The Buyer Representation Agreement,
read clause by clause before you sign.

A buyer always called the contract "my agreement with Tony". Three months in, Tony moved to another brokerage and the buyer followed, and nobody mentioned the old paperwork. That agreement had not expired. The home the buyer eventually bought was one the old brokerage had shown during the term, and a commission claim followed. The contract is with the brokerage; that is worth understanding before the pen touches paper.

The buyer signed with the English name used day to day; the passport spelled it differently. Three weeks later, on the night of a competing offer, the identification did not match the name on the offer, and the paperwork was being corrected while the other side waited for a reply. Thirty seconds checking the ID against this line buys back that evening.

The buyer signed for six months because the agent said the market was slow and it was wise to leave room. By month two, replies were taking two or three days. The buyer wanted to switch, opened the agreement, and read "exclusive and irrevocable" with no early-exit term anywhere in the schedule. The options left were much narrower: asking the brokerage to agree to a Form 301 cancellation, or a conversation with its broker of record. One question at the term line would have saved two months of friction.

The agreement read "Residential, Greater Toronto Area". The buyer only meant to find a family home in Markham, but during the term a friend mentioned a rental condo in Scarborough, and the buyer, thinking "that is not the kind of home I am looking for", bought it through the friend's agent. A condo is residential, Scarborough is in the GTA, and the purchase sat squarely inside the description, which is what triggers Clause 5. Write the two scope lines to match your actual plan, not a phrase that sounds tidy.

Last winter the buyer signed with one agent, saw a few homes, and assumed it had fizzled out. This spring came a new agent and a new agreement, and this line was initialled without a second thought. The home the new agent found was one the old agent had shown the year before, and the old agreement's holdover still had more than two months to run. Two commission claims arrived together before the buyer remembered the contract that had "fizzled out". Under Clause 2, what was paid to the new brokerage could reduce the old brokerage's holdover claim, but facing two claims at once was not the spring the buyer had planned. Before initialling this line, search your inbox for everything you have ever signed.

A couple toured homes together; on signing day only the husband was there, and the wife said "you sign, that's fine". Two months later she bought, in her own name and through a different agent, a home that had been shown during the husband's agreement, reasoning that her name was not on it. The brokerage pointed to Clause 1: the Buyer is deemed to include a spouse. Whether commission is owed, and by whom, turns on the facts and legal advice; "my name is not on it" is not something to rely on.

In month two, the agent showed the buyer a well-located home that was priced high at the time. Three weeks after the agreement expired the price dropped, and the buyer went straight to the listing agent, reasoning that the agreement was over. The brokerage's written demand followed: the home had been shown during the term and the purchase fell inside the holdover, so Clause 2 applied. Looking back at the agreement, the buyer had initialled the holdover line without ever reading the number of days. The same buyer met the third layer too: the seller's side offered less than the agreed figure, and the shortfall was the buyer's to pay.

On offer night the buyer's agent called in a different tone: the listing agent for this home was a colleague at the same brokerage, the brokerage was now on both sides, and the buyer would need to sign a multiple representation consent, after which the agent could no longer advise on price. For the first time the buyer understood that the line about the brokerage possibly being the listing side had not been boilerplate. He asked whether he could decline, and was told yes, the brokerage would refer him to another brokerage for this offer. He took the referral. That option is set out in the RECO guide's section on refusing multiple representation, and many buyers never learn they have it.

On the last afternoon of an inspection condition, the buyer was on a job site with patchy signal. The agent received the inspection report at four, went through the key points with the buyer by phone at half past, and the buyer e-signed the waiver; before five the agent delivered it to the listing brokerage. It worked because Clause 4 lets the buyer's brokerage give notices for the buyer, and Clause 3 of Form 100 makes the listing brokerage the seller's agent for receiving them: delivered there, it counted as delivered. Under multiple representation the clause would not apply, and the same afternoon would be far tighter.

In month three the buyer wandered into a new-development sales centre on a weekend, sat for an hour, heard "sign today for an extra incentive", and signed on the spot. He did not tell his agent, reasoning that the agent had not found this one. The scope line read "Residential, York Region", and the project was in York Region. Clause 5 took over from there. The real loss was different: one phone call and the agent could have gone with him and read the pre-construction pages before he signed anything.

The listing said "basement apartment with separate entrance, strong rental income". The buyer built the rent into the budget and offered without an inspection condition. After closing, a visit to the municipality revealed the unit had never been permitted. Under Clause 6 the listing's claim was not something the buyer's brokerage had warranted; whether anyone else was responsible became a question for a lawyer, after closing. What would have stopped it was a permit search before the offer, and an agent who insists on writing the inspection condition into Schedule A.

The buyer used the mortgage broker the agent suggested and the financing went smoothly. Months later a friend mentioned that mortgage brokers pay referral fees to brokerages, and the buyer felt uneasy: why had nobody said so. Fees like that are permitted when disclosed (O. Reg. 567/05 s. 23.1); the issue was timing, since the regulation asks for disclosure as soon as the agent knows of the benefit. Clause 7 gives your advance consent, but the duty to disclose stays with the brokerage. From then on the buyer asked the question every time a referral came up.

A newly arrived buyer planned to rent for a year before buying, under the same agreement. The day the lease offer went in, the landlord's agent asked for a credit report and proof of income, which caught the buyer off guard. The agreement had said it in Clause 8 all along: a consumer report may be referred to. The better practice is for the agent to explain that step before the offer goes out, so the buyer has time to prepare.

Six months after closing, the buyer found the home's sale price on a property website, next to the old listing photos, and wondered who had put it there. The basis is Clause 9 together with board rules: sale information on an MLS® listing is retained and disclosed. Six months earlier, the comparable-sales analysis the agent had prepared for the offer was built from the neighbours' sale prices, disclosed the same way. The information runs in both directions, and this clause puts the rule on the table.

On signing day the agent was generous: "if it is not working, just say so and we tear it up that day." The buyer took the promise and did not ask for it in a schedule. Three months later, wanting to switch, the buyer texted "as you said, let's end it". The reply: there is no such term in the contract. The other side pointed to Clause 10: the agreement is the entire agreement. The buyer ended up with a Form 301 cancellation signed by both sides, three weeks later. Written into a schedule that day, "just say so" would have been a single line.

A father was house-hunting in Toronto for a son still overseas, with the agreement in the father's name. Halfway through the term the father fell ill and died. The son came back to settle affairs and, months later, bought through another agent a home the father had been shown. He did not know the agreement existed, and neither did the estate's executor. Clause 11 names executors and heirs; whether anything is owed, and by whom, is a question for the estate's lawyer. There is no good answer to a situation like this after the fact. The only protection is beforehand: whatever someone in the family signs, the people who need to know should know.

The buyer signed on a phone and never opened the link again after it expired. Four months later, wanting to check the expiry date and the holdover days, the buyer found only a "document signed" notification with an empty attachment. Under Clause 12 the electronic transmission already counted as having kept a copy; whether the file could actually be produced was the buyer's problem. The brokerage sent one on request, which was fine, but in the middle of a dispute, not holding your own copy is a weak place to stand.

In the ten-minute drive between two showings, the agent sent a signing link to the buyer's phone: "standard form, we need it signed before we can offer." A few taps from the passenger seat and it was done. Later the buyer discovered the holdover days in Clause 2 were far longer than assumed, and the shortfall obligation had not been waived. Those taps were a signature like any other. What this agreement deserves is a table and twenty minutes.

When a dispute with the brokerage arose later, the buyer's opening line was "nobody explained this to me". The other side produced the agreement and pointed to the signature page, where the buyer had declared having read and fully understood it. The buyer remembered that the agent had in fact asked "any questions?", and the answer had been no. The weight of that line shows only in a dispute. Before signing, an extra twenty minutes of questions is cheap.

The buyer looked up the name on the declaration of insurance and found it was a young salesperson on the team, while the "team lead" on the business card appeared nowhere in the agreement. That is not necessarily a problem; many teams work exactly that way. The issue was that the buyer had assumed the agreement meant working with the lead. The declaration of insurance is the quickest place to see who is actually responsible for you.

The buyer signed the acknowledgement dated the day of signing; the full copy arrived by email three days later. When a disagreement came up over a service term in a schedule, the buyer said "that was not in the version I signed", and the other side said "you acknowledged receiving a copy that same day". When the copy actually arrived, and whether it was the same document, became impossible to untangle. Holding the copy before you sign this block is how that situation never starts.

The buyer assumed the agent would attend the inspection and do the pre-closing walkthrough together, because "that is what agents do". On inspection day the agent sent the inspector's phone number. The walkthrough the buyer did alone, and found the seller had taken the dishwasher the agreement said would stay, with no idea what to do on the spot. Schedule A, on rereading, listed "showings and assistance with negotiation" and nothing else. RECO's line about not assuming unwritten services was written for that day.