From phpic CSA standards for review

Bringing you news to review


I got a PHPIC newletter and posted from my phone, here is a better excerpt
Regards Allan

From CSA:

I am delighted to announce that the CSA A770 draft standard on home inspection is now available for public review. Here is the link to access the draft and submit comments:

Note that in order to access the draft and submit comments, users will need to create a login. I would like to emphasize that comments should always be accompanied by a proposed change.

  •                            *

This is a major milestone for the project and I’d like to thank each one of you for your contributions. It has been a pleasure to work with this great group so far and I look forward to the next phase of the project.

The standard is currently being translated to French. The French version should be available in a few weeks. In conjunction with this, I would like to ask if any member who is fluent in French would like to review the French draft and verify the accuracy of the technical language. Let me know if you are interested in taking this on (or if you know someone who would like to do this) and I can give more info.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.


Paul Gulletson, P. Eng
Project Manager, Built Environment
*CSA Group *

Good post Al!

Thank you!

Just started to read and had to stop. I realized why I never want to work with them in Engineering Design.

In their scope of Inspection (section 4.1.3 for those that are following at Home) they list exclusions.

4.1.3 (e) predicting the remaining service life of any system or component

But under section Inspection Results and Reported Conditions we have (b) Items with poor performance or that have failed, or are nearing or past their intended life expectancy;

Then back to 4.1.3 we have
4.1.3 (j) identifying hidden or not visually apparent hazardous items (e.g., asbestos, mould, PCB)

No I am never on hundred percent sure when I have Asbestos or Mould and to me only a lab test could tell me if it is Asbestos or Mould.

But again section states that (g) visually apparent hazardous items (e.g., asbestos, mould, PCB)

Confusion continues with:
4.1.3 (m) inspecting household appliances
But then under 4.2 Methods of Inspection there is a note…

Note: Inspectors may wish to advise owners that the operation of appliances and other equipment is typically required to perform a home inspection.

And lastly because CSA is a big city boy they exclude:

4.1.3 (k) identifying underground components (e.g., oil tanks)

I guess oil tanks or septic systems need not be identified.

Will try reading it again later without be so critical of waste tax dollars…

Ha! Agreed Jeff!

It definitely has engineering involvement all over it. A lot of contradiction and some increased liability both professionally and in Inspector safety!
It’s all over the place!

With just a quick read…I don’t understand your concerns Jeff.
Just for starters:

We never predict how long something may last but we do mention if something like a 30 year old forced air gas furnace is past it’s life expectancy.

I would hope things like buried oil tanks would be excluded.


I’m going through this and feel like I’m re-writing the damn thing :mad: So much more liability associated with this document…

For retaining walls–“comment on the stability” i.e. how stable is this wall–that sounds like predicting the future to me–its stable, until its not…

I changed it to “visually assess the current condition of the wall…”

But they use the “stability” word everywhere through the structure section…

Mandatory summary page–no thank you, please read the entire report not just the one page up front…its evident from legal cases that clients get away with not even reading the report–now they can say “well I read the summary, and it wasn’t there…”

How about commenting on the size of the house–not even real estate agents will touch that one, yet we would be required to comment on it??

“yes your honour I did feel the home was about 2,000 sq. ft”

Judge: " but the client measured it to be 1934 sq. ft–that a whole room they are missing and want financial compensation for!":frowning:

We’ve created a CSA forum on the OntarioACHI message board in the public forum section.

We cannot post the full text of the CSA Draft document, as it breaches copyright, but we see no reason why we should not post individual sections as separate posts to allow full discussion on the topics. At least that way everyone can see what all others thinks, rather than just dump your comments into the black hole that is the CSA comments pages.

Direct access to the forum is here:

The OntarioACHI message board is moderated, so unprofessional comments will get edited.

Sad you did not post it on the NACHI forum .
I gave up on the OntarioACHI do to little usage .

Many more come here and our southern Friends can add much information .

I dont think we will benefit here from dissecting and commenting about each section of this proposal. It is my understanding that each section was put together by individual groups and not each group may have actually had a home inspector included, so hence the strange language in some sections.

It is best to spend the time to review this proposal thoroughly as it will affect all inspectors across Canada. Go through all sections and think about why this may not be reasonable and identify it as such. Then submit what language would make sense to our customers and from our perspective as professional inspectors.

I also suggest that all comments be clearly constructive and not confrontational as this feedback will reflect our industry and we only have 1 month.

I am considering holding a meeting in the next few weeks to provide an on site discussion of home inspection professionals and put together a written commentary from us as a group, if you maybe interested email me and I will put your information aside to gather a location, time and date that meets the majority.

Allan Spisak - Director/General Manager
ACISS Home & Commercial Inspection Consultants
(905) 633-8219
Vice Chair & Director of Membership PHPIC
Professional Home & Property Inspectors of Canada

Thanks for posting this here for all to see .
I appreciate what you are doing .

Thanks Big Time … Roy

LOL. Sounds like ASTM. “We wrote a great standard but you can’t see it, post it, or show it to anyone. It’s awesome, but you’ll just have to trust us. No really, it’s awesome, too bad you can’t read it.”

Standards written by CSA and ASTM are fine for stuff like jet fuel. No consumer boarding a plane ever asks to see those standards. But it is silly for either of these private organizations to author inspection standards which have to be made public.

I concur!


Open discussion, when it is constructive, is always positive. Each Section on the CSA site has a “COMMENT” button, where people who register can post their comments. Unfortunately these then go into a black hole, as they did with other standards that were published this way. Only for yet further iterations to come forward;.

Having an open, but constructive discussion should allow sensible, positive suggestions to be put forward to hopefully speed up the process that has been put in motion for the second time.

Only time will tell if the decision to do what we’ve done in OntarioACHI will help in that process, meanwhile I look forward to hearing from you with respect to any meetings and as always will support. Hopefully by them we’ll have a fair bit of input from the forum that can be collated presented at your meeting, giving those who cannot attend a voice at the table.

It is already apparent from this thread that some have only negative things to say about the OntarioACHI decision, which is a shame, because it provides those same people the very place they can go without having their positive inputs turned on them.

I agree that professional constructive discussion is required. That’s why we posted this on the OntarioACHI website, which is moderated and hopefully the moderators can keep on top of editing out any unprofessional comments on the very public subject matter that affect us all in Canada, whilst leaving the constructive content in place.

I agree Nick, but like it or not, the CSA has been given a huge sum of money from at least 3 provincial governments to produce this standard. That said a solid position was made at the MGCS meetings by the representatives from OntarioACHI, InterNACHI, the NHICC and PHPIC that any standard should be kept in the public domain. This is something that already seems to be taking a hit in the draft standard from the CSA with indications that it will only be “referenced” in the agreements with clients. The post here talks more about the issue.

It is already apparent from this thread that some have only negative things to say about the OntarioACHI decision, which is a shame, because it provides those same people the very place they can go without having their positive inputs turned on them.

I expect you are talking about my post.
I saw how you and some others from the OntarioACHI board did not follow the CMI rules on the NACHI site .
Your group obviously need some one to try and make sure they follow your rules .

Sorry Leonard if my negative post upsets you but you reap what you sow .
Even after I posted the CMI SOP and reminded all the attacks continued,

If things are done correctly I will not be able to remind others of the OntarioACHI short comings.

Again I do not think is proper to try and troll NACHI members on the NACHI site to go to another association .

I am here any time to talk to all.

Roy, I didn’t need to as Allan had already done so in this thread. Also PHPIC, having had a seat on the CSA Technical Committee got the news of the release before us, so this was likely to happen.

While you are entitled to your opinions, which you have pronounced most publicly, having the ability to comment on an open message board that is moderated, offers people the chance to make comments without fear of the usual tit-for-tat thread stealing and name calling that can often be seen in other places.

It is a shame you are not willing to come and give the benefit of your vast experience and viewpoints, but it won’t stop us offering the chance for others out there who may want to.

The OntarioACHI site is open to the public in this forum, so can be commented on by Inspectors, Realtors and Consumers alike, offering a perspective that maybe no-one has though of as yet.
After all, although the standard is there to guide the process for the Inspection, most Associations are saying it should be kept in the public domain, the reason? Because the SoP is not just for Inspectors, but for those that hire them too.

It sees to me few choose to use your message Board .

I see no advantage for me to waist my time there .

I thought it would all be at arms length?
You know, the CSA and PHPIC and all.

This was not about and going to be about money, is it?
Gees knock me over with a feather.:wink:

If that be the case than the standards the real estate agents use should be the same across Canada, as for the laws put in place to sell, buy, lease and rent real estate. Residential, commercial and industrial.

To make one more point, The public can read the SOP prior to accepting their contract.
The agent should express that concern to the purchaser/consumers, that the inspector’s SOP and contract are as important as their sales contract and the sellers decoration.

The only one in step here Len with transparency are the manufactures and how they treat the consumer.
Everything else is provincial or federal jurisdiction.