An anonymised composite: two of the same agent’s own buyer clients both wanted to bid on one $549,000 listing. Unlike a seller-side brokerage-representation conflict, this one was unavoidable — because it was the same designated representative serving both.
At a glance
A designated representative at an Ontario brokerage was actively working with two buyer clients, both signed under designated representation agreements, both pre-approved, both searching the same neighbourhood in roughly the same price range. A new listing came on the market at $549,000 that matched both buyers’ criteria closely enough that both asked the agent, independently and within the same week, to prepare an offer.
This is a different trigger than a seller refusing designated representation on their own listing — here, the conflict has nothing to do with which representation model the seller chose, because the seller is a stranger to both buyers and represented separately. RECO’s rule on multiple representation reaches this fact pattern directly: multiple representation exists when “a designated representative or brokerage represents more than one client, with competing interests, in the same transaction” — and here, it is the identical designated representative for both buyers on the identical property. “Multiple representation is not permitted unless each of the clients involved agrees,” and until written disclosure is made and both agree in writing, “the brokerage or designated representative cannot take any further steps.”
The listing was priced at $549,000. Once multiple representation applied, RECO’s rule is specific about what the agent could no longer do for either buyer: “cannot offer advice on price, terms, or agreement details to either side.” That single restriction — no price guidance to either client, on a property both wanted — was the entire reason one buyer chose to walk rather than proceed. That buyer, represented by a new agent the same week, ultimately won the property at $560,000, $11,000 above list.
RECO gives clients an explicit right to decline: “Clients can decline multiple representation; brokerages must be able to offer alternatives (e.g., referral to another agent/brokerage).” One buyer weighed the trade-off — keeping their existing agent’s market knowledge, but losing price and negotiation advice on this specific property — and consented in writing to proceed under multiple representation. The other buyer decided a full advocate mattered more than continuity and declined. Under the rule, that is not a problem to solve; it is the outcome the rule is built to produce.
Had the agent instead tried to advise both buyers informally — suggesting a bid range to one, hinting at competition to the other — without disclosure or consent, the exposure would not have been a lost sale but a compromised one on both sides at once: neither buyer would have been getting the “undivided loyalty” RECO requires of a single-client relationship, and neither would have known it. The referral, by contrast, cost the brokerage nothing but a few days and a phone call, and put both buyers back on genuinely independent footing. A brokerage with no referral relationships in place before this happens is choosing, in the moment, between an undisclosed conflict and turning a paying client away outright — neither of which is a decision worth making under deadline pressure.
The tell was recognising the collision before either buyer asked for an offer, not after. The agent already knew both buyers’ search criteria overlapped closely; the moment a matching new listing appeared, the responsible move was flagging the potential conflict to both clients immediately, rather than waiting to see whether it actually became a live competing-offer situation before explaining the rule.
The consenting buyer and the referred-out buyer both ended up bidding on the property — one still represented by the original agent under disclosed multiple representation, the other by a new agent with full latitude to advise on price. The referred buyer’s new agent pushed a stronger, faster offer at $560,000 and won the property. The original agent kept both relationships intact: the consenting buyer continued the search with the same agent on the next property, and the referred buyer’s new agent sent a reciprocal referral back within the month.
Related case files
A 30-minute call is enough to tell you whether your agreements, disclosures and records would hold up the same way.
