Répondre à vos préoccupations
L’Institut canadien des évaluateurs (ICE) est un organisme d’accréditation autoréglementé qui a établi un modèle de pratique professionnelle fondé sur des normes, un modèle à la fois responsable, transparent et qui permet de rendre compte au public et aux membres de l’ICE.
Processus de résolution des plaintes
Le Processus de résolution des plaintes de l’ICE veut maintenir l’excellence de la profession d’évaluateur et des services que les membres de l’ICE rendent au public. Une plainte doit être déposée par écrit en remplissant le Formulaire de plainte inclus dans le Guide à l’intention du consommateur : La pratique professionnelle de l’ICE. L’enquête de l’ICE sur une plainte porte sur la conformité aux Normes uniformes de pratique professionnelle en matière d’évaluation au Canada (NUPPEC).
Limites au processus de résolution de plaintes de l’ICE
L’ICE n’enquêtera pas sur des plaintes anonymes.
L’enquête de l’ICE sur une plainte ne fera pas ce qui suit :
L’ICE ne peut pas :
Selon la nature de la plainte et la gravité des allégations, l’enquête de l’ICE peut prendre plusieurs mois, voire davantage, si la question se rend de plus en plus loin dans le processus.
L’identité du plaignant sera communiquée au membre.
Le plaignant recevra les conclusions et toute sanction imposée relativement à la substance de sa plainte, fournies dans :
Demandes de mise à jour du statut
Afin de protéger l’intégrité d’une enquête, on ne peut fournir qu’une information limitée sur ses progrès.
Ce que l’ice ne peut pas faire
Il est important de noter que le processus de résolution des plaintes n’offre pas un mécanisme de compensation financière ou de remboursement des frais, et n’oblige pas un évaluateur à refaire son rapport ou à arbitrer l’opinion finale de la valeur. L’ICE ne peut agir au titre de tribunal, ordonner des remboursements, accorder des dommages, imposer des accords contractuels, donner des conseils juridiques, ni arbitrer la valeur de l’opinion finale.
Études de cas en pratique professionnelle [Le contenu ci-dessous est disponible pour consultation.]
L’objectif de l’ICE est de fournir autant de conseils que possible à ses membres et c’est dans cet esprit que les études de cas de pratique professionnelle suivantes sont présentées ci-dessous.
*Tous les efforts ont été faits pour protéger l’identification des individus et des dossiers particuliers, sauf dans les cas où un organisme de décision en matière de pratique professionnelle a ordonné la publication ; dans ce cas, le membre a été nommé.
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 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.
2021 Études de cas
The complainant raised the following concern: CRA out of Scope
After review of the complaint, the highest and best use of the property was identified as a
single-family Dwelling with acreage which falls within the scope of the CRA designation.
After careful consideration and review of the matter, it was determined that there was no
contravention of CUSPAP related to the complaint issue.
The Complainant contacted the AIC to express concerns regarding the non-delivery of a report. The Complainant had paid the fee and had not received a finalized report. The Complainant was seeking a refund of the fees.
It was explained that the AIC Complaint Resolution Process could not provide a mechanism for refund. The Complainant decided to submit a complaint regardless.
The Complainant withdrew the complaint on January 7, 2021.
The AIC continued the review of the file as an issue arising from the original complaint.
The report failed to adequately define the highest and best use which in turn led the
complainant to question the CRA designated Member’s qualifications to perform the appraisal.
The report indicated that the interior of the dwelling was not inspected, and also appropriately
stated in the Extraordinary Items Addendum that the condition is assumed to be the same as
when inspected in in a previous year, however, the report failed to include or reference the
extraordinary assumption wherever a value statement occurred.
This matter was brought to the attention of the AIC by the Member after learning that CUSPAP
required AIC Members to report criminal convictions to the AIC. The Member provided a Criminal Background Check indicating criminal convictions in 2001 and 2019 to AIC staff. The Professional Practice Committee was directed by the Executive Committee to undertake a complaint investigation in accordance with AIC Consolidated Regulations. Investigation of the matter was undertaken by a Counsellor, Professional Practice and a Hearing was
requisitioned by the Advocate.
A formal Hearing was held on February 15, 2021. The Panel rejected the Allegations and Discipline as put forward in the Hearing Requisition and at the Hearing because the charges were incorrectly
attributed to the CUSPAP 2020 when the breaches of CUSPAP were in 2014 and the allegations and disciplines should have been under CUSPAP 2014.
The Advocate negotiated a Settlement Agreement based on the rules and comments in CUSPAP 2014. The Adjudicating Hearing Panel accepted and ratified the Settlement Agreement.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.