hotel Grand Pacific in Victoria.

Bringing together 65 attendees consisting of government relations (GR) staff and REALTOR^® committee members from all of the regional boards/associations, BCREA GR staff, and Board Members, the event provided delegates an opportunity to hear from a wide range of speakers, learn about advocacy meeting best practices, and meet with their regional Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs).

This year, we were pleased to hear from all four provincial party leaders: Premier David Eby, Kevin Falcon from the BC United Party, John Rustad of the BC Conservatives, and Sonia Furstenau from the BC Greens, as well as BC Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon, and federal Conservative Housing Critic Scott Aitchison. Non-political speakers included our media panel guests, Richard Zussman and Katie DeRosa, pollster Mario Canseco from Research Co., and Dil Puar from the Canadian Real Estate Association.

At Monday night’s reception at the Steamship Grill & Bar, the second annual Provincial Advocacy Awards were handed out to Tore Jacobsen (GR REALTOR^® Volunteer Award), Greater Vancouver REALTORS^® (though, given that the award is for 2023’s work, the award was presented to the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver) for the Real Estate Board GR Committee Award, and Seth Scott of the Association of Interior REALTORS^® (Real Estate Board GR Staff Award). BCREA greatly appreciates the work of our dedicated members and partners in delivering advocacy messages to various levels of government.

But it wasn’t all fun and games. The serious work was meeting with MLAs and delivering our key messages in the form of two “asks.” First, we re-vamped our previous recommendation for a Permanent Provincial Housing Roundtable. With the numerous and complex housing policies announced by the government, it is necessary to ensure that they will accomplish their goals “on the ground” and not generate negative unintended consequences.

Our second ask was for the government to replace its current Home Buyer Rescission Period with a Pre-Offer Period to provide improved consumer protection for buyers and sellers during over-heated market conditions. A Pre-Offer Period would allow buyers to complete their due diligence prior to making an offer rather than after an offer has been accepted.

BCREA will continue to advocate for more thoughtful and evidence-based policies and will follow up with MLAs on these two recommendations to support REALTORS^® GL Days lobbying efforts as we move towards the provincial election, scheduled for October 2024.

On May 10 and 11, many BC REALTORS® took part in the BC Real Estate Association’s 2022 Government Liaison Days (GL Days), an event where Realtors from across BC convene to discuss government liaison issues and meet with their local MLAs.

First held in 1988, GL Days connects Realtors from across the province, giving them a forum to showcase discuss issues pertinent to BC’s real estate sector with their colleagues and members of the government. Typically, GL Days takes place in Victoria, but due to ongoing travel concerns as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the event took place virtually, hopefully for the last time.

This year, attendees discussed potential solutions to improve housing affordability and strengthen consumer protections. These issues were a continuation of advocacy undertaken by BCREA through our paper, “A Better Way Home: Strengthening Consumer Protections in BC Real Estate.”

In attendance to speak with Realtors were MLAs David Eby, BC’s Housing Minister and Attorney General, and Liberal Housing Critic, Mike Bernier.

Strengthening Consumer Protections

The first series of recommendations discussed at GL Days was related to Bill 12, the Property Law Amendment Act, which enables the government to implement a “cooling off period” for buyers of residential real estate.

Realtors are concerned that a “cooling off period” will worsen affordability by increasing the number of frivolous offers. To mitigate these risks, we propose an exemption for situations where both the buyer and seller agree to waive their right to rescission. There are many instances where a mandatory “cooling off period” would not make sense and a property needs to be sold quickly, such as the result of a divorce, health problems or other unexpected circumstances.

Increasing Housing Supply

To address long-term consumer protection concerns, Realtors are advocating for improvements to housing supply as a key function to improve affordability. We recommend a provincial policy review to consider tying development approvals to housing targets, such as a local government’s Official Community Plan or Housing Needs Report. This ask mirrors recommendations from both the Development Approvals Process Review and Expert Panel on the Future Housing Supply and Affordability in BC. Our second recommendation for solutions to housing affordability is a provincial, permanent housing roundtable that brings together all levels of government and housing stakeholders to address challenges and construct innovative solutions.

We would like to thank all of the Realtors who volunteered their time to attend our sessions and represent their profession through meetings with MLAs.

Additional GL Days resources:

• Housing affordability brief (BCREA Access login required)
• Consumer protection brief (BCREA Access login required)
• BCREA’s White Paper, “A Better Way Home: Strengthening Consumer Protection in BC Real Estate”

Every year, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) hosts its annual Government Liaison (GL) Days event in Victoria to bring together REALTORS^® from across BC, delve into crucial GR issues, and engage with Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). This year’s GL Days on March 9–11 was an exciting event with engaging speakers and productive MLA meetings from all three political parties. 

The event began with a fruitful collaboration among representatives of the eight real estate boards and associations that resulted in renewed direction for future collective advocacy. Working together to achieve change makes the sector more resilient, and GL Days provides a golden opportunity to put the sector’s best minds together towards achieving common goals. GL Days 2025 demonstrated strong momentum in this direction.  

Our delegate awards reception was held in the Royal BC Museum, where we were pleased to recognize the outstanding achievements of BC Northern Real Estate Board REALTOR^® Victor Khong, the Association of Interior REALTORS^® GR Committee, and Greater Vancouver REALTORS^®’ Director of Government Relations Harriet Permut, who have shown exceptional dedication to our sector. 

We co-hosted our MLA reception with the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – British Columbia, highlighting our collaborative relationship to elected officials to bolster the impact of our lobbying efforts. The reception attracted many MLAs and was an engaging event filled with relationship-building conversations between real estate professionals and elected officials. 

At this year's GL Days, REALTORS^® again advocated for a permanent provincial housing policy roundtable of experts. We have long recommended a mechanism of thorough governmental consultation of housing experts to vet provincial housing policy. Premier David Eby has a new mandate but a slimmer majority, and we hope both his party and the opposition will be more receptive to conducting the consultation desperately needed to create effective housing policy. 

We also advocated for a thorough review of the Property Transfer Tax, the Speculation and Vacancy Tax, the Foreign Buyer Tax, and the BC Home Flipping Tax. None of these taxes has achieved its stated goals and collectively they hinder housing attainability for many British Columbians. Each of them must be seriously re-examined for needed changes or repealed altogether. Read more about REALTORS^®’ GL Days recommendations here. 

Premier Eby’s engagement with us during his live session was a highlight. In a surprising pivot, he recognized the importance of real estate investors in improving housing attainability. Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ravi Kahlon, Conservative Party of BC leader John Rustad, and interim BC Green Party leader Jeremy Valeriote also engaged with our delegates and discussed their visions for housing attainability in BC. 

While this event is over, our advocacy efforts are ongoing, and we are dedicated to ensuring needed housing policy changes are brought to the attention of elected officials to improve the future of attainability.  

Every year, the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) hosts its annual Government Liaison (GL) Days event in Victoria to bring together REALTORS^® from across BC, delve into crucial GR issues, and engage with Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). This year’s GL Days on March 9–11 was an exciting event with engaging speakers and productive MLA meetings from all three political parties. 

The event began with a fruitful collaboration among representatives of the eight real estate boards and associations that resulted in renewed direction for future collective advocacy. Working together to achieve change makes the sector more resilient, and GL Days provides a golden opportunity to put the sector’s best minds together towards achieving common goals. GL Days 2025 demonstrated strong momentum in this direction.  

Our delegate awards reception was held in the Royal BC Museum, where we were pleased to recognize the outstanding achievements of BC Northern Real Estate Board REALTOR^® Victor Khong, the Association of Interior REALTORS^® GR Committee, and Greater Vancouver REALTORS^®’ Director of Government Relations Harriet Permut, who have shown exceptional dedication to our sector. 

We co-hosted our MLA reception with the Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – British Columbia, highlighting our collaborative relationship to elected officials to bolster the impact of our lobbying efforts. The reception attracted many MLAs and was an engaging event filled with relationship-building conversations between real estate professionals and elected officials. 

At this year's GL Days, REALTORS^® again advocated for a permanent provincial housing policy roundtable of experts. We have long recommended a mechanism of thorough governmental consultation of housing experts to vet provincial housing policy. Premier David Eby has a new mandate but a slimmer majority, and we hope both his party and the opposition will be more receptive to conducting the consultation desperately needed to create effective housing policy. 

We also advocated for a thorough review of the Property Transfer Tax, the Speculation and Vacancy Tax, the Foreign Buyers Tax, and the BC Home Flipping Tax. None of these taxes has achieved its stated goals and collectively they hinder housing attainability for many British Columbians. Each of them must be seriously re-examined for needed changes or repealed altogether. Read more about REALTORS^®’ GL Days recommendations here. 

Premier Eby’s engagement with us during his live session was a highlight. In a surprising pivot, he recognized the importance of real estate investors in improving housing attainability. Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs Ravi Kahlon, Conservative Party of BC leader John Rustad, and interim BC Green Party leader Jeremy Valeriote also engaged with our delegates and discussed their visions for housing attainability in BC. 

While this event is over, our advocacy efforts are ongoing, and we are dedicated to ensuring needed housing policy changes are brought to the attention of elected officials to improve the future of attainability. If you are interested in joining our efforts, contact your real estate board or association to become involved in advocating for sound housing policy that British Columbians can get behind. 

---

To see photos from GL Days 2025, including both presentations and gatherings, click here.

On May 7-9, 2023, delegates from all eight real estate boards gathered in Victoria to meet with their constituent Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) during BCREA’s annual Government Liaison (GL) Days. During this event, BC’s organized real estate sector collectively advocated for a more thoughtful housing policymaking process and increased missing middle housing options for British Columbians.

To kick off this year’s GL Days, BCREA hosted a Delegate Reception at the Royal BC Museum, where we presented three inaugural BCREA Advocacy Awards. We were pleased to award Government Relations (GR) Committee Chair Ray Harris of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver with the “GR REALTOR^® Volunteer” award for his tireless provincial advocacy efforts. Executive Officer Alex Goseltine of the BC Northern Real Estate Board was presented with the well-deserved “Real Estate Board GR Staff” award, and the illustrious Vancouver Island Real Estate Board received the “Real Estate Board GR Committee” award.

In addition to meetings with their MLAs, GL Days delegates had the opportunity to listen to several notable political speakers hosted by BCREA. Featured speakers were the federal Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion Ahmed Hussen, the federal Shadow Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion Scott Aitchison, the provincial Minister of Housing Ravi Kahlon, and MLA Peter Milobar representing the provincial opposition party.

The esteemed speaker lineup also included prominent political correspondent Rob Shaw of CHEK News, BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson, and the Canadian Real Estate Association’s Government Relations Manager Elvanee Veeramalay.

During the evening MLA Reception, GL Days delegates mingled with MLAs from across the province. Here, delegates strengthened previous relationships with their elected officials and were introduced to new provincial politicians as well, bringing an invaluable networking experience to GL Days.

The two recommendations REALTORS^® brought to their MLAs were the creation of a permanent provincial housing roundtable to inform housing policy and the creation of more missing middle housing options for British Columbians. While these recommendations were well received, we will continue our advocacy for these policy initiatives to help improve housing attainability and create a more effective housing policymaking process in BC.

Going into GL Days, nine additional stakeholders had officially endorsed the housing roundtable recommendation. BCREA actively continues to increase the number of stakeholder endorsements of this recommendation, and we are committed to building upon the productive advocacy conducted during this year’s GL Days.

BCREA’s annual Government Liaison (GL) Days brings REALTORS^® from across BC to Victoria to engage with Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) on key provincial housing issues. Held from Sunday to Tuesday, March 8-10, 2026, this year’s event featured strong speakers, productive MLA meetings, and renewed collaboration among BC’s eight real estate boards and associations, highlighting growing momentum toward more unified advocacy.

To check out photos from GL Days 2026, click here.

This year, our annual Delegate Awards Reception was held at the Steamship Grill & Bar. We were pleased to recognize the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board’s Government Relations Committee, REALTOR^® Volunteer Janice Stromar, and Victoria Real Estate Board Government Relations staff member Denise Hogue, who have shown exceptional dedication to our sector.

On the final day of the conference, we co-hosted our MLA reception with the Canadian Home Builders’ Association of BC (CHBA BC), highlighting our collaborative relationship to bolster the impact of our lobbying efforts. The reception attracted many MLAs and was an engaging event filled with relationship-building conversations between real estate professionals and elected officials.

Building on collaborative efforts with member organizations, BCREA and REALTORS^® brought three asks to MLAs during the conference. First, we recommended the repeal of costly Budget 2026 real estate tax increases, including pausing the proposed Speculation and Vacancy Tax increase and not implementing an expansion of the Provincial Sales Tax.

We also asked for a fulsome review of the Strata Property Act, along with pushes for mandatory training for strata council members, improved access to strata documents, and regulated rush fees.

Finally, we recommended several policies to unlock BC’s prefabricated housing potential, including harmonizing municipal zoning, creating a multi-year provincial procurement roadmap, and expanding TradeUpBC to train and prepare workers for prefabricated construction. Read more about REALTORS^® GL Days recommendations here.

Premier David Eby was among the many speakers who addressed delegates during the event. During his engagement with us, he expressed his deep concern about the risk that falling housing starts and stalled condo projects could trigger a future housing supply crunch in BC, despite Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs Christine Boyle’s downplay of the slowdown and insistence that construction activity remains strong. The Premier also told us he’s open to a real estate sector roundtable to help provide much-needed expertise to government on housing policies in the current market, something BCREA has long recommended.

Minister Boyle, Conservative Party of BC interim leader Trevor Halford, Conservative Party of BC housing critic Linda Hepner, and BC Green Party leader Emily Lowan also engaged with our delegates and discussed their visions for housing attainability in BC.

Other notable sessions included a housing policy panel composed of fellow housing sector stakeholders, concurrent sessions on prefabricated housing and small-scale multi-unit housing, a conversation with BC Financial Services Authority CEO Tolga Yalkin, and discussions with legislative reporter Rob Shaw and federal Conservative housing critic Scott Aitchison.

Although GL Days has concluded, our advocacy work continues. We remain committed to ensuring elected officials understand the housing policy changes needed to improve attainability, and we encourage anyone interested in supporting this work to connect with BCREA or their local real estate board or association and get involved in advocating for housing policies British Columbians can support.

On April 20, 2023, the Surrey Board of Trade hosted the Housing Crisis Solutions with Minister Ravi Kahlon event to discuss innovative solutions to British Columbia’s housing crisis with the Minister as he shared his vision to alleviate housing challenges.

Co-sponsored by the BC Real Estate Association (BCREA), Fraser Valley Real Estate Board (FVREB), and Uniti, this event highlighted speeches from housing stakeholders concerned about BC’s ongoing housing attainability crisis, where BCREA and FVREB formally pitched the need for a permanent provincial housing roundtable to the Minister of Housing.

BCREA announced support for this initiative from a diverse collection of organizations across the housing sector, illustrating the need to establish a permanent housing roundtable to review and provide advance feedback on potential new housing policy. See associated news release.

Supporting stakeholders include the Aboriginal Housing Management Association, Active Manufactured Home Owners Society, Appraisal Institute of Canada – BC Association, BC Non-Profit Housing Association, BC Real Estate Association, Canadian Mortgage Brokers Association – BC, LandlordBC, Mortgage and Title Insurance Industry Association of Canada, Small Housing BC, and the Surrey Board of Trade.

At last Thursday’s event, BCREA’s Senior VP of Policy Research & Advocacy, Trevor Hargreaves, stressed the “great deal of housing policy expertise that exists right across this province. [However], these are voices that very rarely gather at a single table.”

FVREB’s Chair of the Stakeholder and Government Relations Committee, Tore Jacobsen, asserted that FVREB is “encouraged that the provincial government recognizes the reality of the crisis and appreciates the funding and strategies aimed at making a lasting impact.”

Nevertheless, some recent policy passed by Premier Eby’s administration demonstrates the lack of collaboration between the provincial, local, Indigenous governments, and housing stakeholders across the housing continuum. A proactive, consultative process is needed to prevent unintended negative consequences of various housing policies, such as the fallout from the Building and Strata Statutes Amendment Act, which banned age restrictions for any age below 55 in strata buildings. This resulted in even fewer opportunities for growing families and first-time homebuyers, as some strata corporations have shifted their age limits to 55-plus. This consequence could have been anticipated and perhaps mitigated had the housing sector been properly consulted.

Jacobsen added that as policy-minded stakeholders in the housing sector who desire greater governmental consultation on housing policy, we want to be there to provide guidance and expertise to housing policymakers.

“What we are calling for today is the establishment of a formalized housing roundtable so that when the provincial government is looking at implementing new ideas, they run it past a series of representatives drawn from within the housing continuum,” Hargreaves said.

As the voice of BC REALTORS^®, BCREA is dedicated to advocating this recommendation for a permanent provincial housing roundtable and will drive this message forward to elected BC Members of the Legislative Assembly during our annual Government Liaison Days in Victoria, at the beginning of May.

In late October, the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) hosted its 40th annual Political Action Committee (PAC) Days in Ottawa. PAC Days is an event where REALTOR^® volunteers and Government Relations staff from every province meet with their local Members of Parliament (MPs) to discuss advocacy issues developed by CREA.

Given the federal election earlier this year, this was an opportunity to share recommendations that can shape existing and emerging federal programs aimed at improving housing affordability. Additionally, PAC Days includes several days of programming on effective advocacy, polling trends, the federal political media landscape, and other information sessions. 

REALTORS^® brought two recommendations to their MPs, both related to missing-middle housing and overall housing supply. Missing-middle housing is a range of multi-unit housing types that are gentle- to medium-density, including duplexes, townhouses, and low-rise apartments.

Federal Levers

The first recommendation was to leverage all federal levers to unlock housing supply. REALTORS^® asked the federal government and opposition parties to speed up building more missing-middle homes by setting clear, measurable housing-delivery targets in all their funding programs and rules.

Infrastructure funding agreements, the Housing Accelerator Fund, and federal transfers should be used to encourage zoning modernization, expedite permitting, and align with national housing goals. 

The intention is not to add bureaucracy or incur additional spending. Instead, the recommendation is to make existing investments work smarter by aligning departments, reducing duplication, and encouraging goal alignment among all levels of government.

Build Canada Homes Funding

The second recommendation REALTORS^® brought to their MPs is that the government dedicate a modest share of the Build Canada Homes (BCH) projects to market-based missing-middle housing. 

Non-market housing is a crucial component of the housing continuum that the BCH program intends to address; however, to truly fix Canada’s housing system, federal programs must address the needs of middle-class families who are increasingly locked out of homeownership.

Notably, in some markets, prefabrication can ensure that homes are built faster, at lower cost, and with consistent quality, while maintaining the BCH program’s core focus on deeply affordable housing. 

By embracing a balanced approach, the government can restore hope for the middle class, relieve pressure on rentals, and prove that national leadership can deliver homes for every Canadian. 

From June 22-23, BCREA staff participated in the inaugural Association of Interior REALTORS^® tradeshow in sunny Penticton, BC. This trade show marks BCREA’s return to large in-person events after the easing of the COVID-19 restrictions. We hosted a booth for the two-day event and had the opportunity to connect with Realtors from the Interior, Kootenays and across the province.

“It was great to connect with the Association of Interior REALTORS^® members and see familiar faces again,” says BCREA Chair Janice Stromar. “It was exciting to gather together from across the province and learn from some really informative speakers.”

BCREA economist Ryan McLaughlin was a featured speaker at the Stats and Economic Forum. During his presentation, he spoke about the state of the BC economy, the housing market, monetary policies and the BCREA forecast. Also in attendance were BCREA CEO Trevor Koot, Vice President of Government Relations and Stakeholder Engagement Trevor Hargreaves and Professional Services Manager Jim McCaughan who met and spoke with attendees about key issues for Realtors in BC and current work being done by BCREA.

Check out some of the photos from the event below!

For Immediate Release

Vancouver, BC – June 17, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) welcomes the BC Financial Services Authority’s (BCFSA) interim findings on the unprecedented rise in strata insurance premiums and deductions. On behalf of BC’s 23,000 REALTORS® and 11 real estate boards, BCREA has also developed a series of recommendations for the provincial government to ensure strata owners can access affordable and comprehensive strata insurance.

“Realtors are concerned about the impact of rising strata insurance costs on their clients and communities, particularly as we face the new economic challenges of COVID-19”, says Darlene Hyde, BCREA’s Chief Executive Officer. “We look forward to a final report from BCFSA and we’re here to help them in any way we can in working to resolve this critical issue.”

With some 1.5 million B.C. residents living in strata units, soaring strata insurance costs have a widespread impact. As the provincial association for BC’s Realtors, BCREA’s recommendations aim to protect homeowners by ensuring no strata goes uninsured and that there is transparency for buyers and sellers when it comes to understanding a strata’s coverage.

BCREA’s recommendations to the BC Government include immediate and long term measures.

Immediate:

1. Amend the Form B Information Certificate to require proof of insurance, including premiums, deductibles, coverage and expiry date.
   
2. Work with the insurance sector to put measures into place that assure all strata corporations are able to obtain insurance coverage, for as long as the difficult market conditions last.
   
3. Engage with insurers so they continue to provide coverage to strata corporations.
   
4. Amend the Strata Property Act to require a strata corporation to inform owners and tenants of any material change in insurance coverage, including an increase in any deductible, as soon as feasible.
   
5. Require insurers to provide strata corporations with notices 60 days before their policies expire or will be cancelled.

Long term:

1. Encourage the provincial insurance regulator, the BC Financial Services Authority, to make public the data and information it is gathering from insurance companies to better understand the current climate of expensive strata insurance.
   
2. Encourage the BC Financial Services Authority to foster a robust, economically viable market that attracts insurance providers.
   
3. Develop mandatory education for strata council members.
   
4. Either create a new organization – modelled on the Condominium Authority of Ontario – to enforce the Strata Property Act, including providing mandatory training and creating best practices for strata councils, or assign this role to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Impact of Rising Strata Insurance in BC

For several months, many BC strata corporations have faced significant cost increases when renewing their insurance. Some buildings have struggled to find insurers willing to renew their coverage at all. This alarming situation creates uncertainty and risk that could have serious impacts on the housing market and the economy.

Strata units are widely considered to be affordable. For buildings impacted by high insurance costs, the best case sees affordability undermined as costs are passed along to owners through higher monthly fees. Individual owners responsible for damage beyond their units may also face insurance deductibles so large it could bankrupt them.

In the worst case, a building that is unable to obtain insurance no longer complies with the Strata Property Act and individual units in the building cannot be bought or sold.

For media enquiries, contact:

April van Ert
Communications Manager
[email protected]
604.742.2797

Click here for the PDF.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

After the BC Government’s announcement introducing initial details of the upcoming Homebuyer Protection Period to take effect in real estate transactions in January 2023, you might be wondering, what’s next?

REALTORS® are at the front lines of real estate transactions in BC, so a change in the way transactions are conducted will have an impact on how your serve your clients.

As the voice of the province’s 25,000+ REALTORS®, BCREA will continue to review the details of the Homebuyer Protection Period and advocate for effective implementation that minimizes unintended consequences. We will also to continue to urge government to improve consultation and collaboration with the sector, make evidence-based policy decisions and empower province's real estate regulator to act independently.

While we don’t have all the details yet, the Homebuyer Protection Period is coming in 2023 so, alongside our advocacy efforts, BCREA has begun work to prepare for the changes to ensure that REALTORS® are as prepared as possible.

Here is what we’re working on:

Updating and Creating New Standard Forms

To ensure REALTORS® are equipped with the tools needed to serve clients seamlessly through these changes, we are reviewing our current standard forms to identify amendments and/or new forms needed.

Updating Professional Development Courses

Many of our professional development offerings refer to the current process of conducting a real estate transaction. We will be reviewing our courses to ensure they reference updated processes affected by the Homebuyer Protection Period.

REALTOR® Training, Education and Resources

As with all changes to the real estate transaction process, BCREA is committed to providing training and education to ensure your ability to serve clients is impacted as minimally as possible.

In the coming weeks and months, we will be sharing directly with you more information about the Homebuyer Protection Period – as it becomes available – along with resources, such as new and updated standard forms toolkits, to ensure you’re ready for the changes that take effect next year.

While we work on these resources, we would love to hear your thoughts. If you have questions, comments or suggestions that you have not yet shared with BCREA regarding the Homebuyer Protection Period (or previously, the “cooling-off period”) you can email [email protected].

If you’re a Managing or Associate Broker, you can also attend the next Community of Practice session on August 17, 2022, during which we will be discussing the Homebuyer Protection Period. If you aren’t already registered for BCREA’s Managing Broker Community of Practice, click here to register.

Vancouver, BC – May 13, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is encouraged by the recommendations set out by the Ministry of Finance’s Expert Panel on Money Laundering led by Maureen Maloney. As the voice of BC’s 23,000 REALTORS®, we appreciate recommendations that will bring more transparency and accountability to all professionals involved in real estate transactions and improve regulatory structures for the benefit of all British Columbians.

“The government’s investigations into money laundering have made clear what REALTORS® have known for a long time: real estate transactions are complicated and don’t just involve REALTORS®,” said Darlene Hyde, Chief Executive Officer for the British Columbia Real Estate Association. “We support swift action from the government to ensure an efficient, comprehensive system to keep the proceeds of crime out of real estate.”

REALTORS® are committed to doing their part to ensure a transparent real estate market. That’s why in April, BCREA worked with four other real estate sector associations to submit a joint statement outlining five recommendations and best practices to the government to help stop money laundering.

In this joint statement, our associations called for mandatory anti-money laundering training for all real estate professionals who come under the federal regulatory requirements. We’re hopeful that the government will now work with regulators to introduce mandatory anti-money laundering education as we move towards more personal accountability for all actors in a real estate transaction.

Finally, we’re optimistic that, if implemented, the Expert Panel’s recommendations for enhanced reporting and transparency from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre (FINTRAC) will go a long way in ensuring BC’s housing market benefits British Columbians. In our April statement to government, we highlighted the urgent need for better and more timely feedback and public reporting from FINTRAC.

“Right now, when a real estate office is examined by FINTRAC, the feedback is slow or even non-existent,” said Hyde. “REALTORS® have long been asking FINTRAC to provide immediate, specific suggestions for how they can improve their compliance systems. BCREA hopes the BC Government can work with FINTRAC to bring about the changes REALTORS® have been advocating for.”

BC’s REALTORS® are united with government and all British Columbians in believing that illegal funds have no place in our province’s housing market. We support regulators and law enforcement in decisive and immediate action to stop anyone abusing our economy.

-30-

Click here for the PDF.

For more information, please contact:
April van Ert
Communications Manager
Email: [email protected]
604.742.2797

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Managing brokers, an important deadline is fast approaching that may impact your REALTORS^® and their clients. As of Thursday, May 1, 2025, all short-term rental hosts in British Columbia must register their rental units with the provincial short-term rental registry to operate legally.

This requirement applies to property hosts, co-hosts, and property managers handling short-term rental operations.

What REALTORS^® Need to Know

If your REALTORS^® are working with clients who operate short-term rentals, they should be aware of the following key points:

• Mandatory Registration: Every short-term rental unit must be registered separately, with exceptions for multiple bedrooms within the same home.
• Compliance Deadline: Listings that are not registered by Thursday, May 1, 2025, will be removed, and future bookings will be cancelled starting Sunday, June 1, 2025.
• Annual Registration Fees: Fees vary based on the type of short-term rental, with discounts available for early registration before Monday, March 31, 2025.
• Business Licensing Requirements: Some municipalities may require additional business licences to operate a short-term rental.
• Rental Property Management Services: A rental property management licence is required to provide ongoing management of a rental property. For more information on licensing, read more in BC Financial Service Authority’s bulletin on “Trading Services or Rental Property Management?”

Action for Managing Brokers

We encourage you to remind your REALTORS^® to inform their clients – especially those involved in short-term rental properties – about this new requirement. Ensuring compliance will help clients avoid disruptions and penalties.

For more information, REALTORS^® and their clients can visit the BC Short-Term Rental Registration page.

On February 23, the province’s real estate regulator, the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) released proposed amendments to the Real Estate Service Rules intended to clarify the role and duties of real estate teams and team members. Teams play an important role for licensees; they can allow families or partners to work together, facilitate larger sales volume and lead generation, provide mentorship opportunities, improve work-life balance, allow for specialization of skills, and normalize income. However, the regulatory framework would benefit from defining teams and providing more clarity about how team members should conduct their professional activities. 

BCFSA is conducting a 60-day consultation on the following proposed requirements: 

• all teams must register with BCFSA, 
• teams include two or more licensed members, 
• team members provide services through their team only, and 
• team members clearly identify their team name in all advertising.  

BCFSA is also proposing Rule changes to align trust account reporting requirements for real estate brokerages with upcoming changes to Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation deposit insurance protection rules to eliminate duplication and streamline information reporting requirements for brokerages. 

Last year, BCREA submitted recommendations to BCFSA based on a consultation with REALTORS^® to understand how team structure can be improved. We appreciate BCFSA’s continued consultation on these issues to understand what is best for consumers and licensees.  

We support BCFSA’s desire to define ‘teams,’ as we previously recommended in 2021, and we will continue to consult Realtors to ensure the definition is as clear and balanced as possible. We will be conducting a series of focus groups with managing brokers and franchisees in the coming month to understand how the proposed changes will impact Realtors.  

We have ongoing questions for BCFSA, such as ensuring an adequate time for teams to adapt to the changes and how to support managing brokers through the transition.  

We encourage Realtors to provide their feedback to BCFSA’s consultation, which is open until April 24. To learn more, check-out BCFSA’s Annotated Rules and Frequently Asked Questions.

In a move that demonstrates its commitment to supporting real estate professionals, the British Columbia Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) has implemented a significant change in the relicensing process that allows REALTORS^® to register for continuing education courses well in advance.

According to the organization, “BCFSA is implementing a new strategy by providing a list of all available course offerings up to three months in advance of their start dates. This proactive approach is designed to give licensees ample opportunity to plan and register for the mandatory continuing education courses well before their renewal date.”

BCFSA went on to say, “By extending the scheduling window, BCFSA aims to alleviate the frustration and inconvenience licensees may have experienced in the past. With this change, BCFSA hopes to ensure that licensees have the necessary time and resources to meet the mandatory continuing education requirements, enabling them to renew their licence on time.”

The impact of this change cannot be overstated. The previous challenges associated with registering for continuing education courses added unnecessary stress to an already demanding profession. BCFSA's proactive approach addresses these challenges head-on, providing REALTORS^® with the flexibility and foresight needed to plan their professional development effectively.

BCREA applauds BCFSA for tackling this challenge. As an organization dedicated to enhancing the professional excellence of REALTORS^®, BCREA understands the importance of accessible and timely education. Continuing education is not just a regulatory requirement; it is a vital component of maintaining the highest standards of practice in the real estate profession.

By ensuring that REALTORS^® have ample time to register for courses, BCFSA is helping to uphold these standards and foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement.

We encourage all REALTORS^® to take full advantage of this new scheduling window and plan their continuing education well in advance. Together, we can continue to elevate the real estate profession in British Columbia.

While you wait to take your relicensing courses, BCREA offers several continuing education programs you can enroll in to further your education and enhance professionalism in the sector. Find more courses on our Professional Development page.

To view the full interactive BCREA Housing Forecast, click here.
To download the PDF, click here.

Vancouver, BC – April 27, 2026. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) released its 2026 Second Quarter Housing Forecast today.

Multiple Listing Service^® (MLS^®) residential sales in BC are forecast to fall 2.1 per cent to 68,700 units this year. In 2027, MLS^® residential sales are forecast to move higher, rising 7.7 per cent to 74,000 units.

“The housing market continues to be challenged by persistent global headwinds and a struggling economy,” said BCREA Chief Economist Brendon Ogmundson. “However, improved affordability in many markets combined with several years of pent-up demand creates conditions for a rebound, though households will likely need a prolonged period of stability to re-enter the market.”

With active listings at their highest level since 2015, and additional pressure from elevated new-home inventory, we anticipate the average price in BC will fall by 1.4 per cent in 2026 to $939,800, down from $952,930 in 2025. This decrease largely reflects disproportionate weakness in more expensive markets in the Lower Mainland, casting downward pressure on the broader provincial average price.

-30-

For the complete news release, including detailed statistics, click here.

For more information, please contact:
Brendon Ogmundson
Chief Economist
Direct: 604.742.2796
Mobile: 604.505.6793
[email protected]

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Throughout 2026, BCREA will be looking back to years past in celebration of our 50th anniversary. Join us as we break down some of the biggest moments for the Association and the real estate sector at large. 

Today, we look to 1986, a year remembered as a time of historic change and economic development for the province of British Columbia. BCREA’s president at the time was Marty Douglas, who remains among our ranks today as a Professional Services Support Advisor. 

In a January BCREA Bulletin newsletter article, Marty wrote that there was cause “for some real satisfaction as we enter 1986.” He added, “We can say with assurance that consumer confidence, bolstered by stable interest rates and a recovering economy, has returned in force.”  

At the time, the Canadian economy had shifted into an upswing, and Canadians were buying houses at a record pace. “In British Columbia alone,” Marty wrote, “over $1.4 billion in residential sales to the end of October serves to vividly illustrate this newfound confidence.” 

In describing the purchase trends at the time, Marty outlined that “many buyers were young, first-time purchasers, and a surprising number, close to 25 per cent nationally, were single.” 

Providing a snapshot of the market at the time, he described prices as having been “relatively stable,” and “forecast to show moderate, inflation-linked increases throughout 1986.”  

Housing starts were projected at 25,000 for the year, and there was a fair amount of enthusiasm around the forthcoming Expo 86, which was slated to bring increased attention to the province with hopes of a boost in sales. 

Of historical note, Marty went on to announce the formation of the BC Real Estate Foundation (now the Real Estate Foundation of BC), which continues to fund sustainable land usage initiatives to this day.  

In his article, Marty wrote about how, through the new foundation, the interest accrued from agents’ general trust accounts would benefit “not only the real estate industry, but the general public of British Columbia, through education, law reform, research, and other worthwhile programs.”  

Of final note, Marty also pointed to the development of a new “Contract of Purchase and Sale Form,” which was “the culmination of some two years of deliberation by a joint committee of the BC Real Estate Association and the Canadian Bar Association (BC Branch).” 

All of the above are interesting aspects that relate to our current market and serve as a reminder in these volatile times of the lasting nature of BC real estate’s boom / bust cycle. It also shows how many of the areas of focus back then remain issues of concern today. 

Stay tuned for further historical snapshots from years past in coming weeks! 

---

Photo credit: Colin Rose, Wikimedia Commons

As we get further into 2026, Canada-United States relations feel particularly frayed. The Canadian economy strains under tariffs and increasingly hostile posturing by the Trump Administration, with no end in sight. But amid these difficult international relations, it’s important to remember that we have long shared a much closer relationship with the US.

An interesting look back at years past and our collective response to US tragedy is the BC REALTOR^® community’s actions following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. An October 5, 2001, print edition of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver’s (now Greater Vancouver REALTORS^®) REALTOR Link^® newsletter recapped highlights of the sector's efforts.

The newsletter notes that on the day of the attack, BCREA was holding provincial meetings in a hotel in Richmond. Notably, board and association presidents, as well as executive officers, gave up their hotel rooms to accommodate stranded travellers.

In the days that followed, the REALTOR Link^® article outlines that:

• As the Vancouver International Airport became crowded with rerouted flights, some REALTORS^® took travellers into their homes.
• REALTORS^® lined up to donate blood, and many took part in memorial services and vigils.
• Board and association staff members joined the world in a day of mourning. Both the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board observed moments of silence.
• In Vancouver, board staff participated in a candle-lighting ceremony outside the building to express condolences.

In real estate, we’ve come to expect periodic market volatility. Seemingly, international relations work in a similar fashion.

Here’s hoping we return to a stronger relationship with our neighbouring country soon and maintain that relationship for a long time to come.

BCREA is turning 50 years old this year. As part of our anniversary celebration, we interviewed the Association's Chief Economist, Brendon Ogmundson. A sought-after specialist in housing market analysis and economic forecasting, Brendon was recently named one of Canada’s most influential people in real estate by Buzz Digital Magazine.

In the interview video below, Brendon discusses multiple topics, including his time at BCREA, Canada's obsession with real estate, and the future of the sector.

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/TNBikW9TTIM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"][/iframe]

Throughout 2026, BCREA will be looking back to years past in celebration of our 50th anniversary. Join us as we break down some of the biggest moments for the Association and the real estate sector at large.

The British Columbia Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) was originally enacted in 1977. It replaced the previous Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act and was intended to further strengthen the protection of archaeological sites on both public and private land.

An excerpt from the 2012 Real Estate Council of BC’s Professional Standards Manual outlines the function and implications of the HCA as:

“The intent of the Heritage Conservation Act with respect to archaeological sites is to balance a respect for heritage and a property owner’s right to develop, (though) some private landowners may face costly archaeological studies and / or limited use of their land.

“The Heritage Conservation Act is concerned with activities that may alter heritage sites automatically protected under the legislation. While it is not likely to affect properties where there is no intended change of use, it could have an impact where a change in that use is contemplated (e.g., subdivision, new construction, construction of an addition or pool).”

The HCA has been a hot political topic in recent months. In 2025, the provincial government announced a set of proposed amendments that immediately drew significant criticism due to the lack of adequate consultation to help inform the real-world and unintended consequences. In response to this feedback, particularly from key private-sector stakeholders, the BC Government extended the consultation period and endeavoured to draft a revised set of changes.

The latest proposal has addressed many concerns, but continues to draw criticism from the private sector because of the perceived continued lack of consultation on the design of proposed changes.

In light of policy concerns around land usage and property ownership related to the recent Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, some organizations are calling for a moratorium on changes to the HCA until these issues can be clarified in the courts.

The HCA has long served to help protect critical archaeological areas within the province. And, once it completes its current process of modernization, it’s sure to be an important resource for the real estate sector in the years to come.

BCREA is turning 50 years old this year. As part of our anniversary celebration, we interviewed current and past BCREA Chief Executive Officers about the Association and the real estate sector at large.

In the first of several videos to come, Trevor Koot, Darlene Hyde, and Robert Laing answer the question: “What makes real estate special or unique?” Check out their insights below.

[iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8OAVW2ffI_g" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"][/iframe]

On August 23, BCREA is launching BCREA Access, a new platform for REALTORS^® to securely access resources from BCREA. Designed exclusively for BC REALTORS^®, managing brokers and real estate board staff, BCREA Access contains resources to help support real estate professionals, where and when you need it the most.

With BCREA Access, REALTORS^® will be able to:

• access key REALTOR^® and managing broker resources,
• explore current advocacy issues and ways to participate in lobbying efforts,
• find professional development opportunities,
• discover more about BCREA and how to get involved, and
• sign-up for great REALTOR^® benefits.

Logging into the new platform will be easy! BCREA Access uses the same secure, login information used for REALTOR Link^® and is accessible on mobile and tablet devices.

Why did we create BCREA Access?

The introduction of BCREA Access is to replace BCREA’s presence on REALTOR Link^®, which is being discontinued by the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA) on September 15, 2022. This means that after September 15, you will no longer be able to access resources on REALTOR Link^®.

If you frequently use REALTOR Link^®, it's also worthwhile to note that CREA plans to make its own content previously available on REALTOR Link^® accessible through a new resource page and on its public website. However, other pages – like BCREA and real estate board pages – will no longer be accessible.

If you have questions about BCREA Access, contact [email protected].

If you have questions about the discontinuation of REALTOR Link^®, contact [email protected].

BCREA Access is the new, exclusive platform for BC REALTORS^® to find professional resources from BCREA. Created to ensure REALTORS^® have timely and secure access to BCREA Resources with CREA discontinuing REALTOR Link^® on September 15, 2022, BCREA Access has many useful resources available now.

Haven’t signed in to BCREA Access yet? Using BCREA Access is easy! Your login information is the same as what you use for CREA’s REALTOR Link^® and BCREA Access is available on mobile and tablet devices when you are on the go.

Here are five resources you might find helpful on BCREA Access which are available today:

1. Access key REALTOR® and managing broker resources exclusively on BCREA Access.
   
   Managing Brokers can have their voice heard and help shape BCREA’s future resources for brokers by taking the Managing Brokers needs analysis survey. Deadline is 11:59pm on September 8.
   
   
2. REALTORS^® can stay up to date about political real estate news that affects the sector by reading Advocacy Update, BCREA’s biweekly subscription-based newsletter.
   
   
3. Get involved with BCREA through volunteer opportunities and organized real estate committees. Learn about what the Board of Directors, Board Committees, External Appointments and Operational Committees do and how to volunteer on BCREA Access.
   
   
4. Explore and review BCREA Professional Development courses in one place. BCREA Access makes it easy for REALTORS® to discover course topics and quickly find self-paced online courses you have already registered for.
   
   
5. REALTORS^® can sign-up for great benefits through your exclusive member portal. Discover preferred mobile plans, insurance programs, and health benefits on BCREA Access today.

Yesterday, Minister of Finance Selina Robinson announced plans to amend the Property Law Act to pave the way for the introduction of a “Homebuyer Protection Period” in real estate transactions. While the Government’s announcement lacked detail, the Homebuyer Protection Period will give buyers the right to rescind offers in real estate transactions. While governmental language has changed, this is essentially the cooling-off period that has been much discussed in recent weeks.

As your provincial professional association, we know that REALTORS® share government and public concern about the risks consumers face in heated markets and the challenges of BC’s housing affordability issues. We also know that a cooling-off period could have unintended consequences, such as protecting buyers at the expense of sellers or encouraging buyers to make offers on properties they’re not serious about, consequently increasing competition and driving home prices higher.

Later this morning, we will release a statement to media in response to yesterday’s announcement which expresses our ongoing concern with their approach. We’re not alone in questioning the introduction of a cooling-off period. According to a recent survey of more than 1150 British Columbians, only 35% of consumers support a cooling-off period.

In our statement to media, we also assert that it’s time to stop spreading the myth that Realtors are driven by self-interest. Government needs to recognize the important contributions Realtors make towards better protecting consumers and improving housing affordability as consumers certainly do. The same survey that showed British Columbians do not widely support a cooling-off period also revealed that more than 70 per cent of consumers believe Realtors should be consulted on real estate policy changes.

We will continue to advocate on your behalf and keep you informed of our approach, as well as any opportunities for Realtors to support BCREA’s advocacy efforts.

Illegal funds have no place in BC’s real estate market. Real estate playing an important role in the lives of British Columbians, serving as one of the key economic drivers in the province. BCREA shows leadership on behalf of REALOTRS® by advocating for smart policy to ensure integrity and transparency and supporting Realtors to help identify and combat money laundering in real estate transactions.

“The real estate sector in BC takes the issue of money laundering seriously,” said BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde. “We have taken a wide variety of internal steps to strengthen our education for membership and practices in the field, and we are pushing to work more closely with regulators to more collective tackle an issue that exists in the shadows.”

BCREA has already made substantial progress on previous recommendations. We lobbied the Real Estate Council of BC to implement mandatory anti-money laundering education, which was launched in January 2020. BCREA’s anti-money laundering work was applauded by the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance in a government news release in April 2019.

BCREA is also updating our anti-money laundering course for managing brokers. The self-paced online course is set to launch in September 2021, reinforcing practice guidelines based on survey data and follow-up with participants who took the course in October 2020. The next version will reflect input from managing brokers, and is expected to launch in June 2021.

Apart from supporting the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia, BCREA recommends that the BC Government:

• let the Cullen Commission complete its work before implementing additional significant anti-money laundering measures, and
• coordinate actions with the federal government to create a comprehensive, efficient enforcement and regulatory regime.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

2020 was an eventful year that required BCREA to adapt to many unexpected challenges. As with most British Columbians, the COVID-19 pandemic required changes how we conduct our practices. We have learned just how resilient and adaptable BC’s Realtors can be, showing leadership and coming together to help flatten the COVID-19 infection rate. Below are a few 2020 highlights from BCREA’s Government Relations team.

One issue that was delayed due to the pandemic was regulatory reform. The new timeline for integration of the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate and the Real Estate Council of British Columbia into the BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) is early 2021. Throughout the year, BCREA has been meeting with government staff and ministers to ensure that this change is more effective and efficient than the current model. Three of our recommendations are:

• create a Professional Standing Committee to establish licensing qualifications,
• separate public policy from operational policy, with input from licensees, and
• give the real estate licensing function the authority to make its own rules and operational policies.

We are hopeful that when amendments are introduced in coming months, changes will support licensee accountability and improve consumer protection.

Since the end of 2019, BC strata corporations have faced rising strata insurance costs, causing increased affordability challenges for strata unit owners. In June 2020, the BC Government introduced amendments to begin addressing this issue, naming BCREA as a contributor. Three of BCREA’s recommendations were adopted, including:

• amend the Form B Information Certificate to require proof of insurance,
• require a strata corporation to inform owners and tenants of any material change in insurance coverage as soon as feasible, and
• require insurers to provide strata corporations with notices before their policies expire or will be cancelled.

BCREA will continue working with government and other organizations to advocate for additional solutions to make insurance more affordable.

BCREA also continued work to keep money from criminal activity out of BC’s housing market. We created a page dedicated to help Realtors access anti-money laundering resources. We have also been active participants in the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia. We gave opening statements to the commission and will provide testimony in February 2021 as the voice of BC’s Realtors.

In November, in the midst of the pandemic, British Columbians went to the polls, resulting in an NDP majority government. BCREA worked with member boards on ensuring new and re-elected MLAs were educated on challenges facing the real estate sector, notably housing supply, rising strata insurance costs and incentives for energy retrofits.

With another busy year already underway, our team is hard at work continuing to support BC’s Realtors.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

On September 19, BCREA hosted our first Advocacy Exchange: Conference for Managing Brokers. The conference provided a unique opportunity for managing brokers from across the province to network, learn about advocacy, ask questions and be informed on matters affecting organized real estate.

The event was well attended by over 250 managing brokers, licensees and key stakeholders. Representatives from BCREA, the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA), the Office of the Superintendent of Real Estate (OSRE), the Real Estate Council of BC (RECBC) and the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) presented on regulatory issues, advocacy and compliance, and attendees were able to raise their questions and concerns throughout the day.

Highlights from the conference include:

• The particularly avid engagement for the FINTRAC presentation. Managing brokers made the most of Thomas Tomasovszky's Q&A session to ask detailed questions about meeting compliance obligations. 
  
• RECBC Executive Officer Erin Seeley's Q&A session, which provided a positive opportunity for dialogue between managing brokers and RECBC. The presentation slides can be found here: Regulation and Compliance in a Time of Change, or watch the full presentation: https://youtu.be/y0BjWCbuWW0.
  
• Key consultation findings presented by BCREA. These include results from the managing broker researchBCREA conducted earlier this year, as well as an overview of the results from the consumer surveyBCREA conducted in August. See the BCREA presentation slides here: BCREA Advocacy Part 1 and BCREA Advocacy Part 2, or watch the presentation by Norma Miller, BCREA Government Relations Manager: https://youtu.be/A_SmoaEmtvo.
  
• Randall McCauley's insights from CREA on how understanding the government's views of the real estate industry is the key to successful government relations. His presentation can be found here: Turning the Tables—How the Government Sees the Real Estate Industry, or watch the full presentation: https://youtu.be/dNVBjtXhbic.
  
• Superintendent Micheal Noseworthy and Deputy Superintendent Jonathan Vandall highlighting future opportunities for engagement between managing brokers and OSRE. These opportunities are laid out in their presentation slides: Reviewing the Roles and Responsibilities of Managing Brokers, or watch the full presentation: https://youtu.be/1kbfNMVoN50.

We appreciate the level of engagement throughout the day and the number of questions that were raised. While we were unable to address all of them during the conference, it's important to us that we address as many of these questions as possible. Some will be used as topics for future articles, and many have been submitted to the presenters to provide answers, which will be posted on our Advocacy Page on REALTOR Link® under BCREA Advocacy Exchange: Conference for Managing Brokers over the coming weeks.

BCREA is also building a stronger presence on social media regarding advocacy and regulatory issues. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn for updates.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Increasing and diversifying housing supply is part of a necessary, meaningful, and long-lasting solution to make housing more affordable in British Columbia. The British Columbia Real Estate Association is encouraged by the final report from the Expert Panel on Housing Supply and Affordability and its specific recommendations around housing supply.

“There is no question that, for British Columbians to access housing options within their means, the supply of housing has to increase. To do so, local governments must decrease barriers and speed up their approval processes,” says BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde. “We welcome these findings from the Expert Panel, which echo our own recommendations about housing supply. We are – as always – ready to work with governments to help them develop and implement thoughtful, evidence-based policies that will deliver results.”

Among the 23 recommendations from the panel, the report calls for the BC government to conduct a review of public hearings and consider alternative options for more meaningful, earlier public input in different formats. This eliminates the potential for a loud minority to skew and delay outcomes and timelines. BCREA is also encouraged to see the panel highlight challenges and opportunities outlined in the provincial government's 2019 Development Approvals Process Review (DAPR) report, which outlines solutions to the issue of needlessly long development approval timelines.

The provincial government has made some progress to facilitate more supply, but much more needs to be done as it is increasingly difficult to become a homeowner in BC.

Established by the governments of Canada and BC in 2019, the Expert Panel was tasked with examining housing trends for rental and homeownership and making recommendations to both levels of government.

Last week, BCREA and five BC real estate boards sent delegates to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention in Vancouver to meet with local and provincial political leaders and staff. Throughout the event, BCREA’s delegates strongly advocated for greater housing attainability, and distributed a brief to elected officials containing two recommendations described below.

Our primary recommendation was that as the provincial government advances the missing middle initiative announced in the Homes for People plan, they should consult not only with local governments, but also with industry, particularly builders and designers, so that regulations do not discourage, but rather encourage the construction of Missing Middle Housing.

Our secondary recommendation was focused on non-metropolitan municipalities, which often have similar housing supply issues but with different causes than their urban counterparts. We recommended that they conduct their own housing roundtables with local contractors, builders, and trades, to determine the unique obstacles and solutions to creating more housing supply in their communities.

BCREA also had a tradeshow booth, where convention goers received our housing policy briefs, had the opportunity to complete a housing policy survey, and engaged with the face of BCREA to better understand our advocacy and BC REALTORS^®’ perspectives on housing attainability.

UBCM Resolutions

At the convention, UBCM voting delegates (councillors and mayors) voted on a series of resolutions. While non-binding, endorsed resolutions will be presented to the BC Government for consideration. Endorsed resolutions relating to real estate include:

• BC Housing Delays: UBCM lobbies the provincial government to address delays at BC Housing.
• Expanding Property Transfer Tax Exemptions: UBCM urges greater exemption from Property Transfer Tax payments to support the creation of non-market housing.
• Municipal Authority for Empty Homes Tax: UBCM lobbies for municipalities’ ability to tax unoccupied Class 1, Residential properties.
• Short-Term Vacation Rental Listing Platforms: UBCM asks for legislation requiring short-term rental platforms to demonstrate local government approvals, list rental property addresses, and provide government enforcement mechanisms.
• Incentives for Heat Pumps and Other Climate Resilience Retrofits in Multi-Residential Buildings: UBCM requests that all dwelling types are eligible for incentives and rebates for retrofits.
• Enhanced Retrofit Programs for Part 3 Buildings: UBCM requests the improvement of programs available to all Part 3 buildings.
• Property Transfer Tax Sharing for Local Governments: UBCM advocates for sharing property transfer tax revenue with local governments.

Resolutions Endorsed with Amendments Include:

• Homes for People Action Plan: UBCM asks that legislation implementing the Homes for People Action Plan not apply without input from local governments.
• Affordable Housing Infrastructure Upgrades: UBCM urges the province to fund infrastructure and land acquisition for the creation of affordable housing.
• Development Approvals: UBCM urges expedited review of development applications requiring approval from the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and BC Hydro.

While the 2023 UBCM convention is over, we remain committed to advocating on behalf of BC REALTORS^® and consumers to address challenges in the real estate sector. BCREA and our Government Relations team continue to support thorough, evidence-based housing policies that increase housing attainability for British Columbians.

Last week, BCREA and five of BC’s real estate boards sent delegates to the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Convention in Whistler to meet with local and provincial political leaders. Throughout the event, BCREA’s delegates delivered a clear message on housing affordability.

Firstly, we set out to challenge housing myths, including the idea that foreign investment is the main cause of housing price escalation and that BC municipalities are building enough housing.

We also advocated for solutions to improve housing affordability, including improving the housing approval process and allowing more types of housing in more places. To communicate these solutions, we held meetings with MLAs and other elected officials from across the province, echoing sentiments written by BCREA Senior Vice President Trevor Hargreaves in this Vancouver Sun opinion piece.

UBCM Resolutions

At the convention, UBCM voting delegates (which include councillors and mayors) voted on a series of resolutions. While non-binding, resolutions that were endorsed will be forwarded to the BC Government for consideration. Resolutions relating to real estate that were endorsed include:

• Provincial Responsibility for Flood Protection – Calling on the BC Government to significantly increase its level of funding for flood preparedness and mitigation,
• Enforcement Tools for Short-Term Rentals –UBCM urges the BC Government to develop and implement short-term rental enforcement solutions for all local governments, such as broadening authority to enforce compliance through simplified ticketing procedures; collection of evidence and the establishment of proof based on online investigation of accommodation listings; and expanding options to compel payment on unpaid fines through mechanisms such as applying uncollected ticket fines to property taxes.
• Non-Profit Housing Acquisition Strategy – UBCM advocates that the provincial government support the recommendation in the Canada-BC Expert Panel on Housing Supply to develop a provincial acquisition strategy and grant program.
• Community Housing Development Supports – UBCM asks the BC Government to broaden the mandate of Infrastructure BC to facilitate the delivery of strategic housing projects on behalf of petitioning local governments.
• Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Bylaw – UBCM requests that the BC Government makes the legislative changes required to permit a municipality to adopt a mandatory inclusionary housing bylaw.
• Bare Land Strata Development Minimum Standards – UBCM asks the BC Government to amend the Bare Land Strata Regulation to not require that bare land strata developments meet the same minimum standards set by local governments to ensure consistency across all developments throughout the community.
• Increasing Provincial Incentives for Installing Solar Panels and Solar Hot Water Systems – UBCM requests the BC Government modifies the BC Building Code to include design and placement standards and load-bearing requirements for solar panels and solar hot water systems.
• Homeowner Insurance Availability and Provisions – UBCM petitions the BC Government to introduce and adopt legislation that requires all insurance providers in BC to provide insurance to all homeowners in the province with provisions that are consistent, fair and equitable.
• Home Owner Grant Increase – UBCM requests that the BC Government increases the Home Owner Grant to reflect the actual school tax charged on the property where the school tax is higher than the grant.
• Tiny Homes – UBCM asks the BC Government to review the BC Building Code to address barriers to allow and provide building requirements for tiny homes.
• Accelerating Zero Emissions Buildings – UBCM requests the BC Government to accelerates its timelines for requiring the zero emissions new constructions.

Resolutions that were endorsed with amendments include:

• Encouraging Safe and Affordable Housing – UBCM requests the provincial and federal governments provide tax exemptions for all income derived from the long-term rental of secondary suites as measure to encourage the provision of safe and affordable housing.
• Speculation and Vacancy Tax Review – UBCM asks the BC Government to consult with local governments on an evaluation of the Speculation and Vacancy Tax Act including a review of the specified areas and the impact on electoral areas adjacent to the designated taxable regions.

While the 2022 UBCM convention is over and delegates from across the province have left Whistler, we remain committed to advocating on behalf of BC REALTORS^® and consumers to address challenges in the real estate sector. BCREA and our Government Relations team will continue to support thorough, thoughtful and evidence-based policies that aim to provide more housing opportunities for British Columbians.

The BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) Board of Directors (BOD) is seeking an appointee for the Real Estate Compensation Fund (RECFC) Corporation BOD. This appointment is a three-year term and would commence on January 1, 2025.

RECFC was established in 2005 to protect the public in the event of lost funds due to the actions of a real estate professional.

It is a non-profit organization that pools the assessments paid by licensees and uses those funds to deliver claims to members of the public who have suffered a compensable loss. The Board oversees the conduct of RECFC’s business and investments.

Responsibilities

The RECFC requires a BOD with the appropriate mix of competencies that support and advance the organization’s mission. The Director is expected to:

• Attend all BOD meetings annually (four BOD meetings, including video/audio meetings).
• Read and reflect on materials in preparation for meetings.
• Attend orientation and training. Meetings are typically held in Vancouver.

All interested candidates are expected to have the time and commitment to fulfill their responsibilities as a Director. All directors should be committed to the importance of sound governance and be ready, willing, and able to put in the required time to learn the job, get to know the organization, prepare for meetings, and participate fully as part of the BOD.

Directors are appointed for three-year terms and may serve two consecutive terms.

Skills and Experience

Each year, the RECFC BOD assesses itself against its skill matrix to determine the additional skills and experiences that would help strengthen the BOD. In addition, all Directors should be committed to RECFC’s vision, mission, and values and possess certain personal attributes. Specifically for this year, the BOD is seeking nominees with the following skills and experiences:

• Governance and leadership
• Profession knowledge
• Financial, accounting, and/or investment acumen

Each director is also expected to demonstrate the following personal attributes on a consistent basis:

• Business Acumen: Able to cut through complex business matters to get to the heart of the issue; uses logical analysis.
• Financial Acumen: Ability to read and understand a set of financial statements that present a breadth and level of complexity of accounting issues that are generally comparable to the breadth and complexity of the issues that can reasonably be expected to be raised by RECFC’s financial statements.
• Public Interest Mindset: Understands the importance of the public interest, including overseeing the fund in accordance with the Trustee Act and reimbursing wronged parties.
• Independence of Mind: Unfettered from forming or maintaining their own views and speaking their mind honestly and objectively on all issues. Willing and able to respectfully challenge prevailing opinion. Strongly understands the duty to act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of RECFC and the responsibility to the long-term sustainability of the organization.
• Team Player: Demonstrates perception, acuity, tact, and rapport to build constructive working relationships that engender mutual trust, respect, and contribution. Values others’ opinions and demonstrates an orientation towards consensus and reaching solutions.
• Engaged: Willing and prepared to come to meetings and actively participate (including having read and considered all pre-read material). Flexible and accommodating to participate in unscheduled meetings and conversations as circumstances warrant.

Time and Term Commitment

Directors are appointed for three-year terms and may serve two consecutive terms.

Directors are expected to attend all BOD meetings annually (four Board meetings, including video/audio meetings), to read and reflect on materials in preparation for meetings, and to attend orientation and training. Meetings are typically held in Vancouver.

How to Apply

If you are interested in this position and believe you are qualified, please apply by emailing [email protected].

The deadline to have your application submitted is Friday, September 6, 2024.

This posting is closed and no longer accepting applications.

The BC Real Estate Association (BCREA) Board of Directors is seeking an appointee for the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation (REEOIC) Board of Directors. The appointment term would commence on March 1, 2024.

About the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation

The REEOIC was proclaimed into existence on February 1, 1988. Its purpose, as stated in the Real Estate Services Act ("RESA"), is to enable licensees to obtain indemnity against liability arising out of the negligent provision of real estate services. The mission of REEOIC is to provide cost-effective professional liability insurance, loss prevention tools and legal support services for the protection of real estate licensees and thereby the public. We are a not-for-profit organization that pools the assessments paid by real estate licensees in a fund, which is used to pay the costs of defending and indemnifying licensees against claims.

The assessments, which are collected by the BC Financial Services Authority on behalf of REEOIC, constitute a fund known as the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Fund.

Skills and Experience

Collectively, the Board should possess the following skills and experience, gained outside of REEOIC and through experience with an organization of at least similar size and complexity to REEOIC.

• Executive Leadership
• Finance
• Governance
• Human Resources
• Insurance
• Investment
• Real Estate
• Risk Assessment
• Stakeholder Relations
• Strategic Planning
• An active or retired real estate licensee is preferred
• A diverse background that contributes to a broad range of perspectives and experiences to REEOIC discussions and decisions. This may include many aspects such as gender, ethnicity, accessibility, geography, and age.

Term and Time Commitment

Directors are appointed for three-year terms and may serve two consecutive terms.

The REEOIC Board meets a minimum of three times per year (May, September, and December), including an annual retreat that takes place over a weekend in September. The dates for the Board meetings in 2024 have not yet been set, but the Board will be meeting on December 4 and 5, 2023 in their Boardroom and a new appointee would be encouraged to attend this meeting as an observer.

Additionally, each Director sits on either the Claims and Underwriting Committee or the Finance, Audit and Governance Committee and participates in the occasional meeting or conference call. Directors receive a per diem for attending meetings, plus travel per diems and expenses.

How to Apply

Please send your resume and expression of interest to [email protected] by July 24, 2023.

The BCREA Nominating Committee thanks all applicants; however, only those selected as potential candidates will be contacted.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

The BCREA Board of Directors (BOD) is seeking two appointees for the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Corporation (REEOIC) BOD. The appointment term would commence on Sunday, February 1, 2026.

REEOIC was proclaimed into existence on Monday, February 1, 1988. Its purpose, as stated in the Real Estate Services Act, is to enable licensees to obtain indemnity against liability arising out of the negligent provision of real estate services.

The mission of REEOIC is to provide cost-effective professional liability insurance, loss prevention tools, and legal support services for the protection of real estate licensees and the public. It is a not-for-profit organization that pools the assessments paid by real estate licensees into a fund which is used to pay the costs of defending and indemnifying licensees against claims.

The assessments collected by the BC Financial Services Authority on behalf of REEOIC constitute the Real Estate Errors and Omissions Insurance Fund.

Skills and Experience

Collectively, the BOD should possess the following skills and experience, gained outside of REEOIC and through experience with an organization of at least similar size and complexity to REEOIC:

• Executive Leadership
• Finance
• Governance
• Human Resources
• Insurance
• Investment
• Real Estate
• Risk Assessment
• Stakeholder Relations
• Strategic Planning

An active or retired real estate licensee is preferred.

A diverse background that contributes to a broad range of perspectives and experiences to REEOIC discussions and decisions will be considered an asset. This may include many aspects such as gender, ethnicity, accessibility, geography, and age.

Time and Term Commitment

Directors are appointed for three-year terms and may serve two consecutive terms.

The REEOIC BOD meets a minimum of three times per year (May, September, and December), including an annual retreat that takes place over a weekend in September or October. The dates for the BOD meetings in 2026 have not yet been set, but the BOD will be meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2025, in their boardroom, and new appointees would be encouraged to attend this meeting as observers.

Additionally, each Director sits on either the Claims and Underwriting Committee or the Finance, Audit, and Governance Committee and participates in the occasional meeting or conference call. Directors receive a per diem for attending meetings, plus travel per diems and expenses.

How to Apply

This posting is closed and no longer accepting applications.

Please send your resume and expression of interest to [email protected] by Tuesday, September 9, 2025.

The BCREA Nominating Committee thanks all applicants; however, only those selected as potential candidates will be contacted for a virtual interview on Tuesday, November 25, 2025 (please hold this date in your calendar).

Vancouver, BC – May 2, 2018. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Penticton REALTOR® James Palanio has been elected as its 2018-2019 President.

"I'm very pleased to be BCREA’s President," says James Palanio. "This has been a period of significant change in our profession. We will be employing a collaborative and cohesive approach to enhance REALTORS®’ ability to continue to serve the best interests of their clients."

Licensed since 2002, James Palanio is an Associate Broker with Royal Lepage Locations West realty in Penticton. He is very involved in organized real estate provincially, which allows him to be at the cutting edge of change within the real estate profession in the province. He has served as a Director at BCREA for six years and at the South Okanagan Real Estate Board for six years, as well as serving on numerous committees.

Joining Mr. Palanio as Officers of the Association are President-Elect Michael Trites of Royal LePage Northstar Realty in South Surrey and White Rock, Past President Jim Stewart of 460 Realty in Nanaimo and Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde.

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR® Directors Anthony Bastiaanssen (Kelowna), Dan Morrison (North Vancouver), Katherine Rutherford (Kamloops), as well as new Public Director, Kam Raman. Returning REALTOR® Directors include Ray Harris (Port Coquitlam), Kyle Hislop (Chilliwack), and Cory Raven (Vancouver). Public Director, Mark Sakai, is also returning.

-30-

For more information, click here.

Click here for the PDF.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 26, 2019. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Fraser Valley REALTOR® Michael Trites was elected as its 2019-2020 President at its annual general meeting on March 26, 2019.

“Working in organized real estate has always been a rewarding experience,” says Michael Trites. “In 2018, there was a lot of focus on helping REALTORS® adapt to change. In 2019, I look forward to helping shift that perspective and working with BCREA and the province’s 11 member boards to lead change.”

Licensed for more than 40 years, Trites brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to BCREA. He is currently the managing broker of Royal LePage Northstar Realty in South Surrey and White Rock and previously served as a director for the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board for four years.

Joining Mr. Trites on the Board of Directors are President-Elect Anthony Bastiaanssen of the Okanagan Mainland Real Estate Board, where he was president in 2016; Past President James Palanio of Royal LePage Penticton; and BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde.

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR® Directors Gian-Piero Furfaro (Victoria) and Janice Stromar (Vancouver Island). Returning REALTOR® Directors include Ray Harris (Port Coquitlam), Dan Morrison (Vancouver), Cory Raven (Vancouver) and Katherine Rutherford (Kamloops). Public Directors Kam Raman and Mark Sakai are also returning.

-30-

For more information, and a high-resolution photo of Michael Trites, click here.

To read BCREA’s full annual report, click here.

Click here for the PDF.

For more information, please contact:
April van Ert
Communications Manager
Email: [email protected]
604.742.2797

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC – March 24, 2020. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Okanagan REALTOR^® Anthony Bastiaanssen has been elected as its 2020-2021 President at the BCREA Annual Meeting on March 24, 2020.

“Now more than ever, Realtors need the support of a strong provincial association working cohesively with local real estate boards,” says Bastiaanssen. “I look forward to serving the profession as BCREA’s new President and helping to provide stability and support so Realtors can continue to meet the challenges of a changing sector.”

Bastiaanssen has been a Realtor with RE/MAX Kelowna – Westside since 2006 and received his managing brokers’ license in 2013. Having also previously served as a Director and President of the Okanagan Mainline Real Estate Board, Bastiaanssen brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to BCREA.

Joining Bastiaanssen as Officers of the Association are President-Elect Dan Morrison of Sotheby’s International Realty Canada, who served as President of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver in 2016; Past President Michael Trites of Royal Lepage Northstar Realty; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde.

BCREA also welcomes new Realtor directors Tim Ayres (Sooke) and Darren Close (Kimberley). Returning Realtor directors include Gianpiero Furfaro (Sun Peaks), Ray Harris (Port Coquitlam), Cory Raven (Vancouver) and Janice Stromar (Nanaimo). Public directors Kam Raman and Mark Sakai are also returning.

For a high-resolution photo of Anthony Bastiaanssen, click here.

To view BCREA’s 2019 Annual Report, click here.

Click here for the PDF.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

For Immediate Release

Vancouver, BC – March 23, 2021. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that North Vancouver REALTOR^® Dan Morrison was elected as its 2021-2022 Chair at the BCREA Annual Meeting on March 23, 2021.

“Realtors showed tremendous leadership over the past year, as they adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic, prioritized the health and safety of their clients and the public, and navigated historic levels of activity in the market,” says Morrison. “I look forward to serving the profession as BCREA Chair and guiding BCREA’s strategic direction as we continue supporting boards and Realtors in meeting the challenges of an ever-changing sector.”

Morrison has been a full-time Realtor since 1991 and has held several leadership roles at RE/MAX, Royal LePage and Sotheby’s International Realty Canada. He has also served as President, Past President and Director of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and was the first-ever recipient of the REALTORS Care^® award for North and West Vancouver for his contributions to the community.

Joining Morrison as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Janice Stromar of Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty; Past Chair Anthony Bastiaanssen of RE/MAX Kelowna; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde.

BCREA also welcomes new Realtor director Ashley Smith (Vancouver) and new public director Liza Aboud. Returning Realtor directors include Tim Ayres (Sooke), Darren Close (Kimberley) and Gianpiero Furfaro (Sun Peaks). Public directors Catherine Aczel Boivie and Kam Raman are also returning.

-30-

For a high-resolution photo of Dan Morrison, click here.

To view BCREA’s 2020 Annual Report, click here.

Click here for the PDF.

For more information:

April van Ert
Communications Manager
[email protected]
604.742.2797

For Immediate Release

Vancouver, BC - March 23, 2022. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Vancouver Island REALTOR^® Janice Stromar has been elected as its 2022-2023 Chair at the BCREA Annual Meeting on March 22, 2022.

“It’s an exciting time to be stepping into the role of Chair of BCREA’s Board of Directors,” says Stromar. “With BCREA launching into its 2022-2024 strategic plan, there are new opportunities to strengthen the Realtor profession and show thought-leadership within the sector. BCREA staff and board of directors have done incredible work over the past few years, and I look forward to contributing to their ongoing success.”

Stromar has been a licensed Realtor for 18 years and joined the BCREA Board of Directors in 2019. She served as a Vancouver Island Real Estate Board (VIREB) Director from 2014 to 2018, where she was President in 2017. Her commitment to the real estate sector extends to her community, where she sat on the City of Nanaimo Affordable Housing Steering Committee in 2017/2018, as well as on the Board of Directors for the Nanaimo Women’s Business Network and the Nanaimo Executives Association. Stromar was also awarded the 2021 Realtor of the Year award at the VIREB Annual General Meeting.

Joining Stromar as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Darren Close of Royal LePage East Kootenay Realty; Past Chair Dan Morrison of Sotheby's International Realty Canada; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Darlene Hyde. 

BCREA also welcomes new Realtor directors Ruth Hanson (North Vancouver), Chris Shields (Surrey), Robert Wood (Kelowna) and new public director Kenneth Tan. Returning Realtor directors include Ashley Smith (Vancouver) and Tim Ayres (Sooke). Public directors Liza Aboud and Catherine Aczel Boivie are also returning.

-30-

For a high-resolution photo of Janice Stromar, click here.

To view BCREA's 2021 Annual Report, click here.

To view BCREA's 2022-2024 Strategic Plan, click here.

For more information:

Harveen Dhaliwal
Communications Specialist
[email protected]
604.742.2793

For Immediate Release

Vancouver, BC – March 22, 2023. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Victoria REALTOR^® Darren Close has been elected as its 2023-2024 Chair at the BCREA Annual General Meeting on March 21, 2023.

“I am humbled and excited to have been selected by our peers to transition into the role of Chair for our provincial association,” says Close. “I look forward to continuing to foster our relationships, finding more opportunities for success, and assuring presence and accountability for all of our members.”

“As a champion for the real estate sector in British Columbia, BCREA has made great strides in many areas. And each day we grow stronger working together to meet the demands of our profession.” Close adds.

Close has been a REALTOR^® since 2004 and has been actively involved in organized real estate since 2014. Prior to joining the BCREA Board of Directors in 2020, he served as a Director of the former Kootenay Association of REALTORS^®, now part of the Association of Interior REALTORS^®, for seven years, where he was President and Finance Chair. 

Joining Close as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Tim Ayres of Royal LePage Coast Capital; Past Chair Janice Stromar of Royal LePage Nanaimo Realty; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Trevor Koot.

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR^® Directors Kim Heizmann (Kelowna) and Darcy McLeod (Vancouver), and new public Director Amanda Magee (Vancouver). Returning REALTOR^® Directors include Ruth Hanson (Vancouver), Chris Shields (Surrey), Ashley Smith (Vancouver), and Robert Wood (Kelowna). Public Directors Catherine Aczel Boivie and Kenneth Tan are also returning.

-30-

For a high-resolution photo of Darren Close, click here.

To view BCREA's 2022 Annual Report, click here. 

Click here for the PDF.



For more information: 
Morgan Guo 
Marketing-Communications Specialist 
[email protected] 
Direct: 778.373.6483 



For Immediate Release

Vancouver, BC – March 27, 2024. The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Sooke REALTOR^® Tim Ayres has been elected as its 2024-2025 Chair at the BCREA Annual Meeting on March 26, 2024.

“I am very excited to be selected to lead our provincial professional organization as its 2024-2025 Chair,” says Ayres. “Supported by a strong Board of Directors, CEO, and staff, I anticipate that BCREA will continue to advocate for REALTORS^® and consumers on housing issues that affect us all in British Columbia, promote professionalism and professional development among the REALTOR^® community, and continue to be a trusted source of real estate economic data in BC.”

“Our profession is always changing, and BCREA is here to be a proactive participant, leading the conversation surrounding real estate and housing issues in the province,” Ayres adds.

Tim Ayres has been licensed since 2004 and is focused on residential sales on Vancouver Island, BC. Tim realized the value of giving back to the profession early in his career. He has volunteered with the Victoria Real Estate Board (VREB) since 2006 on numerous committees and on the Board of Directors from 2009-2015, being elected the youngest ever VREB president at 33, in 2014. Tim has also served the Canadian Real Estate Association as a committee member, and on its Board of Directors from 2016-2018. Tim has been on the BCREA board since March of 2020.  

Joining Ayres as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Chris Shields of Macdonald Realty; Past Chair Darren Close of RE/MAX Generation; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Trevor Koot. 

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR^® Directors Daniel John (Richmond) and new Public Director Andy Pham. Returning REALTOR^® Directors include Ruth Hanson (Vancouver), Kim Heizmann (Kelowna), Darcy McLeod (Vancouver), Ashley Smith (Vancouver), and Robert Wood (Kelowna). Public Directors Catherine Aczel Boivie and Amanda Magee are also returning.

-30-

For a high-resolution photo of Tim Ayres, click here.

To view BCREA's 2023 Annual Report, click here. 

Click here for the news release PDF.

For more information: 
Bill Yu
Marketing-Communications Coordinator
[email protected] 
Direct: 778.401.4051

The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Surrey REALTOR^® Chris Shields was installed as its 2025-2026 Chair at the BCREA Annual Meeting on March 25, 2025.

"The real estate sector is evolving rapidly, and our profession is facing more change than ever before," says Chris. "My goal is to ensure that BCREA is a strong advocate for REALTORS^®, providing them with the resources, education, and support they need to thrive. We must also work closely with our regulator to streamline processes and remove unnecessary administrative burdens so that REALTORS^® can focus on what they do best: guiding, advising, and protecting their clients to achieve their real estate goals."

Chris brings nearly two decades of experience as a REALTOR^® and a deep commitment to advancing the profession in British Columbia.

A member of the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board (FVREB) since 2005, Chris has a distinguished history of service in the profession, including his tenure as FVREB President and multiple leadership roles within BCREA. Over the past several years, he has served on various BCREA committees, including Finance, Governance, Human Resources, and Accreditation and Quality Assurance. With his extensive background in governance – holding the Institute of Corporate Directors, Rotman School of Management Governance, and Accredited Director designations – Chris is well-positioned to guide BCREA through a year of critical sector developments.

Joining Shields as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Kim Heizmann, Past Chair Tim Ayres, and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Trevor Koot.

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR^® Directors Chelsea Mann and Marlon Murr, and new Public Director Ehsan Etezad. Returning REALTOR^® Directors include Ruth Hanson, Daniel John, Darcy McLeod, and Robert Wood. Public Directors Amanda Magee and Andy Pham are also returning.

For a high-resolution photo of Chris Shields, click here.

To view BCREA's 2024 Annual Report, click here.

The British Columbia Real Estate Association (BCREA) is pleased to announce that Okanagan REALTOR^® Kim Heizmann has been installed as its 2026-2027 Chair at the BCREA Annual Meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

“The real estate sector thrives when teamwork and strong leadership guide the way,” says Kim. “Leading an organization like BCREA is truly a team effort, and I’m honoured to serve as Chair alongside such a dedicated Board of Directors. Our work doesn’t happen in isolation; it relies on strong collaboration with our member boards and associations and their leadership teams across British Columbia. Each region brings valuable experience and perspective, and when we listen to one another and work together, we strengthen the entire profession. I’m grateful for the trust placed in BCREA and look forward to a year of thoughtful partnership as we continue supporting REALTORS^® and the communities they serve.”

Kim has dedicated 19 years to real estate in British Columbia’s Okanagan region, and for the past decade has served in a variety of leadership roles, championing collaboration and professionalism within organized real estate. Throughout her career, she has remained committed to fostering growth, integrity, and innovation across the sector.

Joining Heizmann as Officers of the Association are Chair-Elect Robert Wood; Past Chair Chris Shields; and BCREA Chief Executive Officer Trevor Koot.

BCREA also welcomes new REALTOR^® Director Phil Moore (Burnaby), who will be joining BCREA’s Board of Directors when he has completed his term at the Canadian Real Estate Association on Wednesday, April 15, 2026. Returning REALTOR^® Directors include Ruth Hanson (Vancouver), Daniel John (Vancouver), Chelsea Mann (Kamloops), Darcy McLeod (Vancouver), and Marlon Murr (Victoria). Public Directors Ehsan Etezad, Amanda Magee, and Andy Pham are also returning.

For a high-resolution photo of Kim Heizmann, click here.

To view BCREA's 2025 Annual Report, click here.

In late October, BCREA began its involvement in the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia by attending a series of public meetings which were held throughout the province.

Trevor Hargreaves, BCREA Vice President of Government Relations and Stakeholder Engagement, attended the meetings in Vancouver, Victoria, and Richmond on behalf of BCREA, which has been granted formal standing throughout the process, giving the province's REALTORS® a seat and unified voice at the table.

"Money laundering is an issue of high public and governmental concern and it's important that we are a part of this process," says Hargreaves. "Our role is to help ensure the Commission understands the daily realities of real estate practice. Over the course of the Commission process, we will likely have multiple opportunities to provide industry specific insight, context and expertise."

BCREA may be asked to be provide context, insight, or documentation, and may be given the opportunity to call witnesses and carry out cross-examination.

The Cullen Commission was announced by Premier John Horgan on May 15, 2019, after a series of reports commissioned by the provincial government highlighted the need for further investigation and action surrounding money laundering in BC.

BCREA participated in the two main money laundering reports commissioned by the provincial government: Dirty Money: An Independent Review of Money Laundering in Lower Mainland Casinos Conducted for the Attorney General of British Columbia by Peter German, a former commissioner of the RCMP; and Combatting Money Laundering in BC Real Estate, prepared by an expert panel consisting of Maureen Maloney, Tsur Somerville, and Brigitte Unger.

BCREA also commissioned a vulnerability assessment of residential and commercial transactions, and worked with four other real estate organizations to prepare a set of anti-money laundering best practices and recommendations.

In the new year, the Commission will move to a more formal evidence-gathering process. After it's completion, the Commission is expected to publish its findings and make recommendations aimed at addressing the factors that have led to the prevalence of money laundering in BC.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications such as this one, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.

Vancouver, BC – February 26, 2020. Today, the BC Real Estate Association makes our opening statement to the Cullen Commission of Inquiry into Money Laundering in British Columbia.

“We are committed to working with government to better understand this issue and address any pre-existing vulnerabilities within our sector,” says BCREA CEO Darlene Hyde. “It is our hope that by working collaboratively we can steer a path forward that strengthens consumer protection measures and limits illicit impact on the housing market”.
 
To date, there have been few dependable statistics that indicate the true size and scale of money laundering in the BC real estate sector. Estimates often quoted from the Maloney Expert Panel Report on Money Laundering are based on the Utrecht Gravity model, which is not evidence-based. Figures as high as $5.3 billion are frequently quoted from the report, but by Maloney’s own admission those figures are at best a calculated guess, based on theoretical models.
 
Money laundering exists in the shadows. To truly address this issue and stem the tide of illicit funds will require coordinated effort at the international, federal and provincial levels with harmonized data sharing and joint investigative efforts.

“It is our hope that the outcome of this commission is a clearer, evidence-based indication of the scale of money laundering in BC,” says Hyde.
 
Last April, in collaboration with several sector stakeholder groups, we issued recommendations to assist with identifying and recommending necessary change. We continue to urge the provincial and federal governments to consider these recommendations:

• Accept only verified funds - For sectors of real estate that are not already required to do so, we recommend that they accept funds only in forms that are verifiable through Canadian financial institutions.
• Mandatory anti-money laundering education - We recommend the introduction of mandatory anti-money laundering education for all real estate professionals subject to the reporting requirements administered by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) to ensure that those professionals are trained in recognizing and reporting suspicious transactions. As a first step, we were pleased to see the Real Estate Council of British Columbia introduce mandatory training for real estate professionals in January. FINTRAC should work with sector organizations, regulators and the provincial government to improve existing resources so that they better reflect real-world situations and improve compliance.
• Smart regulation - We recommend that the federal government amend the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to allow FINTRAC intelligence to be made available to additional regulatory authorities, including the BC Securities Commission and the BC Financial Services Authority. Optimally, the federal and provincial governments, as well as their respective agencies, should coordinate their actions, share information, such as the provincial assignment registry, and create a comprehensive, efficient enforcement regime.
• Ongoing engagement - We recommend governments and regulatory agencies, including FINTRAC, better utilize on-the-ground experience of real estate professionals to develop compliance resources and test policy ideas. This will result in well-crafted, practical regulation and foster a culture of compliance to protect consumers and the economy.
• Timely and transparent reporting - We recommend that FINTRAC implement a framework to identify and report trends on a regular basis and in language that is consistent and understandable to professionals, the public and media. This reporting system should also include consistency in examinations with immediate feedback designed to help industry professionals improve their compliance systems.

To subscribe to receive BCREA publications, or to update your email address or current subscriptions, click here.