How about Misfeasance?
As an adjunct, causes of action, how about injurious falsehood, intimidation and intentional interference with economic relations?
270] The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant has committed the tort of abuse of public office, also known as the tort of misfeasance in public office. This tort is recognized in law, however its precise ambit is still being defined. Professor Hogg in Liability of the Crown, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1989) discusses the tort of misfeasance in public office, and notes at p. 111:
Since a harmful, invalid decision is actionable if made negligently, it seems obvious that a harmful, invalid decision should also be actionable if made deliberately. This is the function of the tort of “misfeasance in a public office”, which is committed when a public officer (a person exercising a statutory or prerogative power) abuses his or her office. . .
That OAHI has wrongfully and in bad faith advised members and third parties that NACHI and CHI were harmful to it's members businesses.
That OAHI improperly used Pr 158 and the by-laws to intimidate members into removing other association’s credentials from their websites.
That OAHI has wrongfully used the power to discipline certain members, particularly relating to the use of CHI and/or Certified Home Inspector.
That the OAHI has wrongfully and improperly interfered in the democratic processes of freedom of association.
That OAHI has wrongfully interfered with the right of members to gain entry and examination and entrance process of another association through threats of discipline.
That OAHI intentionally has interfered with economic relations with membership in a competing association and students rights to work under another voluntary association.
Just my opinions. You may have more to add to the list.