OAHI Out Of Control - Bylaws Breached - Documented Proof

[rwand1]

Seeing as OAHI has not followed the rules, it would be wise for them not to cash any cheques or bill any credit cards of the members renewals as until such time as they can make a full accounting to the membership of the financial info they have been delinquent in providing.

[rwand1]

I guess its wishful thinking of me to think OAHI wouldn't cash the cheque, then tell everyone you are delinquent for not renewing on time and then add late payment charges to add insult to injury and likely make everyone jump through more hoops, after all they have a bad history of doing just that!

[Robert Francis]

Raymond

In the spirit of the season....tell us what you really want for Christmas....and if comes true, there really is a SANTA....and all the OAHI elfs are filling Santa's bag, with cash to be distributed through out the land to all they have overcharged and done wrong, so every past and present member on Christmas morning will wake up joyous and full of NOEL and all will be forgiven and forgotten.......

Wait till you hear my story about the Easter bunny.....

[rwand1]

Can you say FORENSIC AUDIT?
Can you spell FORENSIC AUDIT?

That's what I and others want for Christmas.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

How to avoid business fraud

One of the most difficult work issues you may ever have to face is suspecting one of your employees of business fraud. How do you deal with the financial fallout?

“If you have suspicions of fraudulent activity, do damage control first – secure and safeguard all potential sources of evidence (paper and electronic) for an investigation,” says Peter Vakof, CA, investigation and computer forensics partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, in Toronto.

“Start with a quick triage of the situation to confirm or dispel the suspicion, and to determine the scope of the fraud,” he says. “Find out what has happened, where it happened, who is involved, when it happened, and how it happened. If your suspicion is confirmed, get legal advice and involve a forensic accountant to start an investigation. If it is a public organization such as a corporation, government or charity, they need to be aware of the potential for bad publicity if the incident becomes public.”

Colleen Gibb, tax partner with Gibb Widdis in Ancaster, Ont., agrees that gathering and preserving evidence is paramount. “Think about setting up a sting operation to gather proof that wrongdoing is occurring,” she says. “Recently we went in after hours and photocopied accounting records so we could prove that an individual was subsequently altering the documents. We gathered evidence, (and) the individual was confronted and denied any fraudulent action. Police received the evidence and have since laid charges.”

Vakof says you can’t be too careful. “I’ve found that many companies jump to conclusions based on preliminary findings. In-house people, who may not be objective nor properly trained in these investigations, may rely on assumptions as opposed to the evidentiary facts. They jump the gun and fire the person. Not only can the company get sued for wrongful dismissal but they also lose the opportunity to question the ex-employee, who will now tell you to talk to his lawyer.”

Gibb advises business owners to think like a criminal when setting up processes and procedures – find out where the weakest links are and then put in some rigorous checks and balances.
Business owners can intercede on a few things before calling in a forensic expert. For example, in a small business, one employee sometimes has all the responsibility for taking the orders, opening the mail, and depositing cheques in the bank. It is an accommodating scenario for fraudulent activity, so it’s a good idea to segregate duties and/or randomly and unexpectedly take over part of the process so employees don’t get “too comfortable,” says Gibb.

Take note of employees who do not take vacation. When wrongdoing is occurring, they are often worried they will be discovered when someone else fills in for them.

Above all, keep your eyes open and know your own business.

Written by the The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario.

[rwand1]

Roy

It doesn't stop with the finances, there are other concerns such as abuse of proxies, bylaw breaches, discriminatory practices, financial penalties imposed without due process, enrichment, removal of a director, an attempt to defraud me of monies by false pretences, you name it the litany of abuses is lengthy.

This is how OAHI handles whistleblowers and anyone who doesn't sing from the same hymnal. People say not to wash laundry in public, but this has been going on for years, they are told repeatedly things will improve, but they don't. There is no other choice but to do the dirty laundry in public.

[Joe Farsetta]

Raymond,

You seem like a nice guy. You are intelligent and articulate. You are passionate about what you believe. But, I've always had my reservations about you, and this thread was enlightening to me.

I believe that you feel wronged by OAHI; almost to the point of being a scorned lover of sorts. You are obsessed with the inner workings of OAHI, and I believe want desperately to be accepted back into their fold with no strings attached.

Perhaps, you want some control over that which has been taken away from you. Werent you heavily involved inthe inner-workings of that org? Werent you on some governing body within OAHI?

So, instead of working quietly for the betterment of THIS org in your country, you continually bring up OAHI and how, in your opinion, they are operating illegally, unethically, etc. And there's the point.

The question remains as to whether anyone even cares about the allegations you make. Yet, you are driven. No, driven cant adequately describe the intensity I see coming from you.

In the corner, we have Bill M like the carnival hawker. On the other side, we have Claude with elitism.

So, we see the Bill, Ray, and Claude show. But none of it helps InterNACHI inspectors.

Ray, why not just let it go?

You've exposed OAHI for the cluster-f*ck it apparently is. Now, why not expose those associated with it, and the so-called national certification for the charletans THEY are. Perhaps guilt by association (no pun intended) is the next step.

The burning question for me remains what you would do if OAHI raised the white flag and told you that all was forgiven, and you were welcomed back... provided that you dis-associated yourself from NACHI. How quickly would you be out the door?

Prove me wrong, Ray. Please. I ask this genuinely. If you really think OAHI is a crap house, let it go.

Can you? I doubt it, seriously. And there's nothing wrong with that. Just admit it.

Like I said, in all the years I have read your posts on the subject, you act like a kid who just got his ***** kicked by a bully.

Who needs OAHI anyway?

Find some lawyer who can tie them up in court, and get a local reporter to document the carnage.

This post was not meant to be disrespectful. Like I said, I've read you for many years now. The more things change, the more they stay the same. GO back and read your own posts in this very thread.

Tell me you're not obsessed... Prove me wrong.

Instead of taking all this "inside knowledge" you possess to crush OAHI, all you do is ***** and moan about procedural things that affect YOU and YOUR relationship with an org you once held so high. Are you slumming it here at NACHI?

Does OAHI have a shinier bicycle you want to ride, but you were kicked off the playground?

Now, I can be very wrong regardng all of this. But... READ Ray's posts on the subject of OAHI. Go to any thread you want...

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Joe ,
Raymond has been very prolific with his many post's about OAHI !
I think Raymond has done it the most economical way as OAHI are known to spend huge amounts of money to get their own way with members.
Fortunately it looks like it has worked many many OAHI/CAHPI members had no idea of how serious the difficulties where in OAHI/CAHPI.
The directors have ignored all questions and most members now have seen much of the information that has been posted on the NACHI site.
It looks like so many now are asking questions that things are now starting to change .
I hope it will be huge and we can get back to helping all Home Inspectors and comunicating both ways.
Season Greetings to all......... Cookie

[rwand1]

Joe,

Thanks for your enlightening post.

This is not about being a scorned lover.

This is not about being bitter.

This is about a Provincially legislated body which has failed miserably through negligence to follow well established rules.

As with anything I involve myself with Joe, I do it with gusto, and play to win. I don't let things go, thats the fools way out. Are you a fool Joe? Do you take the easy way out? Do you in your positions follow the rules faithfully, honestly and intelligently?

It also is noticeable the manner in which some Nachi members are always putting down your American counter associations and strange you don't condemn those or tell them to walk away from it, or maybe you have, and I just missed it.

You know so much but know so little. You will see in due time what will come as a result of my endeavours. I play to win.

Thank you for posting here it just adds to the hits, and rest assured it is a well known fact non Nachi Canadian Members come here to get the truth thus the high number of hits.

My endeavours are not alone nor do I stand alone. Besides not that I really care but my endeavours and that of others will likely in due course assist Nachi with increased numbers, but then again people may have second thoughts after reading some of your post and opinions you exhibit. They can decide.

Merry Christmas Joe. Thanks for being Frank, errr... I mean Joe.

[Joe Farsetta]

Like I said, nothng wrong with what you are doing. Now I understand things a little better.

So,, since you brought up the Sopranos on another thread, why not just friggin' bury 'emm already?!

Go git 'em, Ray.

And Buon Natale to you too...

[rwand1]

This is a from OAHI's legal counsel, and had Mr. Segal taken the time to check into the matter would find that I am in complete abeyance with the bylaws, a member in good standing, and have not breached the Act, nor th the bylaws. What is clear is that its just his opinion, and contrarily a court is the ultimate trier of fact. Lawyers views are a dime a dozen and have been known to be wrong many times. It also appears that Mr. Segal is covering his own backside because the fact remains and more importantly, OAHI through its own misguided values attempted to defraud, and hinder members from obtaining the truth with regards to blatant breaches of the Corporations Act, Corporate Information Act, Pr 158 and its own bylaw requirements that Mr. Segal penned with regard to so many outstanding issues.

To this point in time, OAHI nor any member has levelled any complaint with regard to any breaches of the bylaws by me, nor has any member of the public complained with regard to me breaching any bylaw!

If this is another attempt for OAHI to divert attention, to withold information from the dues paying members, and to deny due process and natural justice - they have once again failed miserabley in their feeble attemtps.

There is no lawyer or judge that when presented with the truthful evidence and lack of a standard of care would side with this opinion when its very clear that this whole farce has been nothing but collusion amongst those with the most to lose, both factually and financially.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

October 22, 2007

Ontario Association of Home Inspectors
c/o Mr. Tom Lloyd, President

Dear Mr. Lloyd:

Re: Use of Designations “Registered Home Inspector” and “R.H.I”

We confirm that you have requested that we consider and advise the Association regarding the assertion made by a Retired Member that, by virtue of section 12 (1) of the Ontario Association of Home Inspections Act (the “Act”), he is entitled to use the designations “Registered Home Inspector” and “R.H.I.” (the “Designations”) notwithstanding that the By-laws of the Association create and establish seven different categories of membership of which only RHI Members are expressly authorized to use the Designations.

In our view, a Court applying the generally accepted rules regarding interpretation and construction of statutes is, if called upon to interpret this provision of the Act, unlikely to interpret this provision in the manner asserted by the Retired Member as to do so would be inconsistent with other provisions of the Act and the object and purpose of the Act.

Section 12(1) of the Act provides as follows:

12. (1) Every member of the Association whose name appears in the register may use the designations “Registered Home
Inspector” and “R.H.I”.

However, pursuant to section 6 of the Act the Ontario Legislature has granted wide powers to the board of directors of the Association to pass by-laws “regarding such matters as are necessary to conduct the
business and carry out the objects of the Association”. In particular, subsections 6 (1) (a) and (b) provide that the board of directors of the Association may pass by-laws,

(a) to establish and prescribe such categories of membership as are necessary for the purposes of the Association and in the
public interest;

(b) to prescribe the qualifications for membership in and registration by the Association;

In the exercise of these powers, and in furtherance of the objects of the Association, the board of directors of the Association has passed By-laws of the Association to create and establish different categories of
membership and to prescribe the privileges and obligations of the different categories of membership.

These By-laws have been designed to establish a graduated scheme of membership whereby only those members of the Association who have fulfilled prescribed education and experience requirements, and who actively carry on home inspections, are entitled to hold themselves out to the public as Registered Home Inspectors or RHI Members of the Association.

It is clear that these By-laws have been implemented in the public interest so as to ensure that consumers of home inspection services in Ontario shall be able to identify those home inspectors who have achieved the highest levels of education and experience, it being noted that this was the main purpose and object sought to be accomplished by the Act at the time it was enacted in 1994.

The common law has established a number of principles to be applied in the interpretation of statutes and statutory provisions. These principles of interpretation include the following:

(1) A statute should, if possible, be construed so that there may be no repugnancy or inconsistency between its different portions.

(2) The words of a statute are not restricted to what is sometimes called their “ordinary” or “literal” meanings, but are extended flexibly to include the most reasonable meaning which can be extracted from the purpose and object of what is sought to be accomplished by the statute.

(3) If some governing intention or principle is expressed or plainly implied by a statute, then the construction which best gives effect to it ought to prevail over a construction which, though agreeing better with the literal meaning of the words, runs counter to the principle and spirit of the enactment. The law is that which is within the spirit of the statute as collected from the words, and not the words themselves where they do not carry out the object.

(4) In construction of a statute, the real meaning to be attached to the words must be arrived at by consideration of the mischief that the statute was intended to remedy and the provisions of the statute as a whole, in addition to the particular language of the section in question. The real intention of the legislature must be ascertained by reading the whole scope of the statute to be construed. In interpreting a provision of a statute, one must look at the subject matter and consider the importance of the provision and the relation of that provision to the general object to be considered by the Act.

(5) Two sections of a statute which have possible contradictory interpretations and possible complimentary interpretations should be construed to give them complimentary meanings.

(6) Where, by special enactments, privileges are granted, such enactments are to be construed strictly against the recipient of the privileges. Therefore, privileges of any kind created by statute must be enforced in the way a statute provides, and when a person fails to proceed according to the law enacted for his benefit, his rights cease. Furthermore, when a statute confers a right or privilege, the regulations, forms or conditions which it prescribes for its acquisition are imperative in the sense that non-observance of them is fatal.

In our view, to interpret section 12 (1) of the Act in a manner that would require the Association to allow members of all the different categories of membership of the Association to use the Designations, even in circumstances where the members did not meet the prescribed education and experience requirements, would result in an interpretation of that provision that would be inconsistent with the powers granted to the Association in the other provisions of the Act to regulate the members in the public interest. Such an interpretation would also run counter to the principle and spirit of the Act.

Rather, a proper application of the principles of interpretation of statutes would, in our view, result in an interpretation of section 12 (1) whereby the reference in that section to “member of the Association whose name appears in the register” would be construed as applying only to a member of the Association whose name appears in the register as a Registered Home Inspector or RHI member. Interpreting the provision in this manner would ensure that it was not inconsistent with the object and purpose of the Act and was not inconsistent with the other provisions of the Act which grant wide powers to the board of directors of the Association to regulate the members in the public interest.

Moreover, as noted above, it is an accepted principle of interpretation of statutes that where a statute grants a privilege (such as the privilege to use the Designations granted under the Act), a person will only receive the benefit of the privilege if he complies with the regulations, forms or conditions prescribed by the statute for the acquisition of the privilege. Accordingly, we do not believe that a Court would interpret section 12 (1) of the Act in a manner that would allow a person to assert an entitlement to benefit from the privilege of using the Designations in circumstances where the person has not complied with the requirements established by the statute or established pursuant to the powers granted in the statute. It appears that the Retired Member in this case is claiming an entitlement to the privilege of using the Designations in circumstances where he has not complied with the conditions and requirements that have been duly established in accordance with the powers granted to the board of directors of the Association in the Act by the Ontario Legislature.

In view of the above considerations, we do not believe that a Court would interpret section 12 (1) of the Act in a manner that would entitle members of the Association to use the Designations in circumstances where such members do not meet the conditions and requirements contained in the By-Laws of the Association that must be met before a member is granted the privilege to use the Designations.

We hope the above is of assistance to you. If you have any questions in connection with any of the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours very truly,

BLUMBERG SEGAL LLP
Ronald S. Segal


RSS/jh
E:\Corp\Files\OAHI\Ltrs\Lloyd-002.doc

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

We all know lawyers only give their own opinion and as this lawyer has made many many thousands of dollars from OAHI and nothing from Raymond .
I expect he might just think in the direction of where his money has been coming for about 20 years.

...Cookie

Raymond we all know you are correct and OAHI and their lawyer are just trying to out wait you .
I do not think this is ever going to happen .
It sure is nice to be correct ,glad for Raymond .
...Cookie

[rwand1]

I guess Blumberg Segal haven't followed their own advice with Non Profits.

http://www.blumbergs.ca/non_profit.php

Considering the financial irregularities within OAHI since 2003 which have been documented it makes you wonder where Blumberg and Segal have been in all of this considering the information that has been brought to their attention over the years by me and others.

4) Non Profit and Charity Legal Audit: Forget about it [PDF Version]

The charitable sector has become highly competitive. Donors, regulators, the media, and others have increasingly high standards for charities and their operations. In this brief article I will discuss the value of an informal legal audit or legal review for non-profits and charities and how lawyers can effectively and efficiently provide real tangible value to Canadian charities and non-profits.

5) Requirements for Canadian Federal Non-profit Corporations that do not have charitable status

This article discusses annual legal requirements for Federal non-share capital corporations that do not have registered charity status with CRA.

6) Ontario Audit Exemption Increased to Non-Profit Corporations with up to $100,000 in annual income

This article reviews the on the raising of the annual income limit allowed for audit exemption from $10,000.00 to $100,000.00 for Ontario non-profit corporations whose members all agree in writing. This change will dramatically increase the number of Ontario non-profits eligible for audit exemption and save substantial accounting fees for some smaller non-profits.

7) Submission on MGS Modernization of the Legal Framework Governing Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations
[PDF Version]

The Ontario Ministry of Government Services is conducting a consultation on how to improve or replace the Ontario Corporations Act. Here is my submission to that consultation. I focus on my concerns that restrictions on ostensibly "for-profit" or "commercial activities" could shut down a large number of charities or could significantly affect the operation of Ontario non-profits. After all, almost any activity can be conducted as a commercial activity by a for-profit corporation. I also express concerns about the unnecessary overlap between the Ontario Public Guardian and Trustee and the Charities Directorate of the Canada Revenue Agency.

10) Good Governance for Canadian Non-profits and Charities

In a few pages I try to deal with the often confusing issue of "Good Governance" and try to in a practical way encourage charities to consider some simple steps to improve governance.

[Mario A. Kyriacou, CHI]

Keep up the good work Ray!!

We can allways count on you for information!!!

Thank You

[rwand1]

Well it just keeps on getting better and better.

I guess OAHI and the BOE/AR had an epiphany over the holidays, as you can see the BOE/AR has suddenly realized that they do have a Chair, its none other than Andrew Dixon.

Not only can OAHI not come up with the new improved bylaws, now they are stating that my renewal form has been altered because I stated and initialed I was following the 05/05 version of the bylaws!

I guess if OAHI can't make up its mind which set of rules it wishes to follow, and that speaks volumes on how they have repeatedly been able to hoodwink the members into the false security that the finances of OAHI are secure considering they refuse to issue final audited statements for the last several years. It is evident they will do everything contrary to the rules to get rid of a whistleblower.

This makes Mr. Segal OAHI's legal counsel letter to OAHI farsical to say the least!

Thanks OAHI for once again proving your continued negligence and your repeated contempt for the rules.

CC
Aubrey LeBlanc
Ron Segal
Encon
Pierre Thibodeau
Attorney General - Chris Bentley
Oahi office