If Ontario really wanted well-trained home inspectors, they’d require everyone train at the InterNACHI House of Horrors. If you were a home inspector for two centuries, you wouldn’t come across as many defects as just one day at the House of Horrors: https://www.nachi.org/school/internachi-university/house/
Claude you are right. Grandfathering does not appear in the recommendations paper. If you remember there was a lot of discussion about that term and we decided to put it under “Transition”
Recommendation 35 of the paper states:
- The government should establish transition provision for persons currently practicing as home inspectors.
a) There should be an 18 month notice period before licensing requirements come into effect.
b) Home inspectors with designations from existing organizations that reflect the licensing requirements of the DAA and are approved by the DAA may become licensed without further review.
c) A process should be put in place for submissions from organizations to demonstrate how their designations reflect the licensing requirements of the DAA.
d) Home inspectors without an approved designation should undergo an individual assessment of their education and experience by the home inspector regulatory body who would determine if additional training, experience, examination, or test inspection is required before a license is issued.
It’s going to be down to the audit capability and ongoing commitment of the Certification at the end of the day, and we know who has such an audit, and who doesn’t. So does the government.
Things have moved on since the B.C./Alberta licensing model and the Ontario Government are unlikely to make similar decisions because the panel advised against it. And correctly so IMHO.
I’d be interested in where you got your facts from there Roy. There’s an estimated 1,500 known inspectors in Ontario (i.e. belong to an association or a franchise)
Of these what number are still “not qualified” in-line with the MGCS requirements with an auditable process?
How many inspectors are operating without association membership or franchise cover?
Look at Kijiji, corner store advertising board and local press small ads. You’ll see that there are a number of inspectors that make wild claims about their skills and qualifications but are patently incapable writing a professional home inspection report even if they can carry a clipboard.
Licensing will immediately remove any unqualified inspector from the marketplace. That in my mind cannot be a bad thing, either for the consumers or our profession.
Look at Kijiji, corner store advertising board and local press small ads. You’ll see that there are a number of inspectors that make wild claims about their skills and qualifications but are patently incapable writing a professional home inspection report even if they can carry a clipboard.
Len how do you know inspectors are unqualified, just because he sees ads onKijiji. Have you seen their reports. Easy to say they are unqualified.
- The government should establish transition provision for persons currently practicing as home inspectors.
a) There should be an 18 month notice period before licensing requirements come into effect.
Seems strange to me that I never saw this information before .
Gee this sounds to me just what they did with electricians and Motor mechanics many years ago only we called it grandfathering …
I said from the get go I can not see the Ontario government taking away a persons living .
As Len has basically stated, how do you cull the inspector herd?
Who is qualified, and what about those that are not? Remember even certification varies from association to association, and even at best none are infallible, both inspectors as well as the associations. Which leads to why consumers make complaints, which leads to lawsuits against inspectors. So the way I read it is any DAA that values “protecting consumers” will likely not take a shortcut. Somewhere some benchmark needs to be established to set even a minimum standard to attain a license to practice.
That was much of the work tabled in the Ontario MGCS report findings.
So you see with grandfathering it is like giving everyone a “free” pass. BC used a transition period to get inspectors to meet a specific benchmark when their licensing was first announced. That could just as easily be accommodated here in Ontario.
What proof have you
(: So you see with grandfathering it is like giving everyone a “free” pass. 
Look at how few legitimate complaints there about home inspectors in Ontario .
Very few Court Case’s and few BBB complaints . I also ask why did I not see posted about this transition Period to me it is identical to what went on with grandfathering 60 years ago.
As I have said from the get go I can not see the Ontario Government instantly taking away a persons living .
We do know these things as we did do our due diligence and have been in contact with the MGCS, the insurance providers, MOL, WSIB and so on…
Many individuals advertising on kijiji and similar, have been found to do this as a side business, have no website or actual company and use falsified or misleading credentials. These were on repeat occasions reported to OAHI, InterNACHI and so on. Many were also brought to attention by members of the public registering a complaint.
To think everything is just fine with the Ontario Home Inspection Profession is showing either total naivety or displaying a complete lack of understanding of the current market situation.
Well let’s start with BC and Alberta. I haven’t heard of 1 home inspector that was grandfathered. If you know one please feel free to inform us.
Forget about the trades or 60 years ago - because we are “profession” offering our expertise on reporting home conditions. We don’t fix, we don’t repair, and as an example we don’t install electrical systems as our prime business. At least I hope that is what every home inspector’s primary function is, to advise consumers about the condition of a house/property.
BTW: the word I heard was about 100 claims against home inspectors in the province last year. Maybe few compared to overall, but all it takes is the big one, or the one possibly connected to a family member of an MP, as an example. To rattle the “consumer protection” cage. Even 100 claims would certainly have an impact on the insurers.
Agree with the numbers: Between 100 and 150.
Some were frivolous but a few are very much legitimate. A lot we don’t hear about because the Inspector is not a serious professional or they are not insured hence no claim information available.
CMI’S and RHI’S were granted immunity to the process. All they had to do was show their certificate. To me, that is grandfathering someone in.
There is something wrong with OntarioACHI.
truly.
Not to be trusted.
First they break their own bylaws ousting Kevin Woods with all members present.
Now OntarioACHI want to vet CMI’s without the CMI board’s permission.
You are also saying the CMI is not a valid designation.
The word that comes to mind is contemptuous and treasonous.
As history repeats itself.
Too bad.
so sad.
It also breaks the COE ethical you swore to joining InterNACHI.
Duty to the Public
1: The InterNACHI member shall abide by the Code of Ethics and substantially follow the InterNACHI Standards of Practice.
2: The InterNACHI member shall not engage in any practices that could be damaging to the public or bring discredit to the home inspection industry.
Please let me hear you say the CMI board are deceiving the home inspection industry and the clients they serve.
Tell the CMI board they are failing the public.
I will bid one dollar.
It is a good course.
I have mentored 3 homies that spent that sum.
Unfortunately they required shadowing and spoke very little for we would review INACHI material and as you know it does not sync well.
I will offer $1:00.
I will also pay the shipping of all the material.
How much does it weigh again?
Wrong thread Robert! 
BTW: the word I heard was about 100 claims against home inspectors in the province last year. Maybe few compared to overall, but all it takes is the big one, or the one possibly connected to a family member of an MP, as an example. To rattle the “consumer protection” cage. Even 100 claims would certainly have an impact on the insurers.
I would love to see some facts …I believe Hear say information is not expectable in any court.
Facts would be great to see , How about some court cases .
Hear say Info is useless.
Perhaps than you need to refute the comments stated by the Honorable Minister in Ontario for MGCS. It was a public announcement, and that is simply what I heard.
Again hear say info , No facts not reliable info .
Sorry Claude !!!
One would think that the person who has access to the complaints of her ministry would have “facts”.
Someone who does not have this access can say what they want, but without the access they are just p’ing into the wind.
A soap box (like a message board or social media) is a place where anyone can say anything with or without factual support.
A ministerial announcement, that was recorded by the press (and me) has, to my knowledge always been based upon hard evidence.
While one might not like what one hears, either because of personal bias or personal agenda, it doesn’t make it less true.
That’s what appears to have been missed on many occasions here.
Roy I would have to believe that the work and services provided by and for consumers in Ontario by the Ministry has some factual data. Of course we likely can caveat that with how many were truly “legitimate” claims.
Nonetheless, public perception of home inspectors is not looking kindly based on many negative comments posted after a news release is issued in public places in many of the large news networks. So really how well would automatically granting all home inspectors a license sit with the public?