[English content provided below for your convenience.]

CASE SUMMARY 13 - Full Case Study [pdf]
A candidate registered in the non-fee category in the insurance program, issued an appraisal report which was not co-signed by an accredited member of the AIC.

The member became an inactive member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada in 2008 and was subsequently removed from the roster of members for non-payment of dues. The hearing proceeded by written submission without the participation of the inactive member in accordance with AIC Regulation 5.45.2. The Decision is to remain on his file to be considered should he apply for membership in the future. [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 14 - Full Case Study [pdf]
The Adjudicating Panel endorsed a Sanction Consent Agreement reached by the Office of the Advocate and the member, Ron Dinning, AACI, P. App before a Hearing took place.

In the case of the primary complaint, Mr. Dinning provided three appraisals on the subject property, two of which had the same effective date but two different estimates of value – one at $175,000 and the other $210,000. Both reports were poorly qualified drive bys and almost identical except for differing adjustments which resulted in the different values. The third report is effective on a later date, with an estimated value of $220,000.00.

Two other inter-related complaint files were bundled with this complaint. Due to circumstances, all of these complaint files had been held in abeyance by the Professional Practice process since the complaint had been filed. Regulation revisions allowed Professional Practice to re-activate these files and resolve them in an amount of time that was satisfactory to both the AIC and the member.   [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 15 - Full Case Study [pdf]
The Candidate member signed a report that was not co-signed by an appropriately designated member of the AIC. The report was signed by a non-member and the member relied on his designation in another organization to co-sign the report. [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 16 - Full Case Study [pdf]
The Candidate member co-signed the report of another candidate member. He used his designation in another organization to do something that is prohibited by CUSPAP and AIC regulation. In addition the member failed to maintain control of his digital signature.  [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 17 - Full Case Study [pdf]
The Candidate member co-signed the report of another candidate member. He used his designation in another organization to do something that is prohibited by CUSPAP and AIC regulation. The Candidate member did not obtain the co-signature of an appropriately designated and registered co-signer. [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 18- Full Case Study [pdf]
The Candidate member co-signed the report of another candidate member. He used his designation in another organization to do something that is prohibited by CUSPAP and AIC regulation. The Candidate member did not obtain the co-signature of an appropriately designated and registered co-signer. [posted September 11, 2009]

CASE SUMMARY 19- Full Case Study [pdf]
The member prepared an appraisal on the subject property 2 weeks after it had sold. It was appraised for $100,000 and had sold for $62,000, yet the appraisal made no mention of the sale. Further, the member acted as one of the agents involved in the sale without disclosing this in the appraisal. [posted March 9, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 20- Full Case Study [pdf]
The complaint arose out of the complainant’s concern that the appraiser had not bring to attention seven remedial conditions outlined in a City notification of an Order Prohibiting Occupancy and an Order to Remedy Unsafe Conditions and that the appraiser did not reveal that the property had been renovated from a bungalow to a two-storey. [posted March 9, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 21- Full Case Study [pdf]
The member prepared an appraisal on the subject property less than 1 week after it had sold. It was appraised for $110,000 and had sold for $71,000, yet the appraisal made no mention of the sale. Further, the member acted as one of the agents involved in the sale and was also the listing agent in a former expired listing but did not disclose this in the appraisal. [posted March 9, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 22- Full Case Study [pdf]
The quality of the reports was poor and they lacked thoroughness. Both reports were significantly short on detail. The member undertook improper analyses of both the Direct Comparison and the Income Approach. The reports lack important points of disclosure.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 23- Full Case Study [pdf]
The member produced a report for a lender to be used for lending decision purposes. The report failed to comply with CUSPAP.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 24- Full Case Study [pdf]
The report did not provide sufficient sales evidence to support the conclusions within the report and that the analysis ignored the terms and conditions of the leases in place. In addition, the report failed to identify a reasonable exposure time linked to the market value estimate.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 25- Full Case Study [pdf]
The zoning of the property was identified as being agricultural and no further details were provided. The highest and best use analysis in the report made mention of the future development for the property. The supporting argument for the conclusion that the highest and best use for the property was country residential was not adequate.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 26- Full Case Study [pdf]
The reports fail with respect to numerous Standards Rules and lack support for many of the conclusions, while the conduct of the member breaches numerous Ethical Rules.

Repeated requests for copies of the reports and work files were made and the member was also asked questions on two occasions to assist the investigation with respect to those properties.

Regarding two files the appraiser has produced no work product or research and the answers to questions put to Jean Clive by the Investigator were unsatisfactory. Of particular significance is Jean Clive’s failure to provide copies of her work files. Also concerning two of the files Jean Clive noted in her response that she did not maintain work files after 30-40 days.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 27- Full Case Study [pdf]
The report indicated that the existing use of the property was residential which was not correct. The report did contain limited observations that indicated that the report was hypothetical in nature; however, no reference was made to extraordinary limiting conditions. The report does not use the terminology “hypothetical” market value estimate and does not clearly set out requisite extraordinary limiting conditions that would be necessary to estimate market value “as if” converted back for residential use.

Because the Member has been suspended, a hearing was requisitioned in order that the Adjudicating Committee could determine a final decision regarding the file, which would then be placed on the Member’s record. Should the Member apply for re-instatement at a later date, he will first have to meet any conditions in the final decision before reinstatement.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 28- Full Case Study [pdf]
T. Stuart Hammell, a CRA, performed an appraisal that fell outside the scope of practice for a CRA designation and was not co-signed by an AACI.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 29- Full Case Study [pdf]
The member failed to indicate in the report that there would be no insurance protection under the AIC professional liability insurance program.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 30- Full Case Study [pdf]
The member prepared a report with values noted as “as if complete” and “as is” and proceeded to give a final opinion of value that is misleading since it is unclear what his final value represents.

The member was unable to produce information readily when requested by the AIC during the course of the complaint investigation.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 31- Full Case Study [pdf]
The assignment fell outside the scope of practice of a CRA designation. A member cannot omit his designation on an appraisal report.
[posted September 2, 2010]

CASE SUMMARY 32- Full Case Study [pdf]
The report submitted to the client falls far short of the CUSPAP Standards and fails to adhere to virtually any of the Appraisal Standard Rules.
[posted September 2, 2010]

Last updated September 2, 2010