Why AIC Needs Oversight

For more than 60 years, the Ontario Human Rights Code (OHRC) has required self-governing professional associations to treat their members fairly and without discrimination. The Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC), however, has never adopted a Human Rights policy for its own governance or disciplinary processes.

At the same time, AIC has written extensive rules to govern members: defining discrimination in appraisal practice, imposing penalties, creating complex complaint procedures, and granting immunity to decision-makers. But when it comes to AIC itself, there are no rules ensuring fairness, transparency, or compliance with Ontario law.

This page explains why that failure matters, how it connects to recent policy changes, and why external oversight may now be required.

1. The 70% Passing Grade

• In August 2025, the AIC Board approved a change raising the passing grade for the Professional Practice Seminar (PPS) from 60% to 70%.
• This was recommended by the Professional Practice Committee (PPC) and approved without member consultation or disclosure of how directors voted.
• Members have asked: What happens if I fail? AIC has provided no clear answer.
• For members with exam anxiety or learning challenges, the higher threshold increases the risk of failure, even where competence is not in doubt.

2. Human Rights Obligations Ignored

• The OHRC (1962): Section 5 guarantees equal treatment in membership in self-governing professions without discrimination, including on the basis of disability.
• Adverse effect discrimination: Neutral rules, like higher pass marks, can disproportionately harm people with exam anxiety or mental health conditions unless accommodations are provided.
• The Meiorin Test (1999, Supreme Court of Canada): Standards that harm protected groups must be proven necessary and must include accommodation to the point of undue hardship.
• The Problem: AIC has no Human Rights policy, no published accommodation process, and no framework to assess whether the 70% requirement is reasonably necessary.

3. The Role of the Professional Practice Committee (PPC)

The PPC has been central to recent governance changes:

• Drafted the 2025 Professional Practice Review (PPR) Policy,
• Recommended the 70% pass grade,
• Wrote provisions that:
  
  • Grant immunity to decision-makers,
  • Exempt them from disclosing conflicts of interest,
  • Give them unlimited discretionary powers to impose penalties.

At the same time, some PPC members sat on adjudicating committees deciding member complaints. They were simultaneously acting as rule-makers, adjudicators, and enforcers — a textbook conflict of interest.

4. Board of Directors – Rubber Stamping

• The AIC Board of Directors consistently rubber-stamps PPC recommendations without independent scrutiny.
• Votes are not disclosed. Members are told only that “the Board approved.”
• This deprives members of the ability to hold elected directors accountable.

5. AIC’s Double Standard

This double standard highlights a systemic governance failure: AIC regulates its members but not itself.

6. Oversight May Be Required

When a self-governing body fails to discipline itself, external oversight becomes necessary. Examples from other professions in Ontario include:

• College of Nurses – external review imposed after governance scandals.
• Ontario College of Teachers – provincial oversight expanded after member rights concerns.
• Law Society of Ontario – operates under statute with direct provincial accountability.

Possible avenues for oversight of AIC include:

• Ontario Human Rights Tribunal (OHRT): Can hear applications if AIC policies discriminate against members with disabilities.
• Ontario Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery: May investigate governance failures under provincial law.
• Judicial Review in Divisional Court: Can quash unfair/unlawful policies and require Code compliance.
• Legislative Reform: Government could step in if AIC fails to meet its obligations to members and the public.

7. What Members Should Ask

• Why is there no Human Rights Code policy for AIC governance?
• Why are Board votes not disclosed?
• Why are PPC members allowed to write rules that protect their own interests while adjudicating member complaints?
• Why are major policies (like the 70% pass mark and PPR 2025) imposed without member consultation?

Conclusion

For over 60 years, the Ontario Human Rights Code has applied to professional associations. Yet the AIC has never adopted a compliance policy for its own governance. Instead, it has drafted rules that reduce member rights, increase penalties, and shield its committees from accountability.

This is not sustainable. If the AIC will not regulate itself fairly, then oversight by external bodies — the courts, the Human Rights Tribunal, or the provincial government — may be the only way to protect members and the public interest.

At AppraisalDefense.ca, we will continue to raise these issues, inform members, and demand accountability.