I'm confused & need your opinions

With respects to the CHI designation here in Canada.Can we use it ? Should we use it? Is it worth the $175.00 ? Does it make us look professional? Or are we going to hurt ourselves in the long run? I know a lot has been said about this, but I need your short input to make it clear for me. Thanks for your help. Doug

Yes, maybe, probably not, not really, who knows, respectively.

Are you referring to CHI or CMI the designation put forward by Nachi?

Doug I was told by OAHI that I could not use the Letters or the words certified home inspecter and was puy up on charges and have had my upgrade delayed because of it.

I guess it shows how confused I am. CHI is OAHI, & CMI is NACHI. CHI we can’t use, CMI we can if we pay NACHI a $175.00. Am I on the right track ? And will either designation really improve our professional image ? Doug

I do believe it is OAHI who says you can not use CHI.
They as far as I am concerned have nothing to do or say with NACHI
They have troubles of their own just trying to look after the compalints lodged by their own members .
I have to believe they are way behind .I laid a DPPC Charge when I was a OAHI member and was told it was in the loop almost two years and still heard nothing more .
I have been told that others are also waiting for their complaints to be heard.
CMI is entirely different then CHI Please go back and read the CMI posts.

Roy Cooke sr… RHI… Royshomeinspection.com. CAHPI-ON

Doug ;ASTTBC out in bc apperently own the rights to CHI and the words Certified Home Inspector so because of that we in Canada can not use them.You could use National Assocation of Certified Home Inspectors or you can pay the 175 us for the CMI your choice.If your a member of OAHI you will get in sh$$$t if you use chi or the words.

If you were to read any of the matrial about CMI you will not read or see anywhere in it that it is a NACHI run entity. This is just another way for someone to make some more money.

Gee you know what this sounds just like OAHI and CAHPI and the National Certification .

The more I hear,
the more I see!
NACHI is the one for me !
Roy Cooke R.H.I. Royshomeinspection.com
A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER,… More find this out ever day!

Remember Whistler http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4935

http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?p=57430#post57430 [size=3][FONT=Times New Roman]Larry

It would seem that Nachi uses Certified Home Inspector while ASTTBC/BCIPI uses Certified House Inspector. I think you should reply to ASTTBC and point that difference out to them. I don’t think they have a leg to stand on considering the difference.

Raymond Wand
Alton, ON http://www.raymondwand.ca
The value of experience is not in seeing much, but in seeing wisely. - Sir William Osler 1905
see previous post Roy sr

Once again for clarification purposes. ATTSBC has registered use of CHI which they have registered as being CERTIFIED HOUSE INSPECTOR, while NACHI uses CERTIFIED HOME INSPECTOR. See the difference?

I checked the intellectual data base and CERTIFIED HOME INSPECTOR was not registered by ASTTBC only CERTIFIED HOUSE INSPECTOR, how anyone can say CHI is registered to mean one thing when it means another really does not have a leg to stand on considering the difference. I am leaving my CHI on my website because I believe ASTTBC cannot do anything considering it is not registered.

As to CMI maybe some of you should stop feeling intimidated and directed, and threatened and stand your ground particularly if you are an OAHI member. I have yet to receive a letter from OAHI in regards to anything with regard to CHI, my use of RHI, let alone three outstanding complaints or supposed misuse of my membership status of Retired RHI. What does that mean? It means that OAHI is not enforcing its own rules, and it means they cannot enforce some of their wishes because those issues are not backed up by the by-law. If it is not in the by-law OAHI is out of luck! It also means when they do enforce the rules members cannot be assured of due process, natural justice, or that there are fears OAHI will be taken to task and proven wrong. Anything coming from the OAHI DPP Committee should be taken with a grain of salt. There are legitimate complaints being ignored for a variety of reasons. So much for self regulation and application of the known legal rules of engagement, not some made up ego based “lets get’m” mentality.

For the record OAHI has been reformulating the DPPC for the last 6 months, and as usual the excuses are numerous!

From an earlier thread
Certified Home Inspector and the Acronym CHI appear to be trademarked by

Well maybe ASTTBC needs to look at its own documentation because there appears to be confusion in their own by-laws. Clearly they use the term Cert. House Inspector.


I guess OAHI/CAHPI and others must just love the information that is returned to them from their own looking and what the spies tell them .
They can just sit back and chuckle and do noting as per usual.
They use intimidation on their own members who are afraid of those in power but who also do nothing.
There is so much information on here and they have done nothing .
Many have been using ( some say not allowed ) for so long that it could be hard for them to Deny that past usage and now complaints from ( those in power ) just might show that these letters are just not worth the effort to go after any one .

The more I hear,
the more I see!
NACHI is the one for me !
Roy Cooke R.H.I. Royshomeinspection.com
A HAPPY NACHI MEMBER,… More find this out ever day!

Remember Whistler http://www.nachi.org/forum/showthread.php?t=4935

Another site that specifically uses House Inspector. Which is it ASTTBC/BCIPI do you know? Sure looks like ASTTBC/BCIPI are confused. What they state on their website does not match what it says on the Trademark database.



Your familiar with OAHI by-laws, so can you tell me were in the OAHI by-laws and PR 158, OAHI has the power to discipline OAHI members for misuse or hold up membership upgrade because of misuse of CHI. Any disciplinary action OAHI meets out must result in a hearing in order to fulfill the legal requirements of PR158 and its by-laws, only then after a hearing can the penalty be imposed. They cannot act on their own accord and state membership upgrade will be witheld that is contrary to due process.

First OAHI has committees that make and render decisions. On the other side though having served on various functions - my personal opinion is another matter.

PACHI and OAHI amalgamated. PACHI had right of use to CHI - Certified Home Inspector. OAHI as we know had right to RHI - Registered Home Inspector. As such it is my general understanding that such title of CHI is owned and became one of the assets of that amalgamation (merger).

I cannot speak on the legal implications of OAHI or even that matter of ASTTBC in having their rights and obligations to protect such titles, other than to say that they are obligated to provide fair warning and protect the possibilities of infringement.

Again my caveat being we are talking Canada here, not what may be the case in the USA.


Committees making decisions is fine and I can appreciate their hard work, however, Committees must act and ensure their dictates, whims, and work must be made within the confines of the established by-laws. If their decisions and recommendations are not or verge on not being lawful re confines of by-law it is not binding, has no bearing, and cannot be acted on. To do so leaves the association up for legal challenges and associated costs. Case law addresses such activities outside the confines of the by-laws very clearly. I suggest before anyone acts in haste they should run these edicts past the OAHI lawyer to ensure they are legal and can be acted on. Once again people (members) have been told they will not be upgraded until they comply with something that clearly is not defined or regulated within the by-laws. And for everyone who reads this post, you as a member of OAHI are guaranteed via the by-laws to a hearing, only then can the hearing with evidence from both sides be acted on. Not suspension or threats before a hearing. How anyone can confuse and misrepresent same is beyond me. Mr. Lloyd callous uniformed statements unfortunately are meant to pray on those who are not savy to the rules of good governance. If Mr. Lloyd feels challenged to exert his authority he may wish to start dealing with matters he has on file. His actions and statements are pittiful to say the least. Also if OAHI feels so strongly about protecting CHI as supposedly agreed then this specific concern should be addressed in the by-laws, so that everyone is on the same page and it is legal.

Again there is confusion on publicly accessible documents from ASTTBC and BCIPI which do not jive with their Trade Mark issues. Clearly they have in publicly accessible documents referred to CHI as Cert. House Inspector as noted.

Thanks Claude, just my views.

[10]Mr. Reddy’s submission is premised on the undisputed proposition in Hollenberg v. B.C. Optometric Association (1967), 61 D.L.R. (2d) 195 (B.C.C.A.):
… where a statute confers jurisdiction upon a body of limited authority and statutory origin to regulate and discipline a class of persons, the conditions and qualifications annexed by the statute to the exercise of that jurisdiction must be complied with strictly …



The Interpretation Act, in s.1(1)(a) and (b), provides an emphatic interpretive limit on the broad meaning that might otherwise be attributed to the words in s.17 in this particular case. It is unequivocal that the wording of the powers given to the Disciplinary Committee, do not specifically permit it to impose a sanction that allows it to circumvent the complaint process, to delegate dictatorial sole-discretion powers to an auditor, or to itself, in imposing sanctions. In my opinion, when one reviews the intention of the Committee and the Association, it is important when imposing a sanction, to examine the wording closely. If the intended sanction does not come specifically within, firstly, the clear power conferred by the legislation, or secondly, within an obvious extension of the power, the section must be regarded strictly. Legislators intend what is just and reasonable, not a forceful interpretation of words that does not respect the rights of the member, or for that matter, those of the member’s clients. To extend the meaning of words in the impugned section of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act is, at best and in the absence of a complaint, an ambiguous interpretation of the section. It attempts to raise the level of a suspicion to that of proof.

[56] The scheme and object of the *Act *is to create an exclusive membership in a closed association. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament sets forth, and thereby realistically limits, the penal powers of the Association and its committees. If a body of persons seeks power from the legislature to define its membership and to impose sanctions on its members, it must use clear wording to spell out the parameters of the sanction; the proponents of the legislation should not be permitted to succeed in fashioning a justification for an extension of any sanction they deem appropriate. The language of the section under scrutiny is not diseased. It is clear and sound. It is prospective.

[57] The “Driedger approach” was approved in Bell Express Vu v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 at paras. 26-30, Iacobucci J. writing for a seven-member court. The demise of the application of the “strict construction” of private legislation wording that encroaches on rights or, as in Mr. Bouhamdani’s case, negates safeguards and rights, is exaggerated. The context, grammar and ordinary sense of the words empowering the imposition of a sanction call for restraint, not invention to achieve, and thereby justify, the desired result. This interpretation, consistent with s.1(1)(a) and (b) of the Interpretation Act, is most consistent with the scheme of the private legislation and intent of the legislature and gives s. 18 under review, its full meaning. For a broad and liberal reading of a private act where a party is pitted directly against the professional: McAllister v. Cleary, [1999] NBJ No. 250 (N.B.C.A.), a case in which the professional account to the client was being taxed.

[58] An analysis exposes the failure of the wording in and out of context to empower the Discipline Committee to order periodic inspections of past work as a sanction. The wording “periodic inspections” is prospective. There is a complaint procedure in place. To interpret the discipline sanctions as a power to investigate past work because of the finding under the complaint before the committee is unreasonable and beyond jurisdiction. The sanction is not supported by the wording of the legislation.

Sorry to bore some, but just wanted to prove my earlier points lest anyone think I am crazy! :wink: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

Meaning of Private Legislation as used above:

The procedure in connection with Private Bills differs very materially from that which governs Public Bills. A Public Bill relates to a matter of public policy and is usually general in application and character and is initiated by a Minister or Member.

   A Private Bill, on the other hand, relates to a matter of special benefit          to a particular person or group of persons and is the vehicle by which          a member of the public may initiate a Bill by applying to the Legislative          Assembly. A Private Bill has as its object a privilege, i.e., an exception          from the general law or a provision for something that cannot be obtained          under the general law. Where one or more individuals, an association or          other organization, a company, municipality or other local authorities          seeks any special privilege requiring legislative sanction, the legislation          can only be obtained by means of a Private Bill on the application of          the parties concerned.

   Before any special privilege of this nature is granted, the Legislative          Assembly requires to be satisfied that no other rights or interests would          be prejudiced by granting the special legislation sought to be obtained.