CMHC recommending CAHPI National

[George A. H. Luck]

Hi guys. Don't get your shirts in a knot!

First of all C.M.H.C. accounts for less than 10% of all mortgages issued in Canada. So their influence in the market place is, shall we say, somewhat limited ( talk about hitching your wagon to a falling star!)

Secondly, contacts have already been made on your behalf and there are several people and their M.P.'s working on this right now. We can expect a more fair statement from C.M.H.C. in the near future.

Thirdly, I urge all inspectors who are concerned to contact their M.P. and the C.M.H.C. offices and CALMLY urge them to mend their ways.

NACHI is the biggest organization of Professional Home Inspectors in Canada. They will listen.

Stay tuned for further developments that will change the shape of the Home Inspection world here in Canada!

[lewens]

Ok Claude
Please supply me with the list and I will see if the courses I have taken are acceptable. At that point I may apply for accreditation. I will not pay the National any money up front to have tham say "Sorry, etc." I would also like to know how I go about getting a course accepted by the National.
Larry

[Bill Mullen]

Originally Posted by lewens

Ok Claude
Please supply me with the list and I will see if the courses I have taken are acceptable. At that point I may apply for accreditation. I will not pay the National any money up front to have tham say "Sorry, etc." I would also like to know how I go about getting a course accepted by the National.
Larry

Hi Larry:

Neither Claude nor I have standing on the National Accreditation Council (NAC) that deals with reviewing course material and comparing it to the requirements of the National Occupational Standards. However, perhaps I can give you a little help.

The NAC is very serious and diligent about reviewing and accrediting courses because if they approve courses they need to stand behind those course providers. Several course providers have been approved, but the NAC has not yet published the list because they are still waiting for Accredtitation Agreements to be signed by the course providers. The last I heard was that this process should be done very soon, and in fact it might now be done.

The National Certification Program Website just came online and it's still under construction but it will soon contain the information on courses and providers.

When a person applies for certification, he/she provides a list of his/her courses, seminars, etc. that he/she has attended and successfully passed. Until 1999 all courses will receive some credit, but it will be on a weighted system. If a course has been accredited, it receives full weight. An unaccredited course might receive some weight, but it would be less since it hasn't been reviewed and/or accepted.

As an example, the original Pilot Project applicants listed courses on their applications and received credit for most of them, even though at that time, no courses had officially been approved. The criteria used by the NAC was good old common sense.

The intent is to try to give people credit for whatever attempts at educating themselves they have made. This is not a permanent arrangement, however. It was put in place so that experienced inspectors could get credit for seminars, courses, and work experience in the past. At some point in the next two or three years, only courses and seminars that have been approved for accreditation will count.

If you wish to have a course reviewed for accreditation, you can contact the NAC for an application, or I can send you one. Let me know and I'll get one to you.

Best regards

Bill Mullen

[rwand1]

Can we please see some hard documentation? Surely there must be documents that support what is being said. All we see are comments and opinions, but never any documentation.

I know the documents exist because I have quite a few. Factual documented facts would be easier to sell then just info based on what is said by two people on a discussion board.

[rwand1]

For the legally inclined members only.


Supreme Court of Canada
Edgeworth Construction Ltd. v. N. D. Lea & Associates Ltd., [1993] 3 S.C.R. 206
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...3rcs3-206.html
Torts ‑‑ Negligence ‑‑ Duty of care ‑‑ Negligent misrepresentation

http://faculty.law.ubc.ca/biukovic/s...nts/Hedley.htm
Hedley Byrne v. Heller [House of Lords] [1964] AC 465

[Claude Lawrenson]

The following is from the CHIBO 2 Report

http://www.nca-anc.com/images/storie...t%28web%29.pdf

1. Establishing the Bona Fides of a Training Provider

The first step ensures that the National Accreditation Committee (and the National Certification Body) maintains credibility by

NOT granting accreditation to ‘fly-by-night’ operators. It is important that the accreditation (which is in effect the certification body’s seal of approval for a training provider) only be granted to legitimate training providers who meet certain eligibility criteria.

At a minimum, training providers must demonstrate that they are legitimate, can demonstrate adequate processes for maintaining instructional standards, and maintain adequate processes for verifying the competence of trainees.

Verification of Legitimacy

The test of legitimacy ensures that the training provider seeking accreditation is a legitimate entity. For any course or program being considered for accreditation, it is necessary to determine whether or not the provider:
• is a legal entity registered within its jurisdiction
• has been in operation a minimum of three years, and
• is financially solvent, and likely to remain so

The first criterion is easy to establish - the training provider will have a business number or other registration, which can be traced through the jurisdiction that granted it. It is also prudent for certifying bodies to conduct a background check through the local chamber of commerce, better business bureau or other organization.

The second criterion is somewhat harder to establish, but again, if the entity is registered the information is available through the registering agency.

The third criterion requires a credit check. These can be done (for a fee), and normally the permission of the entity being checked is required. This last check is important where doubts exist as to the viability of a training provider. The criterion to submit to a credit check will often act as a disincentive to questionable practitioners.


In many cases, the test of legitimacy may already have been accomplished by another agency. A good example is a training provider that is accredited by a provincial education ministry as a postsecondary or vocational school. This would constitute prima facie evidence of legitimacy. All chartered Canadian universities, community colleges and technical institutes fall into this category, as do many private training providers who have proven to a provincial authority that they are legitimate centers of learning.

International colleges and technical schools are a bit trickier. Some have received accreditation from government departments (particularly in the USA) whose processes are rigorous and well documented, and these institutes may also be deemed as having passed the test of legitimacy.

Accrediting bodies whose standards may be considered as the equivalent of a Canadian charter include the Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCST), and the Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training (ACCET).

There are other international accreditation agencies, many of which are serious, legitimate and rigorous in their processes. Wherever a claim to accreditation is made, the national accreditation committee must undertake due diligence to verify that the claimant is in fact accredited, and also
that the process of accreditation meets the standards of the test of legitimacy.

Verification of Instructional Standards

As part of the verification process, training providers seeking accreditation must provide details of their process for establishing and maintaining instructional standards:

• How they determine the standards required for teaching
• What processes they have in place internally to ensure these standards are being met

Where a training provider has a formal instructional standards program in place, it will be necessary to determine when the course/program under consideration was last audited, and what the findings of the audit were.

Again, Canadian chartered training providers and institutions may be deemed to have passed this test.

International training providers with adequate standing in their respective jurisdictions MAY pass this test.

Note that it may be difficult to determine the standing of private, non-chartered training providers under this criterion without conducting an on-site audit, which adds to the complexity and expense of the accreditation process.

Verification of Trainee Evaluation

It is necessary to determine the mechanism(s) that a training provider uses to verify the competence of trainees. Accreditation cannot be granted to a course or program where no means of testing competence or confirming learning is in place. This would eliminate many seminar and workshop type courses from consideration unless there is a testing component built in.

Canadian chartered training providers and institutions can be considered as having passed this test for courses or programs offered as part of a recognized post-secondary curriculum. For adult education courses that are not part of a recognized program or curriculum, it will be necessary to verify the type and quantity of testing that occurs. Once again, private, non-chartered training providers present the greatest difficulty in verifying this criterion.

Recommendations:

• Canadian chartered institutions should be deemed to have passed the test of legitimacy for courses or programs that are part of a recognized post-secondary curriculum
• International training providers should not be considered at this time due to the cost and complexity of verifying standards. Once the certification and accreditation programs are implemented and have been running for a period of 3 to 5 years, the national accreditation committee may begin to consider international training providers
• Caution should be exercised in verifying private, non-chartered training providers. This verification should be conducted on a case-by-case basis and only where sufficient information exists to indicate that the organization will have a reasonable chance of passing the test of legitimacy

[rwand1]

It might be a good idea if CAHPI published these articles so everyone can see what is what rather than vocal dissertations.



Table of Contents

Cover Letter

National Certification Program Governance

NCP Co ordinator

Transition Report

CHIBO 2

NCP Questions and Answers

Certification Process Map

National Certification Council Code of Conduct

Certification Application

Application Instructions

Application French

National Accreditation Council Procedures

Accreditation Application

Standards for Accreditation

Course Accreditation Worksheet

Application for Equivalency

TIPR Guidelines

TIPR Overeview Applicants

TIPR Overview Examiner

Fee Summary

[James Koong]

Oh, Canadian only recommend Canadian inspection ***. is OK.
But how many US American web sites recommend Canadian inspectors for home inspection???? Same things.
Should not care !

[rwand1]

Publishing the CAHPI/National by-laws would be beneficial as well.

[rwand1]

Shawn

Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?

I know I have discussed this with other parties and that seems to be the train of thought, re Hedley Byrne v. Heller.

Further just for discussion sake do you think CAHPI-National, along with some provincial bodies withold information that exists. I mean if you or I were selling a program would we not be wise to ensure accuracy in ensuring those that sign up or anticipate joining have not been misled?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by rwand1

Shawn

Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?

I know I have discussed this with other parties and that seems to be the train of thought, re Hedley Byrne v. Heller.

Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?
Further just for discussion sake do you think CAHPI-National, along with some provincial bodies withold information that exists. I mean if you or I were selling a program would we not be wise to ensure accuracy in ensuring those that sign up or anticipate joining have not been misled?

No doubt about it at all .
Bill Mullen in my mind is nothing but a paid mouth piece .
He has evade giving out information has used the NACHI web site to his and CAHPI advantage and has not given the NACHI members respect and proper treatment.
He has with held information to NACHI and to the CAPHI members .
He has been using this BB to make him and CAHPI look like they are great and to show his disdain for our members . Fair play is not to their advantage .
Do you suppose CAHPI could be taken to court, via class action suit with regard to negligent misrepresentation, along with CMHC and HRDC for negligently supporting a program that appears to be discriminatory, and due to the fact they are promoting a program that is short of specifics and facts?

Yes I will pledge $500:00 to get it started and more if needed.
We need proper and fair treatment for all Canadian Home Inspectors immediately.
Roy Cooke .. Roycooke@sympatico.ca

[rwand1]

I would gladly match that amount.

Would anyone else care to donate? You don't have to match what Roy and I are willing to do, but any amount would be helpful.

Is Nachi corporate willing to provide funding for such a suit?

[rwand1]

I spoke to someone else who is legally savy and they said CAHPI-OAHI should also be named in the suit because it has demonstrated biases in publications against Nachi members. As you know CAHPI-Ontario is tasked with the National Certification in Ontario and several people from Ontario represent OAHI at the National level fwiw.

[Claude Lawrenson]

This whole discussion of Hedley Byrne v. Heller has made me rethink the value in continuing any further participation here. Do not be surprised if Bill and and likely any others affilated with those "other" associations ignore the posts or call for answers. If you feel the need information seek it out, just like any other member or any information from any other association.

Besides from my read that same case from 1964 has won some battles and also come up short in others. More to the point - "words" regardless of the source may be used equally for or against a person or claim of misrepresentation. To win a number of points needs to be upheld, and clearly proven by the plaintiff.

"If, in the ordinary course of business or professional affairs, a person seeks information or advice from another, who is not under contractual or fiduciary obligation to give the information or advice, in circumstances in which a reasonable man so asked would know that he was being trusted, or that his skill or judgment was being relied on, and the person asked chooses to give the information or advice without clearly so qualifying his answer as to show that he does not accept responsibility, then the person replying accepts a legal duty to exercise such care as the circumstances require in making his reply; and for a failure to exercise that care an action for negligence will lie if damage results."

There are several essential points to be noted. First, this new area of potential liability can be imposed not just on 'professionals' in the strict sense, but upon any individual who holds himself out as able to render advice or opinions.

Secondly, the duty of care will exist only where, by the nature of the relationship, the recipient does or should reasonably be expected to rely on the opinion. In fact, this criteria of a 'special relationship' appears to be the key element in imposing liability. Whether this relationship exists may depend on the circumstances under which the opinion is given."

The onus is upon a plaintiff to prove a substantial connection between the losses alleged and the misrepresentations made.

Those requirements may be summarized as follows:
(1) A false statement negligently made;
(2) A duty of care on the person making the statement to the recipient. A duty of care does not arise unless:
(a) the person making the statement is possessed of special skill or knowledge on the matter in question, and
(b) the circumstances establish that a reasonable person making that statement would know that the recipient is relying upon his skill or judgment;
(3) Reasonable reliance on the statement by its recipient;
(4) Loss suffered as a consequence of the reliance.

Many statements have been made that are helpful, but also many made that are misrepresentation too. Is it really worth a lawsuit over what he said, and what they said? If that's the case with all the "words" of misrepresentation posted throughout this forum - it could be a long time and expensive battle!

[rrichards2]

"Make sure the home inspector you choose is an experienced inspector, not an individual with an inspection business on the side. "

"find a home inspector in your area who meets the CAHPI national certification standards."


"Look for inspectors who belong to a provincial association"

One could easily argue restriction of trade with these comments from CMHC.