Thread: Can Professional Associations Be Held Liable in Negligence?

Can Professional Associations Be Held Liable in Negligence?

Professions, such as law, accounting and engineering, are self-regulated to some extent by professional associations, which govern and discipline their members and protect the public. In consideration of these responsibilities, it is interesting to ask if a professional association could be held liable for failing to discipline one of its members or for failing to warn the public about the conduct of one of its members.

Few legal authorities in Canada have considered the liability of a professional association to individuals who suffer a loss, economic or otherwise, from a member's negligence. This seems to suggest that, under existing law, individuals would have a difficult time establishing liability against a professional association for failing to discipline or warn about a member. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed the position that "the categories of negligence are never closed." They have broadened the categories and, with them, broadened when a duty of care may be owed and to whom.

The rationale underlying the establishment of self-governing professions is the protection of the public. It is this rationale, coupled with a professional association's enabling statute, that could engender a private law duty of care being owed by an association.
Most professional associations, under their enabling statute, have the power to license and discipline their members. This power, often joined with an ethical code of conduct, defines a "self-governing" profession. The public is protected by ensuring that only qualified, competent individuals are permitted to practise and that those individuals conform to standards of professional conduct established by rules and bylaws.

Any claim against a professional association for failing to discipline a member or failing to warn about the negligence of a member would be framed in negligence. If the enabling statute imposes a positive duty on the association to investigate or discipline its members, then arguably that association could owe a private law duty of care to a person in the public who has used the member's services. As for any claim in negligence, the person making the claim would have to establish a sufficiently close relationship between the association and himself or herself, such that it was reasonably foreseeable that a careless act or omission by the association could result in damages being suffered by that person. Further, one must weigh any policy reasons or considerations that would limit the scope of the duty and the class of persons to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

It is arguable, in certain circumstances, that an association is akin to a public authority. As such, there are public policy reasons to negate or limit its duty of care because of the potentially indeterminate number of claimants.

As well, the association's disciplinary powers may well be deemed quasi-judicial and therefore exempt from any liability. The enabling statute may include clauses protecting the association from actions brought against it as long as it acts in good faith. The wording of the enabling statute is of critical importance.

It is likely that an association, like any individual or public body, is also subject to a standard of reasonableness. Failing to act at all may be unreasonable. Failing to initiate a review or to discipline a member when the association knows, or ought to know, of his or her negligence or misconduct may also be unreasonable. The facts of each case will obviously affect the reasonableness of the alleged act or omission of the professional association.

Notwithstanding policy defenses, the potential for liability exists in the current negligence climate. Accordingly, it is in an association's best interests to ensure that its statutory obligations are clearly identified and adhered to in carrying out its role as a self-governing body.

For more information on this topic, please consult Bob Hodgins. (Frida Tromans assisted in writing this article.) 404 - File or directory not found.

Similar Threads:

• Law Firm Specializes in Home Inspector Negligence
• hand held shower cross connection
• R-there 2 many H.I. Associations
• Hand held lazer thermometer
• Hand held moisture detector or detection device

In one of the posts, I forget by who, I read where you can become a certified InterNACHI home inspector in 5 days through InterNACHI portal.
I say that because, I suspect anyone knowing the material can become a home inspector in one test.
Pointless exercise if you are trying to say the system is rigged. you can cheat almost anywhere.

I read back in 2012 were a newspaper journalist did just that with the help of a home inspector sitting beside her while cheating on her at home during exams in BC.
Nick again had to defend himself from a out and out self confessed cheat.
What some do to make themselves look better than others.
Too bad.
So sad.

Then came Mike Holmes bashing home inspectors openly and his rush to get his son a franchise in Ontario.
Yep, that about sums it up.

Does anyone think of getting everyone together as a team?

Let me point out something.
I mentor home inspectors and have for almost 2 years.
My last, a certified Carson & Dunlop, bonafide home inspector, was also a working architect for over the past 7 years.
Not bad.

Having never shadowed an inspector she called me up and I welcomed the eager individual with open arms. After six months, 6 or 7 shadows the individual sent me the first mock inspection. It was 25 pages and took many hours to complete.
Now a loyal InterNACHI student admitting the education surpassed CD and she admits that inspecting a home is not easy if you wish to provide substance.
Remember, SOP is a basic assessment of readily accessible structures, systems and components. As well you only need 3 tools.

I truly do not get all the NACHI and Lisa bashing.
The reason I am here speaking out, I am defending the association I belong to and I am loyal.
Remember what they did to disloyal sailors? They were keel hauled.

Originally Posted by Raymond Wand

Can Professional Associations Be Held Liable in Negligence?

Professions, such as law, accounting and engineering, are self-regulated to some extent by professional associations, which govern and discipline their members and protect the public. In consideration of these responsibilities, it is interesting to ask if a professional association could be held liable for failing to discipline one of its members or for failing to warn the public about the conduct of one of its members.

Few legal authorities in Canada have considered the liability of a professional association to individuals who suffer a loss, economic or otherwise, from a member's negligence. This seems to suggest that, under existing law, individuals would have a difficult time establishing liability against a professional association for failing to discipline or warn about a member. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed the position that "the categories of negligence are never closed." They have broadened the categories and, with them, broadened when a duty of care may be owed and to whom.

The rationale underlying the establishment of self-governing professions is the protection of the public. It is this rationale, coupled with a professional association's enabling statute, that could engender a private law duty of care being owed by an association.
Most professional associations, under their enabling statute, have the power to license and discipline their members. This power, often joined with an ethical code of conduct, defines a "self-governing" profession. The public is protected by ensuring that only qualified, competent individuals are permitted to practise and that those individuals conform to standards of professional conduct established by rules and bylaws.

Any claim against a professional association for failing to discipline a member or failing to warn about the negligence of a member would be framed in negligence. If the enabling statute imposes a positive duty on the association to investigate or discipline its members, then arguably that association could owe a private law duty of care to a person in the public who has used the member's services. As for any claim in negligence, the person making the claim would have to establish a sufficiently close relationship between the association and himself or herself, such that it was reasonably foreseeable that a careless act or omission by the association could result in damages being suffered by that person. Further, one must weigh any policy reasons or considerations that would limit the scope of the duty and the class of persons to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise.

It is arguable, in certain circumstances, that an association is akin to a public authority. As such, there are public policy reasons to negate or limit its duty of care because of the potentially indeterminate number of claimants.

As well, the association's disciplinary powers may well be deemed quasi-judicial and therefore exempt from any liability. The enabling statute may include clauses protecting the association from actions brought against it as long as it acts in good faith. The wording of the enabling statute is of critical importance.

It is likely that an association, like any individual or public body, is also subject to a standard of reasonableness. Failing to act at all may be unreasonable. Failing to initiate a review or to discipline a member when the association knows, or ought to know, of his or her negligence or misconduct may also be unreasonable. The facts of each case will obviously affect the reasonableness of the alleged act or omission of the professional association.

Notwithstanding policy defenses, the potential for liability exists in the current negligence climate. Accordingly, it is in an association's best interests to ensure that its statutory obligations are clearly identified and adhered to in carrying out its role as a self-governing body.

For more information on this topic, please consult Bob Hodgins. (Frida Tromans assisted in writing this article.) 404 - File or directory not found.

Thank you Ray. I was waiting for that.
Complaints are followed through establishing credibility I suspect.
I am sure they are not kangaroo courts held in an open forum.

As for Mr. Gromicko and the Free Trade Association named InterNACHI.
I am sure his legal team advise him well and have done so from the beginning.

I avoid the MB when I can and rather work while being happy instead of wondering what next to say on the MB.
Just makes sense to me.

Happy New Year, Ray.
Only the best.
Robert