You sure like to change my post’s
No where did I demand Doug to apologise ( YOU are demanding Doug )
No where have I been shown what I said about his wife (YOU still haven’t apologized to Len about what you said about his wife ) .
** I would appreciate if you would post what I was to have said wrong about his wife .**
I do not think I have said any thing that was incorrect .
This looks to me just like the typical attacks by the Ontario ACHI group.
What kind of help is that??
How do you know what we discuss with Members? We don’t post all of our discussions publicly and what is discussed with Doug is frankly, well, none of your business.
Both you and Mr. Cooke have done nothing else but attack at every opportunity and seem to think you can decide who posts what and who can talk to who like some type of ruling entities.
Then you promote another individual who has done nothing but constantly attack this Association, its Members and its founder…
You need to go look the definition of helping - It is not at all what you are doing.
Regards,
Pat
Don’t hold your breath! He believes he’s above ANY rules and even when proven wrong, he’ll carry on by playing the victim: Repeated behaviour all over this message board alone.
An example: This is a post by Mr. Cooke on another thread:
**" Gee you guys just do not see how much we enjoy seeing how you continue
to embarrass your self and NACHI… We bait you and away you go throwing false information against me,
who cares less about NACHI but sure do love to see you show how silly you really are.
Keep it up lots of fun.
Roy Cooke "
**
About integrity and professionalism, here’s a post from a Member Colleague:
**" Roy…
Integrity, you lost all of yours the second you asked the membership to nominate you for an award knowingly it was another member who deserved the nomination.
You lack the ability to be fair to INACHI members. "
**
Don’t hold your breath: He’ll never apologize and now he’s also attacking individuals who have no interaction with him to try to justify his personal vendetta.
Just for the fact that he accused her, as a previous ADMIN, shows how ignorant he is - just to be right at all costs!
Shameful behaviour, nothing else.
Best regards,
Pat
Please show me where I made an error that requires an apology .
or is this just one more of your false actuations
Don’t bother trying to dig out the attack as he has no (that’s: Zero, zilch, nulla, nada and aucune) intentions of apologizing. He will make you work and find every reason why he is above reproach.
He is well aware of what he posted and how incorrect it is. This is the same for all who read it.
Shameful how he’s moved on to someone innocent in his vendetta… Just to feel superior.
This was done already and you have stated you will not apologize. Re-read the previous post: It is what you do constantly!
Best that you move on.
what a sad life you seem to lead seems to me you are full of hatred .
Why do you evade showing all my error you are accusing me off.
See below
Please show me where I made an error that requires an apology .
or is this just one more of your false actuations
Saved.
I just visited your web site, **why are you ashamed to put that you are a NACHI and an Ontarioachi member **
http://reports.canadianresidential.com/book/inspect2.jsp?Address=streetsville&Province=ON
Home Inspections Mississauga / Milton
HomeInspector Patrick Auriol, CMI, CCHI
Certified Master Inspector
Certified Canadian Home Inspector
Level 1 Certified Thermographer
[FONT=Times New Roman]
[/FONT]
PAT OFFERS BILINGUAL SERVICE(English/French)
Pat Auriolhas an Electronic Engineering Technology background. With over 20 years ofextensive experience in customer service management, auditing, and technicalreport writing.
Pat has established a keen eye for detail andreport presentation. Through his affiliation with Habitat for Humanity,
Patcontinues to provide assistance to the community and constantly updates hisknowledge in the home construction industry.
CanadianResidential Inspection Services raises the bar in the home inspection industrywhen it comes to professionalism, code of ethics and conduct.
Allour inspectors receive intensive training and on-going support to ensure youreceive a thorough, unbiased, professional inspection.
CanadianResidential Inspection Services has the most user-friendly, comprehensivereporting system in the industry.
When youchoose Canadian you receive your inspection report on-site at the time of theinspection as well as a personal consultation with the inspector.
MISSISSAUGA/ MILTON
As stated in the other section you posted this:
Thank you for visiting my Franchisor’s website and providing your inaccurate opinion.
For all the reasons in the previous posts:
Don’t wish to engage you in a discussion! There is no end to this and you are wasting my time which can be used to more positive ends.
Have a nice day!
Regards,
Pat
Gee I would like to believe you but you have said this very often and then come back to attack me again . Have a good day Patrick I hold no grudges ,
](InterNACHI®️ Forum - InterNACHI®️ Forum - A community for home inspectors)https://www.nachi.org/forum/f46/love…ectors-113359/
Gee you made a whole three minutes staying away .
Looks like I am correct again .
BTW: The link you put in your post is where you attack us… Not the other way around…
Oooops!
The link is broken. Takes me back to the main page.
Hey Greg!
Sent you a private message with the what’s-what…
Best regards,
Pat
Yet another worthwhile thread regarding proposed Home Inspector Legislation goes down the schitt hole.
Sorry this happened Claude.
You did bring up a valid concern, with respect to Section 60, that all practicing home inspectors should violently oppose!
Ladies and Gentlemen your lawful rights are under attack! Fight back or you loose.
Seriously!!!
Cheers
Yes, good point: Back on track!
That section is very much being discussed and it is the intent of many to challenge the questioned sections. As previously stated, if more comes to light here, it’ll be forwarded. I would imagine Claude would do the same.
Anyways, the thing has to pass first…
Best regards,
Pat
Thanks Doug for your apologies it all started when you attacked our Member from PQ
So glad we can not put this behind us and move on…
Doug,
Before inciting everyone to a fight we just can’t win, it is worthwhile to identify the distinct differences between Statutory Inspector and Investigator, and exactly what Bill 59 says.
So, the differences between the two.
The statutory inspector conducts inspections while the investigator conducts investigations.
The inspection and investigation functions are separate and distinct under the proposed Act.
If the bill passes, the Registrar would be responsible for inspections, complaints and licensing decisions. The Director would be responsible for the investigations and compliance orders.
Investigatory powers must be used when the purpose of the inquiry is to determine penal liability (i.e. an offence under the proposed Act that carries with it penal liability such as a fine or jail time).
Inspection powers, on the other hand, are used with a view to determining compliance with the proposed Act or proposed regulations or determining a person’s suitability to hold a license. Inspection powers cannot be used to investigate penal liability. If non-compliance is found, the registrar may take further steps, including a referral to investigations. Given that investigations are done with a view to prosecution, investigation functions and inspection functions must remain separate and distinct in light of section 8 of the Charter.
So the cause for concern appears to be the Inspections without Warrant. This right to establish compliance with Licensing, and other regulatory acts exists all over the place. (e.g. Fire and Prevention Act, Health Protection and Promotion Act, Occupational Health and Safety Act, Ontario Building code Act, Ontario SPCA Act). Expecting it should be missing from another Bill that has a license to practice attached to it is pure folly.
The right to inspect without warrant applies, as the Bill is written, solely to business premises. The restriction is also that the inspection should be at a reasonable time. what the inspection portion doesn’t cover, is that fact that the Business premises could also be, or be part of a dwelling. This is covered in the section on Investigations (section 61) but omitted here (section 60). This appears to give an Inspector greater rights of entry without warrant than given to an Investigator.
The real concern here is that the Inspector is there to ascertain compliance to the requirements of a License, and that such an inspection may lead to an investigation, one might think that evidence collected as part of an inspection without warrant should be considered inadmissible as evidence in a penal investigation. In any police lead event such as this, such evidence might be considered collected as part of a fishing exercise.
Again, these two clauses exist in many other pieces of legislation, so the chances of them being removed are unlikely. What we should ask for is that the restrictions on Investigation without warrant should be equally applied to Inspections. That is, no entry to a private dwelling without a Warrant (or invitation)
When it comes to investigations, again, there is right of entry to business premises without warrant. Again, this is prevalent in a number of other regulations and criminal legislation. This has also withstood the tests again infractions of Section 8 of the Charter. The likelihood of getting these clauses removed are infinitesimally small. There may be opportunity, with a representative and responsive government to fine tune them to allow for proper enforcement of the Act while at the same time limiting the infringements on civil rights as part of the regulation process.
But when you consider that similar legislation, allowing the same rights have been passed successively by PC, NDP and Liberal governments, is it not better to utilise our time in working with the government to ensure the regulations work for both the consumers as well as the Home Inspection Profession, rather than bang our heads against a brick wall that is unlikely to change and only alienate the people we need to work with most?
My point exactly
Typically a place of business (store/Shop) is considered a “public place” as customers are encouraged to attend/enter. Not so with a business being operated out of a private dwelling ( as most Home Inspection companies are) Our customers do not ever attend our place of business
Those are my concerns.
I say again it makes no real difference to me because I am retired. JMHO
Cheers