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.
Pratique professionnelle : Résumé des dossiers de plainte complétés
L’objectif de l’ICE est de fournir autant de conseils que possible sur le processus de résolution des plaintes. C’est dans cet esprit que sont présentées ci-dessous des études de cas de pratiques professionnelles de dossiers de plaintes terminés.
NB : Tous les efforts ont été faits pour protéger l’identité des personnes dans ces résumés. Dans certains dossiers, cependant, un organe de décision de la pratique professionnelle a ordonné la publication ; dans ce cas, le membre a été nommé.
*Disponible uniquement en anglais
The matter was brought to the attention of the AIC by a provincial association. The Member submitted an application to AIC in mid-2015 in which they certified and pledged there were no material challenges to their good moral character or integrity and failed to disclose information in the Declaration relating to a criminal record or fraud. The Member failed to declare information pertaining to alleged criminal activity involving fraud in Canada in 2010. The complaint file was opened as an issue arising by the AIC in accordance with AIC Consolidated Regulations.
The Member resigned when contacted by the Counsellor with a question about the alleged criminal activity. The complaint file was brought before an Adjudicating Sub- Committee hearing panel for a final decision in accordance with AIC Consolidated Regulations.
This complaint is in relation to the actions of a Candidate Member and their CRA-designated
The AIC Complaint investigation uncovered no evidence to support an allegation of fraud.
Recovery of financial losses and/or reimbursement of fees fall outside of the scope of an AIC
The AACI-designated Member completed two appraisal reports on the same property. The
first was completed early in 2018 and the second near the end of that year.
The complainant implied that there might have been some undue influence on the Member.
The complaint was made by a consumer in relation to a report on a vacant parcel of land located
in a small city completed by an AACI-designated Member. The subject property consists of a 10+
acre site with approximately 400+ feet frontage along a major road. The land has two different
Commercial zoning designations.
A consumer submitted a complaint related to a report on a residential property with a WRWaterfront Residential zoning.
The Member was able to satisfactorily explain the procedure they employed to take photos
without accessing the property. No privacy appeared to be compromised as a result of the
taking of photographs.
The complainant was not identified as the client in the report and as such, the member was not
able to discuss the report with the complainant without the client’s authorization.
The Appraisal Institute of Canada received a formal complaint against Karel W. Baayen P. App,
AACI (the Member) regarding an Appraisal Report, completed on a single-family dwelling.
The AIC review of the Complaint revealed that the Member prepared a report for his client (a
mortgage broker) and that later, at the request of a second mortgage broker, the Member
subsequently authorized another Lender to also rely on the same Appraisal Report without the
permission of his original Client.
The subsequent authorization was via a Reliance Letter signed by the Member. The signature
of the signer of the Report (an AIC Candidate Member) was not included.
The Member fully cooperated with the AIC investigation of the complaint and provided a
written response acknowledging his actions and taking responsibility for them.
The Advocate and the Member signed a Settlement Agreement that was accepted by the
Adjudicating Sub-Committee Hearing Panel.
This file was opened on behalf of the AIC as an issue arising in order to investigate conduct that
may be deserving of a Sanction that may otherwise not have been submitted to the Institute.
The Member sent a response to an AIC communiqué related to a voluntary survey about Equity, Diversity and Inclusion issues in the appraisal industry in a direct email to AIC staff and also posted on the AIC Forum.
This response employed language that was both unprofessional and inappropriate.
On March 18, 2022, the National Office of the AIC received a faxed message from Legal Counsel for Mr. Joshua Kitsul P. App, AACI (the “Member”) that provided a copy of a Conditional Sentence and Probation Order (12 months) from the British Columbia Court dated March 2, 2022. The Conditional Sentence and Probation Order (12 months) relate to the Member’s conviction of possession of child pornography. The Conditional Sentence and Probation Order, amongst other things, requires the Member to retain internet use records and does not allow the Member to communicate, or attempt to communicate, online with any person under the age of 18 years. Given the seriousness of the issue and in the public interest, a complaint file was opened as an issue arising and the AIC Adjudicating Sub-Committee issued an Interim Order for Suspension of the Member on June 6, 2022, for a period of up to one year, pending completion of a Complaint Review and a final decision. The Member cooperated fully with the AIC complaint investigation. The Member acknowledged that he breached the Ethics Standard Rules listed below and has accepted full responsibility for his actions. The Member is taking steps to ensure that he does not repeat the actions. The Member has provided expert reports on the likelihood of recidivism and the expert opinion is that the Member is not likely to repeat the offences. A Settlement Agreement dated October 31, 2022 was subsequently provided to the Adjudicating Sub-Committee. The Adjudicating Sub-Committee reviewed and approved the Settlement Agreement entered into by the Member and the Professional Practice Advocate.
This complaint arose from an appraisal report completed for mortgage financing purposes. An appraisal report for the subject property was completed by the AACI-designated Member. The complainant later discovered that the Member had a professional mentor/mentee relationship with the owner of the subject property. The complainant noted that this relationship had not been disclosed. The complainant also expressed concerns about the final value expressed in the report. This complaint issue is outside of the scope of an AIC Complaint investigation.
This complaint was submitted by the subject property owner and was related to an appraisal
report completed by an AACI-designated Member for property tax purposes that was
presented as evidence at an assessment appeal hearing.
This is a matter that arose from a consumer inquiry that did not evolve into a formal written
complaint. The matter was referred to a Counsellor for review to determine if there was
conduct that may be deserving of a Sanction that may otherwise not have been submitted to
the AIC in accordance with AIC Consolidated Regulations.
The Counsellor determined that there were issues arising from the inquiry and an AIC
complaint file was opened.
The Appraisal Report, completed by a CRA-designated Member, describes the subject
property as an older, detached single-family dwelling located in a downtown core, on a 0.10-
acre site that is zoned C4 Street-Oriented Commercial.
A CRA-Designated Member completed and signed an appraisal report on a subject property that was co-signed by an AACI-Designated Member.
The intended use identified in the report was for Matrimonial Separation.
An inquiry raised concerns relating to appraisal reports being prepared for subject properties
on the same date, with the same effective date, but with significantly different adjustments,
comparable sales data and estimate of market value. The inquiry did not lead to the submission
of a formal complaint.
A complaint file was opened by the AIC as an issue arising in accordance with AIC Consolidated
Regulations 2020 in order to investigate conduct that may be deserving of a Sanction that may
otherwise not have been submitted to the AIC.
A Candidate Member of the AIC, co-signed by an AACI-Designated Member, completed
appraisal reports on the subject properties, the intended use was for first mortgage financing.
In both cases, it appears that after a report was initially completed, another report was
completed on the property with the same date of report, same effective date, and with either
completely new market data or with the same market data but with significantly changed
information in the Cost and Direct Comparison Approaches.
In both cases the estimate of market value was not the same, and in the case of the second
property it was significantly different.
This complaint file was reviewed as an issue arising from a withdrawn complaint. The AACI-designated Member believed that they had an oral agreement with another appraisal
firm permitting the Member to issue appraisal reports and correspondence using that firm’s
name and letterhead. The appraisal firm later contacted the Member to advise them to cease
issuing these reports and denied having made this agreement. The Member immediately ceased
issuing reports using that firm’s name and letterhead.
The Member agreed that relying on an oral agreement and failing to document the agreement in writing fell below the standards expected of a professional appraiser in these circumstances.
The Member further agreed that they should have known at the time that the way the reports
were written and the correspondence with clients could be seen to be misleading to the
recipients of the reports concerning the nature of the member’s relationship with the appraisal
firm. The Member consented to a Reprimand and a fine of $1,000 as a sanction for this conduct. A
Settlement Agreement reached between the Professional Practice Advocate and the Member
was submitted to an Adjudicating Sub-Committee Hearing Panel for their consideration and
An AIC Member submitted a complaint about an AACI-designated Member who had completed
an Appraisal Review of Complainant Member’s Appraisal Report on a commercial recreational
property for the company that owned the property in 2016. In 2017, the Member produced a retrospective Appraisal Report on the property with an effective date in 2014 that identifies the
company as the client.
The Advocate and the Member discussed the complaint issues and the allegations of breaches
to CUSPAP and the Member conceded that there are technical issues with the report. The
Advocate and the Member agreed that the breaches warranted a Reprimand and a Fine and a Settlement Agreement was signed.
This Settlement Agreement was submitted to an Adjudicating Sub-Committee Hearing Panel.
The Panel deemed the terms of Settlement Agreement to be an appropriate resolution to the
Complaint and made an Order to ratify the Settlement Agreement.