Every fall, we publish a magazine called Real Estate INSIGHTS, or simply what we call “Insights” for short.

This is mailed to all of our clients and published on the Toronto Realty Group website.

Over the next few weeks, I’d like to share with the TRB readers some of the articles that my team, myself, and a few of our trusted partners have penned for the magazine.

Up first: an article on multiple representation by TRG’s Matthew Morrison!

Navigating Multiple Representation

By: Matthew Morrison, Realtor
September, 2025

Mutliple representation has its challenges, as well as its critics, but when used ethically and effectively, it can provide mutually beneficial results for both parties.

There are certain conventions of organized real estate that are broadly accepted in today’s market.

For example, property staging is no longer just a potential step in the listing process, but rather essential to make a property stand out and show its best in today’s ultracompetitive environment.  If a house is going to command a high interest level in a market segment with ample inventory, then the age-old “under-list, set an offer date” pricing strategy is a prudent step to maximize the sale price for a seller.

Typically, in a real estate transaction, to promote advocacy and protect the interests of both parties, the sellers are represented by a listing agent, and the buyers of the property are represented by a buyer’s agent, or in industry terms, the “cooperating agent”.

However, these best practices aren’t always adhered to.

Perhaps against better judgement, thousands of listings every month are posted on MLS without any staging (or even worse, photos taken with an iPhone!).

Some sellers prefer not to price for “offer nights,” and while that may cost them upside on the sale price, that’s certainly their prerogative.

What might be the most surprising to some, though is that it’s not actually a requirement for a unique agent to work on behalf of each buyer and seller. In certain cases, the same agent can represent both seller and buyer, in a situation known as “multiple representation”.

In general, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would be interested in operating in multiple representation.  It’s intuitive to believe that someone is best advocated for and represented if there are unique and independent professionals working for the interests of the respective parties.

Nonetheless, we frequently receive calls from buyers who insist on working with us as the listing agents on properties we have brought to market.

Similarly, we often receive calls from prospective sellers who aren’t interested in listing their properties on the open market but want to know if we have “any buyers who would be interested in their property.”

Whether it’s being jaded with the organized real estate process, a lack of faith in the quality of the average agent, a belief that doing it this way will get the party a “better” deal, or most commonly the idea that doing so will save the buyer or seller commission, this is a common obstacle we encounter which leaves me baffled almost every time.

Prior to the introduction of The Trust in Real Estate Services Act (TRESA), multiple representation was applied to any transaction where the same brokerage was involved in both sides of the transaction, representing both buyer and seller.  This ended up being quite prohibitive as there were numerous situations where large brokerages represented a buyer and seller in the same transaction, who were working with two different agents that happened to work at the same brokerage. Often, these agents had little to no relationship or even worked in different office locations.

The introduction of TRESA provided the concept of “designated representation”, where, rather than a brokerage being the primary representative, it’s now become a specific agent.

This alleviated the need to declare multiple representation unless both the buyer and seller were working with the exact same agent.

This was a welcome change, which was much more representative of what could in fact be a conflict of interest and create a non-competitive or “unfair” situation.

Now, this isn’t to say multiple representation is never appropriate.  With a qualified and professional agent, there are circumstances where it can be advantageous to both the buyer and the seller.

Earlier this year, a client of mine was looking to potentially sell his 1-bedroom plus-den condominium in Roncesvalles, located in a boutique and very well-regarded building.  This seller had owned the unit for over five years but had since moved in with his partner and was leasing out the unit.

As we say, “life happens,” and suddenly, my seller-client was required to move to the United States for a career opportunity.  For both tax purposes and to access the capital to make a purchase in the United States, my seller client went from wanting to sell to needing to sell.

As we know, it’s very difficult to sell a tenanted property, both in terms of demand, given the tenuous relationship between landlords and tenants in this city, and the fact that it can’t be presented in the ideal way: properly listed, professionally staged, and with unfettered access.  In addition to this, the tenants were getting married that summer and my landlord-client wanted to do his best to not disrupt what would already be a stressful few months for them.

Fortunately, I happened to be representing a buyer-client who was looking to purchase a unit of this size, in this specific area, and as he soon disclosed – in this specific building!

But unlike most buyers who seek, on average, 60-day closings, his needs weren’t immediate.  He was currently renting, and his lease wasn’t set to expire until later in the fall.

While he wasn’t “ready” to buy, per se, he knew units fitting his criteria rarely came up for sale and that this was a unique opportunity.  Not to mention, he was eager to get into what he saw as a condominium market that was near market bottom.

I arranged for a time to have the buyer view the property.  Needless to say, he was interested.

For both the buyer and the seller, exploring this prospective situation further made sense.

The seller would be able to sell his property prior to moving to the United States and thus he could access the capital required to make a purchase down south.  This also meant that he wouldn’t have to disrupt his current tenants, and lastly, he would be able to sell the property despite not being to present it the best possible light, which is essential for a successful sale in this market.

The buyer, on the other hand, would be able to secure his ideal unit in his ideal location, and even in his ideal building!  He would also benefit from purchasing a property with existing quality tenants paying a rent that would help to support his new mortgage payments, allowing him to move in when he was ready after providing the requisite 60 days’ notice for personal use.  While the tenants didn’t want to leave, they were respectful and law-abiding and knew this was inevitable, so they were prepared to be amenable when the time came.

The challenge then became doing right by both these clients.

As a designated representative, you have a responsibility to conduct yourself in a manner that protects the confidentiality of your clients while also acting in a manner that demonstrates your fiduciary duty to the buyer and/or seller.  Ultimately, your role as the agent becomes more of an arbitrator and mediator, rather than a negotiator.

I liken it to the individual that Major League Baseball enlists to help arbitration-eligible players reach a contract agreement with their teams. In those cases, the player and the team both articulate the value they think the player has and, basing it off comparable players and the contracts they received, they assign a value to the contract which both the team and the player work with.

While this wasn’t quite the same thing, I looked at every sale of a similar-sized unit over the last four years (essentially a post-COVID market), and adjusted those prices based on the characteristics of the unit.  This included whether the unit had an owned parking space, the quality of the interior finishes, layout and flow of the space, ceiling height, directional exposure of the unit, existence of outdoor space, etc.  I then determined the suggested price per square foot of the unit and adjusted this to a current price based on the change in value in three regions: the neighborhood itself (in this case it’s known as W01), the city of Toronto, and the greater TRREB region.

After doing this, a clear, fair price was demonstrated, and it was not difficult for these two analytical parties to reach an agreement on a price that made sense for them both.

And, voila!

We had reached a deal that pleased both parties, which was a deal done via “multiple representation”, meeting the unique needs of both a buyer and a seller in unusual circumstances.

Academically, this style of negotiation is known as “integrative” negotiation, a direct opposition to the philosophy of “distributive” negotiation, which a large portion of the population approaches and applies to all negotiations.

In short, distributive negotiation is defined as “a type of bargaining where one party’s gain is assumed to be the other party’s loss”.

In simplest terms, there is a finite amount of a pie to be had, and you are negotiating to end up with the largest piece of that proverbial pie.  This isn’t all that practical in reality though, because it assumes there’s always going to be a winner and a loser in a negotiation, and it’s very difficult to complete a deal in which one party feels as though they are losing.

Instead, by approaching the situation with the framework of distributive negotiation, you are much more likely to reach a deal that’s advantageous, agreeable, and palatable to all parties.

Distributive negotiation is defined as: “where parties seek to create value and find mutually beneficial solutions.”

Integrative negotiation focuses on finding common ground and addressing underlying interests, while distributive negotiation focuses on dividing a fixed amount.

Integrative negotiation is most effective when the correct questions are asked, and both parties realize that the most successful negotiations result in a circumstance where everyone gets what they want.  A capable agent, particularly in multiple representation, can help navigate this challenge.

It’s much more difficult in two-party representation, where the inherent competitive nature of humanity and the egos of both the agents and the buyers/sellers can interfere.

Take, for example, a parent who has a single orange, but two kids who want the orange.  The simplest way to handle it is to cut the orange in half, but if the parent simply asked a few questions, they could determine that the first child wanted the peel to make marmalade, but the second child wanted to squeeze the orange to create orange juice.  Rather than wasting half the peel and half the juice, the parent would be able to get twice the orange juice for the second child, and the first child would get twice as much peel to create marmalade.

It’s a simple example, but it demonstrates the value of asking the right questions and understanding the motivations of the other side in a transaction.

Buying and selling real estate in Toronto is challenging enough as it is. It’s a hyper-competitive market that changes quickly, and many parties involved are greedy or self-motivated to their detriment.  To maximize success, a buyer or a seller and their agent must leave no stone unturned, and in some rare cases, the best avenue for success may, in fact, involve multiple representation.

Multiple representation is not an easy path to traverse, but if done correctly, and handled with care by a capable and well-intentioned agent, it can allow both buyer and seller to achieve everything they want, which is simply impossible in a world of old-fashioned distributive negotiation.

Gosh, just think about how many oranges my parents wasted.  Metaphorically and literally…

Thanks to Matthew Morrison for sharing, and over the next few weeks, we’ll see articles from agents, Chris Cansick and Tara Amina, my stager, Lucie Brand, and our mortgage broker, Tony Della Sciucca.

If anybody wants a copy of the magazine, email me! 🙂

Have a great weekend, folks!