The Real Estate Council of Ontario has issued a formal discipline decision against Timothy Campbell, a registered broker and owner of a brokerage (registered as Tim Campbell), following a series of professional misconduct findings related to a property sale in early 2024. The case centered on the failure to properly disclose multiple representation and seek informed consent while representing both the seller and multiple competing buyers for a single property. On August 12, 2025, the Discipline Committee, under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, released its findings and ordered Campbell to pay a significant fine and complete mandatory ethics training. This decision serves as a notable application of the updated regulatory framework that governs real estate professionals in Ontario, emphasizing the strict requirements for transparency when a single agent represents parties with conflicting interests in the same transaction.
The events leading to the disciplinary action began in January 2024, shortly after the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, known as TRESA, came into full effect with its enhanced consumer protection measures. On January 30, 2024, Campbell entered into a seller designated representation agreement with the estate of an individual to sell a property located on A Street in City A1. The list price for the property was set at $379,000.00. As the designated representative for the seller, Campbell uploaded the listing to a local real estate board service. The initial instructions in the listing indicated that offers would be presented on February 9, 2024. However, just a few days later, on February 5, Campbell updated the listing remarks to move the presentation date earlier, to February 7, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. Prospective buyers and their representatives were notified of this change through a standard communication platform used by the industry.
While managing the sale for the estate, Campbell simultaneously engaged with prospective buyers. On February 6, 2024, he entered into a buyer designated representation agreement with one individual, referred to as Buyer B. Acting on behalf of this client, Campbell submitted an unconditional offer for the property at $390,000.00. The following day, just hours before the offer presentation deadline, Campbell entered into another buyer representation agreement with a second individual, Buyer A. He then submitted an unconditional offer for Buyer A with a purchase price of $482,650.00. At this point, Campbell was representing the seller of the property as well as two separate buyers who were competing against each other for that same property. This scenario created a clear situation of multiple representation, which under Ontario law requires specific and immediate disclosures to all parties involved.
The investigation by RECO revealed that the documentation accompanying these offers contained significant inaccuracies. In both instances, the representation forms provided to the buyers did not correctly identify the nature of the relationship. Instead of stating that the brokerage was in a situation of multiple representation and designated representation, the forms incorrectly advised that the brokerage was in a multiple representation and limited services representation. Furthermore, Campbell failed to fulfill his statutory obligation to inform the seller about the conflict. The agreed statement of facts indicates that Campbell did not advise the executor of the estate that two of the offers being presented were from buyers he personally represented until after the seller had already accepted the offer from Buyer A.
The competitive nature of the sale further complicated the ethical obligations of the broker. By the time of the presentation deadline, the property had received a total of twenty-two offers from various buyers and their representatives. Under the regulations of the Trust in Real Estate Services Act, when a brokerage or a designated representative represents more than one party in a trade, they are required to disclose this fact to every other buyer who has made a written offer. This must be done as soon as possible after receiving the offers and before any offer is accepted. In this case, Campbell failed to advise eighteen of the twenty other buyers or their representatives that he was the designated representative for two of the buyers in the competition. Only two of the outside representatives were informed of the multiple representation situation.
The lack of transparency was eventually brought to light following the conclusion of the bidding process. On February 8, 2024, a representative for an unsuccessful buyer inquired about the process through a communication platform. In his response, Campbell admitted that he had only told the agents who specifically inquired that he was representing two buyers and apologized for what he described as a miscommunication. Despite these procedural failures, the transaction proceeded to completion on March 8, 2024. As a result of the sale, Campbell received a commission totaling $24,132.50. The Real Estate Council of Ontario subsequently launched an inquiry into the matter, leading to the formal discipline proceeding.
The Discipline Committee found that Campbell’s conduct violated several key provisions of the TRESA Code of Ethics. Section 1 of the Code requires registrants to act with courtesy, honesty, good faith, and integrity in relation to every person they deal with. The committee determined that failing to disclose the multiple representation to the seller and the competing buyers constituted a breach of this fundamental requirement. Additionally, the broker was found in violation of Section 2, which prohibits acts or omissions that would be regarded as unprofessional or unbecoming of a registrant, or those likely to bring the real estate sector into disrepute. By failing to seek informed consent from his clients before engaging in multiple representation, Campbell also breached Section 8, which mandates that a registrant must promote and protect the best interests of their clients.
The regulatory framework for real estate in Ontario is designed to ensure that consumers are fully aware of when their representative may have divided loyalties. Section 22.0.1 of the General Regulation specifically prohibits a designated representative from representing more than one client in the same trade unless the brokerage discloses the differences in the duties and services that will be provided. This disclosure must include details on how the remuneration arrangements might change and the specific risks associated with multiple representation. Most importantly, each client must provide written consent after receiving this information. The committee noted that Campbell failed to obtain this informed consent from the seller or the two buyers he represented. Furthermore, Section 22.0.3 requires that once a brokerage receives a written offer in a multiple representation scenario, it must disclose this fact to all other buyers who have submitted offers. Campbell’s failure to notify the eighteen other buyers was a direct contravention of this transparency requirement.
As the broker of record and owner of the brokerage, Campbell also faced responsibilities under Section 16 of the Code of Ethics, which requires such individuals to ensure that the brokerage itself complies with the law. The committee’s decision emphasized that the duties of a broker of record are essential to maintaining the integrity of the profession and protecting the public interest. The failure to maintain proper oversight and ensure that all necessary disclosures were made was cited as a significant factor in the findings of misconduct.
In light of these violations, the Discipline Committee ordered a penalty that includes both a financial component and an educational requirement. Timothy Campbell is required to pay a fine of $16,000 to the Real Estate Council of Ontario. This payment must be made within two hundred and forty days of the decision date. Additionally, the broker is required to successfully complete an ethics course provided by the Real Estate Institute of Canada. The specific course, titled Ethics in Business Practice, is a foundational program designed to help real estate professionals navigate ethical dilemmas and understand their application in professional practice. Campbell must complete this training within ninety days of the decision and provide proof of completion to the council shortly thereafter.
The resolution of this matter through an agreed statement of facts and penalty reflects an acknowledgment of the failures that occurred during the sale process. By waiving the right to a full hearing, Campbell accepted the findings that his actions were inconsistent with the professional standards required under the Trust in Real Estate Services Act. This case highlights the ongoing efforts by provincial regulators to enforce the new rules surrounding designated and multiple representation. As the real estate market continues to see competitive bidding situations, the requirement for brokers to provide clear, honest, and timely disclosures remains a cornerstone of consumer protection in Ontario. The substantial fine and the requirement for remedial education serve as a deterrent and a reminder to the profession of the importance of maintaining public confidence through transparent business practices.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
- Some information has been anonymized by RECO for privacy reasons. ↩︎
