Yes No Share to Facebook
Representation Agreements Realty Brokers and Realty Buyers and Arguments of Enforceability
Question: Are commissions still owed if a buyer acquires property through a different realty broker under the OREA Form 300?
Answer: Yes, generally under the Ontario Real Estate Association Form 300, or Broker Representation Agreement, a buyer may be required to pay commission to both brokers if acquiring property through a different broker while the agreement is active. This underscores the importance of understanding your obligations under such contracts. For personalized legal guidance, consult a professional familiar with real estate law in Ontario.
Does a Broker Representation Agreement (OREA Form 300) Make Commissions Payable Even If a Buyer Purchases Property From Another Realty Broker?
Typically, Based Upon the Unique Case Details, a Buyer With An Active Broker Representation Agreement Is Required to Pay Commission to the Broker and If the Buyer Acquires Property Through a Different Broker, Then the Buyer Must Pay Commissions to Both...
Understanding the Enforceability of Broker Representation Agreements Involving the Ontario Real Estate Association Form 300
Within Ontario, the document known as the OREA Form 300, or the Broker Representation Agreement, acts as a contract between hopeful property buyers and real estate brokerage entities. The contract is, generally, applicable to circumscribed geographical borders and time limits. When it comes to legal disputes involving alleged breaches of a Broker Representation Agreement, such occurs commonly and frequently fall within the domain of the Small Claims Court where the issue of commissions payable often involves thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000.00) dollars, or less, for each Plaintiff. The resolution of these disputes is broadly varied, largely because the legal issues turn on the unique facts of each case in question.
The Law
A common example of commission disputes under a Broker Representation Agreement is found in the Sun v. Mani, 2024 CanLII 35486, case wherein it was stated:
The Law Surrounding the Buyer Representation Agreement (OREA FORM 300)
[22] Disputes surrounding the Buyer Representation Agreement (hereinafter “BRA”) are frequent visitors to the Superior Court and the Small Claims Court.
[23] The front page of the BRA dictates the following, “The Buyer hereby gives the brokerage the exclusive and irrevocable authority to act as the Buyer’s agent commencing at 9 a.m. on the 3rd day of May, 2021 and expiring at 11:59 p.m. on the 31 day of August, 2021.”
[24] On the portion for commission, it reads (my emphasis added):
2. COMMISSION: In consideration of the Brokerage undertaking to assist the Buyer, the Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Brokerage as follows: If, during the currency of this Agreement, the Buyer enters into an agreement to purchase or lease a real property of the general description indicated above, the Buyer agrees the Brokerage is entitled to receive and retain any commission offered by a listing brokerage or by the seller. The Buyer understands that the amount of commission offered by a listing brokerage or by the seller may be greater or less than the commission stated below. The Buyer understands that the Brokerage will inform the Buyer of the amount of commission to be paid to the Brokerage by the listing brokerage or the seller at the earliest practical opportunity. The Buyer acknowledges that the payment of any commission by the listing brokerage or the seller will not make the Brokerage either the agent or sub-agent of the listing brokerage or the seller.
If, during the currency of this Agreement, the Buyer enters into an agreement to purchase any property of the general description indicated above, the Buyer agrees that the Brokerage is entitled to be paid a commission of 2.5% of the sale price of the property or [as per MLS] (entered term).
The Buyer agrees to pay directly to the Brokerage any deficiency between this amount and the amount, if any, to be paid to the Brokerage by a listing brokerage or by the seller. The Buyer understands that if the Brokerage is not to be paid any commission by a listing brokerage or by the seller, the Buyer will pay the Brokerage the full amount of commission indicated above.
During the Sun proceedings, the buyer put forth the argument that the written Broker Representation Agreement included an unwritten verbal clause or was later changed by a separate oral agreement. Acceptance of such an argument was denied by the court based upon the parol evidence rule which exists to safeguard certainty of contracts. Should an person, such as the Defendant in Sun, wish to successfully argue against the written applicability of a Broker Representation Agreement by virtue of a term extraneous to the express terms within the Broker Representation Agreement, demonstrable written alteration of the Broker Representation Agreement would be imperative whereas the operation of the parol evidence rule thwarts attempts to override written contracts with purported oral contract terms. The application of the parol evidence rule within the Sun case referenced and cited Fung v. Decca Homes Limited, 2019 ONCA 848, which states:
[5] We see no error in the application judge’s application of the parole evidence rule in the circumstances of this case: Hawrish v. Bank of Montreal, 1969 CanLII 2 (SCC), [1969] S.C.R. 515, at p. 520. Even if there was a collateral oral agreement, something that is disputed by the respondent, that oral agreement could not contradict the written agreement. ...
Cases arguing the enforceability of a Broker Representation Agreement, such as Sun, among various cases cited within including Apex Results Realty Inc. v. Zaman, 2018 ONSC 7387, and First Contact Realty Ltd. v. Prime Real Estate Holdings Corporation, 2015 ONSC 5511, show that to gain court acceptance that the written terms within a Broker Representation Agreement were varied, the parol evidence rule must be satisfied by proving the existence of an amendment in writing. In this respect, these cases all state in similar fashion:
[35] In our matter, Mr. Mani alleges that Mr. Sun stated to him that the BRA was only a “formality” and that it would not enforced. This appears to me to be a modification of the fundamental terms and conditions of the contract. There is also no evidence in writing of this oral representation. The Parole Evidence Rule is applicable here, which holds that evidence of an oral agreement cannot prevail over the clear written contractual terms.[3]
[36] In Apex Results Realty Inc. v. Zaman, 2018 ONSC 7387[4], the brokerage brought a summary judgment motion in Superior Court for payment of commissions owed on two separate properties during the effective representation period of the BRA. Justice Turnbull ruled in the brokerage’s favour citing the terms of the BRA indicated that commission was payable to the brokerage by the buyer if the buyer purchased a property during the currency of the BRA.[5] In coming to his decision, Justice Turnbull cited a decision of Justice Healey in First Contact Realty Ltd. v. Prime Real Estate Holdings Corp., 2015 ONSC 5511. This was yet, another summary judgment motion wherein the Defendant buyer alleged that there was an oral agreement to terminate the BRA. Both Justice Healey and Justice Turnbull, in their requisite decisions cited application of the Parole Evidence Rule, restricting evidence of oral evidence in the face of a clearly written and executed contract between parties. Justice Turnbull’s decision was appealed and it was upheld by the Court of Appeal in Apex Results Realty Inc. v. Zaman, 2019 ONCA 766[6].
[53] The parole evidence rule exists to help parties avoid this type of allegation being made by a contracting party. It effectively precludes the admission into evidence of words which would vary or contradict the terms of a written contract between the parties. Without it, it would almost be impossible to have finality or certainty in contractual relations. It further limits the ability of a party to fabricate evidence to vary or change the terms of a written contract. The parole evidence rule centres the court’s attention on the contract and what the parties have reduced to writing. It creates contractual clarity and certainty.
[25] This evidence is insufficient to establish the essential elements of an agreement, as it lacks any specificity with respect to the terms of such agreement, as well as failing to outline the consideration for entering into such an agreement. Hinn provides no details in his affidavit, or elsewhere, of the particulars of such an exchange of ideas leading to the parties forming an intention to terminate the Buyer Representation Agreement. The details are lacking of when, where, how and why such alleged discussions took place.
As explained above, a buyer attempting to nullify the effects of a Broker Representation Agreement must demonstrate that the initial consent to the contract was tainted by a wrongful act of the realty agent. This requirement means that the buyer must present a case that is grounded in contract law principles that transcends mere regret over signing the Broker Representation Agreement document which legally binds the buyer to the terms within.
Conclusion
Engaging in real estate ventures often involves the Broker Representation Agreement, being the OREA Form 300. This contract document formalizes the relationship between a real estate broker and the the client as a buyer by specifying the scope of the duties and responsibilities of both the broker and the buyer. As a contract, the Broker Representation Agreement is governed by the conventional rules of contract law. Challenging the enforceability of a Broker Representation Agreement necessitates evidence that adheres to the general precepts of contract law; and despite specificity of the Broker Representation Agreement to real estate dealings, the agreement is without any peculiar exemption from general contract law principles and is evaluated under the same legal standards as other contractual commitments.
NOTE: A significant quantity of online searches such as “lawyers nearby” or “top lawyer in” frequently indicates an urgent desire for effective legal assistance instead of a particular designation. In Ontario, certified paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that manages lawyers and are permitted to advocate for clients in specific litigation cases. Skills in advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are vital to this function. SFG Paralegal Services LLP provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and persuasive advocacy aimed at securing efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
