CMHC recommending CAHPI National

[Bill Redfern, CHI]

Count me in for a $500 contribution.

A level playing field for ALL Canadian home inspectors is not what appears to be being developed. In fact I would submit being bragged about being otherwise which I personally find rather unsettling.

I as well sense a bias in what I've read and heard, and do not believe the principals of free enterprise are being followed.

Glad to help. Suggest all Canadian Home Inspectors speak up without delay.

Regards,
Bill Redfern

[rwand1]

Claude,

Respectfully you are part of the problem, while you have been helpful, you have failed to supply documentation to support your ascertations. Comments have been attributed by "official" spokespersons who represent CAHPI-National. Other known representatives are on record as threatening non CAHPI-National members.

Now I have received a report that at least two individuals in one Atlantic Province have been making statements that indicate they are out of step and are representatives of CAHPI. They have slandered him and his business. Is this how CAHPI people in official capacities operate?

"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."

Thank you for quoting that particular piece. The National Spokesperson has been on record making statements which run contrary to the above quoted section. As have other representatives using Association resources to degrade any competing body they see as a threat. Further none of us here are tasked with being spokes people, we are inspectors who have been repeatedly told in one manner or another we are not worthy, inferior, and incompetent, and then some of us have been subjected to intimidation, threats, and off handed comments borne out of ignorance and spite.

You are well aware of the the issues and concerns because you are the Chief Examiner, have been made aware of comments by people under your direction, yet you appear unwilling to rein them in. Nor has CAHPI-National had the interest or the willingness to correct false statements knowingly published in Regional newspapers. You and your group have not sold your product truthfully and repeatedly some of us have asked for the CEO to address the issues, and speak to the Nachi conference. Instead repeatedly the replies have been less than truthful. Any CEO who is not aware of the information which CAHPI-National has been tasked to conduct and implement is baloney.

Surely CMHC is only being given oneside of the story and is most certainly not aware what is being done with taxpayers money. To add insult to injury right here on this board the "spokesperson" states that CMHC has been made aware of his grievous comments and actions.

Yes Claude you as an educator and National Examiner, along with your other duties as an educator would appear to have a higher standard to ensure compliance with your own rules. Repeatedly you have shown your objectivity is lacking in abilities to address the problems.

Please remember no one in Nachi and no private non aligned inspectors are selling a program with taxpayer funding as you folks are. CAHPI-National has a higher standard to operate to. Price discrepencies for certification are not justifiable. People who have been certified outside of CAHPI and regional bodies have not been made fully aware of the information which has not been produced, they have not been informed who they will be disciplined by nor much more information that CAHPI has that has not been released.

There is also the concern of conflicts of interests and special interests by people who are selling their wares and college programs. I need say no more on this subject as money has flowed from at least two of these companies into CAHPI under the guise of no strings attached. Well when you dig a little deeper that does not appear to be the case.

Its also clear CMHC contradicts its message above in the press release.

Don't shoot us who are cognizant of responsibilities, but rather shoot your own messengers.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

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!

(" 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! ")
Exactly I only hope you and others can see this .
I and others have tried to reason with the CAHPI spokespersons and it has been a one way street.
You and Bill are not paid NACHI members
and have been using this BB to further the CAHPI cause Bellitting those who wish to get answers.
Information has been asked for and very little given .
Fair treatment again has been ignored.
As you see three have posted there names to support this cause .
Fortunately many others who do not wish their Names to be shown also support this cause.
It could be to the advantage of all if CAHPI was to have a small committee
that has some authority to make decisions to communicate some none CAHPI members across Canada.
This could be done via email .
It is obvious we can not communicate on this BB as the CAHPI spokesperson's have a closed mind on this subject.

Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

Whether I have paid or not is not at the heart of the issue here. My point is the search tool and word used in the search can readily bring up many references to the "elitist" attitude of some members. Nick offered free membership - is it a deal or no deal? So I commend him for honouring that.

Equally I can leave or stay. If you do not like my input or value in "trying" to communicate the other side of the issues, or read my responses to some of those loaded or argumentative questions here - I can simply disappear. Ido not "need' to be here.

Now here are few comments that are equally misleading: The fact that other inspectors are "blind", or that other associations are "scumbags", or referenced as other not so very nice and nasty things, including "never use a candidate or associate". Or how about those diploma mills that seem to take the blame - but on the other side this is noted "After you take the free exam, we will contact you by email. We want you to start making money fast, so relax. We'll help you every step of the way." So perhaps a person viewing such statements from the various NACHI sources find them equally misleading and misrepresentations of facts.

Perhaps that is why Nick saw certain wisdom in trying to have Bill open up to some of the questions and get communication working here. The national certification plan strikes a common cord of affording all home inspectors an opportunity to become engaged in the process. Again, its clearly an option, and can be equated to a national certification standard for one and all - if they choose to participate.

However, it's unfortunate that things went down hill quick in the communication department between individuals. I am not placing blame - I simply stating facts - communications broke down. So why should the answers be forthcomiing?

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Whether I have paid or not is not at the heart of the issue here. My point is the search tool and word used in the search can readily bring up many references to the "elitist" attitude of some members. Nick offered free membership - is it a deal or no deal? So I commend him for honouring that.

Equally I can leave or stay. If you do not like my input or value in "trying" to communicate the other side of the issues, or read my responses to some of those loaded or argumentative questions here - I can simply disappear. Ido not "need' to be here.

Now here are few comments that are equally misleading: The fact that other inspectors are "blind", or that other associations are "scumbags", or referenced as other not so very nice and nasty things, including "never use a candidate or associate". Or how about those diploma mills that seem to take the blame - but on the other side this is noted "After you take the free exam, we will contact you by email. We want you to start making money fast, so relax. We'll help you every step of the way." So perhaps a person viewing such statements from the various NACHI sources find them equally misleading and misrepresentations of facts.

Perhaps that is why Nick saw certain wisdom in trying to have Bill open up to some of the questions and get communication working here. The national certification plan strikes a common cord of affording all home inspectors an opportunity to become engaged in the process. Again, its clearly an option, and can be equated to a national certification standard for one and all - if they choose to participate.

However, it's unfortunate that things went down hill quick in the communication department between individuals. I am not placing blame - I simply stating facts - communications broke down. So why should the answers be forthcomiing?

Thanks Claude as per usual you have said nothing .
The Choice is CAHPI's .

Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

Thanks - greatly appreciated. You have summed up everything very well - very one sided indeed!

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Thanks - greatly appreciated. You have summed up everything very well - very one sided indeed!

So glad you can now see what I and others have been saying all along.
We have tried so hard to get you and Bill to see our side and there has been Nothing comming from CAHPI .
So the Choice is up to CAHPI do they want to give TRUE information to the NON CAHPI members or not.


Roy Cooke

[Claude Lawrenson]

More to the point - the bickering here will explain a lot about the issue. However, I do agree there is a need for "civil" and "constructive" dialgue.
That will not happen until all parties move forward with an open mind, and not participate in the previous old "pissing" contests in dragging up old issues. (I am not placing blame - I am only stating what has transpired based on past experiences)

We seem to have tried that but we seem to end up buried back in the same old muck and mud slinging mode!

[Shawn C. Penney]

Hi Raymond and fellow members,

Please remember when suggesting legal action, it is vital to not..... "tip your hand". If left enough slack your defendant/opponent will hang him/herself. Any doubt contact me for further verification/results.

As for Hedley Byrne case cited by significant others, the case has been quoted but not of the same significance/jusirprudence as was then/now. Simliar Example; we no longer have the Malpractice suit but rather professional negligence (broader and more successful). As for relationship "primary relationship" it has been created/substantiated by the many post by active members in more than one association.I do think more legal documenting has to happen yet. As my late professor would advise "Shawn never rely on memory when involved in legal actions. The law changes everyday"

There are many avenues available/explored as we speak.As i stated earlier, contact me and complete the assigned task. It is well worth it.Also keep in mind i am a supporter of all associations CAHPI, NACHI alike. But ultimately, i prefer competition. I like to be refered to as the watchdog. And believe me right now i am doing lots of barking and ready to bite.

I would well advise any association to play your cards right.One legal challenge can scare the heck out of legislature. I would also remind any association the threat of numbers $$$$. Any support at all with the right research can cause a significant/worthy challenge/success. Remember, it is the threat of legal action cost...damages awarded against....exposure....and ultimately, losing.It is then, and only then.....caution.

Legal battles are fought somewhat strange******but if you play your cards right, less talking, line up your ducks, gather $$$ support, the outcome is most favorable. It is alway..... more favorable when you are able to document/create your own paperwork and do the major work on your own. Example; every individual has that right to representation in court. The courts have recognized it as Right of Audience. Remember also, paralegals help/assist lawyers with very complex matters. Class Actions are more favorable with products/services/vicarious liability. Nonetheless never hold out.
Right now NACHI needs/has legal protection, the rights of all Canadian legislation, as do other incorporated associations. CAHPI's challenge (my opinion) is correcting the actions of some provincial/regional members.

I think i have probably said to much already. I thought i would do so to help a little.

PLEASE REMEMBER YOU/ME/HE/SHE/IT CANNOT DO/ENFORCE WHAT YOU/HE/SHE/IT THINKS WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATIONS AND DILIGENCE

STAY TUNED NACHI/CAHPI

[Shawn C. Penney]

Hi Claude,

I agree with you on the expense/cost of the battle. However, i think the working of some regional/provincial members may warrant some type of action. Maybe this is what needs to happen and ammending potential statement of claim is preferred. Lets not forget the statute of limitations for errors and ommissions. I hope i am wrong about same. Claude i will keep you posted.

As for the legal thoughts......."the courts are not akin to lend its' hand to the plantiff who has established wrongfull act of the defendant, but rather, as a result of the actions of the defendant the plantiff has suffered damages" ...unquote

This area of law is will canvassed, documented, established area of law and ALIVE.

cheers

Shawn

[Shawn C. Penney]

Hi Roy,

Right now (my opinion) some CAHPI regional/provincial members are not doing what is required of pertinent legislation. All of the information you are requesting are available.......contact me and get same. Remember, open and full disclosure is the Law as we know it. Please remember, i am not suggesting legal action, but i will not sit and be ran-over either. My forensic evidence is gathering daily. Contact me and receive same. The other members CAHPI and NACHI provincial need to do same.

cheers

Shawn

[Shawn C. Penney]

Hi Bill Redfern,

Unless things improve significantly. I am in for $500.00 legal fund.

cheers

Shawn

Shawn

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by spenney

Hi Bill Redfern,

Unless things improve significantly. I am in for $500.00 legal fund.

cheers

Shawn

Shawn

Gee and the letters roll in Sounds like many are convinced that CAHPI is most certainly not looking out for the Canadian Home Inspector .
I can agree with those who feel they wish to help but not make their name Known .
You can send me your thoughts or pledge to Roycooke@sympatico.ca
Ever little bit helps Your Choice
Thanks to who have reported so far
Roy Cooke

[Shawn C. Penney]

Hi Bill,

For $60.00 you can go to the corporate registry in your province and request certified copies of all information on your atlantic chapter bylaws/financial record/ammendents etc...... My niece is a well respected individual in one of atlantic most prominent law firms in your area. If you need help i will have her assist you. If you have any problems call me and i will have same couriered ASAP.
As i have said to many, one regional lawsuit with the right angle/strategy will cripple what is planned. Remember, this info is only one ingredient that is needed. Many are needed and are available. We home inspectors like to call it "Kill the deal" STAY TUNED. Until regional issues are resolved this will be the course vigorously pursued.

cheers

Shawn

[rwand1]

OAHI is acting discriminatorily with Nachi/Oahi members, making up rules that don't exist, and being promoted by the Administrator, who takes marching orders really well. except there seems to be long pauses when the Administrator is cornered.

I will have some interesting info tomorrow after my visit to Toronto.