Certified Home Inspector or CHI Designation

News from Oahi re CHI and other musings…**

DPPC undergoing province-wide changes**
Some members still not abiding by policies and procedures

By Tom Lloyd, RHI

There will be a substantial increase in the number of members on the Discipline and Professional Practices Commit t e e . The d u t i e s and
responsibilities of the DPPC will be distributed across the province. Each regional meeting group in the Association will have a minimum of
three members to a maximum of five members on the DPPC.

The Association has also approached a lawyer as well as a real estate agent to sit on the committee as stakeholders who will look at the cases from a different but equally important perspective. We feel that their input will be extremely valuable and they will be an excellent resource for us to tap into as needed.

The cases from one area will be distributed to another area for the investigation thus there can be no perceived conflict. For example, a case from the Toronto area may be sent to the Ottawa area, where three members will investigate the complaint and report their decision back to me, the Committee Chair. I will then notify both parties of the decision of either dismissing the case or proceeding forward with a hearing or whatever is the required outcome dictated by the subcommittee.

Once again many students think that it is acceptable to be performing paid home inspections. This is in contravention of the following by-law: By-law Article 3 section 3 subsection (d), “Student Members” shall be persons who have not completed qualification requirements, and are not performing inspections. Students shall comply with the regulations of the Association, and may participate in education programs of the Association according to regulations set by the Board of Directors, Students shall not hold themselves as nor make reference to any
affiliation with the OAHI.

If your true copies of reports that you send in for verification by the Report Verification Committee indicate that they have been fee paid then the DPPC has no alternative but to fine you for this infraction. It does not matter who the inspection was performed for.

“Applicant Members” who do not have logo privileges that try to skirt around the by-laws as per By-law Article 3 section 3 subsection 3) will also face disciplinary action:

Applicants are not entitled to hold themselves as Applicant Members of the Association of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, except as provided in Article 19.1©.

A number of retired members also are continuing to practice home inspections. I addressed this concern in a previous newsletter to let these members get their house in order. Apparently these members ignored the friendly warning and are in contravention of the following by-law: By-law Article 3 Section 3 Subsection (e) 1) 2) and ii) which states: “Retired Members” shall be persons who:

  1. have attained RHI or Associate Member status
  2. are not actively performing inspections.
    i) Retired members may be suspended from holding themselves out as RHI or Associate Members of the Association of Home Inspectors, claiming or inferring any affiliation, participation in education programs, or change membership status, in the event of written complaints
    which are not satisfactorily resolved.

Certified Home Inspector or CHI designation
A number of complaints have been launched against some members for using the term Certified Home Inspector or the CHI designation. This designation is owned in Canada by ASTTBC. They had given the rights for the usage of this designation to PACHI. When PACHI and OAHI amalgamated the rights to this were inherited by OAHI and still remain in our custody. OAHI does not use this designation as it leads to a great deal of confusion in the general public.

Although a number of the membership have bought into a mail order association who think that they can use the designation, let me assure you that they do not have the right to use it. It does not add credibility to you, in fact as the RHI designation is becoming more recognized the use of other designations is discrediting you and may damage your business.

If you are using this designation you are putting the OAHI in a compromising situation with ASTTBC, so we must discipline you under the by-laws as well as report you to ASTTBC who may exert their rights under Canadian law to seek legal action against you. This information was distributed after PACHI and OAHI amalgamated and is being reprinted now as a courtesy reminder to the members.

In closing, I would like to thank the members who have presently come forward from the various meeting groups and have expressed an interest in joining the DPPC. At present, we are still looking for additional members from the regional meeting groups across the province.

Chair of the DPPC, OAHI/CAHPI Ontario
Tom Lloyd is also Vice President of OAHI/CAHPI Ontario, one of three
Ontario representatives on the CAHPI National Board, and owner of
Dakota Home Inspection Service, Oshawa, Ontario.

It is nice to see OAHI is now warning it’s members after the fact about using the letter CHI.

The way I see it misuse of CHI is outside the scope of by-laws of OAHI, and misuse has nothing to do with OAHI mandate or disciplinary process. Two different matters. To suggest that disciplinary measure will be instituted by OAHI is stretching its authority.

As to Students practicing, that should be a concern for any student. How a self regulating voluntary body can dictate that Students cannot inspect, nor charge for their inspection is ludicrous. With that in mind why would anyone join OAHI and let them restrict your livelihood. There is also the question of doing inspections for free, because to do so may be questionable under contract law.

As to RHI and being retired there is no provision in the by-laws stating penalty, it only states

i*) Retired members may be suspended from holding themselves out as RHI or Associate Members of the Association of Home Inspectors, claiming or inferring any affiliation, participation in education programs, or change membership status, in the event of written complaints which are not satisfactorily resolved.

*Very vague considering the complaint has no force in the by-laws. I have yet to receive a letter concerning my retired status and this edict runs contrary to PR 158 (underlying legislation) stating anyone in the Registry is permitted to use RHI. How could OAHI possibly plead in court that it is empowered to restrict membership in anyother association because that appears to be what they are trying to do. It is clear to me they (Oahi) are sending out mixed signals they have no business or legality trying to enforce.

I guess Claude is fine with all these questionable governance and ethics issues of which he is part and parcel of as National Ethics Chair of which OAHI is part and parcel?

After Searching the ASTTBC web site I have found that their use of the term CHI is for the designation of Certified House Inspector. I sent them and OAHI an email stating that I was going to use the designation CHI Certified Home Inspector and let the chips fall where they may.


It appears that OAHI goes after the weak and those that they know will not kick up a fuss. They like timid easily itimidated members. Those that resist or question are left alone. I am a perfect example. Anyone in or contemplating joining OAHI should be cautious about fair play and fair administration of the rules. You cannot apply and make up phony threatening rules.

Sure is strange how the National and everything associated with it has been special interests appointing themselves and appointing other colleagues to positions that should have been elected positions.

Strange how Carson Dunlop VP is on the National and is in at Seneca
and it is strange how Inspection Support Services and owners are at Humber College and on the National.

So much for conflicts, special interests, and business opportunities.

Pitty any student who would be gullible enough to sign up with OAHI and then be told they cannot practice inspections and charge for the service. Seems contradictory and restrictive. How is anyone suppose to gain experience with those conditions held over your head, and then have the DPPC Chair who seems to wear many hats as well as a Franchisor pushing home inspections franchises. I think Nachi should hand out soap on a rope to new members of OAHI. :wink:


Raymond I have remained quiet about what they (OAHI) has done to me in reguards to my upgrade. I do not consider my self to be weak and will choose the time and place to speak up.You know that some of thier members read the post here that is why I remain silent.

Hi Rob,

Not trying to paint you with a brush, but believe me when I tell you the evidence is overwhelming that if you speak out on this list or ask wrong questions at the AGM or the OAHI Cafe, you will be black balled. Under the circumstances I know and others know why you cannot speak up at this time.

I find it rather strange that the Discipline Committee is to remain at arms length from the board of directors yet here we have the Vice President as it Chairman, amongst other positions. Clearly it is a conflict of interest. That is why in the past all Discipline Chairs have been from the membership, and have not been directors.


What am I missing here? Is the title “Certified Home Inspector” registered or not? I seem to be getting some very mixed messages. One from ASTTBC, another from OAHI, and yet another from Nick.


Please clarify in plain simple language.

I get alot of pages of CHI’s including CHI CHIs



ATTSBC is a provincial body with enacting legislation. Given this, it is a considered to be a public authority therefore ATTSBC does have rights to C.H.I.

*Prohibited Mark; Official Mark: This includes any mark protected under sub-paragraph 9(1)(n)(iii) of the *Trade-marks Act being any badge, crest, emblem or mark adopted and used by any public authority, in Canada as an official mark for wares or services.

Claude the matter with OAHI is that it may have a reciporical agreement with ATTSBC re former use of CHI by PACHI, however it is an entirely different matter for OAHI to suggest that NACHI/OAHI members who do use it will be disciplined for continued use or misuse. I believe OAHI appears to be stepping outside of the confines of its by-laws. There is nothing dealing with this matter that would be in conflict with the Code of Ethics or Standards of practice, this matter is a Trademark issue. For OAHI to even suggest they will discipline someone without a hearing or due process is absolutely against the by-laws and in my opinion the matter between ATTSBC shoud be handled by ATTSBC for them to investigate. OAHI has no business threatening anyone with holding up their membership. Ditto for the Witch Hunt for delinquent retired members. OAHI seems to want to rid any dual memberships other then ASHI, and this appears to be another step in doing so. The latest OAHI newsletter indirectly mentions NACHI by inference in two different articles. Once again the Examiner for the National Certification and OAHI member for Ontario is quoted as stating that there are “500 unqualified inspectors out there…”

Just my views, however correct they are.

Raymond as “Chief Examiner” for the NCA - National Certification Authority - I have never made that statement. Did it come from another Examiner - I really do not know. But you have posted it more than once on the NACHI website.

Please provide a specific name because those words or comments never came from me.

ADDED: Perhaps the initials CA need be added after just reading the OAHI newsletter. Seems some may point in m y direction.

In addition to clarify another earlier point

  • You seem to be “alleging and concluding” serious claims of improprieties - that do not really exist.

ADDED: You are also implicating ISS and owners!

If your intentions and comments are purely set forth once again to defame me (and possibly others) but more importantly me - I ask you politely and kindly to cease such public postings. This serves as your written notice.

I said “Examiner”. I did not say Chief Examiner! Read the OAHI newsletter its there in black ink.

***Member Cam Allen spoke to membership about how over 500 practicing home inspectors in Ontario with unknown qualifications are competing for business with members of the OAHI. He recommended that growth in the OAHI could be achieved by opening the door to unaffiliated practitioners. He went on to say there is a need for a nationally recognized standard to get the unqualified practicing individuals and new individuals started into the stream properly.


As to your positions it is a well know fact what positions and boards you are on. You were not elected to any of the positions you were appointed. That is correct is it not? Yes it sure is strange how the appearance of business and positions seem to intertwine.

CAHPI needs to clean up its act, you as Ethics Chair must be in denial big time, it is quite clear what you wish to overlook. You and your lot have no business telling anyone how to behave considering what has and is going on. And one of your many hats as National Ethics Chair maybe you could find the time to make sure unelected appointed people in official capacities do not make statements that are erroneous and false. If this is your idea of governance and ethics CAHPI and the National has serious problems. It is for you to sort them out you have the capacity and position I do not. I am only pointing out the boo boos for correction.

Thanks Ray for the clarification and response.

  1. CA’s comments states in general what he feels is the picture. I see no direct inference to whom that applies other than those outside of OAHI competing for business. That could be most anyone. It certainly is his opinion - and not the official position of anyone other that that person.

  2. Now to respond to my position as National Ethics Chair (NEC) the committee work has little impact at provincial level. Certainly a claim logged against CAHPI - National falls within the NEC realm. But aside from that “we” are there to assist the member provincial associations when we are asked, but we do not have jurisdiction to interfere, unless it is clearly a national issue.

  3. You seem to allege that my business and positions intertwine. Certainly you may believe whatever you like – but is that similar to your belief that holding an inspectors meeting in a real estate office automatically signals coercion? Perhaps the real differences are that some people actually know the difference and have the ability to serve in positions and step aside when they realize there is or may be a conflict of interest, opposed to those that don’t. One need not look too far to see examples in many other venues including those exposed right here on this forum.

What you allege is that I and perhaps others must be ignorant and foolish enough to risk such action or conflict. Secondly when did any home inspection association start voting people into these positions? Example: was the NACHI Ethics or Education Committee elected? One need not look very far to make and take this to a personal level using NACHI examples also. But I will not go there in detail because it is unprofessional.

Perhaps we should automatically nullify all members – because everyone has a certain degree for conflict of interest if we truly look at this with any position. Perhaps that is why it is regular practice that this issue is in the forefront of disclosing ones real or potential conflict of interest prior to dealing with an issue. That was indeed the case in many meetings and functions I have been involved with. Moreover I have even signed documents to attest to such values. I am sure you tenure as DPPC Chair was equally an appointed position too!

Conflicts of interest are not, within themselves, wrong or unusual.****Conflicts of interest often convey situations where an individual uses power within the organization for personal gain.

To that end I consider the most prudent way of dealing with a “real or perceived” conflict of interest is as simple as revealing your private interest in the matter to the relevant parties and seeking their position prior to moving forward on an issue. Managing a potential conflicts demands forthright and upfront disclosure of financial or business interests prior to taking the position, not after taking the position. So even temporarily stepping aside to let other committee members render an objective decision is the right thing to do. Perhaps some spend more time assuming far too much and have little faith in the process, rather than finding the facts of the matter. Simply that member must excuse him or herself from the decision-making process. Perhaps even references of government practices serves as models with guidelines for all members to adhere to. http://www3.telus.net/GovtEthicsLaw/CofI.html](http://www3.telus.net/GovtEthicsLaw/CofI.html)

As representatives and volunteers “we” are obligated to place the interest of the good of the association, in any transaction involving the association, ahead of any personal interest or personal gain, and to disclose all facts in any situation where a potential conflict of interest may arise.

In closing this portion I still find your own public statements about me and others here equally challenged in professional ethical practices. Certainly I did not make this a personal issue, however once again you choose to continue to add names and make allegations. It seems to serve only is your own self-interest in destroying my reputation. Is that your intent? Where I am equally disappointed is in the fact that NACHI continues to provide you with the opportunity through this medium to express such opportunities to continually attack individuals by name and other associations more particularly without challenge or through ignoring their own due diligence. Therein lays another example of conflict of interest, which should not be confused with freedom of speech. Remember in Canada the Charter of rights and freedom only protects an individual from the government actions and not from the deeds of an individulas own fellow Canadians.

The “boo, boos” - well you claim to have tried, others seem to have made some progress and yet the past AGM minutes (which I did not partake in) seem to provide another piece to this puzzle.


Well yes I do consider that a conflict and I am sure most consumers would find it a conflict. It is no different then OAHI having held its meetings in P2P Corporate offices. Given the propensity of people in position to manipulate and conspire it is apprehensible. I repeat, home inspectors should not be having meetings that relate to Associatoin business and or regional meeting groups. It is a simple matter to hold the meetings in a hotel, restuarant, church, et ceteras.

I have long held my views that Franchisors, large private home inspection companies have found their way onto Boards, Committees, and appointments. I have discussed this many times formerly on numerous discussion boards over the years. So it is a long held view. The perception of conflict are paramount, and given the state of affairs I think anyone who has been around long enough in the biz would come to the same conclusion. Even politicians must put their businesses in a Blind Trust when they run for office and elected. I don’t think I need to explain why that happens.

Good point. As to my position on the DPPC I volunteered to fill the void, but for the record I did not at the time hold any other positions, nor did I have any business interests, nor was I franchisor, nor did I do anything without full committee disclosure. So yes I was appointed, but in hindsight I think all positioins should be elected and clear concise platforms should be presented for those seeking the positions. And for the record I did not take an oath or alligance when I was DPPC Chair, again I have long been on record as stating anyone seeking office or appointment must take an oath. If you took an oath great!

Do you consider the fact that P2P and Carson Dunlop back a number of years ago both gave substantial sums (thousands) to CAHI? Another Franchisor was asked to donate or match that of the other franchisor. Fortunately that Franchisor saw the conflict and refrained. That sum of money comes with obiligations, it could be seen to influence decisions and appointment to board appointments.

Okay so we are making headway, and I assume you would not have any problem along with those with other business interests in putting your business in blind trust as long as you are involved in Humber, your biz, and your positions on OAHI and CAHPI and First Nations.

Yes thats fine and dandy and I would agree, but given the evidence it certainly does not appear to be the case.

Destroying your reputation? You are in positions of trust, I am not! There is a big difference. And I think some of you purposely go out of your way to ensure things are buried and hidden. As to Nachi allowing through this medium to express indidividuals rights it is no more different then certain other parties from threatening, making false allegations, intimidation, and covering up and protecting one another by what can only be described as a conspiracy. I am familiar with the Charter it is most apparent that OAHI and CAHPI are not and they are government identities because they have been provided with funds (public) and or enacted under legislation; be it a private members bill.

To this end I suppose no one would have a problem with a full and complete audit of the affairs, decisions, elections, et ceteras of both Associations. The latest gaff was the 2005 AGM documents where at least two people who were either no longer a member or retired are listed as having voted at the AGM!

Unfortunately a good number of members are niave, and don’t realize that with all the controversay there remains the concern about ethics, conflicts, intimidation and overstepping their power and abuse of the by-laws. There are many guilty who have and are continuing to abuse their positions of trust. It sure seems NACHI and other people are big thorns in someones back sides. I’ll take my chances in front of an audit or a court room because I think the paper trails, witness, records and such will tell another story. There is more dirt beneath the surface. Some seem to think they can do as they please and use the by-laws to achieve that means.


I received this from theASTTBC lawyers

I can still not find any reference to Certified Home Inspector on their website.


Even though ATTSBC has it registered as a Public Authority the fact remains that it is not ATTSBC that uses CHI but BCIPI an affiliate, I think there is a big difference. If you as a person who is seeking National Certification and as a resident in Ontario I guess Oahi who will oversee your certification will be sure to be suspending your application until you cease using CHI.



10767 - 148TH STREET
V3R 0S4


**10767 - 148TH STREET
V3R 0S4

REPRESENTATIVE FOR SERVICE:](http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/tm/tmdb/tmdb_help-e.html#rep)


PROHIBITED MARK; OFFICIAL MARK:](http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/tm/tmdb/tmdb_help-e.html#trademark)
CHI** **
Application 0909601



Ontario Association of Architects (Appellant)
Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (Respondent)
Indexed as: Ontario Assn. of Architects v. Assn. of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (C.A.)
Court of Appeal, Stone, Evans and Sharlow JJ.A.-- Toronto, April 23; Ottawa, May 28, 2002.
* Trade-marks – Official Marks – Appeal from Trial Division’s dismissal of application to reverse Registrar of Trade-marks’ decision to give public notice of adoption, use of official mark by Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (AATO) – **Only public authority may register official mark under Trade-marks Act, s. 9(1)(n)(iii) – AATO not-for-profit corporation, incorporated by letters patent, continued by private Act of Ontario Legislature – Applications Judge holding AATO public authority as controlled by Legislature which could amend enabling legislation – Appeal allowed – Application of two-part test of degree of governmental control, public benefit to determine whether public authority – Duty to do some thing of benefit to public (third part of English test) may be relevant as element of public benefit – Government control of otherwise private organization requiring some ongoing supervision of activities – Legislature’s exclusive power to change AATO’s statutory objects, powers, duties insufficient to satisfy government control test because not allowing government to exercise ongoing influence – AATO’s activities benefit public – Setting, enforcing standards of professional competence regulating part of practice of profession, providing public with some assurance as to competence, honesty of members – That activities may also benefit members not fatal to characterization of public benefit.
* Trade-marks – Practice – Registrar of Trade-marks giving public notice of adoption, use by Association of Architectural Technologists of Ontario (AATO) of official marks – Ontario Association of Architects applied to Trial Division for order reversing Registrar’s decision pursuant to Federal Court Rules, 1998, governing both applications for judicial review, appeals under Trade-marks Act, s. 56, without specifying which remedial route pursuing – Should be treated as application for judicial review, not as appeal – Nothing in scheme of Trade-marks Act, s. 9(1) justifying departure from normal principle person who was neither party, nor intervener in proceedings having no standing to exercise statutory right of appeal.