Thread: CSA Standard on Home Inspection is now available for review

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Tag team wrestling.

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

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Tag team wrestling.

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!

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.

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/commu...d#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

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?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

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/commu...d#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

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!

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

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

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 have relayed concerns to -

RestoreCSA | CSA vs. P.S. Knight Co. Ltd.

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.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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.).

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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, 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.

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.co...ail_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.

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!

Originally Posted by 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.co...ail_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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.co...ail_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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (unknown host)

BLUEWATER HOME INSPECTION (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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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!

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

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Legal Consequences of Cyberbullying | PREVNet - Canada's authority on bullying

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Legal Consequences of Cyberbullying | PREVNet - Canada's authority on bullying


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

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

Education & Training | Services | CSA Group

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

Stay tuned.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

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.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin Wood

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.

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!

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

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 - - -

Originally Posted by 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!

I fully agree Raymond.
Thanks for the continual updates.

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.

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