Addressing Your Concerns
The Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC) is committed to ensuring that consumers and clients understand the appraisal process and the roles, responsibilities and expectations of a professional appraiser. AIC is a self-regulated designating organization and has established a standards-based Professional Practice model that is responsive, transparent and accountable to the public.
Complaint Resolution Process
The AIC Complaint Resolution Process is focused on maintaining the excellence of the appraisal profession and the services AIC members provide to the public. A complaint must be submitted in writing by completing the Complaint Form included in the Consumer’s Guide to AIC Professional Practice. An AIC complaint investigation focuses on compliance with the Canadian Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (CUSPAP).
Limits to the AIC Complaint Resolution Process
The AIC will not investigate anonymous complaints.
An AIC complaint investigation will not:
The AIC cannot:
Depending on the nature of the complaint and the seriousness of the allegations, the AIC investigation may take several months or longer depending on how far through the process the matter proceeds.
The identity of the complainant will be provided to the member.
The complainant will be provided with the findings and any resulting Sanctions relating to the substance of their complaint provided in:
Professional Practice Case Summary
It is the AIC’s goal to provide as much guidance as possible to its members and with this in mind, the following Professional Practice Case Studies are presented below.
NB: Every effort has been made to protect the identification of individuals and particular files except in cases in which a Professional Practice deciding body has ordered publication; in which case, the member has been named.
This is a consumer complaint related to a report on a single-family dwelling used for the division of assets. The complainant alleged an inflated final estimate of value and the use of inappropriate comparables. The complainant further alleged that the Member had deliberately produced a misleading report.
The complaint concerns an appraisal of land consisting of a number of recreational lots, many of which are leased for a period of several decades. Annual rent rates are negotiated every 5 years. The complainant raised the following concern: the annual lease rate utilized in the report represents an increase of over 500% and is unsupported.
The key allegations in the complaint are summarized as:
1. Improper analysis
2. Non-AIC approved form
3. Error in zoning
4. Error in identification of city
5. Overstated neighbourhood price range
6. No adjustments for location
7. Adjustments are not supported
8. Scope of report is inconsistent with body of report
The complaint file arose from a consumer complaint regarding conflict of interest and a breach of client confidentiality regarding AIC Member Jerome Kirkland AACI, P. App, Fellow.
No conflict of interest was revealed.
The information related to the complaint issue of a breach of client confidentiality concerned an aspect of the property that would have been
apparent to any appraiser who inspected the property. Therefore, no sanctions are warranted based on these issues.
The complaint was based on the production of a report on a single-family dwelling on a small acreage. The complainant raised a concern that the member, a CRA, P. App, was practicing outside of the scope of the CRA designation.
The complaint is related to appraisal reports on a single-family dwelling and a recreational property. The complainant raised concerns regarding:
1. Inaccurate reports
2. Charging a High fee
3. Refusing to appear in court as an expert witness
The Member completed an assignment beyond the scope of a CRA Designation. The Member is not considered to have met the reasonable appraiser standard in taking the appropriate steps to ensure that the report was co-signed and that the final report was obtained for his work file. The Member lacked the required competence to complete the assignment. The Member changed the intended user multiple times after completing the report.
This case summary details a value-based complaint, which also questions the accuracy of the appraisal report. There was a request to review to determine if there was negligence in the report. The report was signed by a Candidate Member and co-signed by a Member with the AACI, P. App designation.