Important Disclaimer
This website is maintained by Shawn O’Connor, AACI, P. App. The information below reflects my personal views and interpretation of AIC governance documents and my own experience with the Professional Practice process.
It is not legal advice.
It is not an official publication of the Appraisal Institute of Canada.
Other members, AIC, and courts may interpret the same documents differently.
Members should review the underlying By‑laws, Regulations and CUSPAP themselves and obtain independent legal advice before taking any steps based on the issues described here.
My goal is to flag potential systemic issues and invite members who have had similar experiences to contact me confidentially so we can better understand what has been happening and, if appropriate, seek proper legal and governance review.
AIC Governance Concerns – Retired Members, Discipline Panels, and Fairness
If you have ever had a PPC / Professional Practice interaction – even 10–15 years ago – this message is for you.
We are collecting information from members who believe they may have faced unfair, procedurally flawed, or improperly constituted Professional Practice Committee (PPC) and discipline proceedings, including situations such as:
Retired members sitting as adjudicators or panel chairs
Panels including individuals who, on one reading of the rules, may be prohibited from providing Professional Services
Possible conflicts of interest or overlapping roles (e.g., rule‑makers also acting as advocate or adjudicator)
Sanction Consent Agreements (SCAs) presented as “non‑negotiable”
Hearings that appeared to lack independence, competence, or transparency
Undisclosed conflicts potentially affecting fairness
Potential inconsistencies with CUSPAP and the AIC Consolidated Regulations (2020)
If any of this sounds familiar, I would like to hear from you.
1. Retired Members and Professional Services – Why I’m Concerned
The concern starts with AIC’s own governance documents.
AIC Consolidated Regulations (2020) – Retirement
Section 2.11.2 of the AIC Consolidated Regulations (2020) states that a Retired Member:
“shall not provide professional service or Professional Assistance of any kind as set out in CUSPAP including as a member of an appraisal organization other than the Institute.”
In my reading, this is a broad restriction: once a member is retired, they are not supposed to provide any “professional service” or “Professional Assistance” as defined in CUSPAP.
CUSPAP – Retired Members and Professional Services
CUSPAP (2022) Ethics Comment 5.4.4 provides that an Associate, Retired, Honorary AACI, or Student Member shall not:
“hold themselves out in any way as a practicing Member of the Institute; or undertake to perform any type of Report associated with the Professional Services defined in CUSPAP.”
CUSPAP (2024, s. 3.61) defines Professional Services as:
“Real Property Appraisal, Review, Consulting, Reserve Fund Study, Machinery and Equipment Appraisal, and Mass Appraisal services which are rendered, or which should be rendered, by a qualified, competent Member authorized under the Rules, By‑laws, Regulations and CUSPAP.”
Taken together, my interpretation is:
Retired members remain “Members,” but
They are not permitted to perform Professional Services, which include review and consulting work and other activities requiring appraisal judgment.
AIC’s Membership Policy and web materials also say that retired members “do not engage in any professional services” as defined in CUSPAP and may volunteer on committees in a non‑practising capacity.
2. Why I Believe Adjudication May Be a Professional Service
This is where the governance concern arises.
In a discipline hearing, panel members:
Review appraisal work and related evidence
Interpret and apply CUSPAP and AIC Regulations
Assess competence and methodology
Consult with each other on findings
Render written reasons and determine sanctions
In my view, these functions are indistinguishable from the “Review” and “Consulting” activities that CUSPAP treats as Professional Services. They clearly involve professional appraisal judgment, not just administrative housekeeping.
My interpretation:
If adjudicating discipline cases is a Professional Service (because it involves review and consulting functions under CUSPAP), then a retired member who is prohibited from providing Professional Services should not be sitting as a discipline panel member or chair.
AIC’s Appeal Sub‑Committee has recently taken a different view: that Professional Practice Committee work is “Professional Practice Review,” not “Professional Services,” and therefore retired members may serve on committees.
I respectfully disagree with that interpretation, and I believe it raises serious governance and fairness concerns, especially where:
Retired members chair hearings or sit on panels deciding sanctions against active members
Appraisers under investigation were never told that panel members would be retired and non‑practising
I am not asking anyone to simply accept my view. I am encouraging members to read the texts for themselves and, where necessary, seek independent legal advice.
3. Possible Implications if My Interpretation Is Correct
If retired members are, in fact, prohibited from performing Professional Services, and if discipline adjudication is properly characterized as a Professional Service, then:
Panels including retired members may have been improperly constituted
Decisions could be vulnerable to challenge (for example, on judicial review)
SCAs or sanctions shaped by retired adjudicators may be open to scrutiny
There may be systemic governance issues that affect many files over many years
To be clear, no court has yet ruled on this specific issue for AIC, and AIC may maintain its current interpretation. That is precisely why it is important for members who have concerns to come forward so these questions can be examined properly.
4. SCAs – My View on “Non‑Negotiable” Settlements
Many members report being told that their Sanction Consent Agreement (SCA) was “non‑negotiable” or that they had no real alternative.
In my understanding:
An SCA is a settlement agreement between the member and AIC.
Settlements, by definition, should be voluntary, informed, and negotiated.
Pressure tactics (e.g., “sign this today or the consequences will be far worse”) may raise serious fairness and consent issues.
If a retired member participated in the process that led to your SCA, or if you felt you had no real choice but to sign, those are facts you may wish to discuss with independent legal counsel.
I am not stating that all SCAs are invalid or coercive. I am saying that, based on what some members have reported to me, the way SCAs are sometimes presented could be inconsistent with fair‑settlement principles.
5. Broader Fairness and Governance Concerns
Even apart from retired‑member issues, there are wider questions about:
Overlapping roles (e.g., the same individuals drafting policies, advising PPC, and then acting as advocate or adjudicator in member files)
How new policies like the 2025 Professional Practice Review Policy (PPR 2025) have been operationalized and applied to files that started under the 2020 Regulations
Whether conflicts of interest are consistently disclosed and ruled on in a transparent way
Whether self‑represented members are given adequate disclosure and time to respond
These issues all feed into the duty of procedural fairness owed to members under administrative law and under AIC’s own Regulations and CUSPAP.
Again, I am not claiming that every proceeding was unfair or invalid. I am saying there may be patterns that warrant further scrutiny.
6. What This Page Is – and Is Not – Saying
This page does not say:
That every AIC decision involving a retired member is automatically void
That you should stop complying with CUSPAP or AIC Regulations
That you should ignore AIC orders or deadlines
What this page does say is:
There is a serious question, on the face of AIC’s own documents, about whether retired members should be performing adjudicative functions at all.
If you had a proceeding where a retired member was on the panel, chaired the hearing, or influenced your SCA, you may wish to explore your options with independent legal counsel.
There may be good reasons for members to raise these concerns collectively with AIC governance, regulators, or courts in an appropriate forum.
7. Invitation to Members – Share Your Experience (Confidentially)
If any of the following apply to you, I would like to hear from you confidentially:
Your adjudicating or appeal panel included a retired member
Your hearing was chaired by a retired member
A retired member played a role in negotiating or approving your SCA
You believe your panel included people who were, on your reading of the rules, not permitted to provide Professional Services
You felt pressured to sign an SCA or told it was “non‑negotiable”
You believe your hearing was unfair, biased, or procedurally flawed
We are building a record to support:
Potential governance reforms and AGM motions
Possible judicial review or other legal remedies
Requests for external oversight or regulatory attention
Better protection of member rights and due process
How to Contact
📧 Email: **@**************se.ca
If possible, please include:
Your name
The year(s) of your PPC / discipline involvement
Whether retired members were on your panel or involved in your SCA
Whether you were told an SCA was “non‑negotiable”
Any fairness or conflict concerns you are comfortable summarizing
Your information will be treated as confidential unless you explicitly agree otherwise.
8. Final Disclaimer
Nothing on this page is legal advice, and reading it does not create any solicitor‑client relationship.
AIC, its committees, and its members are entitled to their own interpretations of the By‑laws, Regulations, and CUSPAP. Courts and regulators will ultimately decide whether any particular proceeding was lawful or fair.
My aim is simply to:
Put key texts and concerns in one place
Encourage members to examine their own file history
Promote transparency, fairness, and accountability within our profession
If you have questions about your specific situation, please consult a lawyer experienced in professional‑discipline or administrative law.