Thread: Home inspector licensing legislation tabled in Ontario

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Finally an answer to questions being asked of CSA A770 on the CSA discussion forum.

https://community.csagroup.org/commu...omment.created

Thanks Ray.

The CSA is selling a SOP, but is Ontario going to mandate inspectors use the A770 ?

I made an application to join CSA community some months past and now I have been notified " It appears your account has been disabled. You might contact your administrator if you think this is a mistake."

Why even bother.

Why even bother?

That's exactly the attitude that got us to this point. Everyone sits on their collective laurels, bitch and complain then do nothing about it. This is our livelihood.

And Claude, loved your response on the CSA blog! Right on. I have to laugh at the chap who is a pile driver commenting on home inspectors. Guess he stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

That's exactly the attitude that got us to this point. Everyone sits on their collective laurels, bitch and complain then do nothing about it. This is our livelihood.

And Claude, loved your response on the CSA blog! Right on. I have to laugh at the chap who is a pile driver commenting on home inspectors. Guess he stayed at a Holiday Inn.

Why did the fense fall when they tried to use the basement EERO?

I just created another account with my company email.
Ray, send me a link please and I will get caught up.
Thanks.

Let me know if this works?

https://community.csagroup.org/login.jspa?logout

Thanks for your support.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Let me know if this works?

https://community.csagroup.org/login.jspa?logout

Thanks for your support.

Thanks Ray!

Ontario planning legislation to regulate home inspectors this year - The Globe and Mail

I can't believe some of the ignorant comments. People who obviously know nothing about the law as it applies to home inspections, or the fact licencing will not stop bad inspections regardless of unified standards.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Let me know if this works?

https://community.csagroup.org/login.jspa?logout

Thanks for your support.

Worked.

Here's another News Release by the MPP that introduced the Bill.FORUM (April 2016): Home inspectors act receives unanimous consent

Thank you very much for your patience. I am pleased to provide some information in regards to the questions that were asked earlier. Please see below.



Q: Can I give copies of the CSA A770 standard to other people or can I include a copy of the CSA A770 standard in my contract, scope of work, or the report that is given to my clients?

A: No, the copyright for the CSA A770 standard is owned by CSA Group. When you purchased the pdf of CSA A770, you accepted an end user license agreement which states that no part of the printed publication, nor any part of electronic files, in part or in whole, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form. Therefore, it is not permitted to distribute copies of the standard to anyone without an additional license agreement from CSA Group. Please contact CSA Group at sales@csagroup.org or 1-800-463-6727 for more information.



Q: Can I make reference to the CSA A770 standard in my contract, scope of work, or the report that is given to the client?

A: Yes, it is permitted to make reference to the CSA A770-16 Home Inspection standard in other documents. Where reference to the standard is necessary, please refer to the designation and title of the standard (CSA A770-16 – Home Inspection) and title of the Clause only. No part of the printed publication, nor any part of electronic files, in part or in whole, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form. If in doubt, it is your responsibility to contact CSA Group to obtain permission and/or a license agreement. License fees may apply. To obtain an external copyright request form, please contact CSA Group at 1-800-463-6727.

Thanks for the update Raymond. Here's a few of my concerns.....
The copyright issue:

I find the universal claim of copyright of the CSA Home Inspection Standard at bit misleading by the mere fact that a large portion of the “composition” it contains is based on both the private and public domain works (words, phrases and terms) created by a number of existing home inspection associations “standards of practice” as well as in a large number of home inspection report writing systems.

I don’t believe that any home inspector would intentionally infringe upon the CSA document, however, the mere “claim” of copyright implies “ownership”.

As you likely know I have served on a number of committees that developed home inspection standards as well as help in authoring home inspection report writing systems, as well as education materials. I find the “copyright claim” by CSA based on the words, phrases and terms as a complete insult to the home inspection profession.

"Intellectual property is defined as “any form of knowledge or expression created with one’s intellect” (Canadian University Intellectual Property Group, n.d., p.1). Intellectual property lies on the basis of value in general, and what society values in particular. This can be any form of creation."

Quote Source: Off with their heads! Copyright infringement in the Canadian online higher educational environment | Edmonds | Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l

"One of the basic principles of the Berne Convention is that of “automatic protection”, which means that copyright protection exists automatically from the time a qualifying work is fixed in a tangible medium (such as paper, film or a silicon chip).

A “qualifying work” is a
literary work
a musical composition
a film, a software program
a painting
or any of many other expressions of creative ideas
– but it is only the expression, and not the idea, that is protected by copyright law.

Neither publication, registration, nor other action is required to secure a copyright, although in some countries use of a copyright notice is recommended, and in a few countries (including the United States) registration of domestic works is required in order to sue for infringement."

Source: International Copyright Basics - RightsDirect

Based on the above I would contend that the CSA Home Inspection Standard should be challenged or at least clarify that portions of their "Standard" are copyright and/or owned by other sources, and clearly not by CSA alone.

Thanks Claude.

Yes I agree with your assessment. What is more disturbing is the fact tax payers money was used to assist in CSA drawing up A770! Simply put the CSA standard cannot be seen to be a literary work, it is a work produced by collaboration, blending of current standards and feedback from 280 respondees.

Just look what has happened to P.S. Knight. I have been in contact with Gordon Knight and its amazing what he has had to do to try and protect his rights.

As you likely read on the CSA blog my reply to Mr. Gulletson.

Further the CSA standards have already been distributed on-line, thus the copy right has already been infringed upon.

In my view we all should be contacting Mr. Dong (MPP) en masse about the CSA making rules that no one can financially afford to utilize. (we should just pee into the wind since its standard operating procedure for inspectors to sit on their laurels). Already CSA is utilizing CAHPI president to spout their mantra how great the standard is due to inconsistencies in the current standards. (Can you say inconsistencies? Come on, I know you can).

Again CSA and spokespeople keep speaking about the inconsistencies in the current SOP. What inconsistencies? No one seems to be able to explain those inconsistencies of which the courts have spoken to many many times. The CSA standard is an unkown, unproven standard at this time.

(Note to self ... calm down Raymond, your blood pressure is high)

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Thank you very much for your patience. I am pleased to provide some information in regards to the questions that were asked earlier. Please see below.



Q: Can I give copies of the CSA A770 standard to other people or can I include a copy of the CSA A770 standard in my contract, scope of work, or the report that is given to my clients?

A: No, the copyright for the CSA A770 standard is owned by CSA Group. When you purchased the pdf of CSA A770, you accepted an end user license agreement which states that no part of the printed publication, nor any part of electronic files, in part or in whole, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form. Therefore, it is not permitted to distribute copies of the standard to anyone without an additional license agreement from CSA Group. Please contact CSA Group at sales@csagroup.org or 1-800-463-6727 for more information.

.

Gee I think many already have a copy .

Q: Can I give copies of the CSA A770 standard to other people or can I include a copy of the CSA A770 standard in my contract, scope of work, or the report that is given to my clients?

I do not think C S A has the ability to get the back now .

Even if you included a boot leg copy in your report, do you really think the client is going to report you to CSA for supposed copyright infringement? I doubt it, and even if CSA did find out they will not drag you into court, it's just to costly to persue individuals. You'd likely get a cease and desist letter.

Check your copyright laws for 'fair use' - there are likely exemptions for 'educational' uses and other uses where one copies and extracts sections for discussion, teaching, etc. Including sections in your reports is for educational use as you are discussing and teaching the included sections to those who, apparently, do not know.

Fair Use does not apply to CSA documents, you must pay either the $50 or a licencing fee for multiple distribution.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Fair Use does not apply to CSA documents, you must pay either the $50 or a licencing fee for multiple distribution.

Canada has 'fair use' for copyrighted material?

Then fair use would apply (I'm not referring to including the entire standard, only sections as applicable, and there is no "multiple distribution").

Is there a government law which states otherwise?

Does your 'fair use' state otherwise?

Trying to understand what the law would be which would override 'fair use'.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Even if you included a boot leg copy in your report, do you really think the client is going to report you to CSA for supposed copyright infringement? I doubt it, and even if CSA did find out they will not drag you into court, it's just to costly to persue individuals. You'd likely get a cease and desist letter.

I am having difficulty trying to see how I'm going to comply with the new BC home inspection regulations without supplying a copy of the home inspection standards.

For instance, the following is a portion added to the home inspection regulation a few weeks ago;

13(1) a licensee must ensure the home inspection report meets the following requirements;

(d) the report specifies what is not covered by the home inspection.

CSA's position is that including section titles is okay. The difficulty is
one of the sections includes "Exclusions"; a list of things not covered by the Standard.
That list is covered by copyright.

How is it possible to comply with the home inspection regulation and not provide a copy of the standard?
I don't think it is.
It makes me wonder if that was the BC government's intention all along

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Canada has 'fair use' for copyrighted material?

Then fair use would apply (I'm not referring to including the entire standard, only sections as applicable, and there is no "multiple distribution").

Is there a government law which states otherwise?

Does your 'fair use' state otherwise?

Trying to understand what the law would be which would override 'fair use'.

Here's reference to Copyright and Fair Use:
Copyright Act

Originally Posted by Steve Panting

one of the sections includes "Exclusions"; a list of things not covered by the Standard.
That list is covered by copyright.

That list should be covered by fair use as you are educating your client as to what the standard excludes.

You could even reword it similar to 'The standard excludes the following: a, b, c, etc.'

Regardless what one thinks what fair use is, CSA has made it abundantly clear that is not how they operate. The same arguement is being made by Gordon Knight of Electrical Code Simplified. The copy right as Claude posted from my understanding does not apply since the standard is not being used for research, but is being used for commercial purposes.

FAQ's | ShopCSA

13. Can we share the pdf file with others?

No, CSA grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to download documents obtained from CSA in the electronic format provided for your individual use on one computer.

http://www.csagroup.org/documents/te...Guidelines.pdf

Calgary publisher brings legal battle against Canadian Standards Association to Parliament | National Post

CanLII Connects - Ontario Superior Court refuses to stay a defamation action pending the outcome of a copyright, trademark and competition action proceeding in the Federal Court

Canadian Federal Court Finds Copyright Subsists in the CSA Code | Deeth Williams Wall

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

FAQ's | ShopCSA

13. Can we share the pdf file with others?

No, CSA grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to download documents obtained from CSA in the electronic format provided for your individual use on one computer.

That is not the question as that asks about sharing the pdf file - that does not address a section or part of a section for educational use.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Regardless what one thinks what fair use is, CSA has made it abundantly clear that is not how they operate. The same arguement is being made by Gordon Knight of Electrical Code Simplified. The copy right as Claude posted from my understanding does not apply since the standard is not being used for research, but is being used for commercial purposes.

CSA is not 'the government' nor are they 'a government agency' (they have even said so), thus they can insist on anything they want to insist on, but they are also required to follow the laws, and if your fair use allows for use for educational uses and other uses, then the laws are on your side.

The NEC was the same way, but fair use allows for quoting sections for educational, news, and other permitted uses.

Fair use does not allow me to print the entire NEC and sell it, or share my pdf file of the NEC, nor would fair use allow you to share the pdf file ... but that is not what is being said here.

You seem bent on finding ways not to apply fair use instead of reading and applying fair use as it is intended to be applied ... for the good of the public.

What does your fair use allow and permit?

What is fair dealing and how does it relate to copyright? | SFU Library

Fair use' in Canada is called 'fair dealing'.

Jerry

I suggest you read what the link you provided states.

Fair dealing is a user’s right in copyright law permitting use of, or “dealing” with, a copyright protected work without permission or payment of copyright royalties. The fair dealing exception in the Copyright Act allows you to use other people’s copyright protected material for the purpose of research, private study, education, satire, parody, criticism, review or news reporting, provided that what you do with the work is ‘fair’. If your purpose is criticism, review or news reporting, you must also mention the source and author of the work for it to be fair dealing.

Providing copies of CSA A770 is for commercial purposes! It is not used in the true sense as above in the bolded section.

And please don't infer I am hell bent on something of which you know nothing about as it applies in Canada dealing with of all things Canadian law.

Fwiw, I have submitted pertinent questions to CSA dealing with the issue of providing copies for clients or in the documentation of contracts. When I get those answers I will post them here as I did with the Q&A supplied by CSA.

PS

Canadian Federal Court Finds Copyright Subsists in the CSA Code | Deeth Williams Wall

On March 8, 2016, Manson J of the Federal Court granted an application by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) seeking relief relating to an alleged copyright infringement by the Respondents in Canada Standard Association v P S Knight Co Ltd, 2016 FC 294. The Respondents did not deny that their Knight Code is a substantial copy of the 2015 CSA Code. However, they asserted that no copyright subsisted in the 2015 CSA Code and raised the defence of a licence and fair dealing. Manson J rejected all of these arguments.

In particular, Manson J found that developing the CSA Code involved significant skill and judgment and that the 2015 CSA Code is an improvement over the previous original work, which also entailed substantial work. He also held that the Respondents could not rely on fair dealing, stating that “[w]hen 100% of a work is copied, the dealing cannot be fair.”

The Respondents have since appealed.

... and if your into it ... here is the ruling ...

Canadian Standards Association v. P.S. Knight Co. Ltd. - Federal Court

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Jerry

I suggest you read what the link you provided states.



Providing copies of CSA A770 is for commercial purposes! It is not used in the true sense as above in the bolded section.

Raymond,

I suggest you read what I keep saying ... which you apparently have not been doing ... SECTIONS my boy SECTIONS (as Foghorn Leghorn) would say) - you keep saying "copies" pdf files, you are not on the same page.

And your use (that *I* keep talking about) is for "education".

And please don't infer I am hell bent on something of which you know nothing about as it applies in Canada dealing with of all things Canadian law.

Then read the law, its exceptions and allowances.

And I repeat - to make sure I am not missing putting it in as you seem to be missing reading it or I seem to not be saying it - SECTIONS

Such as:

The electrical panel was not installed in accordance with the instructions as is required by the code:
- 2014 NEC
- - 110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

That is educating the person reading it.

That is one SECTION.

That is NOT the entire code (standard).

Jerry,

Please read what you wrote, it makes no sense.

This whole conversation has been about Ontario licencing, and the CSA standards and the inference and questions dealing with copyright vis a vis use by home inspectors without purchasing same or granting of a licence. And how CSA sees things. Not me or you, but how CSA sees it and plays it.

I am merely giving people info that I have gleaned and taken a great deal of time to find for the benefit of others who face licencing.

The fact remains these newly minted standards are not going over well with many. And CSA as I purposely posted is just how they play hard ball. Just the facts as CSA views the world. Maybe you would care to take them on eh?

Originally Posted by Steve Panting

I am having difficulty trying to see how I'm going to comply with the new BC home inspection regulations without supplying a copy of the home inspection standards.

For instance, the following is a portion added to the home inspection regulation a few weeks ago;

13(1) a licensee must ensure the home inspection report meets the following requirements;

(d) the report specifies what is not covered by the home inspection.

CSA's position is that including section titles is okay. The difficulty is
one of the sections includes "Exclusions"; a list of things not covered by the Standard.
That list is covered by copyright.

How is it possible to comply with the home inspection regulation and not provide a copy of the standard?
I don't think it is.
It makes me wonder if that was the BC government's intention all along

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Jerry,

Please read what you wrote, it makes no sense.

This whole conversation has been about Ontario licencing, and the CSA standards and the inference and questions dealing with copyright vis a vis use by home inspectors without purchasing same or granting of a licence. And how CSA sees things. Not me or you, but how CSA sees it and plays it.

Raymond,

I guess you missed the above post by Steve, and others not within your sighting through your scope to your specific target?

What I have been saying makes perfect sense for the other parts of this thread.

I think it is you who needs to keep abreast of what is posted in this thread and with its drifts and wafting around ... it has not all been within the narrow scope you think it has.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Even if you included a boot leg copy in your report, do you really think the client is going to report you to CSA for supposed copyright infringement? I doubt it, and even if CSA did find out they will not drag you into court, it's just to costly to pursue individuals. You'd likely get a cease and desist letter.

I think the A770 ordeal is free marketing for the CSA while pushing their main competitor out of business with legal fees.

As long as this continues expect cease and desist letters in the near future.

Ray, what about HomeSafe\s alleged IR patient?
See any similarities?
Even FLIR backed down.
Look what Nick did with HomeSafe.

Robert

This is Canada, not the USA, and there is a big difference between iR patent infringement because thats based on a private entity taking legal action which they do not have a right legally to do because they are not the patent holders, Flir is.

Read the links I provided. CSA takes no prisoners and fair use does not sway the court, and we will have to see what the appeal court holds.

Its also rather odd that the government of Ontario wants us licenced but if they institute the CSA standards they and the government are contradicting themselves because clients and home inspectors will have to pay for the privilege. This whole licencing issue is about the consumer being made aware of the common standard, and being educated and protected. How does the government protect the consumer when the consumer will likely have to pay for the privilege of reading the SOP as it applies to their purchase? So much for the nanny state helping the consumer.

Raymond, I understand the differences between patent infringement and copywriter infringement. The infringements are similar to a degree.

IMO CSA is trying to force a hostile takeover of the Canadian Electrical Standards. They are not for profit, or so it seems, so this method is one way of eliminating the competition for a bigger market share.
The more this makes news headlines the more the CSA gets free press and that includes the A770 standard as well.

Robert,

Do you not find it strange that the hue and cry about CSA standards have now surfaced when in fact the panelists should have (and maybe they did) raise this issue at the time the panel was sitting deciding futures?

Is A770 standard copyrighted by the Crown which if it were there would be no problem for inspectors using it openly ... but ...

(CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION v. P.S. KNIGHT CO. LTD. AND GORDON KNIGHT)

Copyright is a creature of statute, and the rights and remedies provided in the Copyright Act are exhaustive (CCH). Copyright in the CSA Code therefore only belongs to the Crown if the requirements set out in section 12 of the Copyright Act are met; namely, the Code must have been “prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department”, which is simply not the case. Reference to the CSA Code in legislation does not constitute preparation or publishing by the government or under their direction.

Further to my knowledge committee members and associations where not given credit for their input and compilation, further no associations received any acknownledgement given the CSA A770 for all intents and purposes copied sections of the current crop of standards.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Is A770 standard copyrighted by the Crown which if it were there would be no problem for inspectors using it openly ... but ...

(CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION v. P.S. KNIGHT CO. LTD. AND GORDON KNIGHT)

Copyright is a creature of statute, and the rights and remedies provided in the Copyright Act are exhaustive (CCH). Copyright in the CSA Code therefore only belongs to the Crown if the requirements set out in section 12 of the Copyright Act are met; namely, the Code must have been “prepared or published by or under the direction or control of Her Majesty or any government department”, which is simply not the case. Reference to the CSA Code in legislation does not constitute preparation or publishing by the government or under their direction.

Further to my knowledge committee members and associations where not given credit for their input and compilation, further no associations received any acknownledgement given the CSA A770 for all intents and purposes copied sections of the current crop of standards.

Your correct in the lack of credits owed to the sources, as well as the committee members.

On another note this whole CSA H.I. Standard was built on the creation of providing one unified "Standard of Practice" intended to help address consumers contention that the various association standards created confusion. Well as we know how will consumers be able to access the CSA Standard" without having to pay $50 + for their own "personal" copy. Furthermore, how can the licensing authorities provide open access to what should be a public document that indicates what standard a licensed home inspector "must" follow?

Worse case scenario, "consumers" will ultimately have to pay for this on every home inspection, and don't forget we still don't know the impact this "standard" will have on the ultimate cost of E&O insurance.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Is A770 standard copyrighted by the Crown which if it were there would be no problem for inspectors using it openly ... but ...

The question is, did the Crown have an agreement in principle with CSA for the A770?

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Further to my knowledge committee members and associations where not given credit for their input and compilation, further no associations received any acknowledgement given the CSA A770 for all intents and purposes copied sections of the current crop of standards.

1: As for the members and their acknowledgement, I am sure if you asked them they would tell you, Raymond.
2: As for associations and the SOP their members freely exposed to be submitted and possibly used within the standards document, I am sure Nick Gromicko and InterNACHI lawyers will be paying close attention to how this plays out for the home inspection industry Ray.
Case in point, HomeSafe patent troll and what is now in front of the courts.

Ray, while some may agree while others not, my loyalty and devotion to this grand association remains unwavering, no matter what I hear.
Time and time again, while some agreed while others not, this great founder has done the right thing to ensure we as home inspectors of all strips, organisations and associations are all held harmless by tyrants, bullies and industry autocrats, that think their SOP is the only SOP like this new A770.


We are not but cog's in this ever turning industry wheel.
Let's wait and see what happens.
Keep up the good work because my mindset is mirrored to yours.

Consumer protection is ever so needed during the home inspection process.
But let's not forget, the consumer has their personal responsibility as well.
Buyer beware caveat emptor is as old as time itself and so very often overlooked.
Too bad, so sad!.


Happy and safe inspecting Ray.
Your the king mate.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Worse case scenario, "consumers" will ultimately have to pay for this on every home inspection, and don't forget we still don't know the impact this "standard" will have on the ultimate cost of E&O insurance.

Good points but, you are overlooking the worst case scenario, consumers will feel at ease thinking grand things have happened.
Just look at BC and Alberta and the unhappy home consumers that used their provincially licensed home inspectors.
They are both back to the regulations drawing table are they not?

Claude, I admire you ability to seamless interact with all the players.
Real regulations can be the game changer.
The hell with licensing.

Mandated LCC or Corporation statice, mandated E&O, mandated GL, mandated vehicle signage, mandate identification on the job, mandate CSST safe practices on the work site, mandate CSST education, and certificate.
One year for all home inspectors to follow the new rules.

Licensing allows new home inspectors to look like developed seasoned home inspection business.
I paid my dues to educate and become a business. I have been operating businesses for almost 2 decades.

Think of this, if everything was free, how would you distinguish one from another? What the stringent value of free, or cheap, or inexpensive?

To be a legal operating business takes money, effort, and investment.
Everyone keeps talking about education, GIVE ME A FU----ING BREAK AND GET REAL!

The real losers are homeowners asking for cheap inspections. I know what cheap buyers.

One of biggest obstacles to licensing home inspectors in Ontario is the DAA. A DAA self-funded industry model is what is on the table. There's currently none in place to take on that task.

Starting one from scratch was estimated in 2013 during the MCGS discussion was in the range of $1.5M. Now with another guesstimate, divide that by the 1500 home inspectors possibly in the province. That equates to $1000 / license. But remember to consider the fallout of part-timers and those that are ready to leave if licensing happens. Now add on the potential cost increase and ongoing cost to cover a fair sized administrative body to handle not just licensing bit also consumer complaints and issues with respect to professional practices.

Next best guesstimate based on what happened in BC and Alberta is possibly upwards of culling the numbers by at least one quarter and upwards of half of the inspectors packing up their business. That plus mandatory E&O will also have an impact on those that may remain to attain a license.

Perhaps the regulators need to consider that the DAA is not the only model that can administer and fairly and impartially represent a licensing body in an affordable licensing model.

I must admit if licencing comes to fruition I will be giving serious thought about retiring too.

Its just become a case of government playing big brother for political reasons and the only real winners will be the insurers, lawyers, mortgage brokers and the Realtors. Everyone knows whats best for us, and one need look no further than the bad press and the comments left on those media sites as to what the public by and large thinks of home inspectors and their services. This is what happens when you have no cohesive voice from the profession. Not one association has even bothered to release any form of a press release touting the benefit nor correcting the negativity displayed by others who really demonstrate they know nothing about the biz. If any attempt has been made to try and change public opinion it has rested on the backs of individuals.

Further I do not trust K. Wynne and her lap dogs, they have screwed Ontarians over too many times for me to have any trust in her, her ministers, and her back benchers!

Feedback from inquiries I made to CSA this date indicate in order to take advantage of the licencing aspect of CSA A770 one must become a distributor. Awaiting for further details on that aspect - awaiting a return phone call from the person who knows all about the 'distributor' aspect.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Feedback from inquiries I made to CSA this date indicate in order to take advantage of the licencing aspect of CSA A770 one must become a distributor. Awaiting for further details on that aspect - awaiting a return phone call from the person who knows all about the 'distributor' aspect.

I emailed yesterday on the same subject.
I'm still waiting.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

Starting one from scratch was estimated in 2013 during the MCGS discussion was in the range of $1.5M. Now with another guesstimate, divide that by the 1500 home inspectors possibly in the province. That equates to $1000 / license.

Next best guesstimate based on what happened in BC and Alberta is possibly upwards of culling the numbers by at least one quarter and upwards of half of the inspectors packing up their business. That plus mandatory E&O will also have an impact on those that may remain to attain a license.

Perhaps the regulators need to consider that the DAA is not the only model that can administer and fairly and impartially represent a licensing body in an affordable licensing model.

Please think outside the licensing box for a minute Claude.

As a businessman twice I started with learning all the obstacles in front of me by going to the governments.
It starts by regulating the home inspection service industry businesses to be responsible for their business actions and not how smart that inspector is nor what designation they hold.

Provincial Service Industry Regulations can set regulation standards for new home inspection business to achieve before they can work.
I have posted them over and over again.
What they hell is $1,000 or $1,500 dollars each, Claude.
You trying to make me laugh?
I have spent 60 times that, hello.

As you well know Claude, I have been echoing my views from the start and they do not include licensing.
If you can not afford to be in business go work for someone.

You know how much effort it takes to train and support a new worker?

I will put it this way, after achieving a BA, becoming an engineer, an architect, or a doctor or lawyer, how many start their own business and what are the upfront costs?
Most graduate and work for firms.

On top of that, 75% of small business startups will fail within 2 to 3 years.

If I said I still do not know why everyone looks at this from a totally educational standpoint I would be lying because I know most of those smarter than I few that have been crying "save me from my competitor" for years.

When does passing a recognized standard stop you from being bias or having a conflicted interest when it comes to money OR REFERRALS.
Too bad.
So sad!
I can pull up 3 links now that tell another story.

In Quebec, we just when through another corruption inquiry where the engineering firms stole the show. Think they should be made to take more engineering course and be licensed?
Hello, anyone listening?

Originally Posted by Steve Panting

I emailed yesterday on the same subject.
I'm still waiting.

They certainly are tardy in responsiveness! Why leave messages if no one bothers to call you back? Maybe we need to go over peoples heads. I have been known to do that...

I suspect the slow response is due to the accuracy and validity of questions being asked. Keep up the good work.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

(as Foghorn Leghorn)

That you on the right?
fog horn.JPG

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

A DAA self-funded industry model is what is on the table. There's currently none in place to take on that task.

I hope that works out either way.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

That you on the right?
fog horn.JPG

Foghorn Leghorn classic one liners:

- Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
- Gal reminds me of the highway between Forth Worth and Dallas - no curves.

and

- I say, boy, pay attention when I'm talkin' to ya, boy.
- Pay attention to me boy! I'm not just talkin' to hear my head roar.
- That's what I've been - I say, that's what I've been telling you, boy!
- Go, I say go away boy, you bother me.
- What's all the whoopin' and hollerin about, boy.
- Now cut that out boy, or I'll spank you where the feathers are thinnest.

Foghorn Leghorn.

Received a call from CSA today.

They are aware of the situation and concerns being expressed in Ontario et al, in regards to purchasers/inspectors not being able to view the document (view only) without being charged $50.

I explained why it was important for purchasers to have the full document, and as such not making the document available would defeat/run contrary to what the government has in mind with protection of the public first and foremost, with standards which are uniform and defendable.

Any way, I have to call back in a month or so as it will take that long for CSA to sort this issue out and hopefully come up with a workable solution. (if any)

Now you know as much as me!

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Received a call from CSA today.

They are aware of the situation and concerns being expressed in Ontario et al, in regards to purchasers/inspectors not being able to view the document (view only) without being charged $50.

I explained why it was important for purchasers to have the full document, and as such not making the document available would defeat/run contrary to what the government has in mind with protection of the public first and foremost, with standards which are uniform and defendable.

Any way, I have to call back in a month or so as it will take that long for CSA to sort this issue out and hopefully come up with a workable solution. (if any)

Now you know as much as me!

Thanks Raymond.... hopefully they listen and realize the current pay to see plan will only hurt consumers.

Ya I would have posted it on ASHI, but whats the point, I don't want to get shot down!

For those apathetic types..

This is the last CSA posting from CSA on A770.

Greetings all,

I would like to thank everyone for their input into this thread and for submitting your questions – it is an interesting discussion. The thread will now be archived and we will take away the valuable (and passionate!) feedback received and assess opportunities for CSA Group to best meet the needs of the marketplace. I would be happy to give anyone additional information about the CSA A770 standard. Please feel free to call me directly at 416-747-4186 and I will endeavour to answer your questions.

Regarding the question about licensing, a license agreement in this case would essentially be an agreement with CSA Group that deals with the use or distribution of the standard. License agreements are handled by our sales and licensing group. For further questions about what a license agreement would entail, please contact sales@csagroup.org or 1-800-463-6727.

For anyone’s interest, I have included some additional information below about how the CSA A770 standard was developed.

CSA Group standards are developed through an accredited consensus process involving a technical committee of volunteer experts that is responsible for developing the content of the document. CSA Group is the neutral facilitator of the development process which is centered around a membership matrix with a balanced representation of interested stakeholders. The CSA A770 committee membership is comprised of four interest categories: home inspector, consumer/user, regulatory authority, and general interest. The committee membership roster is included in the front end of the standard. The committee considered existing work available to the industry and developed the standard over a series of meetings whereby the committee made decisions about the technical content of the standard by consensus. The standard was issued for a 60-day public review which provided the committee with a great deal of feedback. The committee evaluated the public feedback and made adjustments to the standard to accommodate. The final document was voted on and approved by the committee before publication.


Standards like the CSA A770 are voluntary when published. Home inspectors can adopt it into their practices if they wish. The authority having jurisdiction (e.g. provincial regulator) determines whether to adopt a standard into regulations and enforce compliance.

Raymond, thank you for following this from beginning to end.
You have provided an interesting look into the CSA standard.
Much appreciated.

Regulating Ontario’s home inspectors is taking too long: Aaron

As written, Bill 165 would establish a designated administrative authority (DAA) with the power to regulate the industry. In governing its members, the DAA would act like the Electrical Safety Authority, the Real Estate Council of Ontario, and the proposed governing body under the new Condominium Management Services Act, 2015.

Regulating Ontario

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

Regulating Ontario’s home inspectors is taking too long: Aaron

As written, Bill 165 would establish a designated administrative authority (DAA) with the power to regulate the industry. In governing its members, the DAA would act like the Electrical Safety Authority, the Real Estate Council of Ontario, and the proposed governing body under the new Condominium Management Services Act, 2015.

Regulating Ontario

Here's the interesting turn about on the proposed licensing'

Quote from the article "The bad news is that after more than three years of study, the Ontario government is still not ready to proceed with its own legislation. Instead it has allowed the issue of regulation of home inspectors to be brought to the legislature by a private member’s bill which stands little if any chance of passage."

http://www.ontla.on.ca/lao/en/gettin...-petition.html

As of April 22 Bill 165 its still in the laps of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills.

I obtained a copy of one of the petitions. There were only 4 names on it agreeing (supporting) with the government to licence us. Joe public names, no names that I recognized, all from Toronto.

The government has 24 days in which to respond to the petitioners. If I understood correctly there may be some news next week as to the committees response.

Also spoke to CSA, and they have not made any decisions as of yet to whether folks will have to purchase or a view option of the standard. They are very, very tight about copyright protection.

I also asked if anyone from CSA was asked out on an inspection to see first hand what is involved in a typical inspection. My contact did not know if they did or not, but thought that it was a good damn idea.

The attachment is from the petition with Joe public signatures beneath it.