Month: April 2019

The traditional, permanent full-time job is dying a slow death in Canada, and precarious work in the new “gig economy” is taking its place. This story is part of Precariously Taxed, a HuffPost Canada series that looks at how gig economy and contract workers can optimize their finances when it comes to tax time.

Life in the gig economy is often a matter of perspective. For some, the rise of these pay-per-gig jobs is a sign that life is getting harder and more unstable in our economy. For others, it’s a symbol of economic freedom, the ability to choose where and when you work, and how much.

Either way, there’s probably one part no one likes: The part where you have to keep track of, and pay, your own taxes.

If you’re in the gig economy, for example as an Uber driver or an Airbnb host, you are effectively self-employed. Unlike a traditional employer, the app you do business with won’t deduct taxes from your paycheque and send the money to the government; you’re responsible for all that yourself.

Below are some of the essential things you should know at (and before) tax time if you’re in the gig economy. But first, a reminder that the tax-filing deadline is April 30. For self-employed people, it’s June 15. But if you owe any money, that money is due April 30 — so don’t wait till June to crunch the numbers.

Keep track of income

This is the easy part. If your gig is through an app, that app will have records of all your transactions, and the money that exchanged hands.

Apps like Airbnb, HomeAway, Lyft and Uber give you access to records of your earnings. If you earn money outside those apps, you’ll have to keep track of that yourself. In most cases, an Excel spreadsheet will do the trick.

But it’s still up to you to pay your taxes on the income you earned. Which means that unless you want to pay the absolute maximum in tax the government can legally squeeze out of you, you will need to…

Keep track of expenses

If you’re a salaried employee, there are very few business expenses you can legitimately claim to reduce your taxes. Your employer is covering those costs, so they get the tax break.

In the gig economy no one covers these costs for you, so you can claim them to reduce the income on which you owe taxes.

But to do this right might require a change in mindset. For one thing, you need to start keeping a record of anything you buy related to your paid gig.

Simply put, if you don’t keep track of expenses, you can and probably will face a higher tax bill than you would otherwise need to pay.

Watch: What you need to know before filing your federal taxes this year. Story continues below.

“Record-keeping is key,” says Aurèle Courcelles, assistant vice-president at IG Wealth Management and an accountant by trade.

“You want to be very meticulous in the record-keeping both on income side and expenses side, and that becomes maybe more work when you’re talking about ride-sharing or Airbnb hosts.”

The simplest thing you can do is keep a log book where you track your expenses. There are user-friendly accounting apps out there as well, but “in many cases … a simple spreadsheet on your phone or laptop is all you need,” he adds.

How do I declare income?

Most people in the gig economy — Uber drivers and couriers on contract, for example — would fill out the T-2125 form, the statement of professional or business activities.

Those renting out properties on HomeAway, Airbnb or similar sites would fill out a T-776 statement of real estate rentals. But if a host provides additional services for money, like meals or laundry, they have to declare that as business income, not rental income.

Plenty of things you can deduct

Essentially, anything you spend money on that is directly related to your gig is a legitimate expense.

Keep the little things in mind. As an Uber driver, you may remember to keep your gas receipts, but how about oil changes, tune-ups and windshield wiper fluid? Those are all deductible, as are your car insurance premiums and even those water bottles you offer riders so they give you a higher rating.

But only deduct the part of those expenses that actually went into your business. If you use your car for Uber and for personal use, you need to keep track of the kilometres driven, and calculate what percentage of use was for business. Only that percentage can be deducted.

Keeping track of kilometres is crucial because “that small piece of information can either validate all of (an Uber driver’s) claims or allow the CRA to deny them all,” said Lisa Gittens, a senior tax professional at H&R Block.

Airbnb hosts can deduct things such as linens and sheets, and the toiletries they buy for guests’ use. You can even deduct the Netflix or cable bill, but if you’re only renting out a portion of your property, then you can only claim a portion of that expense.

If you’re an independent construction contractor, you can deduct your steel-toed boots, hard hat, tools and other materials you need to work on site.

GST/HST: Another opportunity to get money back

In the gig economy, you have to remit sales taxes to the government — GST or HST, depending on the province. But you can also get a tax credit for the sales tax you yourself pay on business expenses.

Self-employed people have to register for a GST number if their earnings exceed $30,000, but as of 2017, ride-hailing drivers have to register for a GST number (and a QST number in Quebec) no matter how much or little they earn. You have to register for one about the time you drive your first paid gig.

Apps such as Airbnb and Uber keep track of the sales taxes they collect on your behalf, but you still have to remit those taxes to the government yourself. (The exception is Quebec, where Uber will remit those taxes to the government for you.) You can use the app’s records to know how much money to set aside for taxes.

But as an independent business, you can claim a tax credit for the GST/HST on your business expenses, in the form of an input tax credit. You can claim the GST on fuel costs, oil and tire changes — any legitimate business expense on which you paid sales tax.

But once again, keeping track of your expenses is crucial if you want to claim this credit.

Don’t guess, ask someone

Finally, if you’re not sure about some element of your taxes, seek help. If you can’t afford an accountant, there is free tax software out there, and their paid versions are typically less expensive than hiring a person to do your taxes, and typically come with online and phone assistance.

There are even free tax clinics, where volunteers can answer your questions.

“Always ask questions,” Gittens says. When it comes to taxes, “there are no embarrassing questions.”

OTTAWA — The “improper” American imposition of metals tariffs as leverage in the contentious NAFTA talks is no longer required because all three North American countries now have a deal, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland says.

Freeland said Thursday the continued existence of the steel and aluminum duties makes ratifying the new continental trade pact unpalatable for many Canadians — remarks that cast further uncertainty over the fate of the new trade deal signed — but not yet ratified — by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico last fall.

Donald Trump unleashed a section of U.S. trade law — section 232 — that gives the president the authority to impose tariffs on national security grounds because he was frustrated by the slow pace of the talks.

Watch: Finance Minister Bill Morneau says tariffs must be lifted before deal is signed

Even though it was improper for the U.S. to use 232 as a bargaining chip, Freeland argued that’s now a moot point because all three countries have finished negotiating the deal.

“Now 232 was never meant to be a tool to be used as any kind of leverage. That would be a very improper use of it,” Freeland said in Washington on Thursday ahead of a NATO meeting. But she added that the Americans “were quite explicit that that was the intention” when they were imposed.

“How can that be relevant today when it comes to Canada? The deal is done. No more leverage is needed,” Freeland said.

“So both on the national security grounds and when it comes to the notion that there could be some sort of negotiating purpose served by 232, we really think this is groundless.”

The minister made the remarks at the U.S. State Department, where she was attending the 70th anniversary of the NATO transatlantic military alliance.

Freeland discussed tariffs with Pompeo

“Standing here in the U.S. State Department, a few minutes before the NATO meeting celebrating the 70th anniversary of this great alliance, I think underscores the absurdity of those 232 steel and aluminium tariffs,” Freeland said.

“For Canadians, that absurdity is cast in even starker relief by the fact that we now have a trade agreement.”

Freeland met with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Wednesday night, and officials said she brought the tariffs up in that conversation.

However, the discussion of tariffs did not warrant a mention in the readout of their conversation released Thursday by Pompeo’s office. The readout detailed a long list of pressing international security concerns from NATO burden sharing, to the imprisoned Canadians in China, the Venezuelan crisis, as well as Iran and North Korea.

Before departing Ottawa for Washington on Wednesday, Freeland said pushing the U.S. for tariff removal was a top of mind priority for she and her cabinet colleagues. Transport Minister Marc Garneau and Bill Blair, federal Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, pushed their U.S. counterparts on the issue in recent meetings.

OTTAWA — The fallout from Saudi Arabia’s move to punish Canadian companies was felt within a month of the countries’ sudden diplomatic feud last summer, leading to visa rejections, a government ban on food from Canada and a blockage of shipments at the kingdom’s ports.

A newly released federal document provides a close look at Saudi Arabia’s retaliation against Canada, following criticism by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland on Twitter of the regime’s arrest of women’s rights activists.

Angered by the public condemnation, Saudi Arabia suspended diplomatic ties with Canada last August, expelled the Canadian ambassador and recalled its own envoy from Ottawa.

Watch: The Canada-Saudi Arabia spat, in 90 seconds

The kingdom also stopped future trade and investment deals, cancelled grain imports and said it would shut down lucrative scholarships for its citizens to study in Canada. The Saudi central bank and state pension funds started selling their Canadian holdings.

A briefing note to International Trade Minister Jim Carr offers more detail on how events were unfolding on the ground about a month after the start of the dispute.

“It is important to note that over the last few days Global Affairs Canada has been learning of concrete actions taken by Saudi Arabia against Canadian companies across various sectors,” reads the memo, released this week to The Canadian Press under access-to-information law.

The document went on to list numerous measures, including:

• Requests for existing contracts to be replaced by new contracts with non-Canadian suppliers.
• Denial of access to military bases.
• Payment delays.
• Re-routing of flights for product supplies.
• Prevention of a Canadian company from importing and selling medication.
• Government ministries issuing orders to ban food and medication from Canada.
• Various shipments from Canada being completely stopped at Saudi ports.

The note was created last September for Carr in preparation for his meeting with members of the Canada Arab Business Council, who have interests in the kingdom.

The additional details of the dispute with Saudi Arabia emerge as Canada tries to manage other, bigger trade-related challenges with its two largest partners, the United States and China.

Saudi Arabia has previously been a key partner for Canada in the Middle East and, according to a separate internal briefing note, the countries had more than $4 billion worth of trade in 2017. That year, Saudi Arabia had $1.28 billion worth of direct investment in Canada, said the memo prepared for Finance Minister Bill Morneau after the crisis broke out.

Scott Jolliffe, the president of the Canada Arab Business Council, said in an interview that Saudi investment in Canada ground to a halt last August. He also said Canadian firms have been restricted from bidding on new projects in the kingdom.

‘Any country we lose, even if it’s temporary, hurts us’

On the other hand, he said things have mostly carried on as usual for those of his members who already had business in the country. Jolliffe also said he hadn’t heard of any visa refusals.

He said he would like to see the impasse resolved because Saudi Arabia and the region offer billions of dollars’ worth of potential business for Canadian companies — and possible alternatives to the U.S. There’s a deep need there, he added, for the expertise Canada offers in areas like infrastructure, telecommunications and engineering.

“At the moment, it doesn’t appear as if there is much going on to strengthen and rebuild the relationship,” said Jolliffe, who’s had meetings with Carr about the issue.

The feud has had an impact on agriculture. Feed-barley producers, for instance, have been shut out of the Saudi market.

“Any country we lose, even if it’s temporary, hurts us,” said Dave Bishop, a farmer and chair of Alberta Barley.

He said Canada had been shipping about 122,000 tonnes of feed barley to Saudi Arabia every year — amounts that can sometimes reach 10 per cent of all Canadian exports of the product.

This year, the industry has been lucky that feed barley is in short supply worldwide and extra demand from markets like China has helped make up for being shut out of Saudi Arabia, Bishop added.

Khashoggi explanations still inadequate, Freeland’s office says

The memo to Carr last September said Freeland and Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, in an effort to resolve the conflict, “have been discussing ideas to de-escalate … including an incremental approach which could include a series of steps.”

Asked about the status of Saudi-Canadian relations now, Carr’s office provided a statement that said he’s still disappointed with the kingdom’s response to Canada’s human-rights concerns.

A few weeks after Carr received the memo, the kingdom’s relationship with Canada came under further strain — as did its relations with many countries — as details emerged about the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

Adam Austen, a spokesman for Freeland, said Thursday that Saudi Arabia’s explanations for the killing have been inadequate and that Canada has called for a thorough, credible and independent international investigation.

There is a yawning chasm in perceptions of the gender pay gap between men and women in Canada, but a majority of both genders agree that pay equality should be enshrined in law, a new survey has found.

It also found that, among women, political leanings make a big difference in perceptions of pay equity.

In a poll of 1,501 employed Canadians, the Angus Reid Institute found that eight in 10 women (79 per cent) say the gender pay gap is a “serious issue” in Canada, but barely more than half — 51 per cent — of men agree.

There were notable gaps in other related questions.

“Across all age groups, male workers are at least twice as likely as their female peers to say that any gap in pay is based on the decisions that women make, rather than discrimination,” Angus Reid said in a report.

Watch: Iceland makes it illegal to pay women less than men. Story continues below.

Interestingly, younger men are more likely than older ones to believe the pay gap is the result of women’s own choices. Forty-seven per cent of employed men aged 18 to 34 feel this way, compared to 33 per cent of men aged 55 and over. Among women, 76 or 77 per cent in all age groups disagreed.

“These types of differences largely come down to the fact that one gender may be more aware of, alive to, or affected by the issue,” Angus Reid executive director Shachi Kurl said in an email to HuffPost Canada.

She noted that other studies have shown similar gender differences, on issues such as the #metoo movement and women in politics.

Among women, there’s a stark difference in perceptions of the gender gap based on political leanings. While only 16 or 17 per cent of women in any age group say that the gender gap is the result of women’s decisions, a full third of women who identify with the Progressive Conservatives agreed with that.

Fewer than 10 per cent of women who identify with the Liberals or the NDP agree.

Men and women’s views are more aligned when it comes to legislation on the gender gap, with a majority of both — 82 per cent of women and 58 per cent of men — supporting a law that would require businesses with more than 25 employees to obtain equal pay certification.

The survey found that 21 per cent of women and 13 per cent of men see a pay gap in their own workplace.

“Canadians see this as a broader issue beyond their own take home pay,” Kurl said.

“They may not be personally affected (or not realize they are personally affected), but it represents a greater issue of fairness and parity, which you don’t have to be personally impacted by to carry a belief in.”

The poet Robert Frost wrote that good fences make good neighbours. He knew what he was talking about. When one person’s property is not clearly separated from the other’s, it creates opportunities for costly disputes.

Trees at or near a property line can create conflicts that end up with neighbours facing off against each other in court.

Sometimes a tree will break in a windstorm, damaging the neighbour’s house or car. The owner of the tree may or not be responsible. It will depend on the condition the tree was in. If it was known to have rotted, the owner may be liable for not having dealt with it earlier.

These disputes fall under the law of “nuisance.” That’s a common word, but also the legal term used when something on one property harms its neighbours. Nuisance is an area in which the judge has a lot of discretion.

Every claim of nuisance has its own unique facts. The judge has to use her own personal wisdom to determine what is fair and reasonable. One of the legal tests is “substantial interference.” Whether something is substantial is in the eye of the beholder. Going to court with such a claim carries risks. The outcome is seldom predictable.

A few years ago, an Ottawa homeowner installed a backyard swimming pool. To her misfortune, she soon found that the neighbour’s tree roots were encroaching on her property. They caused her pool to crack.

She sued her neighbour to have the tree removed, on the grounds that it was creating a nuisance on her property. The judge was not very sympathetic. He observed that modern society places a high value on the preservation of the “urban forest.” He told the pool owner that she would have to come back with a stronger argument, including showing that the problem could not have been anticipated before the pool was installed.

Another example of the respect given to trees was seen in a Toronto case decided in March of 2019, by Justice Ed Morgan of Ontario’s Superior Court.

A mature maple tree, with a diameter of more than a metre, was growing right smack dab in the middle of the property line. Who knew, when the wind dropped that seed all those years ago, the trouble this would cause?

The law says that a tree that is right on the lot line is the joint property of both neighbours. Ordinarily, it cannot be killed unless both neighbours have agreed to it.

This tree happened to be in Toronto’s leafy and upscale Moore Park neighborhood. One of the neighbours has a growing family. They wanted to build an addition to the back of the house to expand it — a not uncommon move in Toronto’s hot property market. The plans that their architect drew up would have required cutting down this big old maple tree.

Trees are protected by a Toronto by-law. However, if you make a strong enough case for it, the city will sometimes give its permission to chop down a tree. The city gave its assent, but the neighbours who were the joint owners of the tree did not.

Therefore, the builders went to court. They applied for the court’s permission to have the tree cut down. They said it was a nuisance because it substantially interferes with the use of their land.

The judge weighed the matter in the balance. One neighbour had a need for more rooms, while the other neighbour loved the tree and wanted to maintain the beauty of its shade. He looked at the plans for construction. In this case, it might have been possible to build the addition elsewhere on the lot.

The neighbours applying to cut down the tree had not provided any evidence that they had considered alternative construction plans that might have saved the tree. Based on that factor alone, the judge denied their application. He awarded legal costs to the neighbours who wanted to preserve the tree.

For the time being, the old maple tree is saved. Time will tell whether the builders will alter their design plans, or merely return to court with stronger arguments for cutting down the tree.

As this case shows, it’s vital to consider all the alternatives before making such an application. It’s important to keep in mind the high value of mature trees for the urban environment. They provide cooling shade and help clean the air of pollutants. Quite properly, the law gives them a significant amount of protection.

This is provided as general information, and should not be considered legal advice for your particular case. Peter Spiro is a Toronto lawyer who provides unbundled legal advisory services for self-represented litigants, www.peterspiro.com

OTTAWA — The Liberal government is taking steps to stem the tide of asylum seekers who’ve been crossing into Canada from the U.S. at unofficial border crossings.

Tucked into this year’s 392-page omnibus budget bill, which arrived in the House of Commons Monday evening, is a provision that would prevent anyone who has made a refugee claim in certain other countries from making another claim in Canada. The provision applies to claims made in countries with which Canada has information-sharing agreements.

Only a handful of countries qualify. The United States, through which all of the irregular border crossers pass, is one of them.

Mathieu Genest, a spokesman for Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen, said the change’s primary effect is expected to be on people whose refugee claims have been rejected in the United States and who then try again in Canada.

The language says that just having made a claim is enough to be rendered ineligible, however.

The provision is based on the belief that Canada’s refugee system is similar enough to that of the U.S. that anyone rejected there is likely to be rejected here as well, Genest said.

People deemed ineligible to make a claim in Canada will not necessarily be deported to their homelands. Genest said they will still undergo a pre-removal risk assessment to determine if it is safe to send them back to their countries of origin.

Canada has a “Safe Third Country Agreement” with the U.S. that treats it as a place that’s equivalent to Canada for asylum claimants. If a would-be refugee arrives at a land-border crossing from the United States saying he or she wants to make a claim, border officers turn the person back. But the agreement has a loophole — it doesn’t apply to people who are already on Canadian soil when they make their claims.

That has prompted thousands of people who fear deportation from the United States to cross the Canadian border through fields and forests.

Many of them are from countries such as Haiti, whose citizens have had “temporary protected status” in the U.S. That status prevents them from being deported to dangerous places even if their individual claims aren’t accepted. Other countries on that list include Syria, Nepal, Somalia and Yemen.

Under President Donald Trump, the United States has been trying to shorten the list.

It first cut Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The move has been halted by a court order, but it put tens of thousands of people on notice that they could be expelled from the U.S. and has helped touch off the northward flow of people.

Although the government’s budget bill is mostly about tax and spending measures, it includes numerous other provisions on everything from immigration to airport security, formally creating new departments for Indigenous affairs and changing the borders of national parks.

A similar omnibus bill last year included a measure letting prosecutors negotiate “deferred prosecution agreements” for corporations accused of certain crimes, setting the stage for the SNC-Lavalin affair that has beleaguered the Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government for months.

The federal Liberal government is taking criticism online after announcing it’s giving retailer Loblaw Co. $12 million under a clean energy program.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna announced on Monday that Loblaw would receive the money on top of its own $36-million contribution to upgrade the refrigeration units at 370 Loblaw-owned stores across the country.

The government estimates the changes will reduce carbon emissions from those stores by 23 per cent.

“By investing in these projects, from coast to coast to coast, the Government of Canada is making sure we are positioned to succeed in the $26-trillion global market for clean solutions and to create good middle class jobs today and for the future,” McKenna said in a statement.

But many critics online questioned why Loblaw Co., which turned a profit of $754 million in the 2018 fiscal year, would need federal help to pay for equipment upgrades. The controversy spurred a hashtag, #LoblawsGiveItBack.

NDP leader Jagmeet Singh pointed out in a tweet that Loblaw Co. shareholders recently rejected a proposal to pay workers a living wage, after company executives campaigned against the proposal. The company has also vocally opposed minimum wage hikes.

The company revealed in 2017 that it was part of a multi-year conspiracy to fix the price of bread along with numerous other food retailers in Canada.

Though Loblaw was lauded in some circles for confessing publicly to the misdeed, others criticized the retailer for attempting to turn the issue into a marketing opportunity. The company offered shoppers $25 gift cards by way of apology.

The funding for Loblaws’ retrofit comes from the $450-million federal Low Carbon Economy Challenge, a program that offers provinces, cities, Indigenous groups, businesses and non-profits co-financing for “innovative” projects that reduce carbon emissions.

CORRECTION:An earlier version of this story implied that the total cost of the project would be $36 million. In fact, this is the amount of Loblaw Co.’s contribution.

MISSISSAUGA, Ont. — Maple Leaf Foods Inc. has announced plans to build a US$310-million plant-based protein food processing facility in the United States.

The company says the new plant will be in Shelbyville, Ind., as it works to expand its plant-based protein business.

It will also invest approximately US$26 million to keep pace with growth in demand at its existing facilities.

Watch: The health benefits of eating a plant-based diet. Story continues below.

The announcement comes several months after Maple Leaf announced an overhaul of its Ontario operations that will reduce employment in the province by about 300 people.

The company plans to spend $660 million on a new facility in London, Ont, that will replace three aging plants.

Company CEO Michael McCain said last month he sees a bright future for Maple Leaf in plant-based proteins.

The company launched Greenleaf Foods SPC in October, a subsidiary headquartered in Chicago that will add to Maple Leaf’s plant-based food offerings.

In January, the company launched a new pea-protein Lightlife burger, first with American food service companies. U.S. grocery stores will start to stock the product in late March, while the Canadian launch won’t take place until April.

“We are really, really jazzed up about this,” said McCain, saying the company seized on the rising demand of alternative proteins that look and taste like meat.

The new Indiana facility will double the company’s current production capacity and produce tempeh, franks, sausages and raw foods, the company said.

Construction is expected to start in late spring this year, with production start-up expected in the fourth quarter of 2020.

Maple Leaf says it expects to employ approximately 460 people once start-up is completed.

— With earlier reporting from The Canadian Press

By Penelope Graham, Zoocasa

It’s no secret that Ontario’s real-estate market has transformed dramatically since the rules that govern it — the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act (REBBA) — were first established in 2002. Not only has the technology behind transactions changed from fax machines to online contracts, but unprecedented price growth and supply issues in the real-estate markets in Toronto and the surrounding GTA have bred unscrupulous and anti-competitive practices.

For example, the double-ending of transactions, where an agent represents both the buyer and seller, and collects a commission on both deals, has come under particular fire for taking advantage of clients in a hot market. So has the method of pricing listings artificially low to spur interest and incite bidding wars.

The industry and the Province of Ontario have been working to address these issues in the modernization of REBBA 2002. The first phase cracked down on double-ended deals, and proposed to strengthen the Real Estate Council of Ontario’s (RECO) disciplinary powers and increase maximum fines for unethical agents. This is all a step in the right direction to better protect buyers and sellers.

However, other proposals for REBBA’s revamping unfortunately miss the mark — namely a recent call from the Ontario Real Estate Association to ban “bully,” or pre-emptive, offers. While the proposal has the noblest of intentions in “levelling the playing field” for home buyers, such a measure would only restrict choice and agency for home sellers, while overlooking a key compliance gap that has remained prevalent in the market.

Accepting a bully offer is up to the seller

A bully offer is a bid to purchase a property before the designated offer date indicated on the listing. These offers are typically aggressive, coming in at asking price or higher, without conditions, and usually with a short expiry window. While the size of an average bully can range depending on market factors and home type, they’re meant to be large enough to sway the seller to forgo their offer night, hedging on the chance they won’t receive one or more additional offers that are more attractive. A successful bully buyer is then saved the trouble of having to potentially compete in a stressful bidding war, and the seller spared the hassle of keeping the home on the market longer than they have to.

Making, or accepting, a bully offer isn’t without its controversies. Anecdotal experience from Zoocasa real-estate agents suggests sellers in hot markets who eschew bullies and hold out for offer night are more likely to benefit from a bidding war, netting a higher selling price. As per OREA’s argument, they’re also a point of frustration for buyers, who may feel they’ve been shut out of the competition before it even started.

Therein lies the rub — this shouldn’t be the case if listing agents are doing their jobs.

Listing agents have a job to do

The existing REBBA 2002 makes it crystal clear the steps listing agents must make when receiving pre-emptive offers: should they receive a bully offer their clients are willing to work with, they must notify in writing anyone else who had expressed any interest in the property.

In a bulletin issued on Feb. 21, 2017, RECO spells out:

As they are ethically bound to always act in their client’s best interest, listing agents are obliged to ensure their sellers have every opportunity to consider all possible offers available to them — and you should expect any agent worth their salt to frantically hit the phones once a bully comes in. Unfortunately, not all agents will do this due diligence, either because they have their own vested interest in the outcome of the transaction, or they simply don’t wish to do the legwork.

This became especially prevalent during the market’s peak in early 2017, when some agents went as far as to explicitly state in listings they would reserve the right to accept bully offers without providing notice. This is in breach of REBBA 2002, and prompted a requisite warning from RECO.

This lies bare the true issue of compliance in the real-estate industry, and the need to give RECO the teeth and resources it needs to actually enforce the issue. While incorrect offer handling makes up the bulk of RECO’s complaint list, it can take months — or even years — under the current system to achieve any recourse. It is here that efforts to improve the system should be focused, rather than removing sellers’ autonomy to work with any offer they choose, regardless of when they receive it.

Penelope Graham is the managing editor of Zoocasa.com, a real-estate website that combines online search tools and a full-service brokerage to let Canadians purchase or sell their homes faster, easier and more successfully. Home buyers and sellers can browse listings across the nation, including the Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto real estate markets on the site, or with Zoocasa’s free iOs app.

TORONTO — Statistics Canada says the average cost of a gram of dried cannabis has gone up by more than 17 per cent since legalization, with consumers in New Brunswick and Manitoba seeing the biggest sticker shock.

The government agency says the average price per gram post-legalization was $8.04, approximately 17.3 per cent higher than the pre-legalization price of $6.85.

Watch: What to know about cannabis and credit cards. Story continues below.

“The purchase price from legal sources was, on average, 56.8 per cent higher than the purchase price from illegal sources,” Statistics Canada said in a report.

“Consumers purchasing from an in-store government-licenced retailer paid $10.73 per gram, making this source of purchase the most expensive.”

Statistics Canada based these conclusions on price quotes gathered using the StatsCannabis crowdsourcing application between Oct. 17, 2018 and March 31. The agency urged caution when interpreting the self-submitted data.

New Brunswick’s pre-legalization cannabis prices were among the lowest in Canada, but the province has seen the biggest post-legalization price surge with an increase of 30.5 per cent, to an average of $8.27 per gram.

Manitoba saw the second-largest post-legalization price hike with an increase of 27.7 per cent to an average of $9.14 per gram.

Statistics Canada says the highest average post-legalization price per gram was in the Northwest Territories at roughly $14.45 per gram compared with the lowest price of $6.75 per gram in Quebec.

— The Canadian Press, with a file from HuffPost Canada