OK so, if I conduct a home inspection and miss the fact that there is a leak in the roof and the client complains , I am therefore guilty of a (as you say CRIMINAL/Provincial offence)? Not to mention the fact that the legislation does not specify a list of offences.
Breaches of a provincial statute can never be called. “CRIMINAL” ! Criminal offences are committed in violation of Federal Statutes like the Criminal Code, Drug offences etc. !
This legislation has no more authority for criminal results that the Highway Traffic act or getting a parking ticket.
You need to remember I spent more that 30 years in law enforcement… Several of those years investigating public complaints made against police officers, so I know a bit of what I’m talking about!
Bill 59 Second reading adjourned to tomorrow, courtesy of gerrymandering on the Mining Modernization Bill (Bill 39).
This is where they are trying to take a system that is broken, and computerise it. From personal experience the only things you get when you do that is a waste of public money and a system that breaks much quicker.
Please point out that wording in Section 60 The section is noted above for your reference. (Post eight)
The language is very clear. “A statutory inspector has the authority to enter a place of business without warrant” bla,bla, bla. It says nothing about an exception when the place of business is a dwelling, which I dare say, is the case with virtually every home inspection company.
This section needs to be removed, or amended, to specifically exclude a dwelling. PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
Other sections deal with warrants and exigent circumstances.
It will pass as it has been lobbied for the past two years. Once it goes to committee there will need to be changes made. Our bill has most of the same legislation.
Seems Len didn’t care to respond or could not point out the language regarding exigent circumstances in section 60 of the legislation (First pointed out by Claude in the OP)
I was reading the Toronto Star this morning and low and behold there was a huge story about the RCMP being unable to compel someone to open encrypted devises like Smart phones or computers, even when they have a warrant! The legalities opposing such action are based in the constitution regarding self incrimination and not being required to provide information that would aid in a person’s own prosecution.
Having said that, provision in the home inspector legislation, Section 60, provide those exact powers. That section needs to go!
Can anyone tell me how I can attend the committee meetings and voice my objections to the provisions of Section 60?
Cheers
PS I’m retired so its really not my concern, however, I hate to see basic fundamental rights eroded or ignored by government!!! I know… some might think my position strange, coming from a retired Detective.
What a bunch of hogwash.
Some Brokers/REA a dupping purchasers and are highly regulated.
Gees Louise, why not do something useful with taxpayers money.
I wish you all the best.
If someone can help Doug please do so.
Doug, call Raymond Wand.
IMO, do not look for much help by certain quasi powers/members in front of commissions on behalf of our or their association in Ontario. Likely they would be backpedaling when all the facts come out due to all the nonsense they used to get where they are now.
Anything I can do just call. Be happy to do anything.
Regards.
Robert
You are not the only one with these concerns and they have indeed been noted. We are all concerned about the licensing as it affects ONTARIO inspectors. We are all waiting to see what the next steps are and will keep you aprised as promised.
It seems that some who are out of province think they should be consulted or have something to say about another jurisdiction. The fun never stops!
WOW!!! this sounds like discrimination to me .
For you an educated person to say this to me seems wrong.
I think you need to apologise to Robert… NOW!!!
Other people from out side Ontario have frequently given their thoughts on Ontario licensing and you have said nothing .
Robert had also paid dues to Ontario ACHI .
Did you Doug ever pay dues to Ontario ACHI
I understand I live on the bordering province.
Just offering help, that’s all.
I could do research or reach out to individuals you appear to have a bias towards.
Sorry you feel that way about Raymond. To me, it appears he knows how to act within the Ontario’s political confines, as well as on consumer protection within new and old Ontario home inspector associations that appear more than what they are, or have skeletons in their closet.
Food for thought.
Funny Pat or Len did not jump at the opportunity to bring you up to speed. You have a very distinguished carrier. I thought I heard they are short staffed and needed help. I guess volunteers only go so far in what they can actually do. Hmm.
The reason I offered some help doug, If licensing shoe does fall in Ontario, I heard from a reliable source, Not Gilles, any legislation that passes in Ontario will be scrutinized to see how it may be implemented in our province. Whats helps you helps us.
Remember though, Quebec’s OACIQ and RECO do not work under the same provincial agreements or regulations.
I thought everyone realized InterNACHI members work with each other. Gees Louise it has never been more clear how one voice would lobby hard. Crist Len and Pat. get Doug up to speed.
All the best Doug.
Just thought I would offer some help.
You attack Robert and agree with another none Ontario Inspector see post 25 .
I still think you should say your sorry but it looks like you are the same as the Ontario ACHI group who like to constantly attack and evade answering the questions …
ROY:
See the highlighted sentence in RED! Now that is discrimination and you do it in every post you write here!
YOU still haven’t apologized to Len about what you said about his wife but YOU are demanding Doug to apologize…who do YOU think you are …someone with authority…You have Zip nadda
Have a nice day! Go enjoy your retirement instead of constantly trying to stir the pot. YOU are the problem no one else just YOU!
