Re: Canadian Licensing Question

[Frank Olson <use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Worthy wrote:
> "tourman" <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ece5def1-56bf-42f2-8ff0-82286cd1a612@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Dec 22, 6:49 pm, Frank Olson
> <use_the_email_li...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Bob Worthy wrote:
>>> Is there any licensing, at all, required for the Mississauga, Ontario
>>> area?
>>> I believe the alarm licensing in Canada refers to Alarm Agents. I read a
>>> contract that said "N/A" where the license number was to be inserted on
>>> the
>>> contract. Good to go or are they missing something?
>>> Thanks in advance
>> There's no licensing requirements in Ontario at the moment
>> (not-with-standing the business license required by most
>> municipalities). They've been talking about it for a while. Some
>> jurisdictions (in Canada) require the tech have several CFAA
>> (http://www.cfaa.ca) courses (and be a paid up member) before he can
>> touch a fire alarm system though, but so far only Ontario, Manitoba and
>> Alberta have adopted this (to my knowledge).
>
> RHC: Yup, Ontario is the "wild west" of alarm sales and
> installations ! After all these years, I kinda like it that way
> (although a strong case can be made for licensing I know). But usually
> that just leads to the creation of some sort of self serving
> regulatory body with little or no knowledge of our business,
> intruding into our business activities for only two
> reasons...."control" (that's definately the Canadian way), and
> licensing ("taxation of a sort"...another thing we have too much
> of....)
>
> For actual fire systems, yes, I can the need for regulation, but not
> burglary. But I'm sure the big alarm companies will support it if for
> no other reason than it will make it harder on all the small
> companies ....
>
> Thanks guys! There was a line item in the agreement that states that a
> license is required in some provinces so I just wanted to make sure. A
> client could and probably would overlook the requirement if someone simply
> put a "N/A" in that space. At least my client is savy enough to not only
> have their attorneys look at it but a third party from the industry as well.
> Looks like they are good to go. Unfortunately, they are assuming this
> agreement through an acquisition. I am not particularly fond of the security
> company but that's life. There is too much left on the agreement to just
> dump it with a pay off.
>
>


Not sure why they would be required to "pay off" the balance of the
contract if they're taking over the building.  Find some local guy (like
RHC), rip out the old stuff (from the company you're not "particularly
fond of"), and install all new equipment with an agreement that doesn't
"lock in" the client for an extended time.