OAHI in a tail spin.

This reporter sure did not do his home work .
He should also tell the readers that 90% of those who do Home Inspection courses spend about $10,000;00 and never last three years .
http://www.thestar.com/App_Themes/TheStar/images/logo_torontostar.gif http://www.thestar.com/article/279515
Tradesman trades hammer for inspector’s clipboard TheStar.com - Special - Tradesman trades hammer for inspector’s clipboard
Home inspection career appeals to aging workers tired of construction

November 26, 2007
**Peter Krivel
**Staff Reporter
At 52, Carl Heffernan realized it was time for a career change after years of working in construction installing ventilation systems.
He’s now putting the finishing touches on a new career as a home inspector, after taking a series of nine courses at Humber College.
The program is popular with people in the trades who don’t want to wield a hammer or do other physical labour anymore, says co-ordinator Guy Battaglini.
“I’m looking down the road at that situation,” Heffernan says. “Basically that’s the reason why I’m switching over.”
But Battaglini warns students that being a home inspector isn’t easy.
“You still have to get into crawl spaces, climb ladders and get on the roof,” he says. “There’s physically demanding stuff. I tell everyone that.”
Heffernan says most of his classmates were in their mid-40s, although there were two engineering students in their 20s who wanted more in-depth knowledge of building systems.
The program prepares students to inspect various home systems, including plumbing, electrical, gas, heating and cooling. They also learn how to identify possible construction problems.
Students must also prepare reports on the physical conditions of the building, roof, exterior, plumbing, heating, cooling, insulation and interiors.
“Our course doesn’t teach you to just go into a house and say, `that’s wrong,’” Battaglini says. "That’s not what a home inspector is.
“For example, our courses offer the theory behind electricity; how do you know if the wiring is right for the home and the amperage and all that. Once you understand that, then you can understand the defects created from it, such as if the homeowner had decided to add a few outlets and got the wiring all wrong.”
Successful completion of the program fulfils the academic requirements of the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors, which registers home inspectors.
Heffernan finished the classroom component a couple of months ago and is now working on building a full-time business by preparing a website, registering a name for his company and contacting real estate agents in the Orangeville and Brampton area, where he lives.
“This course makes me feel comfortable because the inspector gives us tips on how to do it correctly,” Heffernan says.
The program involves nine courses. The next 10-week introductory course begins Jan. 23 in class, and Jan. 30 online.
Tuition is $315.20, plus books or materials.

On the side bar they gave visit the web site at PACHI.CA or call 416.256.0960

Yes everyone who applies and is in the Registry is a RHI. It is not an earned credential. Thats right even Students, Applicants and Associates are RHI’s.

I guess they forgot to mention it like that other no nothing reporter Steve Maxwell!

I was flabbergasted to read the member who humourously used the word “CEU Police” on a post was intimidated enough to remove the word “Police” from his post when he was chastised.

I am very disappointed in your response, are you a man or a mouse? This is exactly the thing we are trying to correct - FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM OF THOUGHT, AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION!

Shame, shame!

Raymond:

The person who removed the word ‘Police’ was not intimidated. He and others have much loftier goals than squabbling over words.

It takes more than a message from the OAHI President to scare our friend Claude.

Bill Mullen

Bill

Never the less he felt compelled to soothe the savage beast.

Mr. Lloyd is drunk with power, it is not the first time he has used his position along with his negligent directors to intimdate members from speaking their minds.

We know damn well that he has also manipulated and influenced his posts on the CAFE, while others are subjected to suspension for doing exactly what Mr. Lloyd is doing.

Mr. Lloyd admonishes many for breaking the rules, yet he is the biggest rule breaker along with his directors for witholding financial info that is the membership rights to see as per the bylaws! He speaks about conractual obligations of membership while completely ignoring his and his directors own contractual obligations to the members.

Everytime OAHI and its minions have set out to prove me wrong they have been the ones to be proven wrong. They cannot stand anyone who is more knowledgeable than themselves and knows how the game must be played.

Oahi was wrong about CHI
Oahi was wrong about Retired
Oahi was wrong about RHI and the Registry
Oahi is wrong about its Registry being the website.
Oahi lied to the members when they told members the financial info was at Oahi head office.
Oahi lied when they told me they could withold my upgrade
Oahi was wrong when they removed Cam Allen from the BOD contrary to the bylaws.
OAHI under Pr 158 is to issue a Cert. of Membership every year which they do not, sorry ID cards are not certificates.

The list goes on.

Just when is OAHI and its directors going to relize they have been wrong on every front?

Thanks Bill.
Cheers,

Having been encouraged to express my view - here is my explanation why I - as one of the founding members of the association - could’nt care less whether or not the rumour is correct that the OAHI is on its way to bite the dust.

Every established home inspector should have experience by now that memberships and designations are more or less meaningless to remain successful in this high risk business. Catering to the powerful - and self-serving – real estate fraternity has unfortunately become the one and only solution to make a meagre living in this relatively high-risk business.

The fact that I have never *"kissed **" with real estate agents has cost me dearly - but has kept me out of trouble and courtrooms - for 30 years.

RUDOLF REUSSE - Home Inspector since **1976 **- TORONTO

Well said Rudolf , thank you for your frank thoughts .
Roy D. Cooke sr.

Especially given that anyone in the Registry of OAHI is entitled to use the RHI designation regardless of membership level!

Cheers,

I see the DPPC has lost one member and picked up another.

Roy Chan gone, Trevor Welby Solomon in.

Can you say “draconian?”

I see the DPPC of OAHI has appointed two new members. Claude Lawrenson, and TWS to its committee. Now if they can only come to terms with investigating the BOE/AR, and why the board has not released any financial info all year, and why Cam Allen was removed contrary to the bylaws the DPPC is mandated to uphold.

Oh by the way and a very important by the way…

Consider if you will the fact that if anyone in the Registry is entitled to use RHI, which OAHI has breached as per Pr 158, then this naturally calls into question the right of the DPPC as afforded in the bylaws which state:

  1. The Committee may take one or more of the following actions:
    (a) dismiss the Complaint;
    (b) impose upon the Respondent any one or more of the following penalties:
    (i) a reprimand;
    (ii) a fine, not to exceed $1,000.00, payable to the Association;
    (iii) a suspension from membership of the Association or from enjoyment of any one or more of its facilities, including the right to use the designations “Registered Home Inspector” and “RHI”, for such period as the Committee may deem proper;
    (iv) expulsion from membership in the Association;

Considering anyone who becomes suspended is still in the Registry, the DPPC cannot take away something that is guaranteed in Pr 158, that being anyone in the Registry is entitled to use RHI and Registered Home Inspector. The only manner which OAHI can remove a members right to use RHI is to remove him as permitted under item (iv) above.

When put under the microscope you can see that things don’t quite wash as the members have been misled all these years.

Thanks all for your interest. I know that you all find this informative and a real big eye opener! :shock:

Oooops, here is another bylaw that has been overlooked.

Article 14
Discipline and Professional Practices Committee

There have been many decisions rendered by the DPPC and many have not been appealed, nor published as required in the above bylaws. I have been told the reasons are because of the embarrassment it would bring to those that are currently on the BOD and a couple of the Committees.

I never realized researching the bylaws would uncover so many breaches. :wink:

Claude,

You should know that the article above does not protect any member of the DPPC from actions borne out of negligence or breach in denial of a members right to due process.

As a new member of the DPPC are you willing to ensure the bylaws are observed and followed?

Pr 158 does not contain a privative clause either. So any decisions or actions could result in a court reviewing the decisions of the DPPC.

I suggest you and other members of the DPPC may want to govern yourselves accordingly.

**Curial Deference and Privative clauses.
**A privative clause is a provision in a statute that bars the courts from reviewing the decisions of an administrative tribunal. Where there is a privative clause the courts will only review a decision if it is outside the jurisdiction of the tribunal or, alternatively, if the decision was patently unreasonable.

Thanks Raymond, but it is my understanding that any member serving on a committee is protected by professional liability insurance - or as some may say in business directors insurance. This is a common practice used in large business.

The same applies to both for profit and not for profit organizations. Example examiners are covered, directors, council or committee members - that are in the position to rendering such business decisions.

I have no idea if OAHI does carry this insurance but I asked if they did a few years ago and I was told they did not and did not feel they needed too.
I would recommend that the directors see the pollicy to not take the word of some one else.
This was the final reason why I decided to drop my membership with OAHI as I felt even the members could get involved with the shot gun approach when the chips start to fall.
…Cookie

Claude,

You should be sure to ask to see the policy as last time I checked OAHI had problems obtaining it. And if they do have coverage be sure to check who is covered. Like so many things with OAHI are you a betting man that it will not be needed?

Given the documented evidence that shows the bylaws have already been breached and are in fault, and that due process has been denied and other circumstances I would also advise you to ensure that the coverage and exclusions of the policy are closely scrutinized.

I don’t think you would be classified as a “director”.

Other risks which are not as obvious are those resulting from the activities of an organization. The organization, its employees, and its volunteers may be sued by others for things they did while working for or volunteering for the organization. A particular risk that is becoming more and more real is the risk of liability of directors and officers.

The first step in risk management is to identify and weigh the risk. Since the law is constantly changing, it is best to speak to a lawyer or other expert about the risks to your organization. Most insurance companies will do a “risk assessment” before offering you insurance. Two of the main areas of risk are risks related to fiduciary duties and statute imposed risks. A fiduciary duty is a duty to act in the best interest of the organization. Each director must act honestly and in good faith, in the best interest of the organization and in so doing, exercise the care, diligence, and skill of the reasonably prudent person. This duty is continually redefined by the courts as cases are brought before them.
Various statutes impose specific duties on directors and officers. Directors can be liable for such things as unpaid wages of employees and payroll deductions if they are not remitted to the government.
After identifying each risk, rank each of them in terms of severity (major or minor) and frequency. Obviously, those most likely to occur with the highest severity are treated differently than those at the other end of the spectrum.

After identifying risks, set out to minimize or prevent them. It is a good idea to form a risk management team or appoint someone to be responsible for working through each risk. At the bare minimum, directors and officers must know the law relating to the organization and its activities, and know about duties relating to fiduciary and statutory obligations.

**Many organizations indemnify (pay back) board members if they are sued. This means, the organization will cover the expenses that a director or officer incurs to defend an action or the cost related to a settlement or a judgment of a claim. However, an agreement to indemnify a director is only as good as the financial resources available in an organization. In other words, indemnity may not be sufficient. Also, some statutes limit organizations from providing indemnity and an organization can decide not to indemnify an individual if the cost of litigation would push the organization into bankruptcy.

** Unfortunately, insurance policies are often written in language that is difficult to understand. Since an insurance policy is a contract between you and the insurer, its important that you understand what is being said and your commitments. If you do not meet the obligations set out in the contract, this may affect whether or not you are covered. When looking at insurance, look for four main things:

Who is covered?

Ensure that directors, officers and volunteers are covered You may also want to include higher level management staff such as the chief executive officer. Policies will either describe “insured” narrowly or broadly. In some narrow definitions, coverage is limited to current directors and officers of the organization only. Broadly defined policies will include the organization, all past, present and future directors, employees, committee members and volunteers. It is important to name as many people and organizations as possible in the definition of insured. Most litigation lawyers, when suing, will name all of these persons or organizations, regardless of who is ultimately responsible.

The definition of wrongful act is fairly important since most policies limit their coverage only to wrongful acts that result in a claim. Most policies define wrongful act in a long series of paragraphs usually speaking about such things as errors, mistakes, or omissions that occur in the discharge of an officer’s or director’s duties. Wrongful act also usually includes those “causally connected errors” that are also called inter-related wrongful acts. In most situations, wrongful act will not include criminal activities such as false arrest or such things as libel, slander, infringement of copyright or trademark.

It is important to read the exclusions part of the contract very carefully because some claims that are included in the initial part of a policy are excluded in this section.

A company must make full disclosure of all relevant information (such as any circumstance that may give rise to future claim(s)) when it applies for liability insurance. To protect innocent directors if inadequate disclosure or a misrepresentation has been made, policies should contain severability clause. A properly drafted severability clause ensures that misrepresentations made by the company or a director in the application are not imputed to any other director. Similarly, if coverage is denied because of actions of one insured (such as the dishonest conduct of a singel director), the policy should nonetheless provide coverage for the other innocent directors. Not all insures will agree to severability clause.

Torys LLB
Toronto

Claude;
Be careful. “directors insurance” can be and will be suspended if the courts decide to “lift the corporate veil” and in effect remove any protection that the status of ‘corporation’ may lend to the corporate principals.