Thread: Why We Need Good Home Inspector Licensing in Ontario

November 3, 2016

http://www.carsondunlop.com/home-ins...ng-in-ontario/

CSA SOP Opinion
http://www.carsondunlop.com/news/why...me-inspectors/

Similar Threads:

• PEO to keep tabs on possible licensing of home inspectors - Ontario
• Home inspector licensing legislation tabled in Ontario
• The Net Sum of Home Inspector Licensing

Something about CD just angers me Ray. They did not appear arm's length during their almost 40 years in the industry in an effort to capitalize on profits.
Typically when an educator provides the best, individuals break down you door to enter. Does not appear to be that way any longer, does it?

Robert,

Tell me about it. There appears to have been several conflicts of interest on the panel. In addition to CD I did have concerns about P2P and that is based on my own personal experience from when I was on the discipline committee of OAHI.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert,

Tell me about it. There appears to have been several conflicts of interest on the panel. In addition to CD I did have concerns about P2P and that is based on my own personal experience from when I was on the discipline committee of OAHI.

There lay the framework of why Good Home Inspector Licensing is Required in Ontario.
Raymond, lay out several BASIC principles you feel would improve this task.
Consumer confidence is paramount.
As well, let set this upon the principle, the certifying body bar is set.

Based on the recent Ontario Assembly - Hansard Transcripts and references to OAHI in specifics, there appears to be the heavy hand and influence of "lobbying" to see OAHI represent or have influence as the DAA. It certainly is short sighted for the current Bill on Home Inspection to pass under false assumptions.

Much of history, dissension and fragmentation with a good number of home inspectors all have been the byproducts of the harsh and often unfair politics of dealing with OAHI. What was once one or two associations in the province of Ontario grew to about 7.

Even the MGCS home inspector panel and even the CSA standard process was heavily weighted by an unbalanced number of representatives. Albeit the general recommendations seemed reasonable, fair and acceptable upon completion.

Personally even as college educator, that specialized in adult education I was personally discriminated against to deliver education courses offered by OAHI. Yes I served as a volunteer in many capacities in the past as a director, committee chair and even ethics committee member. Not to forget that I was one of the original founding members of OAHI. Certainly it is amazing how things change, the heavy hand of influence rears its ugly head, and you are delegated to status-non-gratis.

I'm not against licensing - I'm against a one sided stacked deck that favors only one association and not fair and equal representation as part of the DAA.

I'm sure there are far too many horror stories that would make ones head spin!!

Thanks Claude.
I wish The ACHI was favored by Ontario Inspectors. In hindsight it would be better than what replaced them or so it seems.

Lobbying is the golden key to deep political pockets. OAHI is good at it. They are entrenched into Ontario's political system.
Too bad.
So sad.

Same question to you, Claude. Propose several BASIC principles you feel would improve this task.
Much thanks.
Looking forward to your and Raymond's response.

As a I stated earlier, there's a good number of home inspectors, including Raymond and Roy that are very familiar with the antics of OAHI and some of their leaders.

Anyone that disagreed with their decisions or ventured to offer an opposing opinion was quickly silenced by as I stated by discriminatory and exclusionary tactics.

Even when serving as a Director, I was removed from a Board meeting for unfounded and inaccurate information. I was presumed guilty by "association" without benefit of a hearing or opportunity for rebuttal.
As a Director I quickly became disillusioned by the way certain people "controlled" the association. Many tried to invoke change for the positive, but most often it was in vain.

Claude

I remember along with others what went on in OAHI. Who wouldn't.

This new Ontario home inspection association appears secretive as well, although they say they are not or at least until you ask certain questions. Having to be a member to get a true head count is bunk!

I had a run in with this association and I will refrain telling my story, the truth, but will certainly do so if things develop further. I was not allowed telling anyone while being investigated yet accused of treason among other things.

Promise. Although I retain Joe Ferry for E&O claims intercept, if I have to pay out of my pocket I will retain Joe in defence and do my best to make them accountable for dealing in bad faith.
I remember when the president was overthrown without due process. What kind of leadership is that.
Thanks for the help Ray. Smoke and mirrors.

A member told me how you helped him navigate his false accusers. He holds you in the highest of regards. No wonder there are so many associations in Ontario. All makes sense now yet the government blinds to lobbing. Thats takes the cake.

Question being placed again, allowing associations to be self serving as educators, certifying their members, what else could be done to open up transparency for the consumer.

I will chime in seeing no one has as of yet.
Commercial business laws.

• Vehicle signage.
• Proof of Insurance to retain a business license/ classification.

Just as you would car insurance.

• Uniforms, with separate personal identity badges with up to date photos within the past 12 months.
• Group CSST or physical injury insurance. This goes as well for multi inspection firms and franchises.

No subbing work. Company takes on all liabilities.

• GL insurance.
• Insurance for Loss of articles, property.
• Criminal background checks.
• Third party oversight committee. Fully at arms length.
• Full exposure to/of association membership count.

Junior members, volunteers, certified members, members with designations, Directors.

All classifications and classifications fully exposed to the public and when the classification was started.

• Real Estate industry Ambletsman.

With jurisdiction all sides of the real estate mandate where home inspectors are involved.


Awaiting other replies.

Originally Posted by ROBERT YOUNG

This new Ontario home inspection association appears secretive as well, although they say they are not or at least until you ask certain questions. Having to be a member to get a true head count is bunk!

I had a run in with this association and I will refrain telling my story, the truth, but will certainly do so if things develop further. I was not allowed telling anyone while being investigated yet accused of treason among other things.

Robert

There bylaws are very light in substance, as a matter of fact anyone incorporating can download a copy of those bylaws. The bylaws were not specifically drafted, nor do they detail the fine details of any worthy bylaws. As a matter of fact anything a members says that the BOD deems seditious the BOD can remove you.

4.1 Discipline of Members
The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds: violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation; carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion; for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.

Disturbing to know that the same provisions are ignored by the BOD of this so-called outfit. Others are well aware how they operate. This BOD operates in unison as a intimidation and bullying outfit.

If I can be of assistance do not hesitate to let me know. I am always up for a challenge.

And to add further clarification this so-called body does not certify anyone anymore than OAHI does. 'Certify is an much overused verb in order to market a title.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert

There bylaws are very light in substance, as a matter of fact anyone incorporating can download a copy of those bylaws. The bylaws were not specifically drafted, nor do they detail the fine details of any worthy bylaws. As a matter of fact anything a members says that the BOD deems seditious the BOD can remove you.

4.1 Discipline of Members
The board shall have authority to suspend or expel any member from the Corporation for any one or more of the following grounds: violating any provision of the articles, by-laws, or written policies of the Corporation; carrying out any conduct which may be detrimental to the Corporation as determined by the board in its sole discretion; for any other reason that the board in its sole and absolute discretion considers to be reasonable, having regard to the purpose of the Corporation.

Disturbing to know that the same provisions are ignored by the BOD of this so-called outfit. Others are well aware how they operate. This BOD operates in unison as a intimidation and bullying outfit.

If I can be of assistance do not hesitate to let me know. I am always up for a challenge.

Much thanks as always Raymond.
You are a true friend.

That being said. I gleamed through the bylaws and was shocked at the lack of definition.
It allows, as you so rightly described, all/any complaints to literally go unchanged on the presumption that a line was crossed.
Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Robert

And to add further clarification this so-called body does not certify anyone anymore than OAHI does. 'Certify is an much overused verb in order to market a title.

ISO and ICE Personal Certification Standards calls for a clear "arm's length separation" between education and the certification process. Far too many associations with respect to the home inspection sector mandate taking their specific courses or favored brand to gain certification. That in itself only supports self-interest and of course funding their own preferential brand of education.

To date the only H.I. association that is recognized of fully complying with that is ASHI. As a ASHI - ACI, I believe this hold more accountability, rigor and value in the scheme of credentialing, than any other home inspector designation.

Reference link:http://www.iasonline.org/PDF/IAS-Gui...partiality.pdf

Thanks Claude very valid points.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

ISO and ICE Personal Certification Standards calls for a clear "arm's length separation" between education and the certification process. Far too many associations with respect to the home inspection sector mandate taking their specific courses or favored brand to gain certification. That in itself only supports self-interest and of course funding their own preferential brand of education.

There are others ways that support Arm's Length certification.
Proctored exams. Municipal libraries can do the same.
Educators hold the certification.
Their education their students.
They hold all the information to allow vetting pertaining to their students.
We have been down this road before.
As well: Remembers certifications do not stop at certifying a home inspector. There are also other educational courses. Infraspection, ITC, etc...
As well, if governments State and Provincial recognize course training like InterNACHI, that bar is set.
As well, InterNACHI courses are free, no fee. No self interest like CD.

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

ITo date the only H.I. association that is recognized of fully complying with that is ASHI. As a ASHI - ACI, I believe this hold more accountability, rigor and value in the scheme of credentialing, than any other home inspector designation.

Reference link:http://www.iasonline.org/PDF/IAS-Gui...partiality.pdf

That's one out of how many associations. So because ASHI sets a bar everyone follows?
Proctored through an affordable independent means.

As well;

No one has anything to say about visibility?
Provincial Business laws?
A set of criteria, transparency, allowing the inspection company, because that what it is, to be openly visible to all in attendance during the mandate as well as on the road.

Robert you seem to have missed the point! This is not about who proctors the exam for certification.
This is about separation between the body that certifies and the path to achieving certification. It can not or should not be under the same association - aka: "autonomous".

NCCA Standard 2: “The certification program must be structured and governed in ways that are appropriate for the profession, occupation, role, or skill, and that ensure autonomy in decision making over essential certification activities”.

Accreditation standards address the "firewall between education and certification", and this is meant to "maintain impartiality". This means you cannot accredit education programs of study leading to initial certification or require your own education and training courses or review courses to prepare for the exam. Third party approval or setting general criteria by which education is expected is best practice.

The certification organization must not require that candidates complete that organization’s program for certification eligibility. If a certification organization provides an educational program (including but not limited to primary education, exam preparation courses, study guides), the organization must not state or imply that: 1) this program is the only available route to certification; or 2) that purchase or completion of this program is required for initial certification.

The criterions set must be reasonable, applied with an even hand, and not in conflict with public policy of the jurisdiction. Deprivation of substantial economic or professional advantages afforded and favouring one specifically named home inspection association will simply be open to challenges by those excluded.

Regarding NCCA Standard 3: “The certification board or governing committee of the certification program must include individuals from the certified population, as well as voting representation from at least one consumer or public member”. The favoured association does not have at least one consumer or public member sitting on the board, thus ensuring appropriate stakeholder involvement by designating certain representative positions on the governing body. And a check and balance of the program input and decisions made that impact the public and consumers, and possibly even other members.

Claude, with all due respect, whom is missing the point?
The topic is, Why We Need Good Home Inspector Licensing in Ontario, not why does Ontario require ISO and ICE Personal Certification Standards for home inspectors.
As well, that will not limit/eliminate inspectors double mindedness.

Third time I ask just incase some of you missed the point; question being placed again, allowing associations to be self serving as educators, certifying their members, what else could be done to open up transparency for the consumer.

This is about consumer protection, or so I was lead to believe by the Right Honorable Liberal MPP Han Dong (Trinity-Spadina).
I saw nothing tabled in bill 165 about certification standards, just an acceptable certifications for inspectors.

This is not about at arms length. If it was, REA would be surely in front of a commision for double mindedness.

- - - Updated - - -

Claude and Ray. With all due respect, you will have a very, very hard time being assimilated. Resistance is futile.

So "IF" I missed it - am I to assume it's perfectly OK for OAHI to represent and be the DAA.

Also I am to assume that it' is perfectly OK for OAHI to directly have inspectors take their "mandatory" courses to become certified; and furthermore it's OK to have the "boys club" decide who will pass the muster for OAHI certification.

That's still in my opinion very dismissive of what other home inspection entities provide as viable options for over 2/3rds of other home inspectors and their respective associations in the Province of Ontario.

NO home inspection association is perfect or without fault. But than again perhaps I'm totally wrong!

Read what "Personal Certification" standards requires to be at "arms length" from the possibility of "undue influence". Lobbying certainly falls under the category of "paid for influence".

I have a problem with OAHI becoming DAA. There are individuals within OAHI who have a lot to account for. Perhaps before anyone association becomes the DAA if indeed that is in the works, they should be audited financially and other records should be gone through by a third independent body.

Too many horror stories and the same players are still members.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

I have a problem with OAHI becoming DAA. There are individuals within OAHI who have a lot to account for. Perhaps before anyone association becomes the DAA if indeed that is in the works, they should be audited financially and other records should be gone through by a third independent body.

Too many horror stories and the same players are still members.

It was a general understanding that NO home inspection association would be the DAA. However, in reading the Hansard transcripts over the past few days there certainly is evidence that OAHI was mentioned in a number of references by several MPP's. I fail to see any other mention that other people or associations exist, other that we are unregulated!

Certainly that points to "lobbying" to highlight just one group - OAHI.

Hopefully if and when this goes to "committee", all who have a stake, get a kick at the can, to help set the record straight.

Claude

Count me in to kick the can.

Well here's a juicy tidbit from the discussions yesterday found in the Hansard Report.

"The Ontario Association of Home Inspectors has experience; they have expertise in coordinating professional standards and education on a voluntary basis. The authority, if it is not synonymous with OAHI, must draw on this pool of knowledge."

Once again, did they overlook others? Licensing must be based on a fair, equitable representation basis. Not based on myths perpetuated by those that believe they are legends in their own mind.

I think in this case OAHI pool of knowledge is an oxymoron. The pool of knowledge is not a monopoly confined to one association.

Look at the history of OAHI and its inability to market its members. Audrey LeBlanc was retained to promote OAHI and we know where he went with that, no where, but I digress. If OAHI cannot manage itself how in the hell does it expect to manage hundreds of inspectors?

Best,

Originally Posted by Claude Lawrenson

It was a general understanding that NO home inspection association would be the DAA. However, in reading the Hansard transcripts over the past few days there certainly is evidence that OAHI was mentioned in a number of references by several MPP's. I fail to see any other mention that other people or associations exist, other that we are unregulated!

Certainly that points to "lobbying" to highlight just one group - OAHI.

Hopefully if and when this goes to "committee", all who have a stake, get a kick at the can, to help set the record straight.

OAHI asked their membership to vote on whether to use funds from the members to pay for lobbyists. A resounding abstention suggested the OAHI members didn't want to waste money to that effect. It appears that they went ahead and solicited the services of the Earnscliffe Strategy Group after all.

The only way to combat this is to write to each MPP that mentions OAHI, thank them for their comments and remind them that there are a number of Associations, Franchises and Inspectors who have no allegiance to any group that are equally capable of providing great input to the process. It is important that the Ministers original statement of a "New, Independent Authority" is followed through.

Looking at the history of the profession in Ontario, no one association has all the answers, and certainly none have the ability to satisfy the requirements of the regulations in an independent way.

The committee should listen to all stakeholders, follow the exisitng recommendations as the framework to start from and kick the lobbyists into touch on this one.

Otherwise consumer protection will be replaced by another self-serving kwango, which serves no-one and presides over the ultimate demise of the profession. Just my 10c.

Yesterday the Bill impacting Home Inspectors has unanimously passed 2nd reading and is now off to "Committee".

http://www.ontla.on.ca/lao/en/gettin...in-committees/

Raymond, it is like you said a while back, the political will is just not there.

Otherwise Ontario would have licensing already, simply by following in the footsteps of BC and Alberta.

Anyway, Ontario has much to gain by watching things unfold out West, such as the cash grab. Somebody do the math. What are they waiting for?

BC now has new licensing rules. Membership in one of the 3 chosen associations is no longer required. Just Google the Consumer Protection Branch of BC if you want the gory details.

Thanks John

I have been keeping abreast of what is and has happened in BC and Alberta.

Best,

It appears that Ontario like BC and Alberta, wants to do their own thing. Only time will tell what the final results will be.

I have been at the table with gaining recognition in BC and Alberta for the NHICC; have also been involved in helping to formulate the Ontario Panel Report too. They all have there "unique" differences.

Although BC inspectors do not need to be aligned with an association, holding membership has "some" advantages. But on the other hand some can disagree with the true benefits of "some associations". Certainly paying high membership and mandatory fees can be a downside.

The NHICC took the approach of becoming "certification entity" with an exact purpose in mind. Avoiding association politics, and focus on the individual and their background, and focusing on the ideals of the ISO - ICE/NCCA Certification Standards.

As an example of a certifying agency here is how OACETT handles certification.
https://www.oacett.org/Membership/Re...cation-Process