I'm confused & need your opinions

[rwand1]

Claude,

Your familiar with OAHI by-laws, so can you tell me were in the OAHI by-laws and PR 158, OAHI has the power to discipline OAHI members for misuse or hold up membership upgrade because of misuse of CHI. Any disciplinary action OAHI meets out must result in a hearing in order to fulfill the legal requirements of PR158 and its by-laws, only then after a hearing can the penalty be imposed. They cannot act on their own accord and state membership upgrade will be witheld that is contrary to due process.

[Claude Lawrenson]

First OAHI has committees that make and render decisions. On the other side though having served on various functions - my personal opinion is another matter.

PACHI and OAHI amalgamated. PACHI had right of use to CHI - Certified Home Inspector. OAHI as we know had right to RHI - Registered Home Inspector. As such it is my general understanding that such title of CHI is owned and became one of the assets of that amalgamation (merger).

I cannot speak on the legal implications of OAHI or even that matter of ASTTBC in having their rights and obligations to protect such titles, other than to say that they are obligated to provide fair warning and protect the possibilities of infringement.

Again my caveat being we are talking Canada here, not what may be the case in the USA.

[rwand1]

Claude,

Committees making decisions is fine and I can appreciate their hard work, however, Committees must act and ensure their dictates, whims, and work must be made within the confines of the established by-laws. If their decisions and recommendations are not or verge on not being lawful re confines of by-law it is not binding, has no bearing, and cannot be acted on. To do so leaves the association up for legal challenges and associated costs. Case law addresses such activities outside the confines of the by-laws very clearly. I suggest before anyone acts in haste they should run these edicts past the OAHI lawyer to ensure they are legal and can be acted on. Once again people (members) have been told they will not be upgraded until they comply with something that clearly is not defined or regulated within the by-laws. And for everyone who reads this post, you as a member of OAHI are guaranteed via the by-laws to a hearing, only then can the hearing with evidence from both sides be acted on. Not suspension or threats before a hearing. How anyone can confuse and misrepresent same is beyond me. Mr. Lloyd callous uniformed statements unfortunately are meant to pray on those who are not savy to the rules of good governance. If Mr. Lloyd feels challenged to exert his authority he may wish to start dealing with matters he has on file. His actions and statements are pittiful to say the least. Also if OAHI feels so strongly about protecting CHI as supposedly agreed then this specific concern should be addressed in the by-laws, so that everyone is on the same page and it is legal.

Again there is confusion on publicly accessible documents from ASTTBC and BCIPI which do not jive with their Trade Mark issues. Clearly they have in publicly accessible documents referred to CHI as Cert. House Inspector as noted.

Thanks Claude, just my views.

[rwand1]

http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcca/2001/2001bcca237.html
[10]Mr. Reddy's submission is premised on the undisputed proposition in Hollenberg v. B.C. Optometric Association (1967), 61 D.L.R. (2d) 195 (B.C.C.A.):
... where a statute confers jurisdiction upon a body of limited authority and statutory origin to regulate and discipline a class of persons, the conditions and qualifications annexed by the statute to the exercise of that jurisdiction must be complied with strictly ...

also...

http://www.canlii.org/nb/cas/nbca/2004/2004nbca84.html

The Interpretation Act, in s.1(1)(a) and (b), provides an emphatic interpretive limit on the broad meaning that might otherwise be attributed to the words in s.17 in this particular case. It is unequivocal that the wording of the powers given to the Disciplinary Committee, do not specifically permit it to impose a sanction that allows it to circumvent the complaint process, to delegate dictatorial sole-discretion powers to an auditor, or to itself, in imposing sanctions. In my opinion, when one reviews the intention of the Committee and the Association, it is important when imposing a sanction, to examine the wording closely. If the intended sanction does not come specifically within, firstly, the clear power conferred by the legislation, or secondly, within an obvious extension of the power, the section must be regarded strictly. Legislators intend what is just and reasonable, not a forceful interpretation of words that does not respect the rights of the member, or for that matter, those of the member’s clients. To extend the meaning of words in the impugned section of the Engineering and Geoscience Professions Act is, at best and in the absence of a complaint, an ambiguous interpretation of the section. It attempts to raise the level of a suspicion to that of proof.

[56] The scheme and object of the Act is to create an exclusive membership in a closed association. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words used harmoniously with the scheme and object of the Act and the intention of Parliament sets forth, and thereby realistically limits, the penal powers of the Association and its committees. If a body of persons seeks power from the legislature to define its membership and to impose sanctions on its members, it must use clear wording to spell out the parameters of the sanction; the proponents of the legislation should not be permitted to succeed in fashioning a justification for an extension of any sanction they deem appropriate. The language of the section under scrutiny is not diseased. It is clear and sound. It is prospective.

[57] The “Driedger approach” was approved in Bell Express Vu v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 at paras. 26-30, Iacobucci J. writing for a seven-member court. The demise of the application of the “strict construction” of private legislation wording that encroaches on rights or, as in Mr. Bouhamdani’s case, negates safeguards and rights, is exaggerated. The context, grammar and ordinary sense of the words empowering the imposition of a sanction call for restraint, not invention to achieve, and thereby justify, the desired result. This interpretation, consistent with s.1(1)(a) and (b) of the Interpretation Act, is most consistent with the scheme of the private legislation and intent of the legislature and gives s. 18 under review, its full meaning. For a broad and liberal reading of a private act where a party is pitted directly against the professional: McAllister v. Cleary, [1999] NBJ No. 250 (N.B.C.A.), a case in which the professional account to the client was being taxed.

[58] An analysis exposes the failure of the wording in and out of context to empower the Discipline Committee to order periodic inspections of past work as a sanction. The wording “periodic inspections” is prospective. There is a complaint procedure in place. To interpret the discipline sanctions as a power to investigate past work because of the finding under the complaint before the committee is unreasonable and beyond jurisdiction. The sanction is not supported by the wording of the legislation.

Sorry to bore some, but just wanted to prove my earlier points lest anyone think I am crazy!

[rwand1]

Meaning of Private Legislation as used above:

General
The procedure in connection with Private Bills differs very materially from that which governs Public Bills. A Public Bill relates to a matter of public policy and is usually general in application and character and is initiated by a Minister or Member.


A Private Bill, on the other hand, relates to a matter of special benefit to a particular person or group of persons and is the vehicle by which a member of the public may initiate a Bill by applying to the Legislative Assembly. A Private Bill has as its object a privilege, i.e., an exception from the general law or a provision for something that cannot be obtained under the general law. Where one or more individuals, an association or other organization, a company, municipality or other local authorities seeks any special privilege requiring legislative sanction, the legislation can only be obtained by means of a Private Bill on the application of the parties concerned.


Before any special privilege of this nature is granted, the Legislative Assembly requires to be satisfied that no other rights or interests would be prejudiced by granting the special legislation sought to be obtained.

Fwiw.

[Vern Mitchinson, CMI]

I was certified as a CMI last week.
http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/ab.html
If memory serves me right Nick G registered CMI in Canada and the USA last year. It is owned by NACHI and is to be used as per NACHI dictates. It is to be used only by members that meet or exceed the standard of education and experience listed elsewhere on this site
To find out more about it go to http://www.certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/index.htm

I'm the first in Alberta and the sixth in Canada
Go to http://certifiedmasterinspector.org/cmi/find.htm to find the others.


My hope is that some day when the public hears CMI they will know that it stands for excellence, Professionalism and that they can have faith is the person that is a CMI. It should have the same recognition as P.E. or PENG MD etc.

[George A. H. Luck]

Congratulations Vern! C.M.I. is a designation that we can all be proud of and to which we all have access. No "old boy's club" here!

[lwillick]

I find it a little distasteful after 25 years as a full time inspector that I would have to pay $175.00 to be classified as a Master of the industry. Is there any one else that has 25 solid years in this industry ? And 9 years prior to that in doing what was then conditional inspections.

Regards,

Larryjj

[lwillick]

Just give me the classification

Grandfather Certified Master Inspector

[rwand1]

Larry I agree, another title is meaningless, considering Licencing will be forthcoming in BC, Quebec and Alberta.

I have been inspecting for 15 years, was ASHI certified and currently hold RHI with OAHI. I think I am better qualified then the examiners. Have lots of court experience too, helping disgruntled clients who made the mistake of using P2P. Have lots of experience too with by-laws and governance issues. Also have experience with clients hiring less then adequate contractors who screwed up and launched legal actions. What do I need a title for to prove my experience that is based on sound reputation, experience, referrals and repeat clients?

We should all hope for licencing it will be the great equalizer and will ensure special interests such as franchisors are kept at arms length from management of self regulating bodies.

[Robert Francis]

We should all hope for licencing it will be the great equalizer and will ensure special interests such as franchisors are kept at arms length from management of self regulating bodies.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by lwillick

I find it a little distasteful after 25 years as a full time inspector that I would have to pay $175.00 to be classified as a Master of the industry. Is there any one else that has 25 solid years in this industry ? And 9 years prior to that in doing what was then conditional inspections.

Regards,

Larryjj

Sorry you find it distastful if you don't want then stay away the choices yours.
Did you sign up for the National Certification ,that is starting to look very distastful to me .
Roy Cooke sr. RHI.... Royshomeinspection.com... CAHPI-ON

[George A. H. Luck]

OK Larry . . . I dub thee "Sir Larry of Big Smoke" Knight of House Inspections and defender of the realm. '' Arise Sir Larry!

( and it didn't cost you a cent!)