TRREB privacy claim struck as MLS data lawsuit moves forward

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has struck the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board’s intrusion-upon-seclusion claim while allowing the rest of its lawsuit over alleged misuse of MLS data to proceed past the pleading stage.

In The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board v. IMS Incorporated, 2026 ONSC 5445, Justice Cavanagh ruled on September 25, 2026 that TRREB could not bring this personal privacy claim as a corporate entity. The court also permitted TRREB to add IMS principal Leon d’Ancona as a defendant, subject to a time limit on the alleged conduct covered.

The ruling decides which claims can proceed. It does not establish that confidential information was misused, determine liability or award damages.

A dispute over access to listing data

TRREB alleges that IMS, operating as RESTATS, obtained information from its restricted MLS system and used it to provide commercial services to real estate professionals and brokerages. Its allegations include unauthorized access to listing information and members’ personal information, and use of that material for market reports and analysis.

IMS sought to strike the lawsuit, challenging the adequacy of the claims, service, limitation periods and overlap with separate Federal Court litigation. TRREB sought permission to amend its claim and add d’Ancona, including claims for breach of contract and inducing breach of contract.

An earlier order permitting amendments without notice had been set aside on December 23, 2025. The September ruling addressed TRREB’s renewed amendment request together with IMS’s dismissal motion. The court found the original claim had been validly served, rejecting the argument that serving it alongside the earlier amended claim made service ineffective.

Why the personal privacy claim failed

TRREB argued that information supplied by its members in confidence formed part of its own private affairs. It said the alleged conduct damaged its integrity and members’ trust.

Justice Cavanagh concluded that intrusion upon seclusion protects individuals against invasions of personal privacy of a kind that a reasonable person would regard as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. TRREB, as a corporate entity, could not experience those reactions. Alleged damage to its reputation and members’ trust did not fill that gap.

The court struck that claim without permission to amend it. The ruling concerned this particular tort, rather than deciding that corporate information generally lacks legal protection.

TRREB’s breach-of-confidence claim survived. IMS argued that the pleading did not adequately identify what confidential information had been taken or when. The judge found the descriptions sufficient; whether the information was confidential, taken without authorization or misused remains to be decided.

The claim for interference with economic relations also survived. Although TRREB could not bring its own intrusion-upon-seclusion claim, the alleged conduct could support a plausible claim by its members. That was sufficient at this stage to plead the unlawful conduct against third parties required for the economic-relations claim.

Time limits narrow the claims against d’Ancona

TRREB alleged continuing improper access and breaches of agreements governing use of its systems. The judge found it had sufficiently pleaded the contracts, relevant restrictions and alleged breaches, as well as inducing brokerages to breach their contractual obligations.

But TRREB had not supplied evidence overcoming the statutory presumption about when its older claims against d’Ancona were discovered. Statements in its proposed pleading about recent discovery were not evidence.

In allowing his addition, the court excluded claims founded on acts or omissions occurring more than two years before TRREB brought its amendment motion. Adequately pleaded continuing breaches could give rise to fresh claims with their own limitation periods.

The breach-of-contract claim is against d’Ancona personally, not IMS. The judge also rejected his argument that the proposed claims necessarily concerned only his role directing the company; personal liability has not been established.

Other defences remain open

IMS’s separate argument that the action against it was out of time was left for its statement of defence. The court declined to decide that defence through this motion to strike.

The judge also rejected the argument that the Ontario action improperly duplicated the Federal Court proceeding. Contract and tort claims had been struck there for lack of jurisdiction; the copyright claim proceeding there was distinct.

Both motions succeeded in part. Costs were left for agreement or written submissions. The remaining claims will require proof, rather than the assumption that pleaded allegations are true used to assess their legal sufficiency.