OREA is proposing the following:
“BETTER REGULATOR OVERSIGHT RECOMMENDATION
#4: Make RECO subject to ombudsman oversight, bringing the regulator in-line with 1,000 other government agencies and ensuring both registrants and consumers have the utmost confidence in Ontario’s real estate market and its regulation.
Since 1975, the Government of Ontario has employed an Ombudsman to serve as a neutral party in investigating public complaints concerning the government. The Ombudsman is an officer of the Ontario Legislature whose mandate is to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency in the public sector.
The Ontario Ombudsman oversees 1,000 government bodies but does not oversee RECO. Other arms-length government agencies, such as the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSCO), fall within the Ombudsman’s mandate. In addition, the Real Estate Council of British Columbia and Organisme D’autoréglementation du Courtage Immobilier du Québec (OACIQ) are within the mandate of their respective ombudspersons.
Registrants and consumers have expressed strong concerns about how their cases are handled at RECO, including frustrations with long delays. They do not have an independent party they can contact to ensure fairness, accountability, and transparency at RECO. This is why OREA recommends making RECO subject to the oversight of an ombudsperson.
Critics of this proposal will try to argue that an internal appeal process at RECO already exists. But how likely would an investigation yield any fruit if RECO were examining itself? An impartial investigation is not possible in its current form. In 2022, the Auditor General conducted a value-for money audit of RECO and, in her report, noted that “there is no effective oversight of RECO” and that “effective oversight of the real estate industry is critical to ensure that consumers are protected.”
The majority of OREA Members (60 percent) surveyed by Environics believe that the regulator should be subject to ombudsperson oversight, while just ten percent indicated they disagree with the proposal.
At present, consumers or registrants who interact with RECO and are unsatisfied with the services they provide have no recourse. Ombudsman oversight would ensure greater public confidence in RECO’s programs and processes.”
Comment
The role of the Ombudsman is restricted to Government agencies and Departments. The Ombudsman’s office doesn’t supervise The Law Society for lawyers or the medical profession through the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.
The Ombudsman also has no jurisdiction over private companies or individuals, doctors, lawyers, municipal, provincial, federal and First Nations police, decisions of judges or courts, or the Ontario Cabinet.
It’s very important to know and understand the role of the Ombudsman’s office, particularly if you are about to make recommendations.
This is a summary of the role of RECO in the 2022 Auditor General’s Report:
“RECO is a designated administrative authority under the Safety and Consumer Statutes Administration Act, 1996 that does not receive any government funding. It primarily funds its operations from registration fees and other fees it collects from registrants. In 2021, RECO’s operating revenues totalled $33.6 million.
RECO is accountable to the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery (Ministry), which is responsible for overseeing RECO and monitoring its performance to ensure it is meeting its mandate. RECO’s Board of Directors is accountable for RECO’s performance to the Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery through the Board Chair.”
Nowhere in the 54 page detailed Report did the Auditor General recommend the oversight by the Ombudsman’s office. So, why suddenly would OREA do so?
Who knows! OREA needs something to do and a new role. Apparently Forms and health care insurance are not enough.
Brian Madigan LL.B., Broker