CSA Standard on Home Inspection is now available for review

[Raymond Wand]

The Canadian Standards Association has been working on a CSA Standard for Home Inspection. The document is now posted for public review.

Home Inspection (New Standard) French version coming soon | CSA Public Review System (http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368)

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks for the post Raymond - this is a critically important document that "can" have an impact on ALL Canadian home inspectors. The public consultation stage provides an opportunity for feedback. So if you have some comments or feedback to offer - make sure you do so.

When reviewing it, remember that the home inspector representation (approximately 20%) is outweighed by consumers, contractors and others that have provided their input into the process to date. (Home owners, Building Managers, Contractors, material experts, academia, Home Inspectors, Inspection Associations, Regulators (Buildings, Public Safety), Real estate, insurance, training providers.

"The proposed matrix category of Home Inspector (HI) seems small in proportion to the size of the TC. Shouldn’t it be larger?

It is anticipated that the Home Inspector category of the TC membership (slide #32) would range between 1/5th and 1/3rd of the total membership. CSA Directives require that the number of members in any one category shall not be larger than the combined number of members in the two smallest categories.

It is important to note that a broader input will be achieved through members and individuals involved with Subcommittees, Task Forces, and the Public Review stage."

[Raymond Wand]

I thought it was quite lengthy, and in some instances to in-depth for home inspection.

Do not agree with providing summary, I feel summaries can lead to trouble simply because as we have discussed on various forums that some clients only read the summary missing other pertinent info which in some instances would be important to a buyer.

Other instances are requirement to observe and note items which are not visible or really beyond a home inspection.

Here is one instance.

The inspector should qualitatively assess the water supply pressure at well pumps by observing the pressure gauge cut in and cut out values while the system is operating. Turning on faucets in two or more remote locations can facilitate this review. Supply on municipal systems might require backflow prevention in some jurisdictions and the inspector should record the make, model, and suitability of the valve according to supply pipe size. Really? How would I know what is called for?

CSA seems to want to cover items that I am not even familiar with. Of course I did note the Standards were written by a P.Eng. This likely explains the over abundance of needless reporting of systems that fall outside of our current inspection standards.

I hope it gets whittled down and the public input is not extraneous and imposing from a point of view that the public does not fully understand the inspection process and requirement or needs to make an informed decision.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Yes, the current details provide more risk on the backs of the home inspector. As an example - do we really need more risk for concealed conditions or if the material is actually carcinogenic?

On another note that CSA Standards are mostly fee paid for use documents. This concern was raised during discussions at the Ontario H.I. licensing panel, especially relative to "legal" use.

There are other similar documents such as the ASTM Standard for Property Guide for Property Condition Assessments. On the consumer side how many home buyers or home sellers would want to pay for the document.

The general consent several years ago seem to be most associations seem to be against a paid fee system. We already have similar "standards" that already cover the majority of these in the scope of work descriptions. Even a baseline comparison with the current ASHI SoP, the others I have reviewed are really similar. So what is the BIG deal in creating one universal Canadian Standard when there's clear evidence that the courts in Canada have already recognized standards of practice of ASHI, CAHPI, etc.

[Jerry Peck]

The Canadian Standards Association has been working on a CSA Standard for Home Inspection. The document is now posted for public review.

Home Inspection (New Standard) French version coming soon | CSA Public Review System (http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368)

Only made it down through section 3 so far, left a few comments :) , will need to go back later and start at section 4 to continue on.

[John Kogel]

OK so now I gotta lay in a crawlspace waiting for the pump to kick out with 3 faucets running upstairs? Nope, not gonna happen. ;)

About a month ago, we got a call from an angry tenant, Seems she came home to a dry well. Wasn't me, tho, it was the septic guy.

[Raymond Wand]

I wonder what Mike Holmes would have to say on the draft proposals? I guess he would have to take a sledge hammer to the CSA headquaters in order to find the answers. :p

[Graham Ashdown]

Ridiculous that this went for public review in its current condition. The document is flawed.

More appalling is that seemingly they would like to have it vetted on the backs of home inspectors gratis.

[Raymond Wand]

Graham,

Welcome to the forum. I concur with your assessment.

Best!

[Raymond Wand]

Legal Notice for Draft Standards

Canadian Standards Association (CSA) standards are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the Standards Council of Canada. This process brings together volunteers representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus and develop a standard. Although CSA administers the process and establishes rules to promote fairness in achieving consensus, it does not independently test, evaluate, or verify the content of standards. During this process, CSA makes the draft standard available for comment, review, and approval.

Disclaimer and exclusion of liability

This is a draft document for the purpose of comment, review, and approval only. This document is provided without any representations, warranties, or conditions of any kind, expressed or implied, including, without limitation, implied warranties or conditions concerning this document’s fitness for a particular purpose or use, its merchantability, or its non-infringement of any third party’s intellectual property rights. CSA does not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or currency of any of the information published in this document. CSA makes no representations or warranties regarding this document’s compliance with any applicable statute, rule, or regulation.

IN NO EVENT SHALL CSA, ITS VOLUNTEERS, MEMBERS, SUBSIDIARIES, OR AFFILIATED COMPANIES, OR THEIR EMPLOYEES, DIRECTORS, OR OFFICERS, BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, INJURY, LOSS, COSTS, OR EXPENSES, HOWSOEVER CAUSED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, LOST REVENUE, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOST OR DAMAGED DATA, OR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL OR ECONOMIC LOSS, WHETHER BASED IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR ANY OTHER THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF OR RESULTING FROM ACCESS TO OR POSSESSION OR USE OF THIS DOCUMENT, EVEN IF CSA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, INJURY, LOSS, COSTS, OR EXPENSES.

In publishing and making this document available, CSA is not undertaking to render professional or other services for or on behalf of any person or entity or to perform any duty owed by any person or entity to another person or entity. The information in this document is directed to those who have the appropriate degree of experience to use and apply its contents, and CSA accepts no responsibility whatsoever arising in any way from any and all use of or reliance on the information contained in this document.

CSA is a private not-for-profit company that publishes voluntary standards and related documents. CSA has no power, nor does it undertake, to enforce compliance with the contents of the standards or other documents it publishes.

Intellectual property rights and ownership

As between CSA and the users of this document (whether it be in printed or electronic form), CSA is the owner of all works contained herein that are protected by copyright, all trade-marks (except as otherwise noted to the contrary), and all inventions and trade secrets that may be contained in this document, whether or not such inventions and trade secrets are protected by patents and applications for patents. The unauthorized use, modification, copying, or disclosure of this document may violate laws that protect CSA's intellectual property and may give rise to a right in CSA to seek legal redress for such use, modification, copying, or disclosure. CSA reserves all intellectual property rights in this document.

Assignment of copyright

A user who provides a comment to CSA in relation to this document agrees that the entire copyright in the comment is hereby assigned to CSA and waives all associated moral rights, such that CSA is the exclusive owner of such comment and may use such comment as it sees fit. The user, being the sole owner of the copyright or having the authority to assign the copyright on behalf of his or her employer, confirms his or her ability to assign the copyright in a comment provided to CSA.

Authorized use of this document

This document is being provided by CSA for informational and non-commercial use only. The user of this document is authorized to do only the following:

If this document is in electronic form:

• load this document onto a computer for the sole purpose of reviewing it;

• search and browse this document; and

• print this document.

Limited copies of this document in print or paper form may be distributed only to persons who are authorized by CSA to have such copies, and only if this Legal Notice appears on each such copy.

In addition, users may not and may not permit others to

• alter this document in any way or remove this Legal Notice from the attached draft standard;

• sell this document without authorization from CSA; or

• make an electronic copy of this document.

If you do not agree with any of the terms and conditions contained in this Legal Notice, you may not load or use this document or make any copies of the contents hereof, and if you do make such copies, you are required to destroy them immediately. Use of this document constitutes your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Legal Notice.

[Claude Lawrenson]

This is very interesting......to say the least.

"Assignment of copyright

A user who provides a comment to CSA in relation to this document agrees that the entire copyright in the comment is hereby assigned to CSA and waives all associated moral rights, such that CSA is the exclusive owner of such comment and may use such comment as it sees fit. The user, being the sole owner of the copyright or having the authority to assign the copyright on behalf of his or her employer, confirms his or her ability to assign the copyright in a comment provided to CSA."

[Jerry Peck]

This is very interesting......to say the least.

"Assignment of copyright

A user who provides a comment to CSA in relation to this document agrees that the entire copyright in the comment is hereby assigned to CSA and waives all associated moral rights, such that CSA is the exclusive owner of such comment and may use such comment as it sees fit. The user, being the sole owner of the copyright or having the authority to assign the copyright on behalf of his or her employer, confirms his or her ability to assign the copyright in a comment provided to CSA."

Basically, it has to be such, otherwise everyone who makes a comment which is ultimately used would (could) claim a copyright for their comment(s) ... that would be a complete nightmare.

If you do not participate ... then no one can say that you were not given a chance to participate but you declined to do so.

I made some (many) comments on the few sections I've gone through so far - what I wonder is do I only see my comments or are all comments seen by all reviewers? If the person who made comments only sees their comments, then they can (should) expect to receive multiple similar comments, whereas showing all reviewers all comments would help not only reduce that, but seeing another comment may click the light on and another can improve on the comment (like happens in open meetings and open discussions).

[Jerry Peck]

Parts of the standard will make life simple for you guys: (bold is mine)
"
Inspections are not required on systems and components that are blocked by furniture or other items (e.g. stored items), require tools for disassembly of covers or are otherwise not readily accessible to a visual inspection except as explicitly required in this standard.
"

No longer would you have to remove a cover which is held in place with screws or would requires a tool to remove the cover. :)

[John Kogel]

Parts of the standard will make life simple for you guys: (bold is mine)
"
Inspections are not required on systems and components that are blocked by furniture or other items (e.g. stored items), require tools for disassembly of covers or are otherwise not readily accessible to a visual inspection except as explicitly required in this standard.
"

No longer would you have to remove a cover which is held in place with screws or would requires a tool to remove the cover. :)
We already have those basic disclaimers in our SOP's.
Everybody knows that you can't do a standard inspection of the electrical panel without moving junk aside and removing the cover.
You can't tell people the age and condition of the mobile home water heater without moving junk aside and removing the wall panel.
You can't access the crawlspace unless you remove move junk aside and remove screws, etc.

I look forward to one good standard for all, but have you ever sat down with 100 home inspectors and got them to agree on anything? Now try that with 3,000 inspectors. ;)

[Scott Patterson]

It's a goat roping mess! It reminds of the attempt by ASTM to write a national standard for home inspectors in the States. Just a gosh awful mess!

I really have never understood why folks are constantly trying to reinvent the inspection standard wheel with the creation of new and "better" standards. Pretty much anyone or any government body in any country can have access and use of a proven and tested home inspection standard. ASHI will make available it's updated Standard in a sanitized non association bias format just for the asking. All they ask is for credit to be given to their organization. I know, I know Canada wants it to be a Canadian written document.....and apparently regardless of the outcome....

[Scott Patterson]

Well Scott you would not know this but I did put a good light on ASHI Inspectors in Ontario. When I first discussed the problems, I did not support the efforts of the CSA. I still support one standard for SOP.

Many do not realize it but a couple home inspector groups (non-ASHI) in Canada have been using ASHI Standards for awhile.

[Kiernan Streold]

Parts of the standard will make life simple for you guys: (bold is mine)
"
Inspections are not required on systems and components that are blocked by furniture or other items (e.g. stored items), require tools for disassembly of covers or are otherwise not readily accessible to a visual inspection except as explicitly required in this standard.
"

No longer would you have to remove a cover which is held in place with screws or would requires a tool to remove the cover. :)

"except as explicitly required in this standard."

[Jerry Peck]

"except as explicitly required in this standard."

And, if not "explicitly required" ... then it is "not required" ... and ... (although I may have missed it) ... I did not find anywhere in those CSA standards which "explicitly required" ANY covers or panels to be removed or opened - not for water heaters, not for heating or cooling equipment, not for electrical, etc.

Please review section 5 where it tells about what is to be done and find where it "explicitly requires" a cover or panel to be opened or removed and post that for me (as I said, I may have missed it).

[Len Inkster]

"except as explicitly required in this standard."

Kiernan, Good point, but I also see in section 1.4

"In CSA Standards:

“shall” is used to express a requirement, i.e., a provision that the user is obliged to satisfy in order to comply with the standard;
“should” is used to express a recommendation or that which is advised but not required;
“may” is used to express an option or that which is permissible within the limits of the standard;
“can” is used to express possibility or capability.

Notes accompanying clauses do not include requirements or alternative requirements; the purpose of a note accompanying a clause is to separate from the text explanatory or informative material.

Notes to tables and figures are considered part of the table or figure and may be written as requirements.

Annexes are designated normative (mandatory) or informative (non-mandatory) to define their application. "

I notice this standard is full of "should", "may" and "can" with not a substantive amount of "shall". There are no normative Annexes.

When compared side-by-side to the ACHI or ASHI standards already in play, there is little in the mandatory sections that differ from what is already published, and indeed some would say less. There are a lot of increases in the liability in the optional areas, which are defined by a new mandatory scoping requirement, but these are also clearly defined in the ACHI and ASHI SoPs along with recommendations from the Inspection Organisations to ensure proper scope is identified AND explained to the client PRIOR to an Inspection.

What I hoped for out of the CSA was some fantastic piece of work that would give details to guide and protect home inspectors whilst at the same time ensure the scope of the Inspection process and procedures would be detailed yet unambiguous to guide the public to have more confidence in what is on offer a part of a Home Inspection.

What I see is a wishy-washy rework of a poor combination of what has been developed, and regularly updated, over a number of years by the professionals working in the industry. It is self-promoting and points to other standards that will no doubt increase the coffers of the CSA and the costs to the profession.

Still the governments and their "plausible deniability" agencies don't realise a fundamental fact: Home Inspections, unlike electrical work, HVAC installations, plumbing are NOT MANDATORY. Any increase in cost that has to get passed on to the consumer reduces the likelihood of a Home Inspection. In increases the risk to the consumer. It increases the likelihood of business failure to the Home Inspector. Increases the burden on the taxpayer. Increases the burden on the legal system. It makes any task of regulating the profession harder, more costly and more importantly...............go back to start of this paragraph. :frusty:

[Raymond Wand]

Rather interesting feedback from CSA program manager.

I have sent two emails to CSA requesting info.

Email # 1 to CSA

... I have reviewed the draft CSA standards on Home Inspections, and I am curious as to who is on the technical committee. Can you tell me who is on the committee?

Reply from CSA to Email # 1.


The Technical Committee is comprised of members in four different categories:

· Home Inspector members including representatives from associations such as CAHPI (National), CanNACHI, InterNACHI (Provincial Chapter), PHPIC, as well as large firms and other independent home inspectors

· Consumer Interest members including representatives from Consumers Council of Canada, Homeowner Protection Centre, and the CSA Consumer Representative program

· General Interest members including representatives from trades, insurance, colleges, and real estate

· Regulators representing consumer interests from a number of provinces and territories

If you have technical comments on the draft, you can use the Public Review system to ensure that CSA receive them. At the close of Public Review, the Technical Committee will review and may use to make modifications.

Email # 2 to CSA

... Can you tell me the names of the individuals on the committee?
Thank you.

Reply from CSA to Email # 2.


The membership on a Technical Committee is subject to change during the development phase, with the official membership being the one that approves the standard at the final ballot. A committee membership list is not publicly distributed at this point, but will be included in the final published standard.

Why the secrecy? I would have thought since the public and industry related people have been asked for comment to CSA A770 the names would be publicly available. I don't think its acceptable for inspectors not to know the names of those who are deciding our fate. Something wrong with this equation in my mind.

[Raymond Wand]

CSA Community Blog
Public Review Update: Home Inspection Standard A770
Posted by Paul Gulletson in Construction and Engineering on Oct 29, 2014 4:28:00 PM

After two weeks of public review, we have received 400 comments from 285 people. As expected, there is a great deal of public interest in this important standard! The public review draft can be seen here:

Home Inspection (New Standard) | CSA Public Review System (http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368)
58 Views Tags:

[Garry Sorrells]

..........

Why the secrecy? I would have thought since the public and industry related people have been asked for comment to CSA A770 the names would be publicly available. I don't think its acceptable for inspectors not to know the names of those who are deciding our fate. Something wrong with this equation in my mind.


Secrecy, possibly so that they could not contacted and their opinion swayed. Tough it would be nice for the condemned to know who is sitting on the jury while the trial is going on.

[Garry Sorrells]

OK so now I gotta lay in a crawlspace waiting for the pump to kick out with 3 faucets running upstairs? Nope, not gonna happen. ;)
......

And how would be such a hardship to note the high and low limits to the well pump settings? Then again the pump may not be able to service the volume required with valves opened and you might be there for the rest of your life or till someone came looking for you. Provided that the SOP did not provide any time requirement/criteria on the testing.

Then if you were not to do this if required by law it would only mean that you would not inspect any properties with a well, problem solved...:)

[Raymond Wand]

This whole licencing issue and CSA is not home inspector driven, its driven by politicians who have an agenda, a reason to collect more money, conflicts of interest, business interests, association politics and misrepresentation of facts to suit the agendas.

Secrecy has been the better part of it. When you want answers all you get is politically correct answers.

- - - Updated - - -

Draft Standard CSA-A770 Home Inspection

Why The Urgency!

As you may or may not be aware, the Government of Alberta has hired CSA to write a CSA Standard for Home Inspections! If you enjoy your work as a Home Inspector you must get involved as this will dramatically change the way you do business. Hopefully I have your attention as your input is needed. This will take a few minutes to read.

In light of all the e-mails and forums out there we must all realize that change is upon us. This is no longer about “Us” the home inspector. CSA, as an independent body that speaks on behalf of “Stake Holders”, (today’s fancy words for “Society / Everyone Involved”). It’s the consensus of your Board of Directors that both Licensing in Ontario and a CSA Standard are inevitable. As opposed to taking a “The Sky is Fall Approach” we suggest taking a positive stand to help insure that we get the best possible Rules and Regulations in order to provide realistic “Consumer Protection”. (“realistic” based on what a home inspector can realistically do, as a guest in a strangers home, during a pre-purchase home inspection.)

“Draft Standard CSA-A770 Home Inspection” was released on October 16th requesting public input by Dec. 15, 2014. Provide your comments at; http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368

Background:

Because Licensing in Alberta has not been as successful as originally envisioned, the Alberta Government has turned to CSA (Canadian Standards Association) to write and official Standard for Home Inspections. There is an implied assumption that it will then be implemented by Governments across Canada. Here in Ontario the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services have been waiting for this document as they continue to consider Licensing Legislation. (Note Premier of Ontario has mandated to continue with the Licensing project)

OAHI Approach:

Typically the OAHI has an individual committee review and prepare a report , on behalf of the membership, regarding such matters. However, CSA’s policy is such that they want feedback from individuals, hence a submission from OAHI and one from you personally will be, for the most part, judged with equal merit !

Based on this your Board members will be out and actively participating in this month’s Regional Meeting Groups, to encourage discussion and member participation in reviewing CSA-A770. Then closer to the end of the month, when more members have gotten involved, we’d like to do a pole regarding your comments on a number of points. There are no restrictions as to your membership level in the OAHI as all members of the public are welcome to participate in reviewing CSA-A770. Don’t be afraid to share the CSA link with others, Realtors included!

CSA Points to get your attention!

The following are a couple of quotes and comments from/regarding the report:

Condominiums:

It suggests in the report that home inspectors should be responsible for reviewing the “Statues Certificate” as part of a home inspection:

Landscaping / Quote:

“major plantings should be inspected for overall health, as well as presence of invasive species”

Concrete Slabs / Quote (basements / garage floors):

“Measurements of level and variation from plane should be made using a long spirit level, laser level, or similar device and wide cracks should be measured with suitable gauges as opposed to being estimated”.

Decks:

It implies that decks will become more of a “Municipal Code” inspection. How many municipalities to you work in?

Other:

There are suggestions for home inspectors to check HRV balancing via the CMHC “Garbage Bag Test” and use a Smoke Pencil around doors and widow to check for drafts.

Conclusion:

Hopefully the above points have sparked your attention enough to get involved. On behalf of the OAHI I urge you to go to the web-site below before Dec. 15th and register your comments. Remember, if we focus on “Consumer Protection” and calm down our emotions long enough to be subjective and remain positive with our comments, we should get a lot further than taking “The Sky is Falling” approach.

Again it’s: http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368

Note: We are currently waiting for a document from CSA that will better explain the process followed to formulate the “Draft”. If it’s not included / attached with this letter it will be forwarded as soon as we receive it.


Many Thanks and “Please” get involved !
Bruce McClure RHI,ACI / OAHI President

[Raymond Wand]

That's a very fair assessment from OAHI, the way I see it.

[Claude Lawrenson]

That's a very fair assessment from OAHI, the way I see it.

Here's another assessment - https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-alberta-home-inspections-soar-182707325.html;_ylt=AwrTHRj1ZGVU52UABuVXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzZ2E1bHRjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDU1NV8x

Especially interesting on how the inspection sector in Canada and consumers will be dramatically impacted. How many clients will be willing to cough up $1000 or more for a home inspection? How many vendors will be willing to permit several days in their home to fulfill the proposed completion of the CSA standards?

[Raymond Wand]

If adopted, the proposed new Standard oversteps the accepted Standards used throughout North America. It has the potential to negatively impact the Real Estate Industry as a whole. What is unknown is how Home Sellers, Home Buyers and Realtors will react to a Home Inspection that could take 1 to 2 days to complete.

If this proposed Standard is accepted, it could effectively cripple the industry as we know it. Home inspectors from across Alberta urge everyone to give their input.

I would like to be a fly on the wall to hear what Laura Leyser has been saying on the subject since the new standard would affect her profession just as much as ours. Remember she was gung ho on having CREA push for licencing back several years ago in London Ontario, @ the home inspector licencing conference.

Becareful what you wish for Laura. :help: :)

[Claude Lawrenson]

That is some halarious stuff. LOL

So - what happened to the primarily "visual" only inspection?

Home inspectors advertising the use of all these tools now created a new level of expectation. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it leads to raising the inspection expectation bar.

Perhaps the next tool will be x-ray vision to verify frame spacing, and what's concealed in the construction.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Home Inspection Standards are not a new phenomenon to home inspectors. ASHI (the American Society of Home Inspectors) the oldest North American association for home inspectors has been in existence and flourishing since 1976. It regularly goes through a very rigorous process of reviewing and updating its Standards of Practice. The last updated version was released within the last year. The Standards of Practice (SOP) provides a detailed scope of work for conducting a home inspection. It provides a detailed list of what’s included or excluded from a home inspection. The vast majority of offshoot home inspection associations can trace the roots of their version of the Standards of Practice as a derivative of the ASHI SOP. Even legal court outcomes cite reference to established Standards of Practice.

Bottom line – consumers and consumer protection agencies need to be part of the education and communication process acknowledging and understanding what home inspectors really do or do not do as “general technical home inspection” professionals. Ultimately the expectation level must simply be tempered to reflect a reasonable occupational scope of work norm.

[Raymond Wand]

A reply from CSA and which I also had confirmed in a conversation with them today.
And further to Claudes answers above he provided as to members names on the panel.


The Technical Committee is comprised of members in four different categories:

Home Inspector members including representatives from home inspection associations, large firms, and independent home inspectors
*Consumer Interest members including representatives from various group across Canada
*General Interest members including representatives from trades, insurance, colleges, and real estate
*Regulators representing consumer interests from a number of provinces and territories


The membership on a Technical Committee is subject to change during the development phase, with the official membership being the one that approves the standard at the final ballot. A committee membership list is not publicly distributed at this point, but will be included in the final published standard.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Do Home Inspectors really need a CSA Standard?

The CSA Group (Canadian Standards Association) is well into the process of developing a home inspection standard. Currently it is in the public consultation stage. Initially it was viewed as an opportunity for all home inspectors and inspection associations to once and for all find common ground. Compliance with the CSA standard is voluntary, unless legislated by government or mandated by industry or trade associations. Herein lays the issue. Licensing already exists in several provinces. It is under serious consideration in several others.

Although I believe that the intention was to satisfy the best interest of consumers, to my understanding the standard committee makeup represents consumers, consumer protection agencies, contractors, educators, insurer, realtors, and of course a handful of home inspectors. One concern is the imbalance in the number of home inspectors in relation to all other stakeholders. Less than 1/3rd of the committee, which brings this proposed standard forward, represents home inspectors; does dominance exist?

A claim of dominance is considered a procedural grievance that is eligible for review within the appeals process at the standards developer level. In this regards excerpts from the American National Standards Institute Essential Requirements - The standards development process shall not be dominated by any single interest category, individual or organization. Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.

Home Inspection Standards are not a new phenomenon to home inspectors. ASHI (the American Society of Home Inspectors) the oldest North American association for home inspectors has been in existence and flourishing since 1976. It regularly goes through a very rigorous process of reviewing and updating its Standards of Practice. The last updated version was released within the last year. The Standards of Practice (SOP) provides a detailed scope of work for conducting a home inspection. It provides a detailed list of what’s included or excluded from a home inspection. The vast majority of offshoot home inspection associations can trace the roots of their version of the Standards of Practice as a derivative of the ASHI SOP. Even legal court outcomes cite reference to established Standards of Practice.

Additionally, a number of occupational reviews have been successfully completed over the past decade within Canada by subject matter experts and qualified facilitators. Two of these were substantially funded in the past at the federal level by CMHC and HRSDC. The latest unfunded one was completed by the NHICC (National Home Inspector Certification Council) within the past year, with the support of a wide range of home inspectors representing a large number of Canadian home inspection associations.

To date National Occupational Standards have been formed through the DACUM process. DACUM (Developing A CurriculUM) is a quick, effectively, relatively low cost method of analyzing jobs and occupations that has been used worldwide for more than 40 years. The DACUM process involves the careful selection of individuals from the occupation who become the “Panel of Experts” who collectively and cooperatively describe the occupation in the language of the occupation. DACUM is an occupational analysis led by a trained facilitator, where practitioners in a specific occupation come together for a multiday workshop to provide input about the specific duties, tasks, knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform their job. DACUM provides a legally defensible basis for assessment and certification.

In reviewing recent feedback from a number of sources, it appears a large number of home inspectors are not supportive of the proposed CSA Standard for Home Inspection. In studying the proposed current release a number of concerns immediately come to light. These include and are not limited to the additional work and duties (new expectations) are specified within the document. The impact of the additional time and specifics required to fulfil the proposed “performance” standards will ultimately drive up the cost of a home inspection. Others have pointed to the higher level of risk based on adding other duties and tasks in a home inspection that are normally excluded from the expertise of most home inspectors. These higher risks provide the stimulus for a higher rate of claims which not only impacts insurance rates; it is known to drive some inspectors out of business. From a consumer perspective what may be currently deemed a reasonable inspection cost will significantly reduce the affordability of the service.

The question is – “Why re-invent the wheel?”

The industry has already created National Standards. Home inspectors have operated for well over 3 decades performing to a recognized Standard of Practice. All that is needed is for everyone to consider the value, content and framework based on years of commitment, development and research that applies to what the Canadian Home Inspection sector already created. Even the latest assessment of National Occupational Standards was completed under the facilitation of experienced independent “DACUM” consultants, with a multi-association panel of Canadian Home Inspectors. Simply it works, it’s time tested, and equally as important it has value in establishing the baseline for what consumers should expect from a scope of work for a home inspection from a competent home inspector.

Here’s a recent news piece example “Cost of Alberta Home Inspections to Soar”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-alberta-home-inspections-soar-182707325.html;_ylt=AwrTHRj1ZGVU52UABuVXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzZ2E1bHRjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDU1NV8x

“A typical Home Inspection today, ranges in price from $400 - $600. The proposed changes could easily put future cost in the range of $1200 - $1800 or more. If adopted, the proposed new Standard oversteps the accepted Standards used throughout North America. It has the potential to negatively impact the Real Estate Industry as a whole. What is unknown is how Home Sellers, Home Buyers and Realtors will react to a Home Inspection that could take 1 to 2 days to complete.”

Is this proposed CSA standard really beneficial to consumers or is it overkill? To me it’s a substantial re-do of what already exists, positioned on making the inspector responsible for almost every property condition that may be encountered on a “used” home. Or perhaps if the intent is to cull the home inspector cadre and devalue what currently exist. Perhaps offering a new paradigm, that ultimately increases the professional requirements to the level that requires years of training and expertise. Perhaps offering a home inspector the equivalent of a 6% fee based on the value of property, in order to fairly compensate for that higher level of risk and reduced work potential. After all, home inspections on resale property are not mandatory!

Side note: ASTM (a comparable recognized standards association) in the USA tried this scenario on US home inspectors several years ago. It failed miserably. A coalition of inspection associations banned together and it was quickly dropped from moving forward.
The only way to determine what home inspectors do is to go to the source and solicit the expertise of those workers deemed subject matter experts. DACUMS already achieved that in the past. Why try to reinvent and supersede what is already available from the occupational standard?

Bottom line – consumers and consumer protection agencies need to be part of the education and communication process acknowledging and understanding what home inspectors really do or do not do as “general technical home inspection” professionals. Ultimately the expectation level must simply be tempered to reflect a reasonable occupational scope of work norm.

[Raymond Wand]

Well I am not impressed with DACUM -NOS, its a mess too.

I would rather have a standard developed and refined by "all" inspectors and associated parties.

This is our opportunity to make sure the draft proposal from CSA is the best it can be. Don't miss the opportunity or those of you who sit on your laurels have no reason to bitch when the final product is released.

CSA is committed to hearing from everyone and thus far are pleased with the feedback. Its ultimately the panels decision on what is included and excluded.

[Claude Lawrenson]

I'm sure that no standard claims perfection. I'd be equally interested to hear how DACUMS and the creation of the NOS fail. However, the NOS / DACUMS represent actual home inspector worker input on what the sector inspects as part of a standard home inspection. SOP's have been developed, field applied, and time tested in courts across North America. So they must have some relevance.

On a very recent comparative study level of SOPs and DACUM/NOS results, they all pretty much based on a line by line approach require the same itemized "scope of work" to be performed. There are no huge gaps.

The CSA Standard is largely a regurgitation of what already exists, and in my opinion a wish list of some unrealistic consumer expectations. However, are or will inspectors be willing or capable of adding this to their list just to name a few?

Added from the “proposed” CSA Standard
5.2.7 Automatic irrigation systems
5.3.9 Detached storage buildings, garages, and barns
5.5.2 Grey water reuse supply
5.5.7 Grey water discharge systems
5.7.6 Pipe heat tracing
5.8.5 Emergency lighting
5.10 Barrier free equipment
5.10.1 Accessibility equipment
5.10.2 Accessible use
5.10.3 Alarm devices
5.11 Swimming pools and associated mechanical systems
5.11.1 Pool area
5.11.2 Mechanical system
Or how about from the ASHI SOP?
Appliances – installed ovens, ranges, surface cooking appliances, microwave ovens, dish washing machines, and food waste grinders using normal operating controls to activate the primary function

As an example although I have previously inspected a few barrier free homes, it is interesting that the clients purchasing the property did not require or raise the issue of needing those features. In fact their concern was more about the extra work and costs to remove those features.

Besides even buildings codes, at least in Canada, exempt dwelling units from barrier free design, unless specifically required by the occupant.

What about emergency lighting and irrigation equipment; are these really necessities in a standard home inspection, or even above and beyond a code review expectation on a dwelling unit?

Will pool inspections and it's related equipment now become the expected norm?

Even as a home inspector do you or others inspect for invasive species of noxious plants such as poison ivy that may be lurking on a wooded lot or even unwooded lot? Seems the proposed CSA standard would prove detrimental if one was challenged in court on that issue.

How many new specialist and how much more time will it take to satisfy a CSA standard home inspection?

All Canadian home inspectors should be concerned. But from a balanced approach at the "committee" level, more importantly will our voices and comments really carry the weight to achieve a normal rational norm of what home inspectors really are capable of inspecting?

[Raymond Wand]

CSA home inspection standard challenged by CAHPI (http://renx.ca/csa-home-inspection-standard-challenged-by-cahpi/)

[Raymond Wand]

http://www.home-inspectors.com/Sun_Media_Article1.pdf

Home inspectors to meet national standards | Canada | News | Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/15/canadian-home-inspectors-to-face-regulation)

I guess NHICC should be careful what it wished for! How ironic, now NHICC has soured on the whole CSA collaboration.

[Claude Lawrenson]

http://www.home-inspectors.com/Sun_Media_Article1.pdf

Home inspectors to meet national standards | Canada | News | Toronto Sun (http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/15/canadian-home-inspectors-to-face-regulation)

I guess NHICC should be careful what it wished for! How ironic, now NHICC has soured on the whole CSA collaboration.

The NHICC takes the position that a "fair balance" is required to move the proposed CSA Home Inspection forward. The current CSA standard panel composition appears to put the stakeholders collectively in the position of deciding what the future of the home inspection standard will be. Additionally, there's no commentary on what the home inspection associations have done over the past several decades. To forgo the work, time and efforts, financial funding and findings of the previous and past home inspection standards and than charge for the use of the CSA standard would simply be also unfair and an insult to those involved.

The previous releases you refer to a date back to a time when the NHICC was approached to be the spear head group that seem to satisfy what CSA was looking for. As we now know, that proposal was shelved when the other home inspection associations felt aggrieved and than inundated the CSA with their commentaries.

This only helped prove that home inspection associations do not seem for the large part interested in finding common ground. Perhaps CSA's panel composition approach may be wrong, along with the addition of increasing the scope of work in the high risk duties, but certainly the intent of creating one national standard recognized by one and all is in the best interest of the home inspection sector.

[Claude Lawrenson]

You forgetting that they stuck there noes into S.S.M with the 2 year Home Inspections Technician Program at Sault College.
Now changed to reflect what the object of the course was.
I could take and goggle it but it is easy for anyone to find OK.

Respectfully Kevin - that was not CSA, and certainly was not the NHICC. Neither had anything to do with the 2 year program at the college as you suggest.

Mike Holmes Inspections | Training (http://mikeholmesinspections.com/training/sault-college-partnership)

From the above link - "In January 2011, Mike Holmes partnered with Sault College to introduce a 2-year Inspection Diploma Program. The purpose of the program is to ensure future inspectors acquire the necessary credentials, training and experience to improve the home inspections industry in Canada."

Programs and Courses - Home Inspection Technician :: Sault College (http://www.saultcollege.ca/Programs/Programs.asp?progcode=4075&cat=overview&groupcode=ENG#bd-header)

Mike Holmes visits Sault College for home inspe... | Sault Star (http://www.saultstar.com/2011/01/31/mike-holmes-visits-sault-college-for-home-inspection-course-announcement-2)

[Claude Lawrenson]

Now that the names of the "panel" seems open and posted, lets start with the home inspector contingent named.

How many are associated with either CAHPI or iNACHI? Does this also speak to the concern of unfair representation? How many possibly sit in more than one role? I fail to see balance representation even in that category.

You see the more you analyze the representation, the more the need to be concerned about what may be eventually forced upon home inspectors.

[Raymond Wand]

Members on the CSA A770 Home Inspector panel.


*Members:G. Yates(Chair), R. Guinn(Vice-Chair), D. Aylward, D. Babott, M. Barnes, R. Brady, G. Clarke, J. Eakes, G.R. Genge, R. Hanberg, J.A. Huzar, R. Jobin, D. Kendall, G.R. Larin, L. Leyser, M. Lio, J. Londerville, S. Low, D. Mah, J. Mills, P. Sayne, K. Smith, B. Swan, J. Thomson, T. Welby-Solomon, M. Wellsch, J. Wright
Associates: B.M. Collie, S. Hood, B. Mullen, J. Urquhart
For Information: K. Fenning, J. Ko
(RAC)
Members:D. Aylward, M. Barnes, D. Brezer, K.E. Hanson, S. Hood, J. Ko, G. MacKinnon-Peters, D. Murray, M. Wellsch, G. Yates, B. Greer, A. Nicholson, A. Skelton, C. Stewart, B. Valido*

[Raymond Wand]

I don't know who got the legal opinion, but in my opinion and according to the Competition Bureau of Canada, the CSA A770 standards would not be seen as anti competitive in nature.

Abuse of Dominance: a Serious Anti-competitive Offence - Competition Bureau (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02820.html)
The Abuse of Dominance Provisions - Competition Bureau (http://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/03497.html#s2_0)

There is no control or dominance, CSA does not set prices, nor does it hinder in any manner entry into the inspection business. Their is no conspiracy or collusion to control the market.

[Raymond Wand]

I don't trust anyone! There are so many skeletons in the closet with some of these players who say they represent the profession.

Its a very good point you raise about the associations trying to dominate because that appears to be what is happening! Notice how the crap and baloney gets posted on Nachi forum? These people have not a clue. Competition (monopoly via CSA) breach my arse.

[Raymond Wand]

I truly hope that B. Mullen listed is not the B. Mullen we all have come to mistrust. If it is he has no business on any panel given his fraudulent misuse of RHI, false advertising and conduct unbecoming.

[Claude Lawrenson]

I don't trust anyone! There are so many skeletons in the closet with some of these players who say they represent the profession.

Its a very good point you raise about the associations trying to dominate because that appears to be what is happening! Notice how the crap and baloney gets posted on Nachi forum? These people have not a clue. Competition (monopoly via CSA) breach my arse.

According to ANSI - 1.2 Lack of dominance
The standards development process shall not be dominated by any single interest category, individual or
organization. Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.

2.2 Lack of dominance
Unless it is claimed in writing (including electronic communications) by a directly and materially affected party that a single interest category, individual or organization dominated the standards development process, no test for dominance is required.

Whether balance exists on an ANS consensus body is a numerical determination based on the
applicable procedures and the interest categories relevant to the nature of the standard.

[Raymond Wand]

According to ANSI - 1.2 Lack of dominance
The standards development process shall not be dominated by any single interest category, individual ororganization. Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints.


But the development has not been dominated by single interests, the make up of the panel is diverse.

2.2 Lack of dominance
Unless it is claimed in writing (including electronic communications) by a directly and materially affected party that a single interest category, individual or organization dominated the standards development process, no test for dominance is required.

Which leads me to ask: Has anything been put in writing, and further these are American standards which are not recognized in Canada.

One reason this whole licencing and CSA standards have most likely resulted is because the home inspection biz in Ontario and Canada is so fractured, there is no cohesive voice representing the profession. Its been each association vying for their own dominance and I am most certain the government bodies have clued in on this resulting in the predicament we now find ourselves once again.

I have yet to see anyone of these associations actually do something above board the whole bloody mess is the result of egos, special interests, politics, friends looking out after friends. No one to blame but the management of the associations who answer to know one!

[Claude Lawrenson]

So what internationally recognized standard does CSA use as the standard to develop this proposed standard? I know it's not ANSI, but it was offered as a point of comparison to one common standard recognized internationally.

However, it's interesting to note that ANSI standards are recognized in both provincial and the national building code in Canada. Here's one of many examples - ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1-2010

[Raymond Wand]

Thanks, I did not realize that ANSI is recognized in Canada.

On another note; do you not find all the anger directed at CSA misguided? After all CSA is only doing what its doing at the behest of government interests. Shouldn't all the blame be directed (in Ontario) at the MCS and the manner in which they orchestrated this licencing endeavour?

The blame does not lie at the feet of CSA. As to the make up of the panel, many so called experts, but very few with trench experience. You can bet your sweet bippy that all those questionable standards were not from the home inspector contingent.

Since it was stated that the make up of the panel could chang or be changed, perhaps its time to refresh the make up of the panel?

People on panels holding themselves out to the public and government entities with credentials they do not have a right to use and knowingly purport themselves as members of an association of which they are not is very serious. I think everyone would agree they should step down or be removed. So far not one association has stepped up to the plate. Talk about conflicts ... talk about passing the buck, it could be a mini series.

[Claude Lawrenson]

I do not have a problem with one universal home inspection standard in Canada. I do have an issue with the potential for making a new "animal" out of trying to mix what home inspectors have basically done for decades, and decide to throw new expectations from those that largely have an opinion about what home inspectors should do.

I keep referencing the DACUM process. The process involved in Dacum is to conduct a job analysis to determine the range of skills required to perform the job. In the home inspection sector who is best qualified to decide what home inspectors do, stakeholders or home inspectors? Ultimately the proposed standard will only work if the final product is relevant to most every home inspector. Right now the comments appear to indicate it's flawed in a number of areas.

One scenario proposed - should home inspectors take on systems and components such as irrigation equipment and pool equipment, etc, to name a few new responsibilities, on a typical or standard home inspection? In this area a huge gap exist between those that would actually be competent enough to accept those two additional tasks alone. Now what about the other proposed new additional responsibilities?

I have always believed that most home purchasers are concerned with the main components of a house; not the other possible add-on that would not impact the key purpose of conducting (keyword) "home" inspection - impact on structure, the health living in the home and safety concerns.

Likewise, I'm not against the proposed standard providing reference to other types of related specific inspection services, or referencing the need for other professionals to be employed for their expertise. Why place this as another level of risk on a home inspector. Of course the other way to satisfy that is for the consumer to ultimately pay for those extra services.

Regarding the panel makeup - the decision on who was selected is history. You can agree, like have on who, or why, or balance or imbalance. But currently, it is what it is! Coincidentally I know several people that applied, including myself, that were not accepted. So all I can say is I tried. C'est la vie!

None-the-less, who best understands what home inspectors do? As Judge Stansfield noted in Brownjohn v. Ramsay, 2003 BCPC 2 (CanLII), home inspectors themselves are engaged in a high-risk business, because the inspector virtually invites reliance.

So the more unknowns added to the "to-do" standards list, the more that high-risk can now be categorized as extremely high risk. Again will this ultimately cause many inspectors to leave.

[Raymond Wand]

Halliwell v. Lazarus, 2011 ONSC 390 Date: 2011-01-18

[86] During argument I asked several times for Mr. Edwards’ counsel to explain what value was there in a home inspection that by its terms and conditions purported to remove responsibility for everything except what could be seen visually, where there were no checks or balances for the insight or ability of the inspector to observe and there was no responsibility to explain why something might be significant. While it is obiter and not necessary for my decision, I have not been satisfied that the standards as set out in the standard form documentation handed to the client actually set out standards of care for the industry at all. Rather they appear designed to immunize the inspectors from liability.

[87] The consumer gains no reassurance from these standards. There are no teeth in the standards and, fundamentally, in the circumstance such as the one I have heard about, there was no meeting of the minds to form a contract.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Good find, and interesting case. Although it appears as an opinion by one, I have found quite a number of other cases against home inspectors where the "Standard of Practice" was referenced and recognized as one of the grounds to establish what the inspector had a duty to perform. Perhaps it could set a precedence, but I doubt it based on even more recent case outcomes.

Of course the other depends on what was established by the contract. It seems the focus could be placed on establishing a better and more consistent contract, since the specific limitations seem to also have an impact on what the judge rendered in the decision.

One case in point, some cases limited liability to the cost of the inspection. Some judges upheld that decision, while others found fault. Another case found the home inspector at fault for pool conditions. Normally most home inspectors do not inspect pools. Recent posts on the ASHI forum seemed to provide evidence of such. Of course the SOP of ASHI makes it clear and equally so in most other home inspection SOPs.

[Claude Lawrenson]

From the CSA website: Committee members are designated as voting or non-voting (associate). Bill is listed as an associate, based on his prior background with "national standards".

[Raymond Wand]

Doesn't matter whether he is voting or not. He should not be on any board, he is knowingly falsifying his credentials.

Any other professional body would have shown him the door long ago.

[Harry Janssen]

Wow,it took me a long time,but I finally figured it out,we have the wrong people on the committees representing home inspectors
With out naming names we should of course had RW,KW, and others who post on this site continusly representing us,they of course have all the answers .
Not a day goes by with out their expertise,giving us all the needed info.
Of course all those who have years of knowledge and experience,there opinions do not matter
BM.of course should be excluded,be cause,he knows nothing
Disband the existing members and let the experts run the show
Problem solved,why has no one thought of this before,so simple.

[Raymond Wand]

Wow,it took me a long time,but I finally figured it out,we have the wrong people on the committees representing home inspectors.
You got that right. First time you have anything of importance to say, but there is always a first for you.


With out naming names we should of course had RW,KW, and others who post on this site continusly representing us,they of course have all the answers .
Thats got to be the best line I have heard you say. Of course we know who you are talking about. Kevin Woods and Raymond Wand. And where do you get that silly notion that I am representing 'YOU', I am only here exposing what needs to be exposed. Can't speak for Kevin, he is on his own.


Not a day goes by with out their expertise,giving us all the needed info.
More info then you give anyone here, Nacho or on ASHI. But then again you have always been a great talker and man of no actions.



Of course all those who have years of knowledge and experience,there opinions do not matter
Your right their years of knowledge interlaced with lies, embellishments and misuse of titles they do not hold contrary to legislation which you are very familiar with since you are past president of OAHI. Too funny Harry. You of all people to come here and make statements that don't wash. But then again your attitude and lack of stamina and determination is exactly why under your watch a member absconded with $60k from OAHI of which you did nothing about, not even the police were called in. Why was that Harry? You never did explain that oversight or why the police were not called to the membership. Very suspicious to say the least. Bad oversight on your part, bad decisions on your part and sweep it under the rug has always been your preferred MO.


BM.of course should be excluded,be cause,he knows nothing

You've got that right. Thank you for the confirmation. We are familiar with the manner in which BM has made misrepresentations to members and the press and now by misuse of a protected trademark and provincial act of which you are familiar with. Strange how you brush over this very disturbing concern. But then I look back and see what happen with the $60k and I understand why you would over look the matter.

I also think you are angry with me because I had to report you along with BM to OAHI and MCS on misuse of RHI which you continued to use even though you were no longer a member. Wow thats some record you have.



Disband the existing members and let the experts run the show

I vote you for the panel, you have a lot to add. Just as you have added to the discussion on the topic on Nacho, Inspection News and ASHI. Neary a word from you accept for this dribble.


Problem solved,why has no one thought of this before,so simple.

That's cause we are waiting for you to add something intelligent to the debate. Oh well never a disappointment with as you say 'so simple'. Yes it is simple from a simple person.

Oh before I forget I guess I am not liked very much I have 121 likes on Inspection News. How many likes do you have Harry?

[Raymond Wand]

Nope! I would never accept this position. However I have seen enough from individuals in question.
I also was well received by the original watchdog and will keep him aware of what goes on in Ontario.

Kevin, its the Xmas season I think we should find it in our hearts to forgive Harry for his ignorance, he is very bitter. Sour grapes it sounds like.

[Roy Cooke sr]

You got that right. First time you have anything of importance to say, but there is always a first for you.


Thats got to be the best line I have heard you say. Of course we know who you are talking about. Kevin Woods and Raymond Wand. And where do you get that silly notion that I am representing 'YOU', I am only here exposing what needs to be exposed. Can't speak for Kevin, he is on his own.


More info then you give anyone here, Nacho or on ASHI. But then again you have always been a great talker and man of no actions.



Your right their years of knowledge interlaced with lies, embellishments and misuse of titles they do not hold contrary to legislation which you are very familiar with since you are past president of OAHI. Too funny Harry. You of all people to come here and make statements that don't wash. But then again your attitude and lack of stamina and determination is exactly why under your watch a member absconded with $60k from OAHI of which you did nothing about, not even the police were called in. Why was that Harry? You never did explain that oversight or why the police were not called to the membership. Very suspicious to say the least. Bad oversight on your part, bad decisions on your part and sweep it under the rug has always been your preferred MO.



You've got that right. Thank you for the confirmation. We are familiar with the manner in which BM has made misrepresentations to members and the press and now by misuse of a protected trademark and provincial act of which you are familiar with. Strange how you brush over this very disturbing concern. But then I look back and see what happen with the $60k and I understand why you would over look the matter.

I also think you are angry with me because I had to report you along with BM to OAHI and MCS on misuse of RHI which you continued to use even though you were no longer a member. Wow thats some record you have.




I vote you for the panel, you have a lot to add. Just as you have added to the discussion on the topic on Nacho, Inspection News and ASHI. Neary a word from you accept for this dribble.



That's cause we are waiting for you to add something intelligent to the debate. Oh well never a disappointment with as you say 'so simple'. Yes it is simple from a simple person.

Oh before I forget I guess I am not liked very much I have 121 likes on Inspection News. How many likes do you have Harry?

Welcome back Harry glad t see you try to stay In touch .
Please post some more of your ideas... Roy

[Jerry Peck]

Sour grapes it sounds like.

Sour grapes, huh?

Isn't that what one makes sour whine from ... er ... I meant "whine" ... Dang! Did it again! ... I meant "whine" --- where to heck does that "h" in there keep coming from? ;)

[Raymond Wand]

Without mentioning any names ( I am still laughing ) the H comes from HJ. :pound: :laugh:

[John Kogel]

I liked the Jon Eakes videos. MR Niceguy Housefixer.

( The Jon Eakes Show was percursor to the 'Big Mike Wrestles Drywall Show').
(Psst .. they say Big Mike was discovered building stage props for the JE Show).

Jon Eakes however is no home inspector AFAIK. And of course, he will insisit on the highest of high standards, like all appliances, pools and septic fields included in the cheapo inspection package. Why not? :D:D

[Raymond Wand]

The problem is in my view is that there are people on the panel that are not home inspectors and its most likely they don't understand what a home inspection is or should be without taking into account the costs, the time, present standards, court rulings, the overly needless standards presented by CSA.

On the other hand some of the home inspectors on the panel also have something to sell - courses.

This was posted on the OAHI Face Book page by VP of Carson Dunlop.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ontario-Association-of-Home-Inspectors/203366866398648


Graham Clarke What a silly press release to put out. I'm not sure at all what they were attempting to accomplish. Their time would be better spent being a part of the development of the Standard through the review process. Not fear-mongering or grand-standing. Seriously - what was the point of this press release?

In relation to this article
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-alberta-home-inspections-soar-182707325.html;_ylt=AwrTHRj1ZGVU52UABuVXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEzZ2E1bHRjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dG lkA1ZJUDU1NV8x

I'm also concerned about the secrecy as to who is on the panel. CSA was not willing to release the names. I wonder why? But Graham Clarke (CD) is on the panel.

*Members:G. Yates(Chair), R. Guinn(Vice-Chair), D. Aylward, D. Babott, M. Barnes, R. Brady, G. Clarke, J. Eakes, G.R. Genge, R. Hanberg, J.A. Huzar, R. Jobin, D. Kendall, G.R. Larin, L. Leyser, M. Lio, J. Londerville, S. Low, D. Mah, J. Mills, P. Sayne, K. Smith, B. Swan, J. Thomson, T. Welby-Solomon, M. Wellsch, J. Wright

Associates: B.M. Collie, S. Hood, B. Mullen, J. Urquhart

MCS - Members:D. Aylward, M. Barnes, D. Brezer, K.E. Hanson, S. Hood, J. Ko, G. MacKinnon-Peters, D. Murray, M. Wellsch, G. Yates, B. Greer, A. Nicholson, A. Skelton, C. Stewart, B. Valido*

Follow the money, who is going to gain most with the CSA standards, certainly not home inspectors.

I still believe there should be no business interests on the panel and its clear there is as far as home inspectors listed. (P2P and CD)

Hey but what the hell do I know? ;)

[Raymond Wand]

Some Cdn. Nacho members complained to the Comp. Bureau about CSA. Had any of them read the Comp. Act, it succinctly spells out what triggers contravention of the Act, they would have realized their efforts were a big fat farce and waste of time.

Duh! :flypig:

[Raymond Wand]

Yes Kevin, and we know contrary to Lisa claiming (try as she might) that Nacho is nothing but a marketing company. Paid spokesperson, she doesn't get paid to push the truth she gets paid to do as she is told. :laugh:

[Claude Lawrenson]

Here you go Kevin W - perhaps this will make your day!
TV renovation personality Mike Holmes sued by former CEO | Calgary Herald (http://calgaryherald.com/news/crime/tv-renovation-personality-mike-holmes-sued-by-former-ceo)

[Raymond Wand]

I understand the CSA Webinar was a bust.

CSA seems to be going through the motions of being inclusive, but that appears to be anything but. It seems they operate in secrecy. They wouldn't even release the names of panel members. Why? It's far from a democratic process, and 'consensus based' seems to be used quite a bit, which I think is just a politically correct statement anyway.

The draft should never have been released in the manner in which it was, and then put on our backs to correct (free of charge), what should have been done by CSA. No one knows at this point whether the feedback from inspectors will change what essentially has been presented in the draft. Perhaps CSA just goes through the motion to make one feel part of flawed process?

The only option the way I see it for these folks at CSA and MCS to take note of anything is to stage a work to rule. I know, I know, many inspectors will say they cannot afford to refuse inspections because they have mouths to feed, mortgage payments, et ceteras. But at the end of the day when all this merde comes down the pipeline, these same people may be forced out of the biz (higher costs as a result of insurance, inspection fees, time spent at inspection, increased time to write a report, extremely higher risk, higher insurance rates, contractual changes, change of disclosure of limitations, report formats, courts will be setting new decisions based on new standards which is a big unkown)... due to lack of action(s); so can one not afford a work-to-rule campaign?

We have lost control of our destinies all based on falsities perpetrated by government entities, and the wrong people on these panels, in my view.

Maybe Mike H. should have been on the CSA panel. I don't think he would like these knew standards either. But then again who knows?

[Graham Ashdown]

I replied to the CSA today regarding the draft Standard they presented for review.

If you're bored and have a couple of days to read it, I've attached it for your viewing pleasure.

[Roy Cooke sr]

I replied to the CSA today regarding the draft Standard they presented for review.

If you're bored and have a couple of days to read it, I've attached it for your viewing pleasure.


Well said I do hope all can see what needs to be done Thanks... Roy

[Claude Lawrenson]

I replied to the CSA today regarding the draft Standard they presented for review.

If you're bored and have a couple of days to read it, I've attached it for your viewing pleasure.

Kudos Graham, I have taken the time to read your response. It's bang on!

Although I generally believe that one common standard would seem to make sense, I've become skeptical of the real purpose of attempting to discard what has served many home inspectors for decades. The development and review over those decades to maintain the ASHI Standard of Practice. Likewise, I'm not against the other spin off SOP's that seem to suit the purpose of the various home inspection associations.

As an educator, and now as a retired home inspector, I find it disconcerting to see years of development and commitment by many to forge a national standard and seek common ground tossed aside. Yes, it's often blamed on political differences between associations, but at the same time it is not insurmountable. Equally I am troubled by the potential for one "body" gaining financially from what was largely already in existence.

I've sent an email to the CSA chair and requested the opportunity to have a productive discussion with representatives of all home inspection associations in Canada. This would at least provide the opportunity for an open and frank discussion that could either help in finding acceptable common ground and help provide a cohesive support for clearing up much of feedback that will not support the current version.

BTW: To date I have not received a response.

At the same time during my review of the proposed CSA standard, I tend to see a mirror reflection of what already exists; along with additional high risk tasks being burdened on the back of home inspectors. To that I believe that ultimately the current cadre of home inspectors will end up severely reduced. Besides who else would be foolish enough to "assume" more risk, especially based on what the vast majority of home inspectors know best and already understand what to do in the line of "duty" every day.

[Roy Cooke sr]

Kudos Graham, I have taken the time to read your response. It's bang on!

I've sent an email to the CSA chair and requested the opportunity to have a productive discussion with representatives of all home inspection associations in Canada. This would at least provide the opportunity for an open and frank discussion that could either help in finding acceptable common ground and help provide a cohesive support for clearing up much of feedback that will not support the current version.

BTW: To date I have not received a response.

At the same time during my review of the proposed CSA standard, I tend to see a mirror reflection of what already exists; along with additional high risk tasks being burdened on the back of home inspectors. To that I believe that ultimately the current cadre of home inspectors will end up severely reduced. Besides who else would be foolish enough to "assume" more risk, especially based on what the vast majority of home inspectors know best and already understand what to do in the line of "duty" every day.

Good for you Claude I do hope some one starts to listen .
We have a lot of great Home inspectors who should be listened too.

[Roy Cooke sr]

Wow,it took me a long time,but I finally figured it out,we have the wrong people on the committees representing home inspectors
With out naming names we should of course had RW,KW, and others who post on this site continusly representing us,they of course have all the answers .
Not a day goes by with out their expertise,giving us all the needed info.
Of course all those who have years of knowledge and experience,there opinions do not matter
BM.of course should be excluded,be cause,he knows nothing
Disband the existing members and let the experts run the show
Problem solved,why has no one thought of this before,so simple.

Agree or disagree at least they are telling all that we have a huge problem
.For you say nothing is fine but for you to complain about others who trying to help our industry is wrong.
It is just what you have done for many years complain about others but add zero info on how things can be improved .
Harry you must have some good ideas why not share them so all can learn from you. Roy Cooke

[Raymond Wand]

Thank you Graham.

A very comprehensive review, and to the point. Very valid comments and concerns.

Its unfortunate that government entities are and will interfere with our business in such an unprecedented manner. Even more disconcerting is that MCS has been the instigator of all this.

As I have mentioned before, the only way you are going to get the attention and possibly for the government and CSA to back down is work to rule. Shut the inspection doors down for at least a week or do revolving work to rule. Its the only way that we will get the message across along with petitioning the government entities along with CSA.

I reinterate, I have no faith in the home inspection representatives on the CSA panel let alone MCS. I don't think any of them have the balls to rock the boat. And believe me the boat needs to be rocked if not sunk.

[Raymond Wand]

Hey Graham, maybe you and I should apply to be on the panel at CSA, that would shake things up. Too much political correctness and conflicts. Don't send boys to do a mans job, eh? :boink:

[Graham Ashdown]

Hey Graham, maybe you and I should apply to be on the panel at CSA, that would shake things up. Too much political correctness and conflicts. Don't send boys to do a mans job, eh? :boink:

LOL! Should have told be before I sent my letter to them :)

[Raymond Wand]

Tag team wrestling. :pound:

Want to picket MCS and CSA? Maybe we can get a busload of peeved inspectors?

[Graham Ashdown]

Tag team wrestling. :pound:

Want to picket MCS and CSA? Maybe we can get a busload of peeved inspectors?

That's quite optimistic...I'm not sure there are enough buses!

[Raymond Wand]

Graham,

A suggestion. Your concerns and issues you addressed should become a petition in which all concerned could sign or alternatively forward to the Minister - David Orazietti
Minister of Government and Consumer Services MPP Sault Ste. Marie, MCS bureaucrats, and CSA.

Thoughts?

I am not surprised at the apathy however.

[Raymond Wand]

The membership on a Technical Committee is subject to change during the development phase, with
the official membership being the one that approves the standard at the final ballot. A committee membership list is not publicly distributed at this point, but will be included in the final published standard.

The panel is already stacked with non-inspectors so you know the outcome of the final ballot!

I have asked the following on the CSA Blog -

https://community.csagroup.org/community/construction-and-engineering/blog/2014/10/29/public-review-update-home-inspection-standard-a770?et=blogs.comment.created#comment-6320


Raymond Wand Dec 7, 2014 7:17 AM

How does one get on the committee? And when the committee meets is it at a physical location or via conference call/webinair?




Public Review Update: Home Inspection Standard A770

Posted by Paul Gulletson in Construction and Engineering on Oct 29, 2014 4:28:00 PM

After two weeks of public review, we have received 400 comments from 285 people. As expected, there is a great deal of public interest in this important standard! The public review draft can be seen here:

Home Inspection (New Standard) | CSA Public Review System (http://publicreview.csa.ca/Home/Details/1368)



Raymond Wand Nov 13, 2014 11:21 AM

I have tried to find out who is serving on the panel with little success. Can someone provide the names of people on the panel? After all you (CSA) is asking for public input. If public input is being sought in order to revise the draft shouldn't the public be aware of the names of the people on the panel?

Thank you.


Dwayne Torrey
Dwayne Torrey Nov 17, 2014 8:34 AM (in response to Raymond Wand)

Hello Mr. Wand,

The Technical Committee is comprised of members in four different categories:
*Home Inspector members including representatives from home inspection associations, large firms, and independent home inspectors
*Consumer Interest members including representatives from various group across Canada
*General Interest members including representatives from trades, insurance, colleges, and real estate
*Regulators representing consumer interests from a number of provinces and territories

The membership on a Technical Committee is subject to change during the development phase, with the official membership being the one that approves the standard at the final ballot. A committee membership list is not publicly distributed at this point, but will be included in the final published standard.

Dwayne Torrey


Dwayne Torrey Nov 17, 2014 9:26 AM

We very much appreciate views of technical experts in the field and encourage everyone to review the draft standard and provide comments to improve its contents.



Raymond Wand Dec 7, 2014 12:12 PM

How does one get on the committee? And when the committee meets is it at a physical location or via conference call/webinar?

[Gilles Larin]

The membership on a Technical Committee is subject to change during the development phase, with A committee membership list is not publicly distributed at this point, but will be included in the final published standard.

The panel is already stacked with non-inspectors so you know the outcome of the final ballot!

I have asked the following on the CSA Blog -

https://community.csagroup.org/community/construction-and-engineering/blog/2014/10/29/public-review-update-home-inspection-standard-a770?et=blogs.comment.created#comment-6320

Raymond, you're quite right and inspectors are under represented (I've stated this already). I'm on the Committee and will be mentioning this again when we review.

G

[Raymond Wand]

Gilles,

Thanks for the input. What was the reply from CSA when you asked that question? CSA appears to have gone MUM.


After two weeks of public review, we have received 400 comments from 285 people. As expected, there is a great deal of public interest in this important standard!


I hardly think that 400 comments from only 285 people is hardly resounding!

[Gilles Larin]

Gilles,

Thanks for the input. What was the reply from CSA when you asked that question? CSA appears to have gone MUM.



I hardly think that 400 comments from only 285 people is hardly resounding!

There really wasn't one.
G

[Raymond Wand]

I suspect if the CSA SOP go through and adopted by various provincial governments the public will be bypassing inspections all together. There comes a point where the cost doesn't justify the expense.

Interestingly enough the governments don't seem compelled to legislate property disclosure statements in real estate transactions. That would be better consumer protection in my view.

[Raymond Wand]

I have relayed concerns to -

RestoreCSA | CSA vs. P.S. Knight Co. Ltd. (http://www.restorecsa.com/)

It appears a democratic, open, consultive process is not in the vocabulary of CSA.

What is more disappointing and worrisome is the fact the recent Webnar was nothing but an excercise in PR but short on answers by the host. Unacceptable.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Kudos Graham, I have taken the time to read your response. It's bang on!

Although I generally believe that one common standard would seem to make sense, I've become skeptical of the real purpose of attempting to discard what has served many home inspectors for decades. The development and review over those decades to maintain the ASHI Standard of Practice. Likewise, I'm not against the other spin off SOP's that seem to suit the purpose of the various home inspection associations.

As an educator, and now as a retired home inspector, I find it disconcerting to see years of development and commitment by many to forge a national standard and seek common ground tossed aside. Yes, it's often blamed on political differences between associations, but at the same time it is not insurmountable. Equally I am troubled by the potential for one "body" gaining financially from what was largely already in existence.

I've sent an email to the CSA chair and requested the opportunity to have a productive discussion with representatives of all home inspection associations in Canada. This would at least provide the opportunity for an open and frank discussion that could either help in finding acceptable common ground and help provide a cohesive support for clearing up much of feedback that will not support the current version.

BTW: To date I have not received a response.

At the same time during my review of the proposed CSA standard, I tend to see a mirror reflection of what already exists; along with additional high risk tasks being burdened on the back of home inspectors. To that I believe that ultimately the current cadre of home inspectors will end up severely reduced. Besides who else would be foolish enough to "assume" more risk, especially based on what the vast majority of home inspectors know best and already understand what to do in the line of "duty" every day.

Bravo Claude.
Its all about the money to gain, shedding liability at the expense of others, and by using their knowledge.
It's blatant hypocrisy.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

I suspect if the CSA SOP go through and adopted by various provincial governments the public will be bypassing inspections all together. There comes a point where the cost doesn't justify the expense.

Interestingly enough the governments don't seem compelled to legislate property disclosure statements in real estate transactions. That would be better consumer protection in my view.

I wonder why that is?
Lobbing by big money. Banks, Realtors and Mortgage Companies.

You should be liable for what you sell.
The sales person made liable to insure there are no missed steps, conflicts of interest and collusion.

When homies do not speak up about what they witness many times yearly for fear of not being marketed by the elephant in the room is a cam disgrace to the over all meaning of the contract.
The contract should be held sacred!

What the hell is on going?

I am surprised this was not made public.
Too bad.
So sad.

Lets blame the poor homie for not doing his job and being persuaded to do a poor inspection so they can be thrown under the buss.

I have seen as many times as Carter has little liver pills, "if you pass this house I will allow you to be my inspector.
I have been in enough homes as other agents show the home as if there was no offer on the table.
I have been slammed and threatened countless times.
Its amazing this is allowed to happen and who said nothing as the government was looking fr answers?

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Halliwell v. Lazarus, 2011 ONSC 390 Date: 2011-01-18

[86] During argument I asked several times for Mr. Edwards’ counsel to explain what value was there in a home inspection that by its terms and conditions purported to remove responsibility for everything except what could be seen visually, where there were no checks or balances for the insight or ability of the inspector to observe and there was no responsibility to explain why something might be significant. While it is obiter and not necessary for my decision, I have not been satisfied that the standards as set out in the standard form documentation handed to the client actually set out standards of care for the industry at all. Rather they appear designed to immunize the inspectors from liability.

[87] The consumer gains no reassurance from these standards. There are no teeth in the standards and, fundamentally, in the circumstance such as the one I have heard about, there was no meeting of the minds to form a contract.

I disagree.
A contract is a "mutual agreement", or consensus ad idem" The intentions of "the parties" are forming the contract.
The intentions are a common understanding.

The standard of practice are exposed for all to see.

The idea is to get the contract to the client so they can use an attorney or notary to explain the conditions of said contract..
The purchaser does not have to use an inspector that only returns the inspection fee.

The consumer is delinquent in far to many cases Raymond as you well know.

[Raymond Wand]

Good morning Robert,

The problem which came to light in the above case and which factored in to the equation of a finding against the defendant (negligent misrepresentation and lack of standard of care) was correct. However had Edwards presented the contract prior to start of the inspection and brought to the attlimits of liability brought to the attention of his client his contract may of withstood the test. Prior cases have amply demonstrated having the contract signed immediately prior to the inspection or post inspection is void of any protection as per limitations or exculpatory clause(s). Further if the client as is the case raised concerns about mould, and even though mould was disclaimed as part of the inspection, mould was evident, and the inspector failed to draw his clients attention to it. Why? Because it was evidenced that the mould was visible during the inspection.

[56] The limitations in the inspection were not brought to Ms. Halliwell’s attention. On a balance of probabilities I find that the document which contained the written limitations was not presented for her reading and signature until after the inspection walk through. This is based on Glenda Halliwell’s and Gus Tsigas’ recollection of the day as well as the fact that Mr. Edwards does not carry the binder with the documentation in it during the inspection and testified that he would either leave it in the car or in the house. The place where he met Glenda Halliwell when she arrived is inconsistent with his producing it there and he receives no support for his assertion that he always has the client sign first from Mr. Lazarus who was not relying on memory but only what he sees home inspectors do usually. Joel Lazarus was not attentive during the period when Brian Edwards was going over the documentation after the inspection with Ms. Halliwell.

[57] Even if she signed before she was taken around the house by Mr. Edwards, Glenda Halliwell’s attention was never brought to the issues of limitation whatsoever. Mr. Edwards proudly states that he did not alter his inspection procedure in any way due to the discount price. I accept this. In fact, he did not give any special attention to the much stated concern for mould. He simply goes about his business without needing to know what the client’s concerns might be.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Good morning Robert,

The problem which came to light in the above case and which factored in to the equation of a finding against the defendant (negligent misrepresentation and lack of standard of care) was correct.


However had Edwards presented the contract prior to start of the inspection and brought to the attlimits of liability brought to the attention of his client his contract may of withstood the test. Prior cases have amply demonstrated having the contract signed immediately prior to the inspection or post inspection is void of any protection as per limitations or exculpatory clause(s). Further if the client as is the case raised concerns about mould, and even though mould was disclaimed as part of the inspection, mould was evident, and the inspector failed to draw his clients attention to it. Why? Because it was evidenced that the mould was visible during the inspection.

[56] The limitations in the inspection were not brought to Ms. Halliwell’s attention. On a balance of probabilities I find that the document which contained the written limitations was not presented for her reading and signature until after the inspection walk through. This is based on Glenda Halliwell’s and Gus Tsigas’ recollection of the day as well as the fact that Mr. Edwards does not carry the binder with the documentation in it during the inspection and testified that he would either leave it in the car or in the house. The place where he met Glenda Halliwell when she arrived is inconsistent with his producing it there and he receives no support for his assertion that he always has the client sign first from Mr. Lazarus who was not relying on memory but only what he sees home inspectors do usually. Joel Lazarus was not attentive during the period when Brian Edwards was going over the documentation after the inspection with Ms. Halliwell.

[57] Even if she signed before she was taken around the house by Mr. Edwards, Glenda Halliwell’s attention was never brought to the issues of limitation whatsoever. Mr. Edwards proudly states that he did not alter his inspection procedure in any way due to the discount price. I accept this. In fact, he did not give any special attention to the much stated concern for mould. He simply goes about his business without needing to know what the client’s concerns might be.

A very good morning to you Mr. Wand. I hope to find you in good heath this morning.
By the way Raymond, thank you the reply!

Yes, I agree with the decision/s made in that case.

I guess hindsight still remains 20/20.
In British Columbia the Salgado v. Toth case set a legal president.

If I am not mistaken the right honourable Justice Burnyeat noted the home inspection contract should have been provided 72 hours in advance of any inspection.
This would allow a purchaser enough time to hire a professional if they do not understand the width and breath of the agreement.

It still leaves many unanswered question/s to the dismay of the consumer because hindsight is 20/20 remember.

Question/s: if plaintiff's Manuel Salgado/Nora Calcaneo had been given the contract ahead of time so a notary or other qualified professional, to explain the/any/all limits of liability, and the contract, would they have still used Toth?

[Claude Lawrenson]

For clarification - First I've heard of the 72 hour requirement. I believe the key point in most every legal precedence is to make sure the client has "reasonable" time prior to the actual home inspection to understand the terms/conditions for the inspection.

In the Toth Verdict -[2009]
[75] Here, the Plaintiffs were given little time to read the Contract and understand what the Defendants intended to be the effect of the Contract. As well, the primary purpose of the meeting between Mr. Toth and the Plaintiffs was to advise them regarding the results of this inspection. I find that very little time was available for the Plaintiffs to read and understand what was in the Contract. By the very nature of the relationship, the ability to rely on what was being said was critical and, if there was any suggestion that the Plaintiffs could not rely upon what was being said by Mr. Toth and what was set out in his report, I find that Mr. Salgado would not have signed the Contract. In the circumstances, it was incumbent upon Mr. Toth to draw to the attention of Mr. Salgado the exclusion and waiver clauses and to take reasonable steps to apprise Mr. Salgado of the onerous terms and to ensure that he read and understood them.

In the Fraser/Knox Verdict - [1998]
145 It is clear from the wording of the Inspection Report that it is intended to be read and signed
by the prospective home owner prior to the inspection being undertaken. The last line in the document reads: "I hereby authorize the inspection of the Property having read and understood this Agreement." Mr. Fraser should have been advised by Mr. Bouchard during their telephone conversations of the limited liability which he wanted for himself and Pillar to Post Inc. Mr. Fraser would then have had the opportunity of negotiating in regard to this term or of retaining another building inspector.

146 At the very least, the Inspection Agreement, and more specifically any limitation of liability
contained in the document, should have been brought to the attention of Mr. Fraser immediately upon Mr. Bouchard arriving at the property. However if Mr. Fraser refused to sign the document at that time and if Mr. Bouchard refused to conduct the inspection without it being signed, Mr. Bouchard may have been liable for damages for breach of an oral contract.

147 I find that the Inspection Report signed by Mr. Fraser and Mr. Bouchard after the inspection was completed did not create any contractual rights between these parties or between Mr. Fraser and Pillar to Post Inc. Neither Mr. Bouchard nor Pillar to Post Inc. provided Mr. Fraser with any additional
msideration to warrant his accepting their limited liability. As a result, the various clauses in that document purporting to limit the liability of Mr. Bouchard and Pillar to Post Inc. are of no relevance in determining the parties' respective rights. In this regard I adopt the reasoning of Spencer Co. Ct. J. in Campbell v. Image, [1978] 2 W.W.R. 663 (B.C. Co. Ct.).

[Raymond Wand]

Question/s: if plaintiff's Manuel Salgado/Nora Calcaneo had been given the contract ahead of time so a notary or other qualified professional, to explain the/any/all limits of liability, and the contract, would they have still used Toth?

Good question Robert, to which I would answer yes. My reason is that contract terms are pretty much standardized within the industry. However one point that must be brought out is that BC has consumer protection laws which forbid limiting liability to inspection fees.


[16] At Trial, Mr. Toth stated that his contract would usually be signed by both parties at the beginning of the inspection if all parties were present but, if not present, then at the time before the inspection was discussed. At Trial, Mr. Toth stated that it was his “usual practice” that approximately 99% of his written report was “fully blank until the presentation with my client starts”, but that, if the client was not present, then “for time management and killing the empty time”, he would fill in most if not all of the written portion of his report prior to the client being present. Mr. Toth stated that the Contract was signed before any kind of presentation on September 21, 2006. I find that the Contract was signed after virtually all of the written portion of the report was added to the report.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Good question Robert, to which I would answer yes. My reason is that contract terms are pretty much standardized within the industry. However one point that must be brought out is that BC has consumer protection laws which forbid limiting liability to inspection fees.

I will honourably disagree on that point Raymond.
There is no limitation to the consensus before the ad idem per-say.
Any consensus of ideas or, consensus ad idem must bare a signature.
Please bare with me.
Allow me to express 2 points.

First point: (1) The meeting of the minds.This can only be achieved when all parties have agreed to "the consensus ad idem."
Until then, all parties can discuss "IN GOOD FAITH!"
Then there is "Tortious Interference"

The sales contract can consist of contingencies and amendments, etc, BUT , the origin of the contract revolves around the "sales of a piece of immoveable home and the property that resides upon."

NOTE: The contact is between the vendor and the purchaser. That/this is constant.
The vendor and their agents must deal IN GOOD FAITH
Whom is not dealing in good faith, is therefore tortious interference.


Dennis Robitaille has proven this in the united States of America yet the well seems to elude everyone.


I agree with your astute observation, sellers declarations are rarely available and when they are they are tainted.
It is easy to insure the home is understood by the vendor. have it inspected.

Now as the the BC consumer sales laws and limiting liability clauses, its avoidance to seek the truth.
The consumer can negotiate in good faith. As for limiting liability, they let shingle manufactures do it al the time.
Too bad.
So sad.


Point number 2: That being said, I see there is a quasi standards writer willing to set a Canadian federal home inspection SOP.
Seems money is there quest.
Bill Mullens seeded the intent by trying to formalize a an agreement to have the NHICC national standards as a Canadian home inspection SOP , and as greed leads to the greedy, everything followed suite!
Its all about the money with the CSA and nothing more!
I agree with Roy Cooke.
They should be told by the government and any interested parties to go back to their old formula of testing and not selling standards!!!

Nick Gromicko hit the nail on the head one must admit. CSA are trying to become like the ASTM Standards.

If I am not mistaken, the British Columbia Salgado v. Tothwas set president for "the first home inspector to be ligated successfully in a Canadian province."
If true, It shows there was no will by the provinces. The judges recommendations seem to have fallen on deft ears.
Hindsight is 20/20

Just my 5 cents.

[Raymond Wand]

Robert,

Can't say I disagree with your comments, but you lost me with 'Tortious Interference'. I take that to mean interference by outside parties which are not party to the contract?

As to the inference of BM, he cannot be trusted to tell the truth, he has quite a history of embellishments and then pushed them to the press and the rest of the home inspection profession as correct. His latest misconduct was the use of a title he has no right to use. And his task masters know this and refuse to a) reply to complaints, and b) to do anything about it. If this was misuse of P.Eng, everyone would be all over it. The silence is defeaning, and until such time as this delinquent is off any panel which is contemplating or aiding with licencing I will not support that association or their so called standards which dovetail with good ethics both at the inspector level and board of directors.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Robert,

Can't say I disagree with your comments, but you lost me with 'Tortious Interference'. I take that to mean interference by outside parties which are not party to the contract?

As to the inference of BM, His latest misconduct was the use of a title he has no right to use. And his task masters know this and refuse to a) reply to complaints, and b) to do anything about it.

The silence is defeaning, and until such time as this delinquent is off any panel which is contemplating or aiding with licencing I will not support that association or their so called standards which dovetail with good ethics both at the inspector level and board of directors.

Yes agreed.
It has been an evolution leading to the CSA.
Its almost whimsical.

The die was cast with Remember Whistler and any one involved from what I remember.

As for Tortious Interference.
Raymond, the performance of the contract works both ways.
Purchaser/s agree to act in good faith, the vendor must act in good faith as well.


Regards.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Not to digress from the important relevance and impact that the CSA Standard document presents – I note from the following link – as public editor of the Toronto Star “The policy says that we generally do not unpublish unless there are legal reasons to do so. We regard published content as a matter of public record whether it is published on newsprint or online.”

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apme.com/resource/resmgr/online_journalism_credibility/long_tail_report.pdf

Good luck trying to get inaccurate quotes removed from the media or through service providers and web crawlers that have referenced even out of date information.

Regarding complaints - The principal goal of the NHICC Professional Practices Committee remains the same: a fair process that results in a just resolution of disputes. A fair and just process must permit the “committee” to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant principles to the facts as found. It will not be resolved by popularity or through unfair commentaries on a public forum.

However, that process is illusory unless it is also accessible, proportionate, timely and affordable. Hopefully we agree that it has not been timely, largely because there are other mitigating factors that make this dispute difficult to resolve.

It should be borne in mind that the NHICC recognizes a legitimate complaint. Normally such matters are not considered lightly or dismissively. However based on other mitigating factors and the presentation of letter writing campaigns has only complicated issuing an official response.

Robert Y -your comments make you appear to be an expert on the CSA - NHICC / BM relationship based on you statement - "Bill Mullens seeded the intent by trying to formalize a an agreement to have the NHICC national standards as a Canadian home inspection SOP, and as greed leads to the greedy, everything followed suite!"

Really - what is your knowledge of such an agreement unless you were a party to it? BTW: In fact where's the greed? The only financial benefit I see is the potential money that will be paid to buy a new CSA home inspection standard, if its approved, and that is not within the domain of the NHICC.

[Raymond Wand]

Baloney! No reply whatsoever and a myriad of excuses. NHICC execs are disgruntled former OAHI members looking out after each other and their buddies. Mr. BM has quite a history of going after others making all sorts of claims and his conduct was condoned repeatedly by the silence from his buddies.

Again when I send in a complaint the very least I expect is a letter stating my complaint has been accepted. Nothing and not becoming of a so-called professional body. A paper trail exists. And no one should serve on any board when they are fudging facts they know are in breach of a provincial act.

Other societies would have a professional reply, your excuses don't wash, them the facts. This has gone on for almost two years!

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Not to digress from the important relevance and impact that the CSA Standard document presents – I note from the following link – as public editor of the Toronto Star “The policy says that we generally do not unpublish unless there are legal reasons to do so. We regard published content as a matter of public record whether it is published on newsprint or online.”

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apme.com/resource/resmgr/online_journalism_credibility/long_tail_report.pdf

Good luck trying to get inaccurate quotes removed from the media or through service providers and web crawlers that have referenced even out of date information.

Regarding complaints - The principal goal of the NHICC Professional Practices Committee remains the same: a fair process that results in a just resolution of disputes. A fair and just process must permit the “committee” to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant principles to the facts as found. It will not be resolved by popularity or through unfair commentaries on a public forum.

However, that process is illusory unless it is also accessible, proportionate, timely and affordable. Hopefully we agree that it has not been timely, largely because there are other mitigating factors that make this dispute difficult to resolve.

It should be borne in mind that the NHICC recognizes a legitimate complaint. Normally such matters are not considered lightly or dismissively. However based on other mitigating factors and the presentation of letter writing campaigns has only complicated issuing an official response.

Robert Y -your comments make you appear to be an expert on the CSA - NHICC / BM relationship based on you statement - "Bill Mullens seeded the intent by trying to formalize a an agreement to have the NHICC national standards as a Canadian home inspection SOP, and as greed leads to the greedy, everything followed suite!"

Really - what is your knowledge of such an agreement unless you were a party to it? BTW: In fact where's the greed? The only financial benefit I see is the potential money that will be paid to buy a new CSA home inspection standard, if its approved, and that is not within the domain of the NHICC.

Claude, I have recognised you as a sterling representative of the NHICC.
From the many words of BM comes his own fate and not mine.

If I remember correctly, you admitted on a thread I was on that your attempt to have the NHICC standard positioned or agreed to by the CSA was not fruitful.
What does the CSA do, take your idea and turn it into a standard.

It's almost comical.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Not to digress from the important relevance and impact that the CSA Standard document presents

Claude, whom calls this import and why?
The 2 provinces that paid to have a study?
The people that accepted the money?

Please provide everyone with a list of whom voted these astute individuals with the power to determine and administer this Canadian Home Inspection standard please.
I like to know whom is representing all the associations, the purchasers, the provinces and my livelihood. Hmmm.

I want to be able to see whom will be representing a Canadian Home Inspection standard.

Please NOTE Claude. You over look the obvious.
There is a Canadian duo that started this great profession of ours over 30 years ago.
The reporting process DICOVERHORIDSON should be MADE A STANDARD for all homies to use.
Case closed in my eyes!!!
Over 30 years of experience. Hmmm.

This way any/all liabilities can be traced back to the inspector, anyone/everyone at the inspection/all financial records, including the real estate agents that recommenced the inspectors. It covers observation/recomendations/limitaions. The whole reporting enchilada.

Tell everyone here that Cason Dunlope should not be processing this Canadian Standard reporting system please.
Explain it to the engineers and architects and other scholars that processed the system they are of no value here.

Even better provide a bullet list of why that home inspection reporting "system" does not provide enough information to the inspector to use while inspecting nor provide the client with the information they require to process what was observed at the residence.

Out of all the reporting systems I have seen, I have looked at many reports, this one is as close to as bullet proof against false clams as I can see.

The rest is up to the home inspector and how hard they work. Hmmmm?

I guess I must be missing the whole exercise.

[Raymond Wand]

Robert,

As you may know I use Horizon and the feedback from clients has always been very, very positive as to clarity, layout, and ease of use and excellent reference material. KISS.

[Roy Cooke sr]

Not to digress from the important relevance and impact that the CSA Standard document presents – I note from the following link – as public editor of the Toronto Star “The policy says that we generally do not unpublish unless there are legal reasons to do so. We regard published content as a matter of public record whether it is published on newsprint or online.”

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.apme.com/resource/resmgr/online_journalism_credibility/long_tail_report.pdf

Good luck trying to get inaccurate quotes removed from the media or through service providers and web crawlers that have referenced even out of date information.

Regarding complaints - The principal goal of the NHICC Professional Practices Committee remains the same: a fair process that results in a just resolution of disputes. A fair and just process must permit the “committee” to find the facts necessary to resolve the dispute and to apply the relevant principles to the facts as found. It will not be resolved by popularity or through unfair commentaries on a public forum.

However, that process is illusory unless it is also accessible, proportionate, timely and affordable. Hopefully we agree that it has not been timely, largely because there are other mitigating factors that make this dispute difficult to resolve.

It should be borne in mind that the NHICC recognizes a legitimate complaint. Normally such matters are not considered lightly or dismissively. However based on other mitigating factors and the presentation of letter writing campaigns has only complicated issuing an official response.

Robert Y -your comments make you appear to be an expert on the CSA - NHICC / BM relationship based on you statement - "Bill Mullens seeded the intent by trying to formalize a an agreement to have the NHICC national standards as a Canadian home inspection SOP, and as greed leads to the greedy, everything followed suite!"

Really - what is your knowledge of such an agreement unless you were a party to it? BTW: In fact where's the greed? The only financial benefit I see is the potential money that will be paid to buy a new CSA home inspection standard, if its approved, and that is not within the domain of the NHICC.

In your post you say
(" It should be borne in mind that the NHICC recognizes a legitimate complaint. Normally such matters are not considered lightly or dismissively. However based on other mitigating factors and the presentation of letter writing campaigns has only complicated issuing an official response. ")

This is bunk

I sent in a complaint to the NHICC discipline committee and was told there would be doing nothing on it .
I found out the committee was made up of one person Claude Lawrenson Bill Mullen's very close
friend .
I still feel the NHICC is a farce made up, of a group of self appointed people.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Just curious, how many self-appointed associations or groups do you belong to or belonged to? How do think most associations started? Let me see I already can name several.

The NHICC deals with input and decision based on many documents of facts, not just ones personal beliefs.

We can agree that improper use is an issue, but it seems you easily discount sites beyond his control.

Bill has attempted to change what he can, while other older documents still exist. Perhaps you can pester and help change those sites beyond his control.

Let see even OAHI and CAHPI has taken what action to date? Same - no response that resolves the issue.

[Roy Cooke sr]

Just curious, how many self-appointed associations or groups do you belong to or belonged to? How do think most associations started? Let me see I already can name several.

The NHICC deals with input and decision based on many documents of facts, not just ones personal beliefs.

We can agree that improper use is an issue, but it seems you easily discount sites beyond his control.

Bill has attempted to change what he can, while other older documents still exist. Perhaps you can pester and help change those sites beyond his control.

Let see even OAHI and CAHPI has taken what action to date? Same - no response that resolves the issue.

Thanks Claude can you show all is my statement wrong or correct ??
If wrong what parts are wrong???

Thanks .. Roy..


This is bunk

I sent in a complaint to the NHICC discipline committee and was told there would be doing nothing on it .
I found out the committee was made up of one person Claude Lawrenson Bill Mullen's very close
friend .
I still feel the NHICC is a farce

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Robert Y -your comments make you appear to be an expert on the CSA - NHICC / BM relationship based on you statement - "Bill Mullens seeded the intent by trying to formalize a an agreement to have the NHICC national standards as a Canadian home inspection SOP, and as greed leads to the greedy, everything followed suite!"

Why do you say that.
As many here and yourself will agree upon, I am no expert.
But I do have eyes, I feel a reasonable mind and wit, and have watched the NHICC side show for years and I am no fool.


Regards.

[Raymond Wand]

Just curious, how many self-appointed associations or groups do you belong to or belonged to? How do think most associations started? Let me see I already can name several.

I fail to understand the relevance of the question. Sure they got there start by a group banding together and moved forward and elected directors, formed bylaws, et ceteras. However, your question does not address the fact that as CEO of NHICC your group has never answered the complaint. Would NHICC answer the complaint if it were from someone else other then from me? I think the answer is yes. This leads me to believe there is an element of bias and discrimination based on a name.

All complaints whether merited or not require a response. All professional bodies I have dealt with issue replies to formal complaints. Why hasn't NHICC? You can make all the excuses you wish to. I am not buying into them. And if your BOD is aware of the complaint and has refused or conspired or was directed not to respond then you and your entire board should tender their resignations.



The NHICC deals with input and decision based on many documents of facts, not just ones personal beliefs.

Personal beliefs? No personal beliefs involved it's all factual and there is a big paper trail.
BM is not in the Registry at the head office of OAHI. I confirmed this by personal visitation to view the Registry as per PR 158. Whilst there I spoke to two directors who were also in the office. Further I spoke to the Discipline Chair of OAHI as well as the President. All confirm BM is not a member. Further they attested that MB has ignored repeated cease and desist letters informing him to cease use of advertising trademark logos, and use of the protected title RHI.


We can agree that improper use is an issue, but it seems you easily discount sites beyond his control.

Well; now we are making some headway. Now you admit there is improper use. Why have you admitted this now and not before?


Bill has attempted to change what he can, while other older documents still exist. Perhaps you can pester and help change those sites beyond his control.

One website is hosted by Yellow Pages. Contact Customer Service at 1-877-909-YELO (9356) and they will direct him to the appropriate channel or get him in touch with a media account consultant. As for the other site BM is a big boy I am sure if he put his mind to it he can figure it out. Try using Google as an assistant in his endeavours.

Bluewater Property Consultants Inc | Home Inspection | Sarnia | Home (http://www.bluewaterproperty.ca/en/) (unknown host)

BLUEWATER HOME INSPECTION (http://www.bluewaterhomeinspection.com/) (Yellow Page ad)



Let see even OAHI and CAHPI has taken what action to date? Same - no response that resolves the issue.[/QUOTE]

OAHI/CAHPI have sent repeated letters instructing BM to cease and desist. And unlike NHICC they did respond in writing, and as already pointed out. I have had conversation with directors and the DPPC. So they have not done nothing!

OAHI even asked me for guidance on how to proceed. I suggested they place on the OAHI website that BM was no longer a member and failed to address the breaches of a provincial act, and should do so in order to protect the public from this reprobate who is knowingly and falsely advertising credentials and the logo he no longer has a right to use.

If you recall a former executive in OAHI who left the association continued to use RHI on his business card, an Ontario Provincial Court found this evidence adequate for a conviction and a hefty fine. As with the conviction that respondent pleaded that he was using up old business cards. The court didn't buy that excuse, and I strongly believe the court would not buy the excuses BM promotes as an excuse either.

Since I was party to the prosecution as the discipline chair at the time, I can truthfully attest to the facts.

[Claude Lawrenson]

It was stated by another poster - I sent in a complaint to the NHICC discipline committee and was told there would be doing nothing on it .
I found out the committee was made up of one person Claude Lawrenson Bill Mullen's very close
friend .
I still feel the NHICC is a farce

Let's cut to the chase with the obvious - there's been a long history of ill feelings between Bill and you, as well as a few of your other cohorts. At the time when I was interim Chair of the committee, I tried to find common ground to call off the complaining. It seemed to be a starting point.

With complaints there are often 2 or more sides to an issue, depending on the complaint, the history of the complaint, and the facts provided. The complaints are viewed by a committee, not just me, or just by the chair of the committee. Before any complaint moves forward it is considered on the grounds of complaint. When it is "considered" to be reasonable it moves forward to "committee", based on the complaint filed and the documents of response by the defendant. Committee does the review based on facts, not me. Committee makes decision and findings based on reviewing ALL FACTS of the matter.

Interesting enough the committee has reviewed a number of complaints and even as interesting is the fact that the source of the majority of the complaints are often difficult to finalize because of the past history and comments that do nothing to help in providing a clear unbiased means to seek settlement. Long before the NHICC came into existence, as Ethics Chair of a national organization and also as a provincial rep I was indoctrinated into complaints based on ongoing personal biases. Why - because they largely come from 2 persons that have a long history of filing complaints.

Now let's go to another famous comment line - another interesting piece of 10 year old history. Remember your "Remember Whistler" taunt, just to name one of many you have publicly displayed? -Wasn't that the new home training project under the control of Carson Dunlop? Seems to me they were the one's that did the presentation or did that fact also get twisted?

Nobody forced you, me or any other person to go. It was a CAHPI National Conference event, not a Bill Mullen event. Did I feel a bit let down? Yeah, but life goes on. Not all events deliver 100% of what they promise. Well eventually it did happen and became reality and was conducted by Carson Dunlop.

Than there's the issue about the "liar" email, name calling, and so on and so on. Need I go further? Again more history than most readers can tolerate. After all this discussion has conveniently hi-jacked another thread.

You see there's a long history that has tainted not just the credibility of those you and few others fault, but equally so those pointing the finger. No ones perfect, and yes Bill is well aware of the implications of Raymond' s complaint. It is my understanding that he has tried to correct what he humanly can, as directed by the NHICC. On the other hand some cannot even accept the facts of why it is difficult for him to remove every trace of reference off of websites outside of his control. Sorry if you cannot deal with facts when they are offered. But than again there's a history about that too!

As stated earlier there are other mitigating facts that cannot and will not be made "public". But it seems convenient to fault when it's personal and none of the business of the complainant. But it also questions the reason why and what the self-serving purpose is of making it so public?

You see life goes on, and hopefully people reading this realize that some can tolerate this exchange for awhile, but eventually the same old story and flaming wars are fanned by continuing to respond to this.

So as advised - I will shut up, and ignore the drivel, just like those that tend to when they view the unfair comments that are offered as facts or even response to facts.

It's also unfortunate that the complaints just kept coming from the same people. Soon people on committee get tired of the "personal wars", and tend to let others deal with the true substance of the issue - OAHI and CAHPI. It would appear that has not been completely successful.

Perhaps it's really best that those directly involved may yield results via person to person, or is that simply impossibility to fathom?

As such, I will no longer respond. But I will copy and paste all defaming commentaries that like many before them prove useful in defending the counter-balance of what some people think and make public as factual.

[Raymond Wand]

It was stated by another poster - I sent in a complaint to the NHICC discipline committee and was told there would be doing nothing on it .
I found out the committee was made up of one person Claude Lawrenson Bill Mullen's very close
friend .
I still feel the NHICC is a farce

Let's cut to the chase with the obvious - there's been a long history of ill feelings between Bill and you, as well as a few of your other cohorts. At the time when I was interim Chair of the committee, I tried to find common ground to call off the complaining. It seemed to be a starting point.

With complaints there are often 2 or more sides to an issue, depending on the complaint, the history of the complaint, and the facts provided. The complaints are viewed by a committee, not just me, or just by the chair of the committee. Before any complaint moves forward it is considered on the grounds of complaint. When it is "considered" to be reasonable it moves forward to "committee", based on the complaint filed and the documents of response by the defendant. Committee does the review based on facts, not me. Committee makes decision and findings based on reviewing ALL FACTS of the matter.

Interesting enough the committee has reviewed a number of complaints and even as interesting is the fact that the source of the majority of the complaints are often difficult to finalize because of the past history and comments that do nothing to help in providing a clear unbiased means to seek settlement. Long before the NHICC came into existence, as Ethics Chair of a national organization and also as a provincial rep I was indoctrinated into complaints based on ongoing personal biases. Why - because they largely come from 2 persons that have a long history of filing complaints.

Now let's go to another famous comment line - another interesting piece of 10 year old history. Remember your "Remember Whistler" taunt, just to name one of many you have publicly displayed? -Wasn't that the new home training project under the control of Carson Dunlop? Seems to me they were the one's that did the presentation or did that fact also get twisted?

Nobody forced you, me or any other person to go. It was a CAHPI National Conference event, not a Bill Mullen event. Did I feel a bit let down? Yeah, but life goes on. Not all events deliver 100% of what they promise. Well eventually it did happen and became reality and was conducted by Carson Dunlop.

Than there's the issue about the "liar" email, name calling, and so on and so on. Need I go further? Again more history than most readers can tolerate. After all this discussion has conveniently hi-jacked another thread.

You see there's a long history that has tainted not just the credibility of those you and few others fault, but equally so those pointing the finger. No ones perfect, and yes Bill is well aware of the implications of Raymond' s complaint. It is my understanding that he has tried to correct what he humanly can, as directed by the NHICC. On the other hand some cannot even accept the facts of why it is difficult for him to remove every trace of reference off of websites outside of his control. Sorry if you cannot deal with facts when they are offered. But than again there's a history about that too!

As stated earlier there are other mitigating facts that cannot and will not be made "public". But it seems convenient to fault when it's personal and none of the business of the complainant. But it also questions the reason why and what the self-serving purpose is of making it so public?

You see life goes on, and hopefully people reading this realize that some can tolerate this exchange for awhile, but eventually the same old story and flaming wars are fanned by continuing to respond to this.

So as advised - I will shut up, and ignore the drivel, just like those that tend to when they view the unfair comments that are offered as facts or even response to facts.

It's also unfortunate that the complaints just kept coming from the same people. Soon people on committee get tired of the "personal wars", and tend to let others deal with the true substance of the issue - OAHI and CAHPI. It would appear that has not been completely successful.

Perhaps it's really best that those directly involved may yield results via person to person, or is that simply impossibility to fathom?

As such, I will no longer respond. But I will copy and paste all defaming commentaries that like many before them prove useful in defending the counter-balance of what some people think and make public as factual.

Thanks for confirming the bias and discrimination by you and your board. Pathetic!

According to you or your BOD one is not allowed to complain multiple times as a result of failure of the NHICC to answer the complaint in the first place. So sure I am going to complain until I get a reply.

Your so called professional association takes first place for incompetence. No other professional body would reply in the manner you just did and make unsubstantiated allegations. The paper trail tells a different story. Now I completely understand why NHICC has caused more harm then good across Canada. The infighting between NHICC and OAHI/CAHPI is legendary.

Oh... no need to reply!

[Roy Cooke sr]

It was stated by another poster - I sent in a complaint to the NHICC discipline committee and was told there would be doing nothing on it .
I found out the committee was made up of one person Claude Lawrenson Bill Mullen's very close
friend .
I still feel the NHICC is a farce ( I Roy Cooke still feel the NHICC is a farce )

Let's cut to the chase with the obvious - there's been a long history of ill feelings between Bill and you, as well as a few of your other cohorts. At the time when I was interim Chair of the committee, I tried to find common ground to call off the complaining. It seemed to be a starting point. So as Chair of the Discipline Committee Claude and close friend of Bill M you admit to ignoring the complaints ,You where not at arm's length and should have removed yourself .
With complaints there are often 2 or more sides to an issue, depending on the complaint, the history of the complaint, and the facts provided. The complaints are viewed by a committee, not just me, or just by the chair of the committee.
You said you where the committee Interesting enough the committee has reviewed a number of complaints and even as interesting is the fact that the source of the majority of the complaints are often difficult to finalize because of the past history and comments that do nothing to help in providing a clear unbiased means to seek settlement. Long before the NHICC came into existence, as Ethics Chair of a national organization and also as a provincial rep I was indoctrinated into complaints based on ongoing personal biases. Why - because they largely come from 2 persons that have a long history of filing complaints.

Now let's go to another famous comment line - another interesting piece of 10 year old history. Remember your "Remember Whistler" taunt, just to name one of many you have publicly displayed? Exactly and Bill M refused to answer the question many times -Wasn't that the new home training project under the control of Carson Dunlop? Control I think Bill M stated he was in charge .Seems to me they were the one's that did the presentation or did that fact also get twisted? Twisted no ignored by Bill M yes.

Nobody forced you, me or any other person to go. It was a CAHPI National Conference event, not a Bill Mullen event. Did I feel a bit let down? Yeah, but life goes on. Not all events deliver 100% of what they promise. Well eventually it did happen and became reality and was conducted by Carson Dunlop.

Than there's the issue about the "liar" email, name calling, and so on and so on. Yep and you saw Bill M do this many times and you ignored this constantly Need I go further? Again more history than most readers can tolerate. After all this discussion has conveniently hi-jacked another thread. Many times Bill M was told about his improper web site ree his NACHI Logo and he siad he would fix it this went on for many months of complaints and promises to fix it he never did and resigned from NACHI instead

You see there's a long history that has tainted not just the credibility of those you and few others fault, but equally so those pointing the finger. No ones perfect, and yes Bill is well aware of the implications of Raymond' s complaint. It is my understanding that he has tried to correct what he humanly can, as directed by the NHICC. On the other hand some cannot even accept the facts of why it is difficult for him to remove every trace of reference off of websites outside of his control. Sorry if you cannot deal with facts when they are offered. But than again there's a history about that too!

As stated earlier there are other mitigating facts that cannot and will not be made "public". But it seems convenient to fault when it's personal and none of the business of the complainant. But it also questions the reason why and what the self-serving purpose is of making it so public? Sorry Claude I do not think wrong doings should be ignored .These improprieties should have been simply fixed instantly and it would have been over ignoring them was wrong.

You see life goes on, and hopefully people reading this realize that some can tolerate this exchange for awhile, but eventually the same old story and flaming wars are fanned by continuing to respond to this.

So as advised - I will shut up, and ignore the drivel, Just like you have all along just like those that tend to when they view the unfair comments that are offered as facts or even response to facts.

It's also unfortunate that the complaints just kept coming from the same people. Soon people on committee get tired of the "personal wars", and tend to let others deal with the true substance of the issue - OAHI and CAHPI. It would appear that has not been completely successful.

Perhaps it's really best that those directly involved may yield results via person to person, or is that simply impossibility to fathom?

As such, I will no longer respond. But I will copy and paste all defaming commentaries Good for you now it looks to me like you are trying blackmail not a good thing Claude to do that like many before them prove useful in defending the counter-balance of what some people think and make public as factual.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____

Al he best... Roy

[Raymond Wand]

In my view inspectors need to request a meeting with the Minister of Consumer Services in the New Year. As well make contact with the opposition consumer affairs critic.

We collectively need to make the Minister and his underlinings aware of the serious consequences for consumers and inspectors should MCS use the CSA standards for licencing purposes in Ontario.

I have been party to exchanges between CSA and other inspectors, and CSA appears to have a closed mind when it comes to how they will accept reviews of the draft standards. They will not even accept reviews sent via emails. They are forcing everyone to comment via the CSA website only.

Can we collectively sit on our laurels?

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Claude: I understand your position within the NHICC.

1: As chair you are not at arms length. A position comparison would be ESOP or CEO Joe Farsetta, cofounder at InterNACHI.

2: Your words. "the source of the majority of the complaints are often difficult to finalize because of the past history and comments that do nothing to help in providing a clear unbiased means to seek settlement."
Past history should have nothing to do with a complaint. If it bears no relevance on the subject, then it has no merit within the compliant.

3: You have now placed yourself in bad light. There is allot of bias and untruth in what you say.

4: Roy: "Remember Whistler." Bill conducted himself as best as he can on the matter. It was on a InterNACHI thread over 3 years ago if my memory serves me well.
You might have been away from the message board at the time.
Members at InterNACHI have a way of trying to oust you.
Too bad.
So sad.

If my memory serves me well, I say this because the files I had on the matter where unfortunately lost, Bill explained "in detail" about the CAHPI National Conference- Carson Dunlop event and what was to be provided, an American party, and what went wrong.
That still does not hold him CAHPI & Carson Dunlop harmless.

Claude the complaints had substance and should have been addressed following the CHAPI national venue. case closed. Now you see why the industry fracturing continues.

IMO: An open letter to any paying participant would have gone a long way in quelling this on going subject. A means of financial compensation, or free distance learning to be provided after the fact would have been practical.

Unfortunately this did not take place.
There was also another concern/s I will not post. Hopefully I will regain these file on day.

4: Claude you asked me, "what makes me an expert on the subject" of "Remember Whistler"
As expressed, I am no expert on the matter BUT, I had documentation, unfortunately lost, and I looked at the many sides to the truth when I was interested.
Thats why I conversed openly with BM on InterNACHI thread in late 2010 early 2011.
I hope that helps yourself and Roy.
I am no expert but an interested 3rd party. I personally feel Bill explained what transpired in detail and as best as he could.
It still does not excuse all parties. Bill was only a trying to do what he was promised.

Claude, I am not Roys or Raymond cohorts.
NOTE: Your verbiage/descriptive only provides much fuel for the next discussion as well as paints a face of a biased individual.

Claude, I am an an interested cog in the Canadian home inspection industry wheel.
To myself, Raymond Wand and Roy Cooke have selflessly stepped up to the plate as acting stewards. For without solid home inspection industry stewards to aspire to, one is left following and believing all is well..... when you, I and the consumer can plainly see it is not!

This CSA only deepens my conviction that "ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY AND POWER." If not it would be for free and home inspectors and the CSA would walk away and resume doing what they did n the past, "testing not writing standards and home inspectors continue inspecting homes"

I have seen litigated homies with great credentials drop the ball in their reporting efforts. Do you think there maybe another party/teacher/free marketer distracting them from writing a good report? Hmmm?

It is of my opinion, your approach to the CSA set their wheels in motion.
It is of my opinion, the CSA had no such intentions until you seeded the idea.
Be it true or false is of no circumstance now. Members have to congeal as one voice and put an end to this once an for all.

Claude, But I will copy and paste To threaten members again, that you will copy and paste is beneath what I consider a leader and someone being able to reason through open discussion.
I know you must have been very angry to have said something like that Claude so I forgive you and wish you balance in your outlook, for that is the Claude I know.

Best regards.
Robert

[Claude Lawrenson]

The CSA Project was a project largely funded by the province of Alberta. It is also my understanding the Ontario MCS added some money to the project.

My take - CSA sees a need, consumer services in Alberta saw a need for a "uniform" standard, and the Ontario MCS home inspector project report favoured a CSA standard. I would not be surprised if the province of BC also has an interest, since they have tried to look into that with recent discussions related to the associations and home inspector licensing.

So to blame the NHICC or greed as factors, you need to provide proof, not just speculative guessing. Provide facts, until than it's just that! - Your opinion.

Others issues, well again your opinion. I don't remember seeing you in Whistler! So where does your facts come? In addition you have no real knowledge of the inner workings and business of the NHICC.

Lastly you and your cohorts need to consider this: Cyberbullying is a criminal offense:
• “Cyberbullying involves the use of communication technologies such as the Internet, social networking sites, websites, email, text messaging and instant messaging to repeatedly intimidate or harass others”
• "Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, which is intended to harm others."

I simply suggest that it's in your best interest as well as others to consider this. Not as threat, but simply as means to end such nonsense!

Again no need to hear one of your useless apologies like the ones that never cease, but simply to act and respond in a fair, non-judgmental and appropriate manner.

[Raymond Wand]

The CSA Project was a project largely funded by the province of Alberta. It is also my understanding the Ontario MCS added some money to the project.

My take - CSA sees a need, consumer services in Alberta saw a need for a "uniform" standard, and the Ontario MCS home inspector project report favoured a CSA standard. I would not be surprised if the province of BC also has an interest, since they have tried to look into that with recent discussions related to the associations and home inspector licensing.

So to blame the NHICC or greed as factors, you need to provide proof, not just speculative guessing. Provide facts, until than it's just that! - Your opinion.

Others issues, well again your opinion. I don't remember seeing you in Whistler! So where does your facts come? In addition you have no real knowledge of the inner workings and business of the NHICC.

Lastly you and your cohorts need to consider this: Cyberbullying is a criminal offense:
• “Cyberbullying involves the use of communication technologies such as the Internet, social networking sites, websites, email, text messaging and instant messaging to repeatedly intimidate or harass others”
• "Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated, and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, which is intended to harm others."

I simply suggest that it's in your best interest as well as others to consider this. Not as threat, but simply as means to end such nonsense!

Again no need to hear one of your useless apologies like the ones that never cease, but simply to act and respond in a fair, non-judgmental and appropriate manner.

Legal Consequences of Cyberbullying | PREVNet - Canada's authority on bullying (http://www.prevnet.ca/bullying/cyber-bullying/legal-consequences)

Why don't you call the police?

Robert and I have not done anything wrong. The facts speak for themselves. Mr. Mullen has quite a history of cyberbullying himself over the years, never condoned by you or his friends.. If you want a police investigation lets have one. I would love to present my files. It ain't gonna look pretty, you know that and I know that. Its a double edge sword.

Claude it is apparent you and your discipline chair cannot respond to private complaints in a fair, and impartial manner. You have demonstrated biases, and discrimination. You admitted this in your above post.

People have a right to complain, they have right to be heard and not judged, nor should their complaints be dismissed out of hand based on who they are. All I am hearing from NHICC is excuses, protectionism, and biases and the inability to simply respond to a complaint without the need to submit a complaint multiple times?

If the NHICC can't abide by its supposed neutrality in dealing with complaints perhaps there needs to be a house cleaning?

[Roy Cooke sr]

HY Claude looks like your no longer a NACHI member.
Is this by choice or has there been a error made .
If error please let me know and I am sure I can fix it .
Al the best Royooke@hotmail.com Reply requested

[Raymond Wand]

I have been in contact with restorecsa.com

Some facts have come to light.

- Canadians don't realize, and what you likely suspect, is that the CSA is expanding into new areas (oil & gas, transport, pipelines, HR, carbon capture, ethics guidelines, etc., etc.) i

- As suspected - in order to increase their revenues. Their expansion is not about safety or even standardization, its all about money. Specifically, OUR money.

- The Government of Ontario is warm to CSA's interest in becoming a new regulator in these areas because a licensing program will also increase government revenue

- And as we know about this corrupt liberal government in Ontario and the large deficit they have run up Ontario's government is looking more ways to access more revenue. As with the Red Seal program a disguised tax on licenced trades.

- This isn't going to stop until the CSA mandate is returned to its original purpose or, alternately, until the CSA's conduct is sufficiently exposed as to make govt. partnership with CSA politically unappealing.

There may be a loop hole that may thwart CSA charging for the standards.

I will be forwarding to restorecsa.ca further documentation, and we (non home inspector assoc members/independents) may be able to collaboratively work with them and others in exposing this issue.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Legal Consequences of Cyberbullying | PREVNet - Canada's authority on bullying (http://www.prevnet.ca/bullying/cyber-bullying/legal-consequences)


Robert and I have not done anything wrong. The facts speak for themselves.


Raymond, why would I ever think that?

I have witnessed the facts.

No amount of self proclamation by either party can change what I saw, heard and continue to hear.

Ray. if you feel that way then maybe miscommunication plays the part.
My narrative is hard for many to follow at the best of times. Ha ha ha

I was never angry at you. I had no reason to be.

I lookup to yourself and Mr. Roy Cooke.
You both have earned notoriety in Canada's home inspection industry.
That is how I perceive it.

We are separate by/in personalities, but meet often on the road to fairness and open dialog.
The intent, the commonality, truthfulness behind laws and rules that are steadfast and unchanging for all, not a select few.

Regards.
Robert

[Claude Lawrenson]

Furthermore did you know that CSA is also in the market in other areas?

Education & Training | Services | CSA Group (http://www.csagroup.org/ca/en/services/education-and-training)

What's next? The go to place for your exam and licensing?

Stay tuned.

[Claude Lawrenson]

You are one self centered idealist Claude.
Apologies are when someone feels they have done something wrong. Looks like I was mistaken.
Regards.

Robert - I don't disagree, but think about what you post. You have apologized to me many times. So it only questions your sincerity.

The point being, you seem to keep making erroneous statements and stepping into the same pile of nonsense.

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Robert - I don't disagree, but think about what you post. You have apologized to me many times. So it only questions your sincerity.

The point being, you seem to keep making erroneous statements and stepping into the same pile of nonsense.


Erroneous statements or erroneous assumptions? Hmmm?

Sincerity can be at that time, of the moment or affixed.

I can turn the other cheek, look at all sides and admit fault when confronted in a civil debate with the "actual context" of the subject at hand.

You may not like my blue collar verbiage, but is it erroneous or the lack of a more defined and nurtured narrative you are struggling with?

I do not require an educated narrative to know right from wrong.


Best regards.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Just a reminder that the CSA was the little purple cloud at the bottom on page 6. How did they become the big cloud and what kind of cloud is it?
http://www.oahi.com/download.php?id=59

Some might consider it the smoke and mirrors effect!

Get ready for how it will change the future of most every Canadian home inspector once "best practices" becomes the regulated requirement to work in the sector.

[Raymond Wand]

Like many things with the inspection biz, there is a big problem with apathy. This has been borne out continually over the years. Too many associations, all have special interests, egos, politics...

I have read several comments from inspectors who said (para phrasing)

"I got have way through the draft and gave up"
"Why bother"
"I didn't bother to comment"
"This is a done deal"

WHAT WE THINK WE BECOME" -- Buddha

Like I said the only way anyone is going to get the attention of our bureaucrats who like to regulate, and who embellish false data about high complaint rates et ceteras is to work to rule.

United we stand, united we fall.

In the end if the CSA standards are utilized the same people who don't want to work to rule will likely fold anyway so what is there to loose? Better to loose a few inspections then loose your profession!

Okay bend over! Denial is not a river in Egypt!

[ROBERT YOUNG]

Some might consider it the smoke and mirrors effect!

Get ready for how it will change the future of most every Canadian home inspector once "best practices" becomes the regulated requirement to work in the sector.
So another inspection process will stop homies from looking the other ways to be marketed freely.
I thought the CHAPI'S way, or National Standard or the new and Improved Mike Holmes system would do that?

To say I am not surprised would be an understatement.

If you think this will become come a national standard lets see what the justice systems and politicians have to say.
It ain't over until the fat lady sings.

- - - Updated - - -


Like many things with the inspection biz, there is a big problem with apathy. This has been borne out continually over the years. Too many associations, all have special interests, egos, politics...

I have read several comments from inspectors who said (para phrasing)

"I got have way through the draft and gave up"
"Why bother"
"I didn't bother to comment"
"This is a done deal"

WHAT WE THINK WE BECOME" -- Buddha

Like I said the only way anyone is going to get the attention of our bureaucrats who like to regulate, and who embellish false data about high complaint rates et ceteras is to work to rule.

United we stand, united we fall.

In the end if the CSA standards are utilized the same people who don't want to work to rule will likely fold anyway so what is there to loose? Better to loose a few inspections then loose your profession!

Okay bend over! Denial is not a river in Egypt!

I fully agree Raymond.
Thanks for the continual updates.

[Raymond Wand]

I don't trust the Liberals, nothing but hacks, two face liars, who spend OUR tax money to feather their own selfish nests. I don't trust them to licence us either.

Now it comes to light that they spent $10k of OUR money to have hard drives erased by an outsider to cover the mess for the cancelled power plants. $1 billion dollars of OUR money spent to cancel the plants because the Liberals feared they would lose their seat in that riding!

Today a credit rating agency reduced Ontario's credit rating to AA-. Because of the large deficit. One scandal after another, and there will be others that will come to light.

Who are the friggin assholes who voted these thieves back in? I know it wasn't me because I always vote conservative.

Everytime I hear the word liberal my blood pressure goes up. They all should be in jail, its a breach of trust by our elected officials.

[Raymond Wand]

CSA sure seems to be a bully. Threats of legal action and intimidation through their lawyers. Another David and Goliath. If CSA standards of practice are utilized it paints a very troubling picture.

RestoreCSA | Video Gallery (http://www.restorecsa.com/videos)