CSA standards my take so far

Now I realize that there is a lot here and it took many hours to get even part way through with making my comments on this but the inescapable conclusion I have come to is at the end. I submitted all the comments and proposed changes until I realized the premise was so badly flawed and the language so poorly worded I could not and would not have enough hours in the year remaining to continue on through the rest of the process. :shock:

4.1.3 Exclusions
The following activities are excluded from a home inspection as given in this Standard:
(a) predicting the probability of failure of any system or component;
(b) determining the causes of conditions identified;
© determining the method for remediation of conditions identified;
(d) estimating costs or providing quotes for remediation of conditions identified;
(e) predicting the remaining service life of any system or component;
(f) advising on the suitability of the building, component, or system for a particular use;
(g) advising on purchase or suitability for the client;
(h) predicting operating costs associated with the building;
(i) identifying hidden or not visually apparent infestations of vermin, including wood destroying organisms;
(j) identifying hidden or not visually apparent hazardous items (e.g., asbestos, mould, PCB);
(k) identifying underground components (e.g., oil tanks);
(l) making judgements about the aesthetics or quality of finishes, cosmetic items, or decorative items; and
(m) inspecting household appliances.
Note: Identification of, commenting on, or reporting on items (a) through (m) are solely at the discretion of the inspector. A commentary on Exclusions is included in Annex A.
Comment on 4.2 note
Note: Inspectors may wish to advise owners that the operation of appliances and other equipment is typically required to perform a home inspection.
My comments
Operating appliances such as dishwashers containing dishes washers and dryers that may contain clothing and microwaves can cause damage to appliances and property.
Most appliances staying with a home are older and do not have any warranty.
Operating appliances without instructions on digital controls specific to that unit can cause damage.
Standing buy while a washer cycles or a dishwasher cycles would unduly prolong the inspection and it is unsafe to leave the area of the appliance while it is working as you do not know what condition it is in or if it may leak.
I believe Homeowners should be required to disclose kitchen and laundry appliance condition.

For all the above reasons : Change note to read
Inspectors may advise owners that the operation of kitchen and laundry appliances is typically not required to perform a home inspection.
Inspectors may wish to advise owners that the operation of HVAC appliances is typically required to perform a home inspection.

4.3.3.1

4.3.3.1 Administrative information

The report shall make reference to this Standard and include the following information:

(a) the inspection agreement;
(b) the name of the inspection company and provincial license numbers;
© the name of the inspector(s) and provincial license numbers;
(d) the client’s name;
(e) the name of the client’s agent (if applicable);
(f) the names of other persons who attended the inspection;
(g) the address of the property;
(h) the date and time of the inspection;
(i) the date and time of the re-inspection (if applicable);
(j) the map orientation of the property;
(k) the age, size, and style of the property, where available;
(l) the general weather conditions at the time of the inspection; and
(m) an explanation of any ratings, phraseology, abbreviations, and technical terminology used in the report.

My comments

F (f) **the names of other persons who attended the inspection; **On some occasions as many as twelve family members, an interpreter and both real estate agents have shown up. It is not unusual to have buyers and friends as well as proposed contractors for the buyers out to a cottage inspection.

I (i) **the date and time of the re-inspection (if applicable); **If it is the original inspection why would you need a date for a reinspection . If it is a reinspection it is still an inspection report and would require the date on it in any case.

J The map orientation of the property. Without access to a proper current survey of the property the best you could do with a compass would be to say the ( named room windows) generally face x direction.
Orientation from inside facing out or outside facing in?
A waterfront home for instance commonly has the side facing the lake deemed the front even though it may front on a road with the main entry on the road side, while the home across the same road with the same floor plan may have the front room facing the road and the road side be deemed the front .

K the age, size, and style of the property, where available; The age of which part; the original construction, which may or may not even still exist. or the last renovation or the one of many additions or renovations prior to that. Age and style may be obvious but labeling a home with a specific style or age could cause contention and confusion both locally where a cape cod may be locally known more as an old muskoka cottage and a window wall cottage commonly is referred to as a prowfront. and regionally where a split can be a multi or tri level and a ranch style can be referred to as a rambler or bungalow.
Size of the property or the home and its location within the property should only be determined by a survey which only a licensed surveyor can provide. Short of actual and accurate measuring of each room and of the entire exterior which even the realtors do not do, size of the home and or the property is a best guess. This information should be provided by the owners from a survey not a home inspector.

My Recommendations
F delete clause as unnecessary

I delete clause as unnecessary

J Rewrite clause : Shall include :For the purpose of this inspection this home is deemed to be facing x

K Rewrite clause The age size and style if provided by the realtor, owners, or other party and to include reference to that information source.

4.3.3.2
The following inspection results shall be reported:
Clause D
(d) Items that are being used for other than their intended purpose, including a rationale for this determination; Note: Such items can include marginally functional items or items observed to be deficient but non-critical. In these cases, best building practice recommendations should be made.
My comments
See list of exclusions from 4.1.3 all apply especially F.

(a) predicting the probability of failure of any system or component;

(b) determining the causes of conditions identified;

© determining the method for remediation of conditions identified;

(d) estimating costs or providing quotes for remediation of conditions identified;

(e) predicting the remaining service life of any system or component;

(f) advising on the suitability of the building, component, or system for a particular use;

D . If a home inspector is not required to predict failure or remaining life 4.1.3 A and E, or determine the cause of an issue, ie. wrong material used 4.1.3. B , recommend a remediation method 4.1.3. C, or advise on the suitability of a component for its use 4.1.3. F then how can the report be expected to include D, Items that are being used for other than their intended purpose, including a rationale for this determination; further, if not included as it is an exclusion what reason would best building practice recommendations be made.
Proposed change
D Remove clause and note as it falls within the exclusions in 4.1.3.
4.3.3.2
The following inspection results shall be reported:
G g) visually apparent hazardous items (e.g., asbestos, mould, PCB);
My comments
As it takes a lab and a microscope to determine the actual presence of both mould and asbestos in or on building materials reporting even visually apparent mould for instance as a hazard present would be legally actionable if it were to be determined that such contamination does not exist in the components reported on. IE. all vermiculite encountered possibly may contain asbestos just as all older floor tile may but not all does. Calling on home inspectors to determine visually that materials contain hazardous material and to report on that is far beyond the scope of a home inspection standard.
Proposed change. Inspection results may contain reference to visually identified materials known to possibly contain hazardous materials or locations where evidence was noted of mouldlike growth. Should results contain such references the results shall recommend: Testing and laboratory analysis recommended for health and safety.
4.3.3.2
**The note **
The report shall provide recommendations to address the reported conditions in items (a) to (h).
My comments
Once again, 4.1.3 exclusions: c determining the method for remediation of conditions identified;
Asking the home inspector to advise clients on how to address hazardous material removal when removal experts must undergo training in special equipment and removal methods and procedures different for each material, and even amount of material discovered. Asking home inspectors to become expert in the chemical, building materials, and mould fields in order to advise clients on safely and properly treating conditions or removal methods would unduly place a burden on the home inspector. Advising clients on how to safely handle and dispose of materials as varied as lead paint residue, chemical compounds that may or may not be from drug production, and any one of the three hundred different building materials known to contain asbestos is a job for the trained experts in each of those several fields
**Proposed Change **
Remove clause and note as it falls within the exclusions in 4.1.3.
Delete end statement The report shall provide recommendations to address the reported conditions in items (a) to (h).

**B.5.2.3 Exterior stairs **
Exterior stairs can be on supported by the ground or structurally supported by framing. In addition to overall condition and stability, key considerations for exterior stairs are the overall number of risers without a landing as consistency of stair rise and run . Inspectors should measure stair rise and run but should also review the stairs for decay, deterioration, missing components, deteriorated or missing finishes, and adequacy of fastenings and support at bearing points. Some stairs can include integrated lighting, de-icing systems, or other supplementary equipment that can be addressed along with the assessment of the stairs.
My comments
Inspectors should measure stair rise and run. For what purpose should a home inspector measure the rise and run? Is the client going to rip out the stairs in a 1940 home because it does not measure up to today’s standard. How about the homebuilt stone stairs at the cottage or the stairs into an old basement. Rise and run in the built and existing housing stock spanning the builders of more than a century are not going to change and for a client it is useless information that would only drag on the home inspection process. Are the stairs in good condition, are they safe to use. These are the legitimate concerns.
Proposed change
Exterior stairs may be on supported on grade or structurally supported by framing. In addition to overall condition and stability, key considerations for exterior stairs are the overall number of risers without a landing as consistency of stair rise and run. When inspecting stairs inspectors should review the stairs for decay, deterioration, missing components, deteriorated or missing finishes, and adequacy of fastenings and support at bearing points. Integrated lighting, de-icing systems, or other supplementary equipment can be addressed along with the assessment of the stairs.
**B.5.2.5 Soft landscaping **
While the review of soft landscaping is not intended to assess plant suitability, the major plantings should be inspected for overall health, as well as presence of invasive species. Seasonal limitations may exist for the inspection of soft landscaping.
My comments
Major plantings should be inspected for health and presence of invasive species? which ones? all? Do you realize that all species of plants not native to Ontario are Invasive. Should I report tomatoes , squash and other veggies growing in a garden? It is not uncommon for me to be inspecting multi acre lots. Many are weed infested. many are rural and lightly overgrown but even in a Toronto Tim Hortons Drive through margin I have seen deliberately planted invasive species. So is in still an invasive species if the owners plant it as a decorative item? This clause puts another time consuming burden on a home inspection and on the training and education required to be a home inspector. Horticulture is a specialty and requires a 4 year university degree program to be considered to be competent to properly identify and differentiate classes and forms of flora not to mention identifying correctly invasive species. AS for accessing health of plantings I have personally taken in plants to specialists at the Cullen Garden Center on several occasions and had to leave them there for a week so the hired and trained staff could check them over and observe them to access them properly. Accessing health of plantings unless hanging dead brown and withered is far beyond what a home inspection should be required to do and frankly if they are that bad why would the inspection need to mention it. Remember also home inspections take place year round At what stage of planting should we identify the invasive species? shoots in spring, early leafing or pre flower, even in full flower most university educated horticulturists would have to remove parts of plants to return to a reference library or other source including a lab to determine if in fact the plant is an invasive species or not. This clause not only places and undue burden on the home inspector but gives a degree of expectation to a home buyer that cannot be met within any reasonable time frame. Home inspection is about safety and security of the structure and surrounding habituated areas. Not about the planting health and garden suitability.
Proposed change
Soft landscaping in the immediate area of the home, walkways, and driveways, shall be visually reviewed for air space clearance to structure and any loose or overhanging limbs.

5.2.4
© Establish the stability of the wall through examination of the wall for tilt, deformation, deterioration, and evidence of displacement due to, e.g., structural overload, poor drainage, or frost action;
My comment
A home inspection is a visual assessment of the home it does not, nor is it intended to establish something is within specific parameters An engineer after many years of specific education and an apprenticeship may establish a retaining wall is vertical within guidelines for structural integrity. A home inspector can only visually access the retaining wall for apparent soundness.
Proposed change
© visually access the stability of the wall through examination of the wall for tilt, deformation, deterioration, and evidence of displacement due to, e.g., structural overload, poor drainage, or frost action;

**5.2.6 Site drainage and grading **
Site drainage and grading shall be inspected in accordance with the following method:
(a) Examine the grounds associated with the home and visually assess the drainage characteristics from an adjacent position;
(b) Examine overall cross flow and local collection as well as water removal features for positive drainage away from the structure; and
© Review the property for improper slope, clogged catch basins, soil erosion, and ineffective catch basins and inlets.
My comments
© Without taking a surveyors transit and the surveyors license along with it and properly charting the property no real determination for proper slope and surface drainage , especially in dry weather conditions, could be made, rolling countryside, flat meadow, wooded hills some may be quite evident but as an extreme example the folks living around the illusion of magnetic hill will attest no the water don’t flow that way at all.
**Proposed change **
© Review the home foundation and immediate area for improper slope, clogged or apparently ineffective catch basins and inlets or visible soil erosion

5.3.1 Foundations
Foundations shall be inspected according to the following method:
(a) Visually examine the accessible areas of the interior and exterior foundation walls.
(b) Examine for damage, settlement, and variance from the defined plane;
© Examine for stability and identify the presence of leaks, heaving, settlement, displacement, distortion, and cracks.
**My comments **

There are simply too many clauses here and it is still vague at best. ie in (b) variance from the defined plane;? which plane and who defines it? the vertical, horizontal, and how much variance 1/8 inch over six feet ten? twenty? how about 1/4 inch per foot?. Walk into any basement divided into a half dozen rooms with halls and try to figure out if the floors are all close to level, if the floor at one end is or may be level or on the same plane with the other end? Now try that with finished floors where an effort to level them prior to finishing has been done.
© Examine for stability and identify the presence of leaks, heaving, settlement, displacement, distortion, and cracks.
Here again home inspectors are not structural engineers: visually examination by a home inspector may point out the need for a structural engineer but asking a home inspector to say something is or is not stable , except in the worst cases where something has already substantially failed, goes far beyond the level of expertise, training, and accountability the home inspection profession is meant to deal with in the space of a few hours of examination. Should a home inspector suspect a structural instability they should call for a licensed structural engineer to further access it not try and report a determination of the situation.
In a stone basement from the thirties what is a distortion? a rock the size of a chair that sticks into the basement space a foot? how about a foundation poured on the Muskoka rock? are fissures distortion? in a modern basement of poured concrete is the form seam a “distortion” its a vague and useless term.
Examining the accessible areas of the interior and exterior foundation walls for damage, settlement, leaks, heaving, displacement, and cracks also covers areas visibly out of plane ie settlement, heaving, and displacement.

**Proposed change **
(a) Visually examine the accessible areas of the interior and exterior foundation walls for cracks, damage, leaks, settlement, heaving, and displacement.

**5.3.2 Concrete slab on ground/grade **
Concrete slab on ground/grade shall be inspected according to the following method:
(a) Examine the entire interior floor area of the slab and visually assess floors for damage, settlement, and variance from the defined plane;
(b) Examine components for stability and identify the presence of leaks, heaving, settlement, displacement, distortion, and cracks; and
© Examine for the presence of a capillary break (e.g., polyethylene) separating wood framing from the slab.
**My comments **
a and b How exactly is one supposed to examine the entire area if some is covered? some is built on etc, statement makes no allowance for anything but a bare slab and here again we have redundant verbiage if we are looking for heaving, settlement, displacement, and cracks are we not already looking for variance from a, the slab, defined plane.
Proposed change
replace A and B with
(a) Visually examine the visible area of the slab for damage, leaks, settlement, heaving, or displacement, and cracks.

**5.3.3 Floor framing **
Floors shall be inspected according to the following method:
(a) Examine the entire interior floor area of the building and visually assess floors for out-of-level, protruding fasteners, and noise. Report where visual inspection detects that a wood framed floor is sloped.
(b) Where floor framing is visible, assess the condition of the wood members.
My comments
Does no one read and understand English? in (a ) exactly how would one visually access floors for noise?
Visually assess floors for out-of-level, If you drop a marble on a wood floor it will always roll somewhere ALL FLOORS ARE OUT OF LEVEL. The degree at which we will notice a floor being off level varies from person to person. You cannot even roughly visually access the amount out of level a floor is. That is what levels, laser levels, and transits do. Reporting where your visual inspection detects that a wood framed floor is sloped may be very different than where my vision would detect a wood framed floor is sloped.
These clauses are supposed to be setting a standard for a home inspection , but, there must either be a standard deviation from level over a set distance given, along with the proper equipment specified to measure the difference or deviation from standard, and including the standards used to measure with this equipment set out in the standards or this portion of the clause must be dropped as every home inspectors vision is different, this no protection for the public exists in this. A legitimate defense to any complaint would simply be I did not see a slope to the floor and there are no guidelines for what must be reported as to what is visually acceptable.
Again here how also would a HOME INSPECTOR at least one without xray vision, examine the entire floor area of a building when many parts of the floor area are normally built on, covered with furniture or other possessions, appliances and other equipment.
My proposed change
Visibly examine the exposed interior areas of the floor for protruding fasteners, changes in level, condition of flooring and any exposed framing members.

5.3.4
**B.5.3.4 Structural and wall framing **
Wall framing should be assessed by examining finished areas for evidence of hidden problems. If the load bearing or exterior wall is unfinished, inspectors should observe the visible condition and provide comment on the apparent stability and condition of the wall, including the nature of cracked members, displacement or distortion, connections, bearing conditions for beams and joists, and evidence of deterioration or decay.
Inspection of structural wall framing over openings such as doors and windows should include inspection of header framing on studs. While there might be finishes on the framed openings, inspectors can check for evidence of distress in the finishes.
If level or out of plane is noted, measurements should be made using a long spirit level, laser level, or similar device and wide cracks should be measured with suitable gauges as opposed to being estimated. Significant cracks in wood members include those that progress to the edge of the member. Open horizontal cracks in load bearing masonry often signify settlement.
Where visual inspection detects variations from plumb, actual plumb should be measured using a spirit level a minimum of 1200 mm in length in conjunction with a scale marked at 1 mm intervals or shims of known thickness. Where variance from plumb is in excess of 19 mm in 2400 mm or distortion from the prescribed plane is in excess of 15 mm, it should be reported.

Where visual inspection detects bowing or distortion, actual bowing/distortion should be measured using a string line supported by equal thickness blocks over a distance of not less than 1800 mm.
Where wall framing is visible, the condition of wood members should be assessed by random probing with a pointed instrument such as a knife, awl, or screwdriver, to examine for unusual conditions including damage, decay, and the presence of current or past evidence of insect infestation.
** My comments **
Comments on apparent stability of walls is not within the realistic sphere of a visual home inspection. If visible structure is failing it is failing and should be reported as such if it is not then how and what process would a home inspector determine if it is stable? The leaning tower of Pisa famously visually leans at over 4 degrees off the vertical , any home inspector would consider thatr excessive lean or out of plumb, yet engineers expect the famous structure will remain stable for at least another 200 years.
Inspection of structural wall framing over openings such as doors and windows should include inspection of header framing on studs. While there might be finishes on the framed openings, inspectors can check for evidence of distress in the finishes.
How in any way is this statement a standard for inspection? Inspection of visible structure already includes headers and if there are finishes on the structure it is no longer visible structure. I do not disagree that sometimes finishes can reflect an underlying fault or damage but just as often a crack in drywall at window or door corners is simply a vibration crack in drywall with poorly sites joints. In the major cities there are drywall crews who do nothing but drywall but it has been the norm in outlying areas for contractors to do the drywall themselves along with the other finishing flooring and trim work. DIY’ers too far more often than pros finish out basements even in the city. I see far more finish cracking at header corners due to seams located where convenient rather than to any possible framing condition issue. Reporting a crack in drywall at the corners of doors and windows, a crack you cannot see behind, as a possible sign of structure failure is, again the only word for it is ridiculous, ripe for litigation by the seller when they lose the sale and the seller opens up the wall to find no problems whatsoever.
In a great many of the homes and cottages we inspect many of the walls and floors are out of plumb, in some homes from the 1900’s right through to the 1990’s every wall is out of true plumb. To expect a home inspector to measure and photograph every out of plumb wall would take in many cases several hours not only that it would require another set of hands. I can’t hold the level up, insert shims till plumb and hold them in place and take a photo to document the wall in question and the amount of off plumb it is.
Measuring cracks is also going to add significantly to the time required to complete a home inspection I have been in many a poured foundation with dozens of visible cracks and in hundreds of block basements with even more than that.
This sentence: Significant cracks in wood members include those that progress to the edge of the member. Open horizontal cracks in load bearing masonry often signify settlement, is a statement of information and has no place in a set of standards
The final paragraph: Where wall framing is visible, the condition of wood members should be assessed by random probing with a pointed instrument such as a knife, awl, or screwdriver, to examine for unusual conditions including damage, decay, and the presence of current or past evidence of insect infestation.
Not only would allow for litigation for damage to the owners property, not many home owners would approve you sticking knives or screwdrivers into the wall or structural wood and prying out chunks to see how solid the member is, but, as per 4.1.3 (i) identifying hidden or not visually apparent infestations of vermin, including wood destroying organisms; is an exclusion. Home inspectors are not licensed pest control experts.
Identifying a visually suspect wood member and probing it with a small awl is one thing but walking through an open basement and randomly sticking a knife or screwdriver in, in hopes of finding a soft spot, is ridiculous. What guarantee can you give the client that you in fact hit the spot where there may be hidden rot? Once again you are deluding homebuyers and promoting litigation as with this clause you set the false expectation that inspectors will find visually hidden rot and decay.
A home inspection is a visual inspection only. If we were to probe and pry that is destructive testing ala Mr Holmes of TV fame. It is not that I wouldn’t like to push my hand through wet drywall to see if the framing underneath was damaged but my clients do not own the home, it is not up to them to determine the extent to which the home inspector can go.
Proposed changes
Structural framing where visible should be assessed for evidence of problems and condition, including, cracking members, proper connections, bearing conditions for beams and joists, improper notching or drilling of members and evidence of deterioration or decay.
**B.5.3.5 Structural roof framing **
Roof framing can be assessed by examining finished areas for evidence of hidden problems such as truss uplift and structural insufficiencies. Roof framing can include a variety of built-on-site trusses, pre-engineered trusses, rafters, or joists each with supplementary knee walls, braces, and ties. If the roof framing can be viewed through an attic space, inspectors should check the visible condition and should provide comment on the apparent stability and condition of the framing members, including cracked members, displacement or distortion, connections, bearing conditions, and evidence of deterioration or decay.

The roof sheathing in attics is part of the structural framing system and should be included in the roof framing review. Moisture damage, ventilation, thermal protection, and condition of vapour and air barrier systems can also be viewed but are separately reported items.

Where possible and with the proper training, inspectors should walk along flat roofs and low pitch roofs to check for stability of the sheathing. Appropriate safety protocols should be applied when walking on roofs.

Where possible by access into the attic, the condition of visible wood members, including both framing members and roof sheathing, should be assessed by random probing with a pointed instrument such as a knife, awl, or screwdriver to examine for deficiencies such as damage, decay, and evidence of current or past insect infestation.
My comments
Roof framing can be assessed by examining finished areas for evidence of hidden problems such as truss uplift and structural insufficiencies :This is an instructional statement on how one can find a clue to what may be an issue and has no place within the standards. In point of fact “roof framing…” may possibly be assessed, not “can be assessed by examining finished areas for evidence of hidden problems” this is a very important point and like the inclusive “examine the entire…” statements in many sections of the proposed standards do not belong within the standards of practice in which the entire may not be visible and “can be examined by…” will very often not be the case. Standards should be written clearly so as to avoid homebuyers having unrealistic expectations and to avoid verbiage that promotes either litigation or the home inspection becoming a series of reported items explained as : I could not see the entire system so it is not inspected.

Standards for a home inspection detail what is included and what is not, not how to look for issues or what might be hidden from view. All the next statement is similar If a home inspector does not know that truss uplift, visible in interior finishes, indicates a structure issue or that roof structure can be any makeup of dozens of different framing styles and techniques sticking the description of only a small sample of them within the “standards” will not educate them in any way. Saying “Roof framing can include a variety of built-on-site trusses, pre-engineered trusses, rafters, or joists each with supplementary knee walls, braces, and ties” is simply superfluous verbiage. Aong dozens of others you left out purlins, bent’s, crown posts, king posts, ridge beams, etc, etc, etc. It does nothing for the homebuyer as it is far from complete information and nothing for the inspection as it should be part of the inspectors education and if it is not sticking it in the standards will not help the homebuyer.
*
*

  • If the roof framing can be viewed through an attic space, inspectors should check the visible condition and should provide comment on the apparent stability and condition of the framing members, including cracked members, displacement or distortion, connections, bearing conditions, and evidence of deterioration or decay*.
    Here we go with apparent stability again, to whose definition and by what standard of parameters should a home inspector, normally now on site for two to three hours access the apparent stability? If the roof is structurally visibly failing that should be reported but if it is still standing it may well have been in the same condition for the past forty or more years just like the 1940’s home I inspected that had a noticeable sag, well over 6 inches deflection in the 36 foot ridge roofline. According to the owners who had the home since the 1970’s the sag was there when they bought it and they were on their third set of shingles since with no noticeable change.
    And again we have the terms " displacement or distortion" I know what the terms mean, I report on both usually with a photograph and often with measurements as well in my reports. But I decide on how much displacement is allowable and not reported and what and how much distortion will or will not be reported. Within a set of standards for what a home inspector must report on, the limitations must accompany any such statement. As an example, if a wind brace made of a 1x4 x 12 foot is flexed from the inside of a truss web to the outside of the next truss web and so on does that constitute distortion to be reported? or if a truss web member has a 1/4 twist from drying and is still firmly attached but is in fact a structural member that shows displacement of part of the bearing area do I report that? What constitutes reportable instances? without those it would be understandable for a home buyer to believe the home inspector is going to examine every framing member in the attic for conformation and report any instance of distortion or displacement. If that were the case a home inspector could spend 3 hours in the average attic alone never mind the rest of the home. The same goes with the generalization of “connections” and “bearing conditions” Most if not all connections and bearing areas on older homes are well buried under insulation even if it is only r20, are home inspectors to dig through the insulation to see the connectors and the bearing area of the truss or rafter? That would be simply an impossible task when most truss roofs in older homes do not even have heels to raise them off the top plate. Nothing of the lower connections or bearing areas is normally visible yet a standard written as this is suggest to the home buyer who has no idea of the actual conditions in the attics that everything is checked. This is misleading and will lead to more litigation and inspection reports that simply say: Roof framing : not all connections, framing members, are visible due to insulation coverage, roof framing acts as a system therefore not inspected.

The roof sheathing in attics is part of the structural framing system and should be included in the roof framing review. Moisture damage, ventilation, thermal protection, and condition of vapour and air barrier systems can also be viewed but are separately reported items.? Ok, if roof sheathing is part of the structural framing system why would moisture damage to it be reported separately? Roof framing, sheathing, venting, and insulation all affect and depend on each other and are all normally only viewed from the attic, and should fall under attics.
*
*
*Where possible by access into the attic, the condition of visible wood members, including both framing members and roof sheathing, should be assessed by random probing with a pointed instrument such as a knife, awl, or screwdriver to examine for deficiencies such as damage, decay, and evidence of current or past insect infestation. *
Here again we have direction to go about randomly under the roof sticking a knife for instance into roof sheathing which may be rotten and have bad shingles above? Are you serious? The lawyers are going to love these so called standards. Please note yet again it is simply not within the realm of reality to direct home inspectors to randomly sample roof framing for evidence of current or past insect infestation. It is a home inspection by a home inspector not a licensed pest exterminator. This clause unrealistically would lead home buyers to believe no evidence of pests was found despite looking and probing all over. What would be the reaction when only weeks after moving in the roof leaked or wood destroying insects were found in any area, the first reaction would be the inspector missed this , not the random probe missed this one spot.

My conclusions

At this point and with only a small percentage of the total standards reviewed it is unfortunately clear that the people writing this draft have clearly not understood the most basic of questions, the one which all the standards must be derived from.
What is a home inspection. a general home inspection is a non invasive inspection of the condition of the home on the day of inspection including all major systems in and part of the home that are visible. A home inspection is meant to identify material defects within specific systems and components defined by these Standards of inspection that are both observed and deemed to be material by the inspector.
Roof including flashings and the exteriors of chimneys
Attic, including Framing Insulation and Ventilation
Exterior including Doors and Windows, Driveways and Walkways, and exterior components attached to the home including Decks, Balconies, and Stairs.
Basement Foundation or Crawlspace
Heating and Cooling systems
Plumbing system
Electrical system
Visible components of Fireplaces.
Interior areas including structure, floors, walls and ceilings that are visible.
Period
A home inspection is not all inclusive. Examining every wall for actual plumb, measuring and reporting on it, and checking ,measuring and reporting with diagrams as to location of that particular crack every foundation crack seen would take many more hours alone than a typical home inspection is allowed for and require an additional inspector in many cases.

A home inspection is not an inspection of appliances that may or may not be staying with the home, be digitally programmed, or be damaged or cause damage when operated.

A home inspection is not in any way an inspection of the entirety of any system or component even those within the standards of inspection as in every case some or most of every component is normally covered from view. In fact the roof surface may be the only component normally visible in it’s entirety , when walked. Even the ceilings in many closets cannot be viewed with clothes and stored items in place.

A home inspection is not a pest inspection there are licensed people to deal with that Yes visible signs of pests should be reported if seen but actively looking and probing for them is not within the realistic time frame of a home inspection.

A home inspection is not a horticultural examination of the property. Not only does it take lab and microscopic examination to different between species, in many cases as a seasonal item, only a horticulturist with a speciality in invasive species, their appearance at differing times of growth, and the flowering cycle specific to that plant would stand any chance of identifying even most of them present. I am reminded that the definition of a weed is any plant you do not want in your garden or on your property and so it is true with invasive species as well.

A home inspection is not a measurement of the cracks in wood siding if it is cracked and split it should be noted but of what use is any report on perhaps dozens of different cracks and their measurements.

All aspects of any part or system interior or exterior ,cannot be inspected as example a deck on grade? how would you examine the framing? or a closed stair set that is covered in on the bottom as well? or a cantilevered balcony with the structure hidden behind soffit paneling. There are many other instances where things are hidden…To state " All aspects of exterior decks, balconies, pergolas, and trellises and similar exterior frames shall be inspected" is both an impossible task and deceiving to homebuyers reading the standards and expecting the home inspector to deliver on those expectations. When the cantilever deck falls off the building because the joists were rotten under the decking and hidden from view by soffit [FONT=&quot]paneling the homebuyer is going to expect the inspector and the realtor to pay, and so is the lawyer he hires because the standards say all aspects shall be inspected. Of course the first defense of the inspector and the realtor will be is the standards are written in such a way as to be impractical to apply and impossible to achieve. [/FONT]

Should a home inspection be an exhaustive inspection such as these standards suggest then it would require the services of a:
Licensed Plumber
Licensed Electrician
Licensed Heating and Cooling technician for heat loss calculations
Licensed Hvac technician for Gas
Licensed Hvac technician for Oil
Licensed Pest examination and control technician
Licensed Roofer
Licensed Foundation Contractor
Licensed Structural Engineer
A Horticulturist with a speciality in invasive species.
and of course the home inspector to plumb walls, measure stairs and so forth.
It would require destructive testing to determine if any visual indicators like wet or damp drywall was from a leak exterior to the home or possibly from plumbing, if it has or has not affected the framing, is there mould behind the walls etc. Of course it would also require the services of a General Contractor to put it all back together for the owners.
Such an inspection would require several days on site and many days further for reports to be written and assembled as well as any lab reports to come back in on possible pest or invasive species testing, cost at a minimum even if nothing was found many thousands of dollars, with the assurance that the client could then know everything to know about the home.

I would respectfully suggest that the proposed draft of standards is badly flawed from a lack of understanding of what a general home inspection is. Further, I believe the terminology used and language denoting specifics will be harmful to homebuyers as it sets unrealistic expectations of how complete and thorough a three hour general home inspection can be. I would also suggest that until the basic premise of what a general home inspection is and is not, including the general expected time allowance for a home inspection to take place is, attempting to set any kind of standard for inspection of any part of the home or it’s systems is ill advised.

I gave a similar reply Bruce, we need all inspectors from every association to step up and tell these people wrong, wrong and so wrong. A complete waste of taxpayers money.

Nicely done–I got into a few of the sections and it was just soooo wrong! I didn’t have the patience the re-write the CSA standard for free so that they could turn around and sell my words back to me–this whole process should be illegal…

Come to think of it–I’m writing the MPP on this whole stupid process–who knows maybe they will actually respond LOL

They can’t be adopted anyway. CSA charges per use and consumers need to see the SOP. It has to be a public document. So unless CSA is simply going to sell their SOP for a one-time fee to someone who makes it public domain, I’m not seeing how their SOP could ever be useful.

I’ve read through the proposed standard and looked at a side by side comparison with several well established “home inspection standards”. Here’s my take -

Do Home Inspectors really need a CSA Standard?
The CSA Group (Canadian Standards Association) is well into the process of developing a home inspection standard. Currently it is in the public consultation stage. Initially it was viewed as an opportunity for all home inspectors and inspection associations to once and for all find common ground. Compliance with the CSA standard is voluntary, unless legislated by government or mandated by industry or trade associations. Herein lays the issue. Licensing already exists in several provinces. It is under serious consideration in several others.

Although I believe that the intention was to satisfy the best interest of consumers, to my understanding the standard committee makeup represents consumers, consumer protection agencies, contractors, educators, insurer, realtors, and of course a handful of home inspectors. One concern is the imbalance in the number of home inspectors in relation to all other stakeholders. Less than 1/3rd of the committee, which brings this proposed standard forward, represents home inspectors; does dominance exist?

A claim of dominance is considered a procedural grievance that is eligible for review within the appeals process at the standards developer level. In this regards excerpts from the American National Standards Institute Essential Requirements - *The standards development process shall not be dominated by any single interest category, individual or organization. Dominance means a position or exercise of dominant authority, leadership, or influence by reason of superior leverage, strength, or representation to the exclusion of fair and equitable consideration of other viewpoints. *

Home Inspection Standards are not a new phenomenon to home inspectors. ASHI (the American Society of Home Inspectors) the oldest North American association for home inspectors has been in existence and flourishing since 1976. It regularly goes through a very rigorous process of reviewing and updating its Standards of Practice. The last updated version was released within the last year. The Standards of Practice (SOP) provides a detailed scope of work for conducting a home inspection. It provides a detailed list of what’s included or excluded from a home inspection. The vast majority of offshoot home inspection associations can trace the roots of their version of the Standards of Practice as a derivative of the ASHI SOP. Even legal court outcomes cite reference to established Standards of Practice.

Additionally, a number of occupational reviews have been successfully completed over the past decade within Canada by subject matter experts and qualified facilitators. Two of these were substantially funded in the past at the federal level by CMHC and HRSDC. The latest unfunded one was completed by the NHICC (National Home Inspector Certification Council) within the past year, with the support of a wide range of home inspectors representing a large number of Canadian home inspection associations.

To date National Occupational Standards have been formed through the DACUM process. DACUM (Developing A CurriculUM) is a quick, effectively, relatively low cost method of analyzing jobs and occupations that has been used worldwide for more than 40 years. The DACUM process involves the careful selection of individuals from the occupation who become the “Panel of Experts” who collectively and cooperatively describe the occupation in the language of the occupation. DACUM is an occupational analysis led by a trained facilitator, where practitioners in a specific occupation come together for a multiday workshop to provide input about the specific duties, tasks, knowledge, skills and abilities needed to perform their job. DACUM provides a legally defensible basis for assessment and certification.

In reviewing recent feedback from a number of sources, it appears a large number of home inspectors are not supportive of the proposed CSA Standard for Home Inspection. In studying the proposed current release a number of concerns immediately come to light. These include and are not limited to the additional work and duties (new expectations) are specified within the document. The impact of the additional time and specifics required to fulfill the proposed “performance” standards will ultimately drive up the cost of a home inspection. Others have pointed to the higher level of risk based on adding other duties and tasks in a home inspection that are normally excluded from the expertise of most home inspectors. These higher risks provide the stimulus for a higher rate of claims which not only impacts insurance rates; it is known to drive some inspectors out of business. From a consumer perspective what may be currently deemed a reasonable inspection cost will significantly reduce the affordability of the service.
**
**
The question is – “Why re-invent the wheel?”

The industry has already created National Standards. Home inspectors have operated for well over 3 decades performing to a recognized Standard of Practice. All that is needed is for everyone to consider the value, content and framework based on years of commitment, development and research that applies to what the Canadian Home Inspection sector already created. Even the latest assessment of National Occupational Standards was completed under the facilitation of experienced independent “DACUM” consultants, with a multi-association panel of Canadian Home Inspectors. Simply it works, it’s time tested, and equally as important it has value in establishing the baseline for what consumers should expect from a scope of work for a home inspection from a competent home inspector.

Here’s a recent news piece example “Cost of Alberta Home Inspections to Soar”
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cost-alberta-home-inspections-soar-182707325.html;_ylt=AwrTHRj1ZGVU52UABuVXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZ2E1bHRjBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDU1NV8x
“A typical Home Inspection today, ranges in price from $400 - $600. The proposed changes could easily put future cost in the range of $1200 - $1800 or more. If adopted, the proposed new Standard oversteps the accepted Standards used throughout North America. It has the potential to negatively impact the Real Estate Industry as a whole. What is unknown is how Home Sellers, Home Buyers and Realtors will react to a Home Inspection that could take 1 to 2 days to complete.”

Is this proposed CSA standard really beneficial to consumers or is it overkill? To me it’s a substantial re-do of what already exists, positioned on making the inspector responsible for almost every property condition that may be encountered on a “used” home. Or perhaps if the intent is to cull the home inspector cadre and devalue what currently exist. Perhaps offering a new paradigm, that ultimately increases the professional requirements to the level that requires years of training and expertise. Perhaps offering a home inspector the equivalent of a 6% fee based on the value of property, in order to fairly compensate for that higher level of risk and reduced work potential. After all, home inspections on resale property are not mandatory!

Side note: ASTM (a comparable recognized standards association) in the USA tried this scenario on US home inspectors several years ago. It failed miserably. A coalition of inspection associations banned together and it was quickly dropped from moving forward.
The only way to determine what home inspectors do is to go to the source and solicit the expertise of those workers deemed subject matter experts. DACUMS already achieved that in the past. Why try to reinvent and supersede what is already available from the occupational standard?

Bottom line – consumers and consumer protection agencies need to be part of the education and communication process acknowledging and understanding what home inspectors really do or do not do as “general technical home inspection” professionals. Ultimately the expectation level must simply be tempered to reflect a reasonable occupational scope of work norm.

They (the CSA) do not charge per use on their other code books (ie: Solid Fuel Burning Equipment Installation, Canadian Electrical Code, Gas and Propane Installation Code, etc). They do charge for the books or pdf copies to use a reference. But not on a per use basis. They therefore could have this adopted the same as the other codes, and those who use it would need to purchase it.

But how would the consumer be able to review our SOP? They’d have to buy it in book form from CSA first?

If CSA sells the SOP, they are never going to let us post it on our websites. An SOP that can’t be read by consumers is useless. No?

The only people who ever read the codes developed by the CSA “Canadian Electrical Code, Gas and Propane Installation Code” etc are the various provincial organizations who are responsible for adapting and adopting the standard, or not, into the provincial codes. In Ontario the TSSA adapts the gas and propane code from the CSA into the standards of the Technical Standards and Safety Authority which is is a Non-profit organization that administers and enforces technical standards in the province of Ontario for all gas, propane and oil fuel products, equipment and installations. In effect the CSA is the top tier developer of the standard that may or may not be implemented.
I believe like the national electrical code in the U.S. is a model to be implemented as desired by the individual State.
Ontario legislators would have to adopt the CSA standard into a home inspection standard for Ontario The Idea being that the CSA standard would be a model or complete code for all provinces to adopt to make licensing transferable throughout the country. I am really not sure who would pay for the standard initially but indeed it would have to be a public document to be of any use to consumers and Inspectors would be paying for it in the end.

Excellent posts by Claude and Grant!

Kudos for having the patience and dedication to plow through all the gibberish this document contains. Unfortunately I only got as far as the electrical section and then I had to give up. :frowning:

I hope the powers that be will pay attention to your comments.

Cheers