Claude if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
If you feel it is proper for an association that you belong to,to have two financial directors resign and make public statements and say that there is some thing wrong with the finances and this needs to be looked into completely.
If you feel that not complete financial statements and no statements and late statements are the proper way for the OAHI directors to treat the membership then I am sorry for you .
If you think Charges of over two years have not been dealt with then you are seeing some thing I can not see. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incilp-pdci.nsf/en/cl00700e.html .
(" I think there are now officially more threads involving complaining on the Canadian side of the NACHI forum about the discontent expressed towards OAHI and CAHPI than there are threads about really helping other home inspectors. ")
.I sure do it gives the OAHI members and all the non members a chance to see just how great a job the OAHI Directors are not doing.
The letters I get from members and Non show me that NACHI is the only place where true information is given out.
I will give up my my giving information when the OAHI Director’s do things correctly
The way you keep standing up for the OAHI Directors looks a little strange to me ,with so much wrong doing by the OAHI BOD ,I wonder why you are such a strong supporter.
("The truth of it, though, is that finding fault is easier than making positive statements or constructively doing something about it. With that in mind - " ) .
You think I like to see what is happening to the Home inspection industry in Ontario .Wrong!
I sure did not want to leave OAHI but I could not stay and see what the BOD where doing with my and other members money…
I again hope that some day soon OAHI will do what is propper and correct ,have a full audit let the chips fall where they may and then we all can get on helping the home Inspection industry for the betterment of all Home Inspectors .
OAHI is still not growing in comparison with the amount of people doing home inspections.
We ( Both associations) should be helping each other and the industry .
What has OAHI done for the non aligned inspector .
You can inspect under the NACHI banner and I strongly urge you to do so, there is nothing stopping you. If you are a Student, Applicant, Associate or RHI in OAHI you can go out and join any organization, competing or otherwise if you want and OAHI has no right in law to stop you or threaten your membership in OAHI. It isn’t any different then me being a Retired RHI, and practicing as a NACHI member. If the same rules apply to Mr. Barrows then I find it very odd that I have not been taken to task for the same infraction. Why do you suppose that is? Its because legally OAHI does not have that power and they are not going to pull wool over my eyes or anyone elses. In reality OAHI can only enforce the SOP and COE because that is all it is limited to do unless they ammend the by-laws to reflect same and the by-laws show that. The only reason they tell you is to be able to extorte funds from the unsuspecting. This is unfortunately not the only case.
**
**If this is the case as support partially by the letter and by what Mr. Faux has stated and what he alluded to in his election platform I think it would behoove Mr. Faux to resign if he hasn’t already, and those that aided and assisted in this travisty should consider the same, and OAHI should forthwith return Mr. Barrows reports, his falsified fine, and his membership dues!
As you can well imagine the improprities being carried out are counter productive and call into question the ability of CAHPI and signatories to ensure accountability and a standard of care. This does not appear to be possible without some form of outside audit to account for the misdeeds of a signatory (OAHI) to CAHPI. To ignore it any further is to condone it.
Case law addresses natural justice and due process succintly and I provide for you information the following.
You can argue with the law, and the law is on my side and Mr. Barrows side and all those who have been pillaged and plundered by OAHI.
(**b) Failure to Observe Principles of Natural Justice**
"This Court has affirmed that there is, as a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual"
***Cardinal v. Kent Institution*, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643 (S.C.C.)** File no. 17364](http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1985/1985rcs2-643/1985rcs2-643.html)
The contents of the "rules of natural justice" are flexible and will change depending upon the circumstance of each case. The courts have attempted to define the rule on several occasions. In one Federal Court decision the general principles inherent in the rules of natural justice are set out, in part, as follows:
[LIST=1]
a tribunal is not required to conform to any particular procedure, nor to abide by rules of evidence generally applicable to judicial proceedings, except where the empowering statute requires otherwise;
there is an overall duty to act fairly in administrative matters, that is, the inquiry must be carried out in a fair manner and with due regard for natural justice;
the duty to act fairly requires that the person who is being examined and who may be subject to some penalty:
[LIST]
be aware of what the allegations are;
be aware of the evidence and the nature of the evidence against him;
be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the evidence and give his version of the matter;
be afforded the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses or questioning any witness where evidence is being given orally.
[/LIST][/LIST] ** Blanchard v. Millhaven Institution Disciplinary Board, [1983] 1 F.C. 309 (F.C.T.D.) T-1504-82 Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities) [1992], 89 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (S.C.C.)**](http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1992/1992rcs1-623/1992rcs1-623.html)
The fact that a Board member has been on a panel hearing a case involving a relative of the claimant and dealing with an entirely different matter does not constitute bias in law. Sgro v. Canada (A.G.), June 16, 1998, F.C.J. No. 865 (F.C.A.) A-436-97](http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/policy/appeals/Federal-Court/A043697e.html)
Once an Umpire concludes that a claimant has not been given the right to a fair hearing, that is, has not been accorded procedural fairness, the matter should be sent back to the Board of Referees. The Umpire should not rule on the merit of any arguments being advanced in the appeal. Any comments which an Umpire makes in this regard can in no way be binding on the Board of Referees at the new hearing. Canada (A.G.) v. Baillargeon, May 4, 1994, F.C.J. No. 663 (F.C.A.) A-219-93](http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/policy/appeals/Federal-Court/A021993e.html)
In order for a delay in the hearing of an appeal to constitute a breach of natural justice, the claimant must demonstrate that the delay was unacceptable to the point of being so oppressive as to taint the proceedings.
**Canada (A.G.) v. Norman , [2002] F.C.J. No. 1530 (F.C.A.) A-500-01](http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/policy/appeals/Federal-Court/A050001e.html)
The determination of whether a delay has become inordinate depends upon the nature of the case and its complexity, the facts and the issues, the purpose and the nature of the proceedings, whether the respondent contributed to or waived the delay and other circumstances of the case. Canada (A.G.) v. Norman, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1530 (F.C.A.) A-500-01](http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/policy/appeals/Federal-Court/A050001e.html)
There is the *procedural Due Process* and the *substantive Due Process*
*[The procedural due process](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;) * is concerned with the fairness of the judicial procedure. Everyone is equal before the law. Its basic philosophy is that no one even the ruler is above the law. Everyone must abide by the fairness of a judicial procedure. The citizen is secure against arbitrary seizure of property and /or arbitrary detention. *[The substantive due process](http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;) * is related with the basis substance of the law protects all individuals. There is an equal protection for everyone
As I stated before, I am not aware of the facts of the matter. Certainly I condone unfair and unethical treatment. If one joins any association there are likely some rules. It is up to each individual to understand their “rights” and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.
Thats the problem, there is no stinking spirit of fairness and equity! The letter proves that, Craig proves that, Roy has proved that, Bob Francis has proved that, Rob Clarke has proved that. I have proved it.They did it to you, they did it to John Lueck, they did it to Jerome Sidley, Rudolf Ruesse. How many more do you need? There are more believe me!
No one wants to hear truth lest it screw up the revenue stream.
Claude you Win you obviously have ulterior motives and can not see the forest for the trees.
. You chastise me and saw nothing wrong with Dave Bottoms posts .
You say nothing wrong with Bills Calling people Liars.
I guess I am the first looser and Claude is the first winer
Reasoning with Claude has gone out the window .
At least we can all communicate on NACHI . Long may NACHI lead.
So Claude I assume you mean Mr. Faux must not know the by-laws and is not aware of his rights as a secretary, and as such did not act fairly. I have to assume this because I was honest, tried to find a solution, but was met with extremely unfair resistance and unequal treatment.
You mean like National Certification wherein people applied (first 100) and sent in $100 only to be told afterward that they would be obligated to inspect to CAHPI Standards and COE, or would be disciplined and possibly thrown out? Or no other info was provided only what they were told via newsletter after the fact or info after the fact via the discussion boards? Yeah right.
Seems to me its the other way around. No one is told anything until after they send in the money. Thats inexcusable! Just as they did with Mr. Barrows, send your money first, then we will provide you with the rules of engagement. Then once we have your money and you find out the rules of engagement we will tell you how to behave and act.
So just to clear the air, and just like Enron and the Liberal Sponsorship fiasco were we had the top brass denying any wrong doing and claiming they were not awares of what management was doing! So in this regard and given the extent of the matter and severity Mr. Andrew Dixon, Tom Lloyd, Ralph Banks, David Faux, Doug Azar, Mike O’Grady, Glen Gogal and Gerry Quackenbush should all resign. Also I think it would behoove the Association lawyer to explain what is going on because it appears things are being done that are contrary to his written instructions.
Some of these same players sit on the National so the question remains what are these people doing in positions of power given the extent of the rot?
Don’t get me started on the functionality of the Registrar or the abilities of the CAFE forum moderator, these two are in their positions because of nepotism, and can pretty much do as they please with no accountability. Plus they are paid handsomely for screwing up.
Licencing and an audit sound pretty good right about now!
C’mon Raymond did you really think that CAHPI was going to use the NACHI SOP. OK I will concede - you already know the answer - it is the ASHI SOP in disguise! Actually there is not a heck of a lot of difference regardless.
Have a nice day!
Claude
As if the OAHI SOP isn’t the ASHI SOP in disguise. If OAHI ever told me to pay the fine and quit I would promptly tell them where they could put their fine and quit anyway. There is no way they could ever force you to pay the fine. I can see a judges face now as I stand in court and produce a document telling me to “Pay the fine and quit”
Larry
Well considering NACHI SOP are actually a higher standard yes I did expect CAHPI to let NACHI members use NACHI SOP.
and from PR 158
(**2) The register shall be open to examination by the public at the head office of the Association during normal office hours.
(1) The board of directors shall cause the name of a member to be removed from the register.
if the member requests or gives written consent to the removal;
if the name has been incorrectly entered;
if notification is received of the member’s death; or
if the registration of the member has been suspended or revoked through disciplinary proceedings.
**What disciplinary proceedings? Mr. Barrows is the victim in this matter he has been victimized through the ignorance of the by-laws.
Further PR 158 states:
**12. (1) Every member of the Association
whose name appears in the register may use
the designations “Registered Home Inspector”
and “R.H.I.“.
**That means Students, Applicants and Associates are permitted to use RHI as they are listed in the Registry of which I have a copy. So you see the by-laws are in conflict with the underlying legislation. If they are in conflict deference to Pr 158 is in order.
And the preamble of PR 158
The Ontario Association of Home Inspectors has applied for special legislation to become incorporated for the purpose of carrying out its objects, to enable it to govern and discipline its members and to grant to its members the right to the exclusive use of the designations “Registered Home Inspector” and “R.H.I.“. **The applicant represents that it is an unincorporated association that is a division of The Canadian Association of Home Inspectors.
**OAHI is a division of CAHPI so ultimately CAHPI bears some responsibility to ensure that all Provincial signatories/divisions abide by and follow the prescribed rules. This doesn’t appear to be the case.
12. (1) Every member of the Association
whose name appears in the register may use
the designations “Registered Home Inspector”
and “R.H.I.“.
What a great Find OAHI members please do not use C H I it belongs to OAHI . USE R.H.I. instead PR 158 says it’s OK for all members to use .
Poor Terry Carson must be jumping up and down just like he is on a trampoline.
Terry Carson then the chair of THe DPPC is the one who sent me the letter stating my complaint about a Director standing up in a meeting and calling me a liar is in the system and will be looked after in due time.
Just for interest sake what did you get when you signed up as a Student with OAHI? How much did it cost? Did they give you a copy of PR 158, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Home Inspectors? Did you get an Membership Certificate? By-laws?
Here is one of several major differences and that is the prohibition by the NACHI COE.
Article 1.11 Forbids a NACHI inspector performing any work that he recommends in his report for 12 months after the inspection.
I have been called in to reinspect work that a CAPHI inspector did or had done by his brother following his inspection.
My Client was sucked in by the CAPHI inspector but she had the last laugh. She got all her money back when she presented my report and threaten to sue.
I guess that just proves that CAHPI also has some inspectors who are far from perfect .
So strange that CAHPI seems to say and many advertise that NACHI inspectors do not have the qualifications that CAHPI inspictors have.
You can of cours join CAHPI/OAHI with money and do not have to take a test.
That is not the way it is with NACHI no pass the test no join.
Perhaps I am blind - but where in the CAHPI SOP does it permit an inspector to do differently?
The other part about the brother, sister or friend, etc. of an inspector could apply to any association - could it not? Is it right - in my opinion - NO! What makes it any more right in 12 months? Hmm…
Within the COE “The inspection work may not be used as a vehicle by the inspector to deliberately obtain work in another field.”
Claude am I missing some thing this string started off with a OAHI director not following the OAHI rules and giving a fine to the Home Inspector . We have been lead all over the place with many things but you have not said you think it is wrong for OAHI to not follow their rules and the rules the Canadian Government has laid out for not for profit organasations. http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/incilp-pdci.nsf/en/cl00700e.html
As per usual I do not expect you to give a simple yes or no answer.
Of course I a untrained in law have common sense and know they should follow their rules .
Yes - I agree this topic has taken a few sideroads, but I am simply trying to respond to some of those comments.
I am not the judge, jury or gatekeeper or scorekeeper of OAHI or CAHPI. Often I comment to add facts or another POV. It is not up to me to decide whether it’s right, wrong or somewhere in-between. That’s for other “legal” professionals to decide. As far as other comments they are just that comments - some I may agree with and some I may not. But I am not mandated to respond to any allegations unless I feel the need to do so, nor does it necessarily need to respond to you or anyone else about the requirement to reflect my personal stand on a matter. Sometimes it’s simply a personal opinion and just that!
What I find interesting though is the continuation of this ongoing debate that indicates that the professionals hired to audit the books and provide legal counsel seems to satisfy mostly everyone with those associations. I am not offended by you and other making note of it - but I am tired of hearing the same old stuff over and over again. Remember when this all started.
If you feel there is wrongdoing than there are venues to decide the matter of their due diligence and professional integrity in such matters - so why leave it to us to speculate the other possibilities. I agree issues are raised - but beating it death - has not solved in answering the allegations has it! Perhaps the facts of the matters have been resolved, and than again perhaps not! Hey you may claim I am in the inner circle - but the reality is that is not true! Hell I am not even invited to meetings where I thought I should have been in attendance. So there is no need to feel slighted. If I was in the know - I would have an answer to offer you. Some prefer it that way!
Short and sweet reread my post #23 - and you can see my opinion.
