ASTTBC
Complaint History
http://www.asttbc.org/mem/complaint_history.html
Complaint findings and renderings.
http://www.asttbc.org/mem/PRB_Case_%20History05_06.pdf
In particular see case No. 06-50
Other cases of note:
05-07
05-29
05-04
05-05
05-14
05-15
05-16
05-24
06-32
06-50
Is that you Raymond?
Interesting though, I guess anyone outside of B.C. can go ahead and use CHI without fear of backlash.
</IMG>
No it wasn’t me but I have always questioned the merits of OAHI using it as a disciplinary measure against members in OAHI. OAHI cannot discipline anyone in OAHI for its use, because they don’t have the powers under their by-laws. They tried to intimidate me by telling me they would report me to ASTTBC for use. Seems their actions were based on less than legally defendable actions. Ooooooops. Everybody Loves Raymond… 
Thanks Ray - great find! Interesting indeed.
Yes considering how OAHI used the CHI misuse to intimdate members from removing it from their websites and reporting members to ASTTBC. Like I said its not in the OAHI by-laws, they cannot take action. OAHI likes to push the envelope when it comes to arbitrary decisions that under closer scrutiny the by-laws don’t permit.
“**ASTTBC is uncertain as to their authority in Ontario to pursue the use of this acronym.”
**
You should be familiar with decisions that fall outside the scope of the by-laws eh? 
Welcome to the club. It pays to know your rights!
Great information
Thank you
NACHI should send this out to every Canadian member ASAP
Enough with CAPHI OAHI and their intimidation
Nick Gromicko, CHI, CMI, CRI, RHI, BMF.
Sue me.
Nick what is the last one, BMF or should I ask?
Check out the wallet in the movie Pulp Fiction.
Interesting pictures and wording on it, in a google search. I just might order one.
Nick, can you arrange for a mass Emailing of this info to Canadian members? It is of paramount interest to all members of the National Association of CERTIFIED Home Inspectors.
You still can’t use it in BC. Its outside of BC that is questionable and apparently not defendable by ASTTBC.
YOU ARE ALL WELCOME!
Thanks for the infor Mr Raymond… At a recent OAHI meeting they were discussing threatening someone who has CHI on their card. If only BC has it as a trademark, then Ontario can use it… as in me!
OAHI does not have the authority under its by-laws to take action. It cannot defend it actions to do so. Its attitude and actions leave it open for legal action. The by-laws are very limited and narrow in scope as to what OAHI can do or not do. If they wish to make new rules then they should do it the proper way. That is to put a motion to change the by-laws and a vote to the membership at the AGM or call a special meeting to enact the change. Personally its a Witch-hunt to sasiate someones power tripping ego and to hinder freedom of association with a competing association.
Besides its clear ASTTBC realizes outside of BC they are powerless. That leaves OAHI out on a limb thats about to break.
They reported me to ASTTBC, and I never did hear from ASTTBC. Oh well it pays to know your rights. Too bad more members don’t excercise them. I have never seen such a down trodden bunch.
Didn’t want anyone to think I am a liar. Abuse of power, abuse of non existant by-laws, due process.
Govern youself accordingly OAHI.
Raymond Wand RHI, CHI, CFIHI, ASHI
They where desperate then and they are still desperate . They have big problems , Directors who do not follow the rules and now they have spent too much money .
It looks like they are in trouble and are scrambling to try and plug the holes in the sinking ship .
NACHI does so much more for their members and the cost is considerably less .
Since leaving OAHI/CAHPI my business has gone up every year.
Roy Cooke
How hard did you laugh when you received that?
I didn’t find it amusing. I found it disturbing, considering it was vexatious, bias, intimidating. These folks think they have unlimited power, and will try and use any and all means to thwart freedom of association, and to try and rid those who they feel do not meet their visions of professionalism.
I recently rec’d a registered letter dismissing the seven complaints they had filed against me for conduct unbecoming, misconduct and statements they say I made on this forum. They also returned my $300 cheque for an Appeal I filed to earlier findings. It seems they wish to avoid further embarrassment and having dirt come out in a Appeal hearing. Besides there is ample evidence due to delays and other statements made by OAHi executives that would would challenge the assurance of a fair hearing.
What is also troubling is in the Registered letter they dismissed the complaint in regards to inspecting while retired which they say was based on circumstantial evidence and hearsay, but then in the same paragraph say that there is “overwhelming circumstantial evidence” to suggest I am inspecting while retired! Well one is either guilty or innocent not somewhere in between. The by-laws once again do not support their stance as to practicing whilst retired. Yet here they are on record as suggesting I am doing that! I also belong to three other HI associations!
Further I renewed after two years of being retired, only to be told by the BOE/Admissions review that until my Discipline matters and professional practice issues were dealt with would they “consider” my upgrade, thus denying my right to vote this weekend at their AGM and to run for office.
That is a breach of the by-laws and power tripping on the part of parties who do not have that authority as per the by-laws. Of concern is that there was no due process and was found to be guilty having no evidence to support their reasoning. NOTHING! All based on someones ego and power tripping and backed up by the committee members. This is exactly what they did to Roy Cook only to be found in breach of the by-laws! They are slow learners and now they have put themselves in a very precarious position legally which I intend to persue. I have already asked if they have Directors and Officers Liability insurance because they are going to need it.
I think they are getting bad legal advice or they are not telling the association lawyer what is going on but I suspect otherwise. Several people are going to find out just how much I value my rights.
This is a body that wants to dominate the inspection industry in Ontario and possibly licencing. Given the issues do you really think it will be an open and fair process to outsiders?
There are many former members who have been given the short shrift in Oahi who were intimidatate and their rights trampled on, all under the guise of creating a master race.
I am proud to stand up for my rights, and even though its been a lonely haul, I will continue because I have yet to be proven wrong. Justice will triumph over lies, deciet and abuse of power.
If anyone else believes they have been treated wrongly I would encourage you to stand up and be counted, otherwise you will become a victim.
Jason, aren’t you glad you asked?
There are other parties on this forum who are OAHI members who are being treated in the same unprofessional manner because they are also members of Nachi.
Thanks Ray for your post this is almost exactly what happened with me except I Had to go through the appeal process and they spent about $35,000:00 trying to defeat me when won five in my favor and zero in OAHIs .
Then I sued them for my out of pocket expenses and they settled out of court . I got $1,000:00 .
They also sent me my certificate and tried to tell me I needed to do more after it was proven that more then one BOD had lied .
Get them on the Stand where they must tell the truth and how things do change .
Till this Day some still post that I was wrong and had cheated .
One post’s regularly on this BB .
He is not a NACHI member .
Glad for you Ray great to see justice has again been served .
Unfortunately many of these people now feel they should control the National Certification .
I do not think the fox should be in charge of the Hen house .
Roy Cooke
</IMG>
CHI designation did not have any court order to stop using by any Association yet ?
Please give a sample that has been ordered by court that who owns the right?