Executive Summary – Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Whether Houseful’s referral-based model satisfies TRREB’s IDX Agreement, which limits data use to “bona fide trade in real estate” with a “lawful broker-consumer relationship.”

• Validity of TRREB’s termination of IDX access, including its authority to restrict data feeds for non-compliance with its rules.

• TRREB’s claim that access was regained through non-disclosure of a prior dispute and use of a different broker to circumvent earlier denial.

• Dispute over the existence of irreparable harm, with both parties alleging business damage, and the court finding damages an adequate remedy.

• Failure of the plaintiff to establish the high threshold of a strong prima facie case required for a mandatory interlocutory injunction.

• Court’s assessment that the balance of convenience alone could not justify compelling TRREB to restore data access pending trial.

Facts of the Case:

• Plaintiff: Ojohome Canada Ltd., operating as Houseful, is a licensed real estate brokerage based in Toronto. It is a member in good standing of both the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board (TRREB) and the Canadian Real Estate Association (CREA).

• In 2023, the company was acquired by the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC). Its business model is built around online referrals — not directly listing or selling homes.

• How the model works:

  • Consumers search for properties on Houseful’s website using MLS data.

  • When ready to purchase, they are referred to one of ~600 partner agents.

  • Houseful earns 25% of the agent’s commission on a successful sale.

  • Additional revenue comes from mortgage referrals, primarily to RBC.

  • 80% of Houseful’s revenue comes from sale referrals; 20% from mortgage leads.

• Defendants:

  • TRREB (Toronto Regional Real Estate Board)

  • CREA (Canadian Real Estate Association)

  • PropTx Innovations Inc. (not directly implicated in the decision)

The Dispute:

• Houseful relies on two key data sources:

  • The IDX (Internet Data Exchange) feed from TRREB (Toronto-area listings).

  • The DDF (Data Distribution Facility) from CREA (national listings).

• In October 2024, TRREB terminated Houseful’s IDX access, arguing the business model:

  • Violated the IDX Agreement because Houseful wasn’t using the data for a “bona fide trade in real estate” in Ontario.

  • Failed to establish a “lawful broker-consumer relationship” as required under TRREB’s rules.

• TRREB also alleged:

  • The original access denial happened in 2021, when broker Richard Argals was the IDX subscriber.

  • Access was later regained through “subterfuge” by listing a new broker (Natalka Falcomer) and not disclosing the prior issue.

• In December 2024, TRREB instructed CREA to exclude TRREB-originated listings from the DDF feed to Houseful, which CREA did.

Effect on Houseful:

• The site went from offering ~54,000 listings to just 11,500, severely limiting access to GTA listings — a major blow to the platform’s appeal and revenue.

Legal Motion:

Houseful brought a motion seeking an interlocutory injunction or mandatory order to restore access to the IDX data until the legal issues could be resolved at trial.

Key Policy Terms at Issue:

• TRREB’s IDX Agreement:

  • Use of data must support a bona fide real estate trade in Ontario.

  • Must involve a lawful broker-consumer relationship.

  • Use must be for the business of the brokerage employing the subscriber.

• TRREB’s position was that Houseful:

  • Was monetizing the data through referrals.

  • Was not listing properties or directly engaging in brokerage transactions.

  • Therefore, did not comply with the IDX agreement.

Houseful denied any wrongdoing, claimed its services add value to both consumers and agents, and argued it was being unfairly penalized.

Legal Test Applied:

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief (mandatory injunctions require a high threshold):

1. Strong Prima Facie Case: Required for mandatory orders — the plaintiff must show it’s almost certain to succeed at trial.

2. Irreparable Harm: Would the harm be impossible to fix with money?

3. Balance of Convenience: Does the benefit of granting the injunction outweigh the burden?

The Court’s Ruling (March 11, 2025):

Justice C. MacLeod denied the motion for the following reasons:

1. No Strong Prima Facie Case:

• Houseful did not meet the high bar for a mandatory order.

• Even under a lower standard (serious issue to be tried), the motion would still fail on other grounds.

2. No Irreparable Harm:

• While Houseful may suffer commercial loss, damages are calculable and appropriate if TRREB is found liable later.

• This was a commercial contract dispute, not an urgent matter needing immediate court intervention.

• Houseful may also have options to mitigate harm by aligning its model with TRREB’s rules.

3. Balance of Convenience:

• Though restoring the feed would be low-effort, it’s not enough to override TRREB’s contractual rights or rules.

Outcome:

• Motion dismissed.

• No order was made against CREA, since it only followed TRREB’s instructions and was not independently liable.

• The judge suggested transferring the case to Toronto, possibly moving it to the Commercial List or resolving it by summary judgment due to its contractual nature.

What This Means Going Forward:

This ruling doesn’t decide the final outcome — it only denies temporary access to data. The core issue (whether Houseful’s model breaches the IDX agreement) remains for trial or summary resolution.

However, the court made clear that:

• Injunctions are not meant to force private parties into business when contract compliance is disputed.

• TRREB, as a private association, has the right to set its own terms — as long as those terms are clear and agreed upon.