I did my first CSA level inspection yesterday, the only things that changed from how I did things before was searching for smoke alarm expiry labels and inspecting the fence. I added a few things to my inspection check list. I did not see any need to change my report template because as far I can tell the CSA standard is identical to the interNACHI SOP with a few minor differences. CSA totally shredded the draft.
IMO they should give interNACHI a percentage of the 50 bucks per pdf copy, but as far as working with the standard, I don’t see a problem.
I don’t know what other associations or franchise standards are, it is possible they may have more concerns, but that is not my concern.
What software do you use Erik?
I use my own template and Open Office Document
In BC I would not rule out serious consideration of the CSA H.I. Standard in the very near future. The recognized associations in BC have had over two years to find common ground on one standard SOP. Unfortunately to date, no common standard is in order, in my opinion based largely on “largeness” and “association” politics.
On the CSA copyright issue, I also have concerns about a “fee” paid to CSA for a “standard” which is largely a restatement of words and phrases that already exist in the lexicon of most every home inspection association standards.
How can one legally copyright what would be largely already in the “public” domain for virtually decades?
Good one thanks Claude
As you guys ( Len and Claude) know I am retired, but, if I could be of assistance in some regard, let me know.
I don’t have as many time restraints as I did before.
Cheers
Doug, you know we are going to take you up on that offer. Thank you sir.
Claude this group who are making the rules for our industry .
Can you tell me did they all get out to see how inspection’s where done .
I do not like the idea of any not seeing what goes on making any decision that will effect our future .
Thought you might!
Cheers
PS I didn’t want to be thought of as a retired home inspector sitting on the sidelines throwing stones.
Hehe 
What makes the new standard a living document is its lack of precision.
The word “inspected” occurs in 55 instances in the document but does not have any specific definition.
Nor does the word “inspect” or “home inspection”.
I will demonstrate the effect of not providing a definition.
The home inspection regulation passed in British Columbia in 2009 contained, in part the following definitions;
“home inspection” means an opinion as to the condition of a residential dwelling or property based on a visual examination of readily accessible features and components of the dwelling or property;
“home inspector” means a person who engages in the business or occupation of home inspection.
The definition of “home inspection” was repealed last week. The latter definition remains in the regulation.
Why did they do that?
Obviously, a home inspection is no longer ‘a visual examination of readily accessible features…’.
What is it then?
Observe the following paragraph;
“4.2.2 Methods
As appropriate, inspection methods shall be non-destructive and non-invasive. One or more of the
following inspection methods shall be used, as appropriate, for each system or component and as required in Clause 5:
a) visual inspection, including with the use of viewing tools (e.g., binoculars, magnifying photography, borescope);
b) use of measuring tools (e.g., tape measure, laser measure, digital thermometer, electrical circuit
analyzer, voltage detector, spirit level, moisture meter);
c) use of photography;
d) operating the item under normal operating control;
e) testing or probing;
f) touching or moving the item being assessed; or
g) use of sense of smell or hearing.”
What about a dismantling tool such as a screwdriver?
Note the use of the weasel words “as appropriate”.
Check out the following;
“1.4.2
In this Standard, the terms “as/where appropriate” and “where/if/as applicable” are used. When a requirement is qualified by one of these terms, it is deemed to be appropriate or applicable, as the case might be, unless the organization or individual can document a justification otherwise.”
Would that justification be required before or after the production of the report? I’m sure the reader could cite lots of examples where another inspection method would have been appropriate in hindsight given the broad range of methods noted above.
That hindsight is, for all practical purposes an infinite period of time because the limits of liability clauses in BC have now been legislated away.
What does testing or probing mean?
3.1 Definitions
Probing — inspection of an item by hand or by using a tool to determine condition and performance.
What about furnaces?
Obviously, a home inspection is now much more than just visual. What a home inspection actually is, only time will tell. I suppose it depends on what is is.
Claude, if the majority of the CSA document reads like HI associations SOP then they should all sue for plagiarism and make it public domain (as SOPs are).
Jeff - I agree, and that fact needs to be made public. In the CSA Standard it has a note called “Patent Rights” under their “Legal Notices” page to the effect that some parts of the document may be the subject of patent rights.
Would that not also apply to use word or phrases utilized by most every home inspector based on your choice of Standards of Practice?
Than again, this is borrowed right from the CIPO website - “Patents apply to newly developed technology as well as to improvements on products or processes. Patents provide a time-limited, legally protected, exclusive right to make, use and sell an invention. In this way, patents serve as a reward for ingenuity.”
I fail to see where seemingly, “copying” and “cutting and pasting” well known and established Home Inspection Standards are protected and granted “copyright” protection.
Well… I have learned over the years that organizations or companies do pretty much what they want until someone (Read Courts) tell them they can’t. We shall se what happens.
Cheers
You got that right Douglas, here’s how I see this
Disclaimer and exclusion of liability
This document is provided without any representations, warranties, or conditions of any kind, express or implied, including, without limitation,
implied warranties or conditions concerning this document’s fitness for a particular purpose or use, its merchantability, or its non-infringement of any third party’s intellectual property rights. ( AKA its ok for us to steal it as long as we admit it )
** Intellectual property rights and ownership**
As between CSA Group and the users of this document (whether it be in printed or electronic form), CSA Group is the owner, or the authorized
licensee, of all works contained herein that are protected by copyright. (Now we have stolen it its ours unless some one takes us to court for infringing on their copyright)
Patent rights
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this standard may be the subject of patent rights. (We admit it, we stole some of it from other organizations, so much so even we don’t know which parts.)
CSA Group shall not beheld responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights is entirely their own responsibility. ( if you are dumb enough to use this standard your on your own buddy, if someone sues for violation of patent rights you are first named in the lawsuit and best have very deep pockets cause we got lawyers on retainer already.)
Now the genie is out of the bottle, so to speak, here’s an email I sent to Paul at the CSA last Tuesday.
Paul,
Thanks for the links, I have purchased the standard and read through it top to bottom. I have a couple of questions.
-
At the foot of the document it has printed and I quote “Licensed for/Autorisé à Len Inkster Sold by/vendu par CSA on/le March/10/2016.~Single user license only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.”
I store all my documents on a Network Attached Storage unit in my office and access that information via a VPN on either my phone/tablet or PC depending where I am or what I’m doing. Is this going to be a problem? From the purely legal standpoint, I’m breaking the law, but the document is unusable any other fashion.
Maybe I could come and give some tips on writing sensible copyright statements for the digital age, I worked in IT security for over 30 years for the U.K. Government :D. For now I would suggest that you put something simpler and more encompassing like “Document licensed solely for the use of <License Holder> Unauthorised reproduction or otherwise sharing of the document content, in part or its entirety, is prohibited.” That way if inspectors have a cloud based document repository (e.g. Dropbox, iCloud, Onedrive) they use to refer to, they are covered and not in breach of the law.
2. My reporting software (as in the case of most of the reporting software used by Home Inspectors) has guidelines for clients that explain the scope of each component inspected. Currently this is taken from the Standards of Practice I use (OntarioACHI Residential SoP). Now, I am only able to refer to the CAN/CSA-A770-16 standard, and presumably can’t copy the wording.
So for example for the Roof Inspection, whereas before my report would have:
· The home inspector shall observe: Roof covering; Roof drainage systems; Flashings; Skylights, chimneys, and roof penetrations; and signs of’ leaks or abnormal condensation on building components. The home inspector shall: Describe the type of roof covering materials; and Report the methods used to observe the roofing.
· The home inspector is not required to: Walk on the roofing; or Observe attached accessories including but not limited to solar systems, antennae, and lightning arrestors.
Using CAN/CSA-A770-16 I would be expected to put something like:
· The Home Inspector shall inspect the roof in compliance with CAN/CSA-A770-16 Section 5.3.6
The standard in CAN/CSA-A770-16 for this component, as per many others is both more technically exhaustive, (we don’t currently test roofs for protection against the wind (one of the inclusive definitions of ‘weathertightness’ in the standard), as in this case, generally the wind is required for ventilation, but also less prescriptive, by the use of the term “not limited to”, and therefore more likely to cause non-standard inspections and therefore more prone to abuse/litigation. While I suspect my SoP covers the requirements, it does seem pretty pointless having a standard that can’t be easily read by the very people it’s meant to serve. i.e. the Public.
3. I understood that the new Standard would attempt to eradicate the perception that the inspector would be able to inspect things that were not immediately visible. While section 4.1.4 does identify some exclusions, I believe some of these exclusions could be legally challenged.
For example,
s4.1.4 a) predicting the probability of failure or remaining service life of any system or component seems to be legally challengeable by
s4.3.3.2 b) The results of the inspection shall be reported with the objective of identifying the items with inadequate performance, that have failed, or are nearing or past their intended life expectancy
In addition, there is a huge opportunity for misunderstanding and litigation from the cross referencing of items in the standard.
For example taking the document as a whole, there is a requirement that the inspector “shall* provide all equipment and tools required to conduct the home inspection* “ (s 4.2.4). Couple this with “One or more of the following inspection methods shall be used, as appropriate, for each system or component and as required in Clause 5 a)visual inspection, including with the use of viewing tools (e.g., … borescope)” (s 4.2.2) and (for example) either 5.5.5 Interior sanitary drainage systems or 5.5.6 Storm Drainage Systems, both of which are “readily accessible” by opening “inspection covers” (I’ve highlighted the words that a lawyer would focus on)
As a seasoned home inspector, my SoP states EXACTLY what I will and won’t do. What the standard can lead a client to think (using the above example) is the inspector shall (must):
- provide a borescope AND
- inspect storm or sanitary drains (or any other drain as the wording across the CAN/CSA standard is duplicated) AND
- detect leaks improper function or deficiency in materials.
Technically, this is all feasible, but currently considered out of scope. It’s not “invasive”, it’s not “destructive” and with the right tools is able to be performed. This is normally something that a licensed plumber would be called for, and for the case of basement drains a specialist licensed plumber at that.
Given the wording of the Standard as it now stands, if following the inspection there is something wrong with the drains, (clogged by roots, broken pipe underground near the inspection cover etc.) then the inspector would be held accountable by the client, but would be quite within their operational envelope.
This, in my opinion, is going to result in one of two things happening, either: - it’s going to create a huge backlog of lawsuits, while the standard gets the legal rulings on each contentious section, or
- Inspectors are going to buy the vast array of tools, have to charge a higher price for a seriously extended inspection.
The former will make a mockery of the reasons behind the standard, defeating the ability of having a standard that would be held to the same standard in a lawsuit.
The latter will result in less inspections, either as a result of the inspection being able to perform less or the cost being prohibitive for a client who has it as an elective service. Again, defeating the consumer protection objective of having the standard.
How can this be remedied without throwing the baby (a very expensive baby to date) out with the proverbial bath water? Again, in my opinion, it comes down to the copyright protection of the document. Allowing for the limitations to each component section to be listed, requires the original wording to be put into the contract/report. With a copyrighted document that’s impossible. With the current open standards, it’s not.
I believe, without a radical review of the way in which the document is published, or worse a wholesale revamp of the content, we are going to find ourselves reliant on the regulators to ensure the wording protects all interested parties. All of these issues were raised and discussed at length, in the Home Inspector Panel meetings with the Ontario MGCS. There appears to have been a disjoint between the findings of those meetings and the committee meetings at the CSA.
When we last talked we recognised that this was the first bite of the cherry, and that modifications would undoubtedly be necessary. Having read through the standard and tried to apply it to a real-life inspection scenario, it appears that maybe those changes will need to be forthcoming before the document is used in its entirety in a regulatory framework.
Please don’t get me wrong. I believe that the current CAN/CSA-A770-16 is a huge step forward to standardising the Home Inspection (consultancy) Profession, but treating it as a technical standard, and keeping it hidden from public sight is in my view a bad error of judgement.
Requiring that all inspectors adhere to this standard would be a great step forward, opening up the document using a creative-commons type license, where full attribution is garnered, would be in my opinion, a better way to protect the standard, protect the professionals using it, and protect consumers.
It would allow wholesale inclusion of the referenced sections in the inspection contract AND allow for any referenceable exclusions to be added.
I look forward to discussing this further.
Regards,
Len
Len Inkster CMI IAC2 MBCS CITP
Secretary
Ontario Association of Certified Home Inspectors
**
I copied the e-mail to Marray at OAHI, Allan at PHPIC, John at CanNACHI, and Claude at NHICC. I also copied it to Han Dong’s assistant and both Melina Campbell and Kelly Houton-Routledge at the MGCS. So far, no replies.
Thanks Len - good info for all to consider. Here’s a bit more from my personal perspective.
So what are some of the other concerns?
-
The issue of the cost to purchase a single copy is $50.
-
The question of “copyright” is clearly defined which limits the ability to “legally” pass this on to your clients. It also appears that any form of communicating the content of the document is simply open to infringement such as posting it on your website, etc.
-
I question the ability of CSA to claim this as “copyright” wherein much of the wording and phrases are common to earlier releases of Standards of Practice by the various associations. It seems they kind of cover the similarity issue of by stating in the Standard under Patent Rights – “Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this standard may be the subject of patent rights. CSA Group shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights is entirely their own responsibility.” So if that is the case what can a home inspector “legally” use?
-
The above issue also opens up similar concerns by considering the impact on reporting systems. Particularly with respect to the language, words and/or phrases commonly found for years if not decades in home inspection reports. How can CSA simply void all the proprietary work of report vendors?
-
In my own particular experience I would provide a copy of the ASHI/CAHPI SOP in my report as well as have a copy available on my website. Although I agree in principle with providing all consumers with a uniform “scope of work” as defined and as the goal by the creation of this CSA Standard, I certainly take issue with the cost of it and the lack of ability to provide “free access” to the target audience it was intended to define and protect.
BTW: When you purchase your own “legal copy” of the CSA Standard it watermarks the purchasers full name on the bottom of each page similar to a foot note and also specifies “~Single user license only. Storage, distribution or use on network prohibited.”
SIDE NOTE: For those of you that may have purchased or used the “Electrical Code Simplified”, a book authored by P.S. Knight, you may detect some similarities in the power and claimed abuse of CSA.
The Canadian Standards Association (CSA) recently launched a lawsuit to eliminate its only competitor, P.S. Knight Co. As a regulatory entity however, CSA shouldn’t be competing commercially at all. In this affair and a host of others, CSA has been compromising the rule of law for commercial advantage and abusing its regulatory position for profit. CSA has financially exploited the electrical sector and has undermined its own authority and legitimacy in Canada and around the world. CSA should be returned to the rule of law and restored to its intended purpose.
Further information may be viewed at: http://www.restorecsa.com
More from the Ontario MCS – Panel Report on the issue of a CSA Standard
Definition of Home Inspection
2. There should be a clear definition of a standard home inspection set by the government.
a) The definition of a home inspection should establish the scope of home inspector regulation/licensing.
b) The definition of home inspection should include: providing an opinion on the condition of the home, be limited to residential dwellings, refer to non- destructive inspection, reference a standard of practice, require a provision of a written (which can include an electronic version) inspection report.
c) To the extent possible, the definition of home inspection should be consistent with:
i) Regulated Canadian jurisdictions (e.g., British Columbia and Alberta);
ii) Canadian Standards Association’s A770 Home Inspection (currently under development).
Standard of Practice
3. There should be one standard of practice for home inspections.
a) To the extent possible, Ontario’s standard should be consistent with the Canadian Standards Association’s A770 Home Inspection once it is developed.
b) A plain-language, consumer-friendly summary of the standard of practice for home inspection should be developed by a home inspector regulatory body and made available to the public at no cost. This document would include disclosures regarding the scope of home inspections and clearly outline any limitations and exclusions of the home inspection.
Pretty much what we feared on the home Inspector Panel.
Yep, I noticed that, and at present i am in full breach of the law as they see it. I downloaded the document to a NAS unit in my office, so I technically store it on the network. I access it on my phone and tablet over a VPN so I’m using it over the network. That’s what I told the Paul in my email. It will be interesting to see what the response is from the CSA. If they take the intransigent approach it will make interesting reading in the newspapers. 
I don’t see how a ‘patent’ is claimed for any of the CSA inspection standard. There is no patentable ideas in the standard. Definition below from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office
- Patents cover new and useful inventions (product, composition, machine, process) or any new and useful improvement to an existing invention.
- Trademarks may be one or a combination of words, sounds or designs used to distinguish the goods or services of one person or organization from those of others.
- Copyright provides protection for literary, artistic, dramatic or musical works (including computer programs) and other subject-matter known as performer’s performances, sound recordings and communication signals.
- Industrial designs are the visual features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament, or any combination of these features applied to a finished article.
- Integrated circuit topographies are the three-dimensional configurations of electronic circuits embodied in integrated circuit products or layout designs.
Time may be approaching when someone or some organization (internachi chapi,nhicc?) should put CSA’s feet to the fire.
It will likely take a court to decide what is right or wrong!
Cheers