ALL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE!!! MMAH …

ALL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE!!!

MMAH… A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On…

“Who Was Paying The Fees…”


“Who Was Paying The Fees…” MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE LICENSING REGISTERED CODE AGENCY LICENSING

Take your exam Take your exam

Get on the public register Get on the public register (registration subject to having a quality management plan in place)

Each year, submit your application for renewal which includes:

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT 1. Quality Management Plan (see OBC, Div C, Part 3, p. 19&20) “for carrying out activities of the registered person, including, without limitation:”

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (a) Procedures relating to the commencing of activities… no conflict of interest…

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (b) Identification of responsibilities of persons who will carry out plans review and inspection activities of the applicant or registered person and procedures for the supervision of those persons,

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (c) Procedures for assessing plans and specifications for conformity with this Code, including procedures for the assessment of alternative solutions

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (d) Procedures for inspecting the construction of buildings,

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (e) Procedures for receipt of notices that construction is ready for inspection and of written reports from architects and professional engineers arising out of the general review of the construction of buildings

Source: 2006 OBC, Div. C, Part 3, “Qualifications”.



MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE LICENSING REGISTERED CODE AGENCY LICENSING

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (f) procedures for the issuance of certificates and orders under the Act, including the responsibility of persons with the qualifications set out in Sentences 3.7.5.3(1) and (2).

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (g) procedures for the referral of matters to a chief building official under subsection 14(5) of the Act,

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (h) procedures for participation… in proceedings before the Building Code Commission…

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (i) procedures for documenting the activities of the applicant or registered person under the registration, including data control, records retention and the maintenance of security and confidentiality of records and transferring records to the principal authority

NO SUCH REQUIREMENT (j) procedures for training and supervision of personnel, and

(k) procedures for review and up-dating of quality management plan.

NO SUCH CONDITIONS REGISTRATION IS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS:

NO SUCH CONDITIONS (a) the registered person shall carry out activities under the registration in accordance with the Act, this Code and the quality management plan referred to in Clause 3.4.3.2(1)(d), etc.




MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE LICENSING REGISTERED CODE AGENCY LICENSING

NO SUCH PROVISIONS SUSPENSION, REVOCATION, REFUSAL TO REGISTER OR RENEW A REGISTRATION (2006 OBC, Div C, Part 3, Sec. 3.4.3.9, p. 22):

NO SUCH PROVISIONS (1) (a) The director may, in the circumstances set out in Sentence (2) (a) refuse to register an applicant, (b) refuse to renew a registration, or © suspend or revoke a registration

NO SUCH PROVISIONS (2) The circumstances referred to in Sentence (1) are (a) the registered person is in contravention of the Act or this Code, (b) the registered person is in breach of a condition of the registration other than the condition set out in Clause 3.4.3.7.(1)(d), (c) the registration was issued on the basis of mistaken, false or incorrect information, (d) the director is of the opinion that past conduct of the applicant or registered person, as the case may be, affords reasonable grounds for belief that the business that would be or is authorized by the registration will not be carried on in accordance with law, (e) the director is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for belief that the activities of the applicant or registered person are or will be carried on in a manner that poses a threat to public safety, (f) the application is incomplete, or (g) any fees required under Article 3.4.3.5 remain unpaid.

Pay your annual fees Pay your annual fees




The following pages were from the OBC, Div. C, Part 3, clearly showing these discrepancies in “licensing”, “registration and registration renewal requirements” and conditions for the suspension and/or revocation of licenses, etc.

MMAH… And Municipal (City) Employees… A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On… “Who Was Paying The Fees…”

Source: 2006 OBC, Div C, Part 3, Qualifications, p. 5

MMAH… And Municipal (City) Employees… A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On… “Who Was Paying The Fees…”


MMAH… And Municipal (City) Employees…A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On…


Thus, for CBO and/or Inspectors (that would include building inspectors, plan reviewers, managers of code compliance, etc.), all that was required to be “qualified” was:

1) Take your exam(s)2) Get on the Register3) Pay your fees…

Once you did that… then things got even easier… for those on municipal or CITY payrolls because renewal of a license – for these “qualified personnel” basically meant you needed only to get on the register and pay your fees each year!

MMAH… A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On… “Who Was Paying The Fees…”

Municipal Employees (on city payrolls) had NOTHING in the Ontario Building Code pertaining to Qualifications as far as:

1. Conditions for suspension and/or revocation of licenses (i.e., violation of the OBC and/or Act, unethical behaviors, misrepresentation of qualifications (i.e., acting as engineers when not engineers), etc.).

2. Quality Management Plan that had to be followed during the performance of one’s duties in order to ensure activities were carried out in compliance with the OBC and/or Act and any other applicable laws (i.e., Municipal Act, Engineering Act of Ontario) and in order to ensure that inspections/issues, etc. were properly documented and matters referred to the CBO as necessary (i.e., plans approved when “not to code”, field issues where homes were allowed to be built when structurally unsound, etc.).



But… what was required of Registered Code Agencies performing virtually identical functions pertaining to inspections, plan review, etc.?

MMAH…And Registered Code Agencies… A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On…





















MMAH…And A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On…


Whether or not a person was a building inspector on a city payroll or a building inspector on the payroll of a Registered Code Agency, the functions they performed were virtually identical. As such, why the tremendous variance in “requirements” and/or conditions that had to be met in order to obtain and/or maintain a license? Why were there NO PROVISIONS whatsoever to ensure city employees were working in accordance with the OBC and/or Act? Why were there NO PROVISIONS whatsoever for suspending and/or revoking the license of municipal employees who could be violating the OBC and/or Act and the Engineering Act by practicing “engineering” without a license to do so? And why no provisions ANYWHERE at the PROVINCIAL level to ensure/verify municipalities were following the law!

MMAH…And A “Qualification Process” That Varied Based On…


Clearly, it was also evident in my opinion, that even though laws were made as they pertained to the role of City Councils (i.e., need for methods, procedures, policies, etc. to be in place), there was NO ONE ensuring that the laws were actually followed, as clearly evidenced by the virtually totally lacking methods, procedures and/or policies at City of Greater Sudbury Building Services department (information provided to former Minister of Justice Nicholson, Ontario Provincial Police and Sudbury Regional Police for investigation into breach of public trust – something ALL have apparently refused to investigate). If true, these allegations would surely be proof positive of breach of public trust.

The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) told me – in writing – that “in their opinion”, my issues were “civil” in nature. To this I responded, Breach of Public Trust is CRIMINAL and asked that they return to me the memory stick with the files I had provided to them via TRACKABLE mail! I STILL HAVE THAT ENVELOPE WHICH WAS RETURNED TO ME BY THE OPP - UNOPENED – PROOF POSITIVE OF WHAT THEY HAD BEEN GIVEN TO INVESTIGATE AS A CRIMINAL MATTER!!!

ALL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE!!!

Documents

ALL INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE!!! MMAH …