APPRAISAL INSTITUTE OF CANADA
Professional Practice Review Policy
AIC Regulatory Changes Analysis
Comprehensive Comparison: 2020 Consolidated Regulations vs 2025 PPR Policy
1. Immunity Provisions - Expanded Protection for Decision-Makers
"No action, no legal proceeding for damages, and no other claim for compensation can be commenced or maintained against a Decision-Maker or the AIC..."
"No action or proceeding for damages shall be instituted against the Institute, a Committee, the Board, or any Decision-Maker... for any act or failure to act in connection with the official activities of the Institute."
Key Exception: "Sub-subsection 7.3.1 does not apply to a Decision-Maker in relation to anything done or omitted by that decision-maker in bad faith."
2. Conflict of Interest Disclosure - Removal of Proactive Obligations
Committee and Sub-Committee Members Must Declare Conflict:
- SHALL declare any actual personal or professional conflict of interest in any matter coming before them which could give rise to a reasonable perception of bias
- MUST declare any business or personal relationship or professional affiliation, other than membership in the Institute, with a Member for any matter coming before them which could give rise to a reasonable perception of bias
- If a conflict is declared, the member must not participate in or be involved in any Decision on the matter
- Members can request recusal if they have Reasonable Belief that conflict exists
- Chair receives request, considers facts, and decides on recusal
Member Can Request Recusal (Reactive Only):
- Members can request recusal if they have Reasonable Belief that conflict exists
- Must submit written request within 7 days of becoming aware
- Request goes to Chair of Professional Practice Committee or Hearing Panel
- No equivalent proactive disclosure obligations for committee members found
| Aspect | 2020 Regulations | 2025 Policy | Impact on Members |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proactive Disclosure | Mandatory for all committee members | Not required/Not specified | Hidden conflicts more likely |
| Burden of Identification | On committee members to declare | Entirely on members to discover | Unfair burden shift to members |
| Conflict Detection | Systematic, built-in safeguards | Relies on member vigilance | Reduced procedural fairness |
3. Exemption from Disclosure - Reduced Early-Stage Rights
"Assignment, review, consideration, and investigation are not an adjudication."
Impact on Disclosure: This provision signals that rights typically associated with formal hearings (notice, representation, disclosure, appeal rights) do not apply during early phases, potentially delaying a member's ability to access information or challenge unfair processes.
2025 Disclosure Protection (Section 6.1):- Confidentiality maintained by AIC, employees, and committee members
- Complainant identity released to member under review
- Limited disclosure provisions for complainants
- Restricted access during withdrawn complaint scenarios
No equivalent language explicitly denying adjudication status. Instead, multiple references establish procedural safeguards earlier in the process, including:
- Disclosure of evidence and opportunities to be heard throughout
- Timelines for responses and procedural fairness (Sections 5.10, 5.20)
- Member involvement in information processes from early stages
- Confidentiality within structure where member is part of information loop
| Aspect | 2020 Regulations | 2025 Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Early-Stage Disclosure | Implicit disclosure rights throughout | Explicitly denies adjudication status |
| Member Access to Information | Participate meaningfully from outset | Limited access until adjudication stage |
| Transparency | Process steps treated as important | Early actions framed as administrative |
2020: A member receives a complaint and immediately gets a chance to respond, see the evidence, and raise concerns about bias or factual error in the initial review.
2025: A member is notified of a review or investigation, but cannot challenge its conduct or conclusions until a formal hearing is set — by which time substantial procedural decisions may have already been made without input.
4. Fine Structure Reform - Unlimited Discretionary Penalties
Introduced a discretionary penalty structure allowing adjudicating panels to impose unlimited fines without a published maximum or guiding schedule.
Maintained a structured fine schedule with defined maximums and tiered penalties based on severity and type of infraction.
- Maximum fine cap of $10,000 for any single disciplinary matter
- Tiered schedule based on severity and infraction type
- Requirements for panels to reference schedule and document deviations
- Alignment with administrative law principles of transparency and proportionality
Rationale: Ensures fair notice to members, uniform application of penalties, protection from arbitrary or excessive fines, and maintains transparency in the disciplinary process.
5. Adjournment Rights - Complete Loss of Member Protections
"A Hearing Panel or, if no Hearing Panel has been empaneled, the Chair of the Adjudicating or Appeal Sub-Committee, may adjourn a Hearing on their own motion or upon an application by a party to the proceeding if the Hearing Panel or Chair is satisfied that the adjournment is required to permit a fair Hearing."
- Explicit right for members to request adjournment
- Defined decision-makers (Hearing Panel or Chair)
- Fairness standard required for approval
- Clear procedural transparency
Complete omission - No equivalent provision exists
- No formal right to request adjournment
- No clear decision authority defined
- No reference to fairness requirements
- Procedural gaps create uncertainty
| Aspect | 2020 Regulations | 2025 PPR Policy | Member Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adjournment Request | Explicitly permitted | Not addressed | Loss of procedural clarity |
| Decision-Maker | Chair or Hearing Panel | Not defined | Uncertainty and inconsistency |
| Approval Standard | "Fair hearing" requirement | Not stated | Risk of arbitrary refusals |
"Assignment, review, consideration, and investigation are not an adjudication."
Broader Interpretation: This provision emphasizes that early steps in the disciplinary process do not amount to formal adjudication, effectively signaling that comprehensive due process rights do not apply during early phases.
No equivalent language explicitly stating that early procedural phases are not adjudications. Instead, established procedural safeguards earlier in the process, including:
- Timelines for responses and procedural fairness
- Disclosure of evidence and opportunities to be heard
- Member involvement throughout information processes
| Aspect | 2020 Regulations | 2025 Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Early-Stage Protections | Implicit procedural protections throughout | Explicitly denies adjudication status |
| Member Rights | Challenge and participate from outset | Limited recourse until adjudication stage |
| Accountability | Process steps treated as important | Early actions framed as administrative |
Summary of Impact on Members
The transition from the 2020 Consolidated Regulations to the 2025 PPR Policy represents a systematic erosion of member protections and expansion of institutional power. The six major changes identified create a comprehensive shift against member interests:
- Legal Recourse: Vastly expanded immunity provisions with near-impossible burden of proof for members
- Information Access: Reduced disclosure rights during critical early investigation phases
- Financial Exposure: Unlimited fine structure without published maximums or guidelines
- Procedural Rights: Complete loss of explicit adjournment rights and fair hearing standards
- Conflict Detection: Removal of mandatory disclosure obligations, shifting burden entirely to members
- Due Process: Weakened procedural guarantees throughout the disciplinary process
- Transparency: Reduced clarity in decision-making processes and authority structures
The 2020 AIC Regulations provided comprehensive, fair, and accountable processes with meaningful member protections. The 2025 PPR Policy systematically removes these safeguards, creating an environment where members face increased vulnerability to arbitrary or unfair treatment with severely limited recourse options.