Warning - Caution OAHI Fine Remittance

[rwand1]

Thank you Raymond, first and more importantly CAHPI cannot supersede decisions or matters deemed provincial affairs. Secondly, you are presenting here and presuming this is as a matter of "your" interpretation of a "fair" and "formal" venue to complain about such grievances. As such you also assume that I (along with the ethics committee) are in a position to over-ride this and offer here a formal response. Perhaps like those sick and tired of your allegations and tactics hear your complaints, but would like to say there is a proper process to be followed - like it or not, be it slow or be it prompt!

I am not assuming anything the letter speaks for itself that the student rec'd he is not alone others have found themselves in the same boat. Pay the fine or your out! The letter is not even from the DPPC, nor can the Secretary impose finds or supercede the DPPC, it is a conflict. Sorry to hear you think otherwise. I am also aware that your position as Ethics Chair is in fact useless, I have always said the fact that discipline reverts back to the Provincial body speaks volumes about complicity and any real or percieved power of CAHPI. There is no response be it fast or slow thats part of the problem. It is well documented how OAHI hides things and ignores things. I saw your objective review and response to one complaint lodged by another, and I must say given the facts your review and opinion were bias, myopic and certainly subjective. I was socked to see your comments given what I was able to find out. It seems you let your animosities get in the way. Not good, and not good to have put such in writing in my opinion.

What about the other side of this issue? Are privy to the inner workings of the committee?

I am very familiar with the way the by-laws are to be administered and I am well aware of due process, and what and what cannot be done. This matter is outside the confines and the power of the Secretary particularly without any form of hearing or provision of providing proof of allegations simply stated in a letter demanding payment of fine. Sounds and looks cowardly to me and many others. Remember I served as DPPC Chair and had my eyes opened big time! Still have many records which indicate a lot of shady activities.

BTW didn't OAHI screw you out of $3000? I remember you complaining about that and how you were prepaired to throw in the towel, until they decide to give you an award of merit.

I am not defending the decision, but have all the facts been laid on the table? If there has not been due process – than I too would agree – there are issues. But having served in reviewing complaints or allegations of ethical concerns in the past, some complainants fail to follow up and provide enough information to support or substantiate their case. Others tend to overlook other details that are possibly providing another side of the issue.

I know for a fact the complainants have not been followed up because I have copies that I was provided by these members who have been fined. I also can speak on my own behalf because I am in the same boat. I have several outstanding complaints many filed back in 2005. Not even a formal reply let alone an investigation. Again I am not the only one.

Certainly I understand your concern, but possibly you have done very little in the eyes of others to help your own cause. You continue on a hunt to unearth all evil doings, in order to belittle and slander OAHI and CAHPI and its members! Whether they are true/false or questionable is for others to decide. But don’t confuse “rights” with “right”.

I am not here to help my own cause, I know what my reputation is and I know what CAHPI and OAHI are willing to do and to what extent they are willing to go to. I also suggest you take a look at the discussions on the CANUCK list, and I suggest you ask why the decision to suspend me alone was made on the OAHI Cafe considering the nature of the discussions.

I commend you for sticking up for what is right, however, there have been numerous allegations in which only one side has been communicated, fairly or not right here on this forum. Members or not - your publicly stated comments are becoming a matter of record, and catching the attention of other readers. They are open to the public and any person to render an opinion. Perhaps your communiqués have often expressed another side of your behaviour and worked against you and NACHI more so than realize.

Well I didn't start it but I will continue to expose it. Again for whatever reason I have yet to receive any complaints or actions against me from OAHI for whatever reason. That means I am a member in good standing, until such time as proven by a committee of my peers via due process via a hearing. Until such time I remain confident of my views, and actions. And more is going to be exposed.

In the words of Vern posted before on this forum Quote:
When you bad mouth someone or another organization you are damaging yourself and your own organization. If bill wants to bad mouth someone then the thing he says is reflected back on him. When you badmouth CAPHI the general public does not know much about them or NACHI so there opinion is formed that Home inspection Assoc. are not good. Then they extend the opinion to all Assoc, and to the members of those Assoc.
Quote:

None of this is good for our business, reputation etc.
Well if the truth hurts that is unfortunate. Obviously Vern does not have the same unfortunate problems we do here in Ontario and I would not wish that on anyone. I also believe Vern has never been threatened with physical violence either by a supposed esteemed member of his provincial association.

Certainly if there is merit, this is a concern, but it is out of the jurisdiction of CAHPI - Ethics Committee. It is a provincial matter. So in closing I suggest that you file this provincial matter of OAHI with OAHI. And, for the records that this is not a "formal" response to your posting.

Thank you there is no way I would submit this issue to you for a rendering because I don't believe for a minute you are objective anymore then anyone in OAHI and CAHPI who have shown how they will run things, be damned the rules and regulations.

Unfortunately no one can rely on OAHI to do the right thing, I know that and many more members know that. So the best avenue is to expose the corruption and the improper actions. Perhaps the BOD and Committees will take note and think about acting in proper and legitimate actions in the future, but I don't think that will happen because the spirit of corruption is ingrained in the psyche of those who think they are invincible.

My appologies but Huston we have a problem, a big big problem. I am sure Craig can fill in any blanks and can speak for himself, I know him to be reliable and honest, as I do of others who have confided in me.

[Claude Lawrenson]

Certainly this post is directed to a very small handful, but can we not move on in a positive light? Complaining, of course, is just the surface symptom of a much deeper problem--discontent. It seems ironic that you are a member in good standing of the association you complain most about - but fail to see the value of doing something postive to invoke change. It's obvious your complaints fail to see change.

The truth of it, though, is that finding fault is easier than making positive statements or constructively doing something about it. With that in mind - I think there are now officially more threads involving complaining on the Canadian side of the NACHI forum about the discontent expressed towards OAHI and CAHPI than there are threads about really helping other home inspectors.

BTW: Yes - OAHI did not pay me that $3000 - but life has moved on. Perhaps my error in not asking for a contract in writing. In hindsight it was a blessing in disguise - it opened the door for better money making opportunities through Humber College and other contracts. Even your good friend Roy noted value in my "free" online home inspectors course. That's what I see as positive results.

[cbarrows]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Perhaps one needs to clarify - what is deemed a student member in that particular association. In the early days I approached OAHI about creating such a category for "students" like those at my college interested in pursuing a career in home inspection. Students were offered certain terms - under which they could be a member of the association. It offered membership prices for attending training and other venues and an opportunity to network with others in the field.

I agree with Craig, if you have other plans that perhaps they need "read" the limitations of the category of membership they are applying for.

Claude when I signed up it basically said on the OAHI website that a student gets discounts, can't advertise affiliation and is not inspecting homes. I read that as OK - don't advertise affiliation with OAHI and it will be fine. It did not say the student MAY NOT INSPECT HOMES. It implies that in the by laws which you do not get until after you pay and join. One would assume they would not be forced to abstain from work after purchasing nearly $5000 worth of insurance. As a matter of fact in the upgrade forms it says applicants should have at least taken the defect recognition class before starting out in business. All of these factors and others lead me to believe it would be ok to inspect under the NACHI banner. This was an honest mistake. Obviously I would have joined as an applicant if I had known this would happen.

Mr. Faux fined me $150 and ordered me to cease inspecting. I called him and apologized and admitted I didn’t even realize it would be a problem inspecting as a student provided I did not advertise affiliation with OAHI. I also informed him that I paid for the insurance and I was done all of the classes. In fact I think the lowest mark I received was in the high 80's. I asked him if I could pay the fine, cancel my student membership, and re-apply as an applicant member. I also informed him inspecting was my income stream and I could not afford to wait for 2-3 months for OAHI to get in gear and finish up my application. I had already been waiting for months at this point. He responded “I can not allow you to re-apply as an applicant member pay the fine and wait or quit. I is not my problem you joined under the category you did"

I was treated very disrespectfully by Mr. Faux. The truth of the matter is that I did not get my due process from OAHI. I did not get a copy of the complaint and I did not get a hearing - so I paid the fine and quit.

Claude I really hope that you do not condone the treatment I received from Mr. Faux. He is acting outside of the OAHI by laws and he cost OAHI my membership. I am an educated, honest, and respectful person and I was treated like a monkey. I can read and I definitely do not remember seeing this on the OAHI website:

STUDENT MEMBERSHIP
-get discounts!
-make no money and pay out lots of money!
-be denied an income stream for your family by the secretary!
-pay big fines!
-wait weeks on end to find out which classes are recognized!
-get ignored by the registrar!
-BE treated like a monkey!

All this for only $200 + GST!!!!
Bonus: Sign up today and we'll waive the GST from your first $150 fine!

[Dale Duffy]

Originally Posted by cbarrows

STUDENT MEMBERSHIP
-get discounts!
-make no money and pay out lots of money!
-be denied an income stream for your family by the secretary!
-pay big fines!
-wait weeks on end to find out which classes are recognized!
-get ignored by the registrar!
-BE treated like a monkey!

All this for only $200 + GST!!!!
Bonus: Sign up today and we'll waive the GST from your first $150 fine!

This sure sounds like quite the scam going on there.

Has anyone contacted a television station, sounds like it would make a hell of a story.....

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

Certainly this post is directed to a very small handful, but can we not move on in a positive light? Complaining, of course, is just the surface symptom of a much deeper problem--discontent. It seems ironic that you are a member in good standing of the association you complain most about - but fail to see the value of doing something postive to invoke change. It's obvious your complaints fail to see change.

The truth of it, though, is that finding fault is easier than making positive statements or constructively doing something about it. With that in mind - I think there are now officially more threads involving complaining on the Canadian side of the NACHI forum about the discontent expressed towards OAHI and CAHPI than there are threads about really helping other home inspectors.

.

Claude if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem.
If you feel it is proper for an association that you belong to,to have two financial directors resign and make public statements and say that there is some thing wrong with the finances and this needs to be looked into completely.
If you feel that not complete financial statements and no statements and late statements are the proper way for the OAHI directors to treat the membership then I am sorry for you .
If you think Charges of over two years have not been dealt with then you are seeing some thing I can not see.
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/inter.../cl00700e.html .

(" I think there are now officially more threads involving complaining on the Canadian side of the NACHI forum about the discontent expressed towards OAHI and CAHPI than there are threads about really helping other home inspectors. ")

.I sure do it gives the OAHI members and all the non members a chance to see just how great a job the OAHI Directors are not doing.
The letters I get from members and Non show me that NACHI is the only place where true information is given out.
I will give up my my giving information when the OAHI Director's do things correctly
The way you keep standing up for the OAHI Directors looks a little strange to me ,with so much wrong doing by the OAHI BOD ,I wonder why you are such a strong supporter.
("The truth of it, though, is that finding fault is easier than making positive statements or constructively doing something about it. With that in mind - " ) .
You think I like to see what is happening to the Home inspection industry in Ontario .Wrong!
I sure did not want to leave OAHI but I could not stay and see what the BOD where doing with my and other members money..
I again hope that some day soon OAHI will do what is propper and correct ,have a full audit let the chips fall where they may and then we all can get on helping the home Inspection industry for the betterment of all Home Inspectors .
OAHI is still not growing in comparison with the amount of people doing home inspections.
We ( Both associations) should be helping each other and the industry .
What has OAHI done for the non aligned inspector .

Roy Cooke sr

[rwand1]

Craig stated

All of these factors and others lead me to believe it would be ok to inspect under the NACHI banner.

You can inspect under the NACHI banner and I strongly urge you to do so, there is nothing stopping you. If you are a Student, Applicant, Associate or RHI in OAHI you can go out and join any organization, competing or otherwise if you want and OAHI has no right in law to stop you or threaten your membership in OAHI. It isn't any different then me being a Retired RHI, and practicing as a NACHI member. If the same rules apply to Mr. Barrows then I find it very odd that I have not been taken to task for the same infraction. Why do you suppose that is? Its because legally OAHI does not have that power and they are not going to pull wool over my eyes or anyone elses. In reality OAHI can only enforce the SOP and COE because that is all it is limited to do unless they ammend the by-laws to reflect same and the by-laws show that. The only reason they tell you is to be able to extorte funds from the unsuspecting. This is unfortunately not the only case.

I was treated very disrespectfully by Mr. Faux. The truth of the matter is that I did not get my due process from OAHI. I did not get a copy of the complaint and I did not get a hearing - so I paid the fine and quit.

If this is the case as support partially by the letter and by what Mr. Faux has stated and what he alluded to in his election platform I think it would behoove Mr. Faux to resign if he hasn't already, and those that aided and assisted in this travisty should consider the same, and OAHI should forthwith return Mr. Barrows reports, his falsified fine, and his membership dues!

As you can well imagine the improprities being carried out are counter productive and call into question the ability of CAHPI and signatories to ensure accountability and a standard of care. This does not appear to be possible without some form of outside audit to account for the misdeeds of a signatory (OAHI) to CAHPI. To ignore it any further is to condone it.

Case law addresses natural justice and due process succintly and I provide for you information the following.

You can argue with the law, and the law is on my side and Mr. Barrows side and all those who have been pillaged and plundered by OAHI.

http://www.ei-ae.gc.ca/en/umpire/jud...mpire_2b.shtml
II. Principles of Law

(b) Failure to Observe Principles of Natural Justice
"This Court has affirmed that there is, as a general common law principle, a duty of procedural fairness lying on every public authority making an administrative decision which is not of a legislative nature and which affects the rights, privileges or interests of an individual"
Cardinal v. Kent Institution, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 643 (S.C.C.) File no. 17364
The contents of the "rules of natural justice" are flexible and will change depending upon the circumstance of each case. The courts have attempted to define the rule on several occasions. In one Federal Court decision the general principles inherent in the rules of natural justice are set out, in part, as follows:

1. 1. a tribunal is not required to conform to any particular procedure, nor to abide by rules of evidence generally applicable to judicial proceedings, except where the empowering statute requires otherwise;
   2. there is an overall duty to act fairly in administrative matters, that is, the inquiry must be carried out in a fair manner and with due regard for natural justice;
   3. the duty to act fairly requires that the person who is being examined and who may be subject to some penalty:
      • • be aware of what the allegations are;
        • be aware of the evidence and the nature of the evidence against him;
        • be afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the evidence and give his version of the matter;
        • be afforded the opportunity of cross-examining witnesses or questioning any witness where evidence is being given orally.

Blanchard v. Millhaven Institution Disciplinary Board, [1983] 1 F.C. 309 (F.C.T.D.) T-1504-82
Newfoundland Telephone Co. v. Newfoundland (Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities) [1992], 89 D.L.R. (4th) 289 (S.C.C.)
The fact that a Board member has been on a panel hearing a case involving a relative of the claimant and dealing with an entirely different matter does not constitute bias in law.
Sgro v. Canada (A.G.), June 16, 1998, F.C.J. No. 865 (F.C.A.) A-436-97
Once an Umpire concludes that a claimant has not been given the right to a fair hearing, that is, has not been accorded procedural fairness, the matter should be sent back to the Board of Referees. The Umpire should not rule on the merit of any arguments being advanced in the appeal. Any comments which an Umpire makes in this regard can in no way be binding on the Board of Referees at the new hearing.
Canada (A.G.) v. Baillargeon, May 4, 1994, F.C.J. No. 663 (F.C.A.) A-219-93
In order for a delay in the hearing of an appeal to constitute a breach of natural justice, the claimant must demonstrate that the delay was unacceptable to the point of being so oppressive as to taint the proceedings.
Canada (A.G.) v. Norman , [2002] F.C.J. No. 1530 (F.C.A.) A-500-01
The determination of whether a delay has become inordinate depends upon the nature of the case and its complexity, the facts and the issues, the purpose and the nature of the proceedings, whether the respondent contributed to or waived the delay and other circumstances of the case.
Canada (A.G.) v. Norman, [2002] F.C.J. No. 1530 (F.C.A.) A-500-01

[rwand1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_process

There is the procedural Due Process and the substantive Due Process

The procedural due process is concerned with the fairness of the judicial procedure. Everyone is equal before the law. Its basic philosophy is that no one even the ruler is above the law. Everyone must abide by the fairness of a judicial procedure. The citizen is secure against arbitrary seizure of property and /or arbitrary detention. The substantive due process is related with the basis substance of the law protects all individuals. There is an equal protection for everyone

[Claude Lawrenson]

As I stated before, I am not aware of the facts of the matter. Certainly I condone unfair and unethical treatment. If one joins any association there are likely some rules. It is up to each individual to understand their "rights" and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.

[rwand1]

It is up to each individual to understand their "rights" and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.

Thats the problem, there is no stinking spirit of fairness and equity! The letter proves that, Craig proves that, Roy has proved that, Bob Francis has proved that, Rob Clarke has proved that. I have proved it.They did it to you, they did it to John Lueck, they did it to Jerome Sidley, Rudolf Ruesse. How many more do you need? There are more believe me!

No one wants to hear truth lest it screw up the revenue stream.

[Roy D. Cooke, Sr]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

As I stated before, I am not aware of the facts of the matter. Certainly I condone unfair and unethical treatment. If one joins any association there are likely some rules. It is up to each individual to understand their "rights" and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.

Claude you Win you obviously have ulterior motives and can not see the forest for the trees.
. You chastise me and saw nothing wrong with Dave Bottoms posts .
You say nothing wrong with Bills Calling people Liars.
I guess I am the first looser and Claude is the first winer

Reasoning with Claude has gone out the window .

At least we can all communicate on NACHI . Long may NACHI lead.

Roy Cooke sr.

[cbarrows]

Originally Posted by clawrenson

As I stated before, I am not aware of the facts of the matter. Certainly I condone unfair and unethical treatment. If one joins any association there are likely some rules. It is up to each individual to understand their "rights" and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.

So Claude I assume you mean Mr. Faux must not know the by-laws and is not aware of his rights as a secretary, and as such did not act fairly. I have to assume this because I was honest, tried to find a solution, but was met with extremely unfair resistance and unequal treatment.

Thank you for clarifying.

CB

[rwand1]

If one joins any association there are likely some rules. It is up to each individual to understand their "rights" and comply with rules in the spirit of fairness and equity.

You mean like National Certification wherein people applied (first 100) and sent in $100 only to be told afterward that they would be obligated to inspect to CAHPI Standards and COE, or would be disciplined and possibly thrown out? Or no other info was provided only what they were told via newsletter after the fact or info after the fact via the discussion boards? Yeah right.

Seems to me its the other way around. No one is told anything until after they send in the money. Thats inexcusable! Just as they did with Mr. Barrows, send your money first, then we will provide you with the rules of engagement. Then once we have your money and you find out the rules of engagement we will tell you how to behave and act.

So just to clear the air, and just like Enron and the Liberal Sponsorship fiasco were we had the top brass denying any wrong doing and claiming they were not awares of what management was doing! So in this regard and given the extent of the matter and severity Mr. Andrew Dixon, Tom Lloyd, Ralph Banks, David Faux, Doug Azar, Mike O'Grady, Glen Gogal and Gerry Quackenbush should all resign. Also I think it would behoove the Association lawyer to explain what is going on because it appears things are being done that are contrary to his written instructions.

Some of these same players sit on the National so the question remains what are these people doing in positions of power given the extent of the rot?

[rwand1]

Craig

Don't get me started on the functionality of the Registrar or the abilities of the CAFE forum moderator, these two are in their positions because of nepotism, and can pretty much do as they please with no accountability. Plus they are paid handsomely for screwing up.

Licencing and an audit sound pretty good right about now!

[rwand1]

So Claude I assume you mean Mr. Faux must not know the by-laws and is not aware of his rights as a secretary....

You mean he [Faux] doesn't know his job and function and rules of engagement and doesn't know your rights as a member? Mr. Faux Pas.

[Claude Lawrenson]

C'mon Raymond did you really think that CAHPI was going to use the NACHI SOP. OK I will concede - you already know the answer - it is the ASHI SOP in disguise! Actually there is not a heck of a lot of difference regardless.
Have a nice day!