Unaffilated members must sign contract

[rwand1]

All national certificate holders in Ontario, unaffiliated or not, will sign a binding contract with CAHPI. In Ontario, part of that contract would outline the obligations of the holders and their following the OAHI Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics, with disciplinary measures being implemented for those who do not follow policy.

I don't know how that will work. How can a Nachi member which inspects to Nachi SOP and COE be obligated by contract to CAHPI to apply OAHI SOP and COE?

[Claude Lawrenson]

Easy answer - the process is voluntary. The terms of becoming a national certificate holder is non-negotiable. In fairness though consider the following:

1) What are the major differences in the SOP?
2) What are the major differences in the purpose of the COE?
3) Should the same terms of agreement (contract terms) - apply to one and all?

My view, its simply semantics. If you keep out the references to inspection affiliation - they all apear to have much more in common, than a few minor differences.

All inspectors under the national certificate program will be required to conform, regardless of affiliation or lack thereof.

[phinsperger]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

All inspectors under the national certificate program will be required to conform, regardless of affiliation or lack thereof.

The Borg have arrived.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Hey if you want to perpetuate "other" agendas - I will gladly remove my comment.

[rrichards2]

Originally Posted by phinsperger

The Borg have arrived.

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.

[rrichards2]

Originally Posted by rwand1

I don't know how that will work. How can a Nachi member which inspects to Nachi SOP and COE be obligated by contract to CAHPI to apply OAHI SOP and COE?

Why do they have to complicate things. What is wrong with the CAPHI SOP. This is a National Program after all. Besides, I have already signed a contract to abide by NACHI SOP & COE.

[lewens]

This is exactally what everyone in Ontario was afraid of. Here we go again. Now to be a certificate holder we will have to sign a binding contract with CAHPI. This smacks of back dooring the regulation of the industry by CAHPI. It would appear that is time, once again, to start the letter writing campaign to the member of Parliament responsible. I will now restart the process that got me into so much trouble with Claude Lawrenson in the first place, after which I was threatened with legal action. Which,by the way I am still waiting for. It seems I ruffled a few feathers and the powers that be at CAHPI/OAHI didn't like to hear the truth. If anyone can tell me the name of the minister responsible I will start the letter writing today. I will not sit back and let this bull happen again.
Larry

[rrichards2]

Here is the Minister responsible for CMHC. Did CMHC not fund this program?
http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/a...i/midi_001.cfm

[rrichards2]

"All national certificate holders in Ontario, unaffiliated or not, will sign a binding contract with CAHPI. In Ontario, part of that contract would outline the obligations of the holders and their following the OAHI Standards of Practice and Code of Ethics, with disciplinary measures being implemented for those who do not follow policy. "

This clause my conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Particularly sentence 2. d
Just a thought.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter....html#libertes

[Claude Lawrenson]

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association. Correct me if I am wrong - but who exactly is stopping "you" (any home inspector from belonging to more than one organization? I belong to ASHI, OAHI and NACHI along with other professional associations. The National Initiative and even signing the agreements if I choose to become a national certificate holder are not prejudicing my fundamental freedoms. Many of associations I belong to seem to ask that members such as myself abide by the terms of membership. I don't see this as such a huge deal.

It's no different than join NACHI - Roy previously indicated "I have already signed a contract to abide by NACHI SOP & COE." Is that really any different? Again I am only trying to ask a fair question and respond with another point of view on this discussion. Again choice is yours agree/disagree; belong or not belong. Nobody is forcing that on anybody.

[rrichards2]

Yes, it is very different. I made the choice of association. The National Initiative is a publicly funded program to test and qualify Home Inspectors in Canada. There should be no requirement to sign with any association if one chooses not to.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Again - partly true. Who paid into this project from an association perspective, how much time and money and for how many years? Again I am not discounting that part of this is tax payers monies, as well as former members contributions.

[rwand1]

Either I am missing something or someone is selling a bill of goods after the fact. You don't take on members, or test subjects with out all the facts being known. Clearly this is not what is transpiring with the National.

Little by little info is coming out that I think you are backing that will have very little legal weight. Mr. Mullen is still running around knowingly misquoting numbers he knows to be false.

We also know that the first one hundred where chosen on creiteria yet it was implied first come first served.

Nachi members who become certified are not obligated to sign any agreement or behold to standards because they are only obilgated to adhere to the body they belong to. Now the rules are being changed, being made up as we go along.

Claude it is unfortunate you have become tangled in the affair because your answers in my opinion will not bear close scrutiny by the courts. Besides we all know OAHI cannot administer itself properly. For instance I have three outstanding complaints in at the DPPC of OAHI, all over 5 months old. No response, no official replies, NO NOTHING! One complaint is for a member threatening and libel, another complaint in for libelous comments and totally unfounded statements, and another against a Director for overstepping the by-laws and acting outside the confines by enacting suspension! If this is how OAHI conduct business then I am not the one who needs to be concerned about improprieties!

How tha hell do you expect OAHI to do anything when it can't even run the DPPC properly? Please don't make it sound as if things are tickety boo when in fact they are not! OAHI is negilgent and has a long way to go. There is no way anybody in OAHI is going to tell me what to do, when they can't even deal with legitimate problems. Just look at the way Roy Cooke was treated. Even his complaints filed against members who abused their positions where buried. Its disgusting and its tiring to see you keep defending this crap, yet you keep saying lets move on, its history. Well it isn't because I don't think your colleagues have a clue, and think we are all fools.

Regardless who paid monies in the fact remains that tax payer money is being used for something that is turning out to have legal holes in it.

[lewens]

Seeing as how this was funded by CMHC for the most part I would suggest that the taxpayers of Canada, of which I am one, have as much invested in this as CAHPI/Oahi and I resent the implication that I have to sign a binding contract with anyone not of my choosing to become a certificate holder. This will not stop here and I can see the next step as being the obligation to belong to CAHPI to stay as a certificate holder. This is what CAHPI wanted in the first place and is now trying to back door the requirement. Beware the jabberwokkey.
Larry

[rwand1]

Larry

How can you sign a contract after the fact? You can't because it would not be legally binding. We all know contract law states that all conditions, caveats, and outcomes are to be known up front before signing a contract. This is a well documented concept in legal circles and has been stated succintly and uequivocally in Queen vs. Cognos a Supreme Court Ruling. Even as home inspectors we have all been conditioned to know that a home inspection contract and disclaimers are to be brough to the attention of the contractee prior to inspection.

But as we are seeing this clearly is a case of make the rules on the fly and hope no one is astute enough to figure it out, let alone question it.