Skip to the Content

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.

Any concerns regarding the work product or the conduct of a member of AIC can be directed to AIC at 1-888-551-5521 (toll-free) or via email at Protected Email.

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).

1 Limits to the AIC Complaint Resolution Process

The AIC will not investigate anonymous complaints.

An AIC complaint investigation will not:

  • Arbitrate the final opinion of value provided in a report
  • Provide an opinion on the final opinion of value presented in a report
  • Be a technical review of a report
  • Recommend financial compensation
  • Order financial compensation to be paid to the complainant
  • Review a member’s fees or disbursements

The AIC cannot:

  • Act as a court of law,
  • Order the refund of monies,
  • Award damages,
  • Enforce contractual agreements,
  • Compel an appraiser to redo their report
  • Give legal advice, or
  • Arbitrate value.
2 Timing

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.

3 Privacy

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:

  • a Sanction Consent Agreement,
  • the final decision reached by an Adjudicating Sub-Committee, or
  • the final decision reached by an Appeal Sub-Committee hearing panel
4 Status update requests

In order to protect the integrity of the investigation, limited information on the progress of an investigation can be provided.

5 More information

More information about the AIC Complaint Resolution Process can be found in the AIC Complaint Resolution Process Guide.

Professional Practice: Summary of Completed Complaint Files

It is the AIC’s goal to provide as much guidance as possible on the complaint resolution process and with this in mind, the following Professional Practice Case Studies of completed complaint files are presented below.

NB: Every effort has been made to protect the identity of individuals in these summaries. In particular files, however, a Professional Practice deciding body has ordered the publication; in which case, the Member has been named.


2021 CASE SUMMARIES

Case Summary 2021-01

The complainant made only an allegation related to the value and questioned the accuracy of
the appraisal and requested a review to determine if there was negligence in the report. The Complainant did not give any specific examples of inaccuracies in the report and the AIC complaint review uncovered no evidence to suggest that the report was biased or prepared in
a careless or negligent manner.

The review did uncover other CUSPAP-related concerns and these were addressed as issues
arising in accordance with AIC Consolidated Regulations.

Case Summary 2021-02

The report was completed without due diligence to verify details as they pertain to the property in general. It is the duty of a Member to make reasonable attempts to verify data and information provided.

Subsequent to the receipt of the original report dated 2019, the member submitted a second
narrative report dated 2020.

The review of the reports revealed that there are several other issues arising

Case Summary 2021-03

The Member applied for a position with the City of XXXX and attended an interview in 2020.
Approximately one month after the interview, the Member contacted the HR staff requesting
an update on the competition. An HR staff person responded on the next day advising the
Member they would not be proceeding further with his candidacy. Two days after that the
Member sent an email to three individuals employed with the city expressing his
disappointment using unprofessional and vulgar language.

The Member was remorseful and provided an apology to the persons involved within days of
the incident and without prompting from the AIC.

Case Summary 2021-04

Although the report includes a series of small errors/omissions that when taken in the
aggregate may lead to a misleading report, no evidence was found to suggest that the
Member knowingly omitted or falsified data or that any of the errors led to a misleading
report. Instead, a high percentage of the errors appear to be the direct result of the Member
utilizing a template report and not exercising the proper care when proofreading the report.

Case Summary 2021- 05

Although the report includes a series of small errors/omissions that when taken in the
aggregate may lead to a misleading report, no evidence was found to suggest the Member
knowingly omitted or falsified data or that any of the errors led to a misleading report.

Instead, a high percentage of the errors appear to be the direct result of the Member utilizing
a template report and not exercising the proper care when proofreading the report.

Case Summary 2021-05

The Member completed two appraisals relating to the property in question, the first of which had an effective date of December 8, 2017 and a value estimate of $1,000,000.  The complainant attached both appraisals to the complaint, however, some matters relate to only the 2019 report, most notably the allegation that the member failed to acknowledge or discuss the listing of the property in late 2018.

As reported in the Complaint Form submission, In June 2018, the Complainant was informed by the second mortgage holder that the Mortgagor was behind on payments due to both the first and second Mortgagees and the Mortgagee in second position was initiating legal action. 

The Mortgagor listed the property for sale (believed to have been in August 2018) at a price of $1,249,000, which was subsequently reduced in November of 2018 to $999,000. The Member prepared a second appraisal with an effective date of January 9, 2019 at a value of $1,200,000.  The second Mortgagee reportedly obtained possession of the property at the direction of the Courts on January 31, 2019.  The Complainant commissioned a third appraisal of the property by another member.  This appraisal had an effective date of May 2, 2019 and reported the value as at that date to be $830,000.  At the date of this appraisal, the property was listed for sale at a price of $889,000.