CMHC recommending CAHPI National

Local Inspection Issues Canadian Home Inspectors
21

[size=2]The following is from the CHIBO 2 Report
[/size]

http://www.nca-anc.com/images/stories/pdfs/HPIFinalReport%28web%29.pdf

1. Establishing the Bona Fides of a Training Provider

The first step ensures that the National Accreditation Committee (and the National Certification Body) maintains credibility by *NOT *granting accreditation to ‘fly-by-night’ operators. It is important that the accreditation (which is in effect the certification body’s seal of approval for a training provider) only be granted to legitimate training providers who meet certain eligibility criteria.

At a minimum, training providers must demonstrate that they are legitimate, can demonstrate adequate processes for maintaining instructional standards, and maintain adequate processes for verifying the competence of trainees.

Verification of Legitimacy

The test of legitimacy ensures that the training provider seeking accreditation is a legitimate entity. For any course or program being considered for accreditation, it is necessary to determine whether or not the provider:
• is a legal entity registered within its jurisdiction
• has been in operation a minimum of three years, and
• is financially solvent, and likely to remain so

The first criterion is easy to establish - the training provider will have a business number or other registration, which can be traced through the jurisdiction that granted it. It is also prudent for certifying bodies to conduct a background check through the local chamber of commerce, better business bureau or other organization.

The second criterion is somewhat harder to establish, but again, if the entity is registered the information is available through the registering agency.

The third criterion requires a credit check. These can be done (for a fee), and normally the permission of the entity being checked is required. This last check is important where doubts exist as to the viability of a training provider. The criterion to submit to a credit check will often act as a disincentive to questionable practitioners.

In many cases, the test of legitimacy may already have been accomplished by another agency. A good example is a training provider that is accredited by a provincial education ministry as a postsecondary or vocational school. This would constitute *prima facie *evidence of legitimacy. All chartered Canadian universities, community colleges and technical institutes fall into this category, as do many private training providers who have proven to a provincial authority that they are legitimate centers of learning.

International colleges and technical schools are a bit trickier. Some have received accreditation from government departments (particularly in the USA) whose processes are rigorous and well documented, and these institutes may also be deemed as having passed the test of legitimacy.

Accrediting bodies whose standards may be considered as the equivalent of a Canadian charter include the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCST), and the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training (ACCET).

There are other international accreditation agencies, many of which are serious, legitimate and rigorous in their processes. Wherever a claim to accreditation is made, the national accreditation committee must undertake due diligence to verify that the claimant is in fact accredited, and also
that the process of accreditation meets the standards of the test of legitimacy.

Verification of Instructional Standards

As part of the verification process, training providers seeking accreditation must provide details of their process for establishing and maintaining instructional standards:
• How they determine the standards required for teaching
• What processes they have in place internally to ensure these standards are being met

Where a training provider has a formal instructional standards program in place, it will be necessary to determine when the course/program under consideration was last audited, and what the findings of the audit were.

Again, Canadian chartered training providers and institutions may be deemed to have passed this test.

International training providers with adequate standing in their respective jurisdictions MAY pass this test.

Note that it may be difficult to determine the standing of private, non-chartered training providers under this criterion without conducting an on-site audit, which adds to the complexity and expense of the accreditation process.

Verification of Trainee Evaluation

It is necessary to determine the mechanism(s) that a training provider uses to verify the competence of trainees. Accreditation cannot be granted to a course or program where no means of testing competence or confirming learning is in place. This would eliminate many seminar and workshop type courses from consideration unless there is a testing component built in.

Canadian chartered training providers and institutions can be considered as having passed this test for courses or programs offered as part of a recognized post-secondary curriculum. For adult education courses that are not part of a recognized program or curriculum, it will be necessary to verify the type and quantity of testing that occurs. Once again, private, non-chartered training providers present the greatest difficulty in verifying this criterion.

Recommendations:

• Canadian chartered institutions should be deemed to have passed the test of legitimacy for courses or programs that are part of a recognized post-secondary curriculum
• International training providers should not be considered at this time due to the cost and complexity of verifying standards. Once the certification and accreditation programs are implemented and have been running for a period of 3 to 5 years, the national accreditation committee may begin to consider international training providers
• Caution should be exercised in verifying private, non-chartered training providers. This verification should be conducted on a case-by-case basis and only where sufficient information exists to indicate that the organization will have a reasonable chance of passing the test of legitimacy

22

Claude,

Thanks thats a good start. Why aren’t all the other documents related to the National not being published these are:

                           [Table of Contents](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/00_TableofDocuments.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Cover Letter](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/01_Coverletter.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [National Certification Program Governance](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/02_NationalCertificationProgramgovernance.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [NCP Co ordinator Transition Report](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/03_NCPCoordinatorTransitionReport.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [CHIBO 2](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/04_CHIBO2.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [NCP Questions and Answers](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/05_NCPQA.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Certification Process Map](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/06_CertificationProcessMap.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [National Certification Council Code of Conduct](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/07_NationalCertificationCouncilCodeofConduct.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Certification Application](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/08_CertificationApplication.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Application Instructions](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/09_ApplicationInstructions.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Application French](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/10_ApplicationFrench.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     [National Accreditation Council Procedures](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/12_NationalAccreditationCouncilProcedures.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Accreditation Application](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/13_AccreditationApplication.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Standards for Accreditation](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/14_StandardsforAccreditation0926.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Course Accreditation Worksheet](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/15_CourseAccreditationWorksheet0926.pdf)  
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Application for Equivalency](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/16_Application_for_Equivalency.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [TIPR Guidelines](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/17_TIPRGuidelines.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [TIPR Overeview Applicants](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/18_TIPROverviewApplicants.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [TIPR Overview Examiner](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/19_TIPROverviewExaminer.pdf) 
                                                                                                                                                                                         [Fee Summary](http://www.oahi.com/members/news_downloads/20_Feesummary.pdf)
23

It might go along way to gain credibility if someone at CAHPI published these documents on the forum.

Table of Contents
Cover Letter
National Certification Program Governance
NCP Co ordinator Transition Report
CHIBO 2
NCP Questions and Answers
Certification Process Map
National Certification Council Code of Conduct
Certification Application
Application Instructions
Application French
National Accreditation Council Procedures
Accreditation Application
Standards for Accreditation
Course Accreditation Worksheet
Application for Equivalency
TIPR Guidelines
TIPR Overeview Applicants
TIPR Overview Examiner
Fee Summary

24

It might be a good idea if CAHPI published these articles so everyone can see what is what rather than vocal dissertations.

**Table of Contents
**
**Cover Letter
**
**National Certification Program Governance
**
**NCP Co ordinator
**
**Transition Report
**
**CHIBO 2
**
**NCP Questions and Answers
**
**Certification Process Map
**
**National Certification Council Code of Conduct
**
**Certification Application
**
**Application Instructions
**
**Application French
**
**National Accreditation Council Procedures
**
**Accreditation Application
**
**Standards for Accreditation
**
**Course Accreditation Worksheet
**
**Application for Equivalency
**
**TIPR Guidelines
**
**TIPR Overeview Applicants
**
**TIPR Overview Examiner
**
Fee Summary

25

Oh, Canadian only recommend Canadian inspection ***. is OK.
But how many US American web sites recommend Canadian inspectors for home inspection??? Same things.
Should not care !

26

Publishing the CAHPI/National by-laws would be beneficial as well.

27

Shawn

Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?

I know I have discussed this with other parties and that seems to be the train of thought, re **Hedley Byrne v. Heller.

**Further just for discussion sake do you think CAHPI-National, along with some provincial bodies withold information that exists. I mean if you or I were selling a program would we not be wise to ensure accuracy in ensuring those that sign up or anticipate joining have not been misled?

28

No doubt about it at all .
Bill Mullen in my mind is nothing but a paid mouth piece .
He has evade giving out information has used the NACHI web site to his and CAHPI advantage and has not given the NACHI members respect and proper treatment.
He has with held information to NACHI and to the CAPHI members .
He has been using this BB to make him and CAHPI look like they are great and to show his disdain for our members . Fair play is not to their advantage .
Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?

Yes I will pledge $500:00 to get it started and more if needed.
We need proper and fair treatment for all Canadian Home Inspectors immediately.
Roy Cooke … Roycooke@sympatico.ca

29

I would gladly match that amount.

Would anyone else care to donate? You don’t have to match what Roy and I are willing to do, but any amount would be helpful.

Is Nachi corporate willing to provide funding for such a suit?

30

I spoke to someone else who is legally savy and they said CAHPI-OAHI should also be named in the suit because it has demonstrated biases in publications against Nachi members. As you know CAHPI-Ontario is tasked with the National Certification in Ontario and several people from Ontario represent OAHI at the National level fwiw.

31

This whole discussion of Hedley Byrne v. Heller has made me rethink the value in continuing any further participation here. Do not be surprised if Bill and and likely any others affilated with those “other” associations ignore the posts or call for answers. If you feel the need information seek it out, just like any other member or any information from any other association.

Besides from my read that same case from 1964 has won some battles and also come up short in others. More to the point - “words” regardless of the source may be used equally for or against a person or claim of misrepresentation. To win a number of points needs to be upheld, and clearly proven by the plaintiff.

“If, in the ordinary course of business or professional affairs, a person seeks information or advice from another, who is not under contractual or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice, in circumstances in which a reasonable man so asked would know that he was being trusted, or that his skill or judgment was being relied on, and the person asked chooses to give the information or advice without clearly so qualifying his answer as to show that he does not accept responsibility, then the person replying accepts a legal duty to exercise such care as the circumstances require in making his reply; and for a failure to exercise that care an action for negligence will lie if damage results.”

There are several essential points to be noted. First, this new area of potential liability can be imposed not just on ‘professionals’ in the strict sense, but upon any individual who holds himself out as able to render advice or opinions.

Secondly, the duty of care will exist only where, by the nature of the relationship, the recipient does or should reasonably be expected to rely on the opinion. In fact, this criteria of a ‘special relationship’ appears to be the key element in imposing liability. Whether this relationship exists may depend on the circumstances under which the opinion is given."

The onus is upon a plaintiff to prove a substantial connection between the losses alleged and the misrepresentations made.

Those requirements may be summarized as follows:
FONT=Arial A false statement negligently made;
(2) A duty of care on the person making the statement to the recipient. A duty of care does not arise unless:
(a) the person making the statement is possessed of special skill or knowledge on the matter in question, and
(b) the circumstances establish that a reasonable person making that statement would know that the recipient is relying upon his skill or judgment;
(3) Reasonable reliance on the statement by its recipient;
(4) Loss suffered as a consequence of the reliance.

Many statements have been made that are helpful, but also many made that are misrepresentation too. Is it really worth a lawsuit over what he said, and what they said? If that’s the case with all the “words” of misrepresentation posted throughout this forum - it could be a long time and expensive battle!
[/FONT]

32

"Make sure the home inspector you choose is an experienced inspector, not an individual with an inspection business on the side. "

“find a home inspector in your area who meets the CAHPI national certification standards.”

“Look for inspectors who belong to a provincial association”

One could easily argue restriction of trade with these comments from CMHC.

33

Count me in for a $500 contribution.

A level playing field for ALL Canadian home inspectors is not what appears to be being developed. In fact I would submit being bragged about being otherwise which I personally find rather unsettling.

I as well sense a bias in what I’ve read and heard, and do not believe the principals of free enterprise are being followed.

Glad to help. Suggest all Canadian Home Inspectors speak up without delay.

Regards,
Bill Redfern

34

Claude,

Respectfully you are part of the problem, while you have been helpful, you have failed to supply documentation to support your ascertations. Comments have been attributed by “official” spokespersons who represent CAHPI-National. Other known representatives are on record as threatening non CAHPI-National members.

Now I have received a report that at least two individuals in one Atlantic Province have been making statements that indicate they are out of step and are representatives of CAHPI. They have slandered him and his business. Is this how CAHPI people in official capacities operate?

Thank you for quoting that particular piece. The National Spokesperson has been on record making statements which run contrary to the above quoted section. As have other representatives using Association resources to degrade any competing body they see as a threat. Further none of us here are tasked with being spokes people, we are inspectors who have been repeatedly told in one manner or another we are not worthy, inferior, and incompetent, and then some of us have been subjected to intimidation, threats, and off handed comments borne out of ignorance and spite.

You are well aware of the the issues and concerns because you are the Chief Examiner, have been made aware of comments by people under your direction, yet you appear unwilling to rein them in. Nor has CAHPI-National had the interest or the willingness to correct false statements knowingly published in Regional newspapers. You and your group have not sold your product truthfully and repeatedly some of us have asked for the CEO to address the issues, and speak to the Nachi conference. Instead repeatedly the replies have been less than truthful. Any CEO who is not aware of the information which CAHPI-National has been tasked to conduct and implement is baloney.

Surely CMHC is only being given oneside of the story and is most certainly not aware what is being done with taxpayers money. To add insult to injury right here on this board the “spokesperson” states that CMHC has been made aware of his grievous comments and actions.

Yes Claude you as an educator and National Examiner, along with your other duties as an educator would appear to have a higher standard to ensure compliance with your own rules. Repeatedly you have shown your objectivity is lacking in abilities to address the problems.

Please remember no one in Nachi and no private non aligned inspectors are selling a program with taxpayer funding as you folks are. CAHPI-National has a higher standard to operate to. Price discrepencies for certification are not justifiable. People who have been certified outside of CAHPI and regional bodies have not been made fully aware of the information which has not been produced, they have not been informed who they will be disciplined by nor much more information that CAHPI has that has not been released.

There is also the concern of conflicts of interests and special interests by people who are selling their wares and college programs. I need say no more on this subject as money has flowed from at least two of these companies into CAHPI under the guise of no strings attached. Well when you dig a little deeper that does not appear to be the case.

Its also clear CMHC contradicts its message above in the press release.

Don’t shoot us who are cognizant of responsibilities, but rather shoot your own messengers.

35

(" Is it really worth a lawsuit over what he said, and what they said? If that’s the case with all the “words” of misrepresentation posted throughout this forum - it could be a long time and expensive battle! ")
Exactly I only hope you and others can see this .
I and others have tried to reason with the CAHPI spokespersons and it has been a one way street.
You and Bill are not paid NACHI members
and have been using this BB to further the CAHPI cause Bellitting those who wish to get answers.
Information has been asked for and very little given .
Fair treatment again has been ignored.
As you see three have posted there names to support this cause .
Fortunately many others who do not wish their Names to be shown also support this cause.
It could be to the advantage of all if CAHPI was to have a small committee
that has some authority to make decisions to communicate some none CAHPI members across Canada.
This could be done via email .
It is obvious we can not communicate on this BB as the CAHPI spokesperson’s have a closed mind on this subject.

Roy Cooke

36

Whether I have paid or not is not at the heart of the issue here. My point is the search tool and word used in the search can readily bring up many references to the “elitist” attitude of some members. Nick offered free membership - is it a deal or no deal? So I commend him for honouring that.

Equally I can leave or stay. If you do not like my input or value in “trying” to communicate the other side of the issues, or read my responses to some of those loaded or argumentative questions here - I can simply disappear. Ido not "need’ to be here.

Now here are few comments that are equally misleading: The fact that other inspectors are “blind”, or that other associations are “scumbags”, or referenced as other not so very nice and nasty things, including “never use a candidate or associate”. Or how about those diploma mills that seem to take the blame - but on the other side this is noted “After you take the free exam, we will contact you by email. We want you to start making money fast, so relax. We’ll help you every step of the way.” So perhaps a person viewing such statements from the various NACHI sources find them equally misleading and misrepresentations of facts.

Perhaps that is why Nick saw certain wisdom in trying to have Bill open up to some of the questions and get communication working here. The national certification plan strikes a common cord of affording all home inspectors an opportunity to become engaged in the process. Again, its clearly an option, and can be equated to a national certification standard for one and all - if they choose to participate.

However, it’s unfortunate that things went down hill quick in the communication department between individuals. I am not placing blame - I simply stating facts - communications broke down. So why should the answers be forthcomiing?

37

Thanks Claude as per usual you have said nothing .
The Choice is CAHPI’s .

Roy Cooke

38

Thanks - greatly appreciated. You have summed up everything very well - very one sided indeed!

39

So glad you can now see what I and others have been saying all along.
We have tried so hard to get you and Bill to see our side and there has been Nothing comming from CAHPI .
So the Choice is up to CAHPI do they want to give TRUE information to the NON CAHPI members or not.

Roy Cooke

40

More to the point - the bickering here will explain a lot about the issue. However, I do agree there is a need for “civil” and “constructive” dialgue.
That will not happen until all parties move forward with an open mind, and not participate in the previous old “pissing” contests in dragging up old issues. (I am not placing blame - I am only stating what has transpired based on past experiences)

We seem to have tried that but we seem to end up buried back in the same old muck and mud slinging mode!