This blog calls for the Ontario government and law enforcement to end the ESA's monopoly, cut fees across the board.

Limit its absolute power. Investigate and stop the alleged criminal abuse of that power and self-enrichment.

Expose fundamental flaws that deteriorate safety causing more accidents, fires and fatalities.
It looks like there are grounds to suggest that the preceding and/or the following could be true.

Fed up?

Do you think ESA is a semi-parasitic, semi-criminal organization that is acting legally in Ontario? What if it is? What if answering the following questions could confirm that and reveal the truth?

If you are fed up, wake up and fight!

We suggest a quick and effective first step to stop the abuse, hopefully after just ten people asked ESA these questions.

So please act. Let's do it together, now.

Email to the ESA questions that are difficult, impossible, or damaging for the ESA to respond to.

The following are question examples that electrical contractors could email to the ESA. If you are afraid of retaliation for asking such questions, create and use a new email address. Also ask every residential customer to send other questions listed at the bottom to:

Dear Electrical Safety Authority,

Why does ESA charge the same amount to inspect work of a professional electrical contractor with years of experience carrying three electrical licenses and that of a clueless homeowner?

Everybody thinks it is crazy to pay $89.27 on top of the cost of the job itself for inspecting one additional new outlet. Would ESA agree that it is way too much?

Does ESA realize that the vast majority of customers refuse to pay the $89.27 (HST included) or higher ESA fee for inspecting a few extra receptacles installed by an electrical contractor with three licenses?

Does this drive the electrical work underground?

Do you know that almost all small and mid size residential work goes unreported and uninspected? And instead of licensed electricians and electrical contractors, clueless handymen and homeowners do a large part of it.

Does it make everybody less safe?

Allowing highly experienced self-employed licensed electricians (with excellent quality and safety record) to do basic small and mid size new installation jobs would be safe enough even without an inspection. Would the ESA agree with that?

Any electrical work that occupants, handymen, and unlicensed renovators do illegally, without passing inspections is unsafe or could be dangerous. Would the ESA agree with that?

And if the ESA agrees, why on earth didn't it fix this 10 years ago? Is monitoring the sector and its performance a part of ESA's job?

When and how many independent studies or formal unbiased investigations did the ESA do to discover the actual number and percentage of intentionally missed inspections, the real number of electrical work that is not inspected, and not permitted, etc.?

Please read a note below.

Electrical contractors, you can ask any of the following questions too.

Question examples for residential customers: Many are similar to the questions above.

Home and condo owners, please send the following to

Dear Electrical Safety Authority,

I wanted to hire a licensed electrician to install an new six foot long line to a dryer in my house.

A couple of electricians told me that an inspection from ESA was required for about $79 + HST on top of the cost of the job itself.

Naturally I could not believe paying about $89.27 with HST for inspecting a new dryer line, or a simple light fixture box, wire, new switch, new outlet, etc. installed.

I had to pay a total of about $350 + HST for the line to a dryer job. I immediately thought of hiring a handyman, doing the job by myself, or asking one of the licensed electricians to skip the inspection.

Is your organization aware that similar thoughts make the overwhelming majority of normal people want to just skip inspections outright?

Every car driver in Ontario has one driving license. Police do not check every driver's ability to drive every time they drive, even though bad or careless driving could be much more dangerous than a new light, piece of wire, or an extra outlet installed by an electrical contractor! So why would the ESA want to check every new extra item installed by an electrical contractor who has three licenses and many years of experience?

Driving is extremely dangerous. It is possible that a hundred fold more people die and get injured in traffic accidents than in electrical accidents. Yet no one checks every driver's ability to drive every time they drive. And no one charges fees for that.

Even crossing a street is dangerous. And more people die and get injured crossing streets and on walkways than in electrical accidents. But no one checks every walker's ability to walk or cross the street every time they do it. And no one charges a fee for that.

So, except for getting the inspection fees to pay ESA executives' salaries, wages, bonuses, pensions, post-employment benefits, allowances, (... long list...), what is the real and actual purpose of inspecting every device or piece of wire that an electrical contractor ran to a new light fixture?

Why does ESA check every new piece of work done by a professional?

Avoiding errors and hazards is exactly why an electrical contractor has acquired years of training, studying, passed multiple exams, and got three electrical licenses. Isn't it?

So why does the ESA simply ignore the fact and common sense that an experienced contractor (who had correctly added and installed tens or hundreds of thousands of fixtures, plugs, boxes, or switches before) would avoid such challenges and mistakes? What is the ESA's logic behind inspecting every such item or job?

It is obvious that paying a total of $250, $300, or more for a single basic item added by a licensed professional electrical contractor and inspected by ESA is way too high, un-affordable, unnecessary, hated, and avoided. Isn't it?

Everybody knows that most residential and small commercial customers and most electrical contractors do not pass such inspections. It's a fact! But does the ESA know about that? If not, then why? If yes, then why does the ESA do nothing about it? Why 60% to 95% of small and mid-size new installation jobs that must have been inspected go un-inspected? Why millions of such jobs end up uninspected?

1) If the un-inspected jobs were unsafe then ESA knowingly and intentionally allowed millions of such dangerous jobs to happen and accumulate. Together they do represent a statistically significant risk. And fatality, serious injury or fire becomes a certain and unavoidable event. This is what science called statistics and theory of probability states. And it is a crime!

2) If the un-inspected small residential and commercial jobs were safe and not hazardous, then no inspections were needed in the first place. And tens or hundreds of millions of dollars collected from contractors as inspection fees for such jobs since 2006 and paid to ESA executives were proceeds of a crime!

It could be either or. NOT both. So what crime has the ESA been committing every day of the last 10 years, 1) or 2)?

Asking again, except for getting the inspection fees to pay ESA executives' salaries, wages, bonuses, pensions, post-employment benefits, allowances, etc. what is the $89.27 inspection fee's benefit to the public and its safety?

Do ESA activities, existence, and work produce the opposite effect making Ontario residential repair and renovation sector less safe?

Do ESA executives intentionally benefit themselves financially while knowingly deteriorating safety and hurting everybody else at the same time?

There should be a reasonable and balanced approach to everything. It would be good if ESA also inspected every item or device before it is installed and charged an inspection fee for that. It could be better if ESA inspected every part of every item or device and tested its functionality before it is installed and charged another inspection fee for that. And it could be perfect and outstanding if ESA inspected every part of every outlet, switch, device, light fixture, appliance and every screw, clamp, clip, breaker, fuse, wire nut, connector, every foot of wire, before and after it is installed and charged yet another fee for that too. The ESA could have charged two or three more inspection fees.

ESA could also check blood pressure, eyesight, and other health points of every electrician every day and charge a fee for that. Or check if an electrician slept well and did not have any family or financial problems and charge a fee for that too. All these points affect every electrician's work and could lead to mistakes, code violations and safety deterioration.

So why doesn't ESA inspect and charge fees for every point and item above? Each of them would make electrical work much safer! And the number of electrical accidents, fires, injuries, and fatalities would probably substantially decrease.

The answer is clear. Even if it was highly beneficial, it would not be feasible.

Most inspections of experienced residential electrical contractors's work are also not feasible and are not necessary. So stop them now or drop inspection fee to $5!

I asked 6 friends and 8 colleagues about ESA charges. And every opinion was that one light fixture mandatory inspection fee of $89.27, added by a licensed professional electrical contractor, was way too high, unaffordable, unnecessary, and looked like either extortion, or legalized robbery, or a criminal scam to them. Would the ESA agree with such public evaluation of its work? (People, please do not copy, do not use this paragraph unless you actually asked your friends and put their real opinions and truth in your own paragraph.)


You can add these two points and email to ESA:

I am kindly asking the ESA to answer each and every question and address all the points raised. I understand that I have the right to ask and ESA has the obligation to answer.

I am also asking the ESA NOT to give me unrelated or remotely related text or info. I'd like to get specific answers to my specific questions please.

ESA must answer the questions. But it will try NOT to address some questions, ignore others and give evasive replies to the rest.

This rather effective strategy is also used - ESA gives you large chunks of text remotely associated with the question, without answering it. Making it hard to understand and difficult to follow or argue further. The purpose of the evasive or unclear answer is to conceal the truth, convolute or to confuse you.

You have to repeat, ask your specific question again demanding a precise and specific answer.

Be persistent and repeat questions over and over again. Ask a manager or supervisor to answer. Or file a formal complaint. It is your right to know and it is ESA obligation to respond with specific, clear, and informative answers.

If what happened to you looks like either extortion, or legalized robbery or a criminal scam, we would like to hear from you. Because we are going to file a formal complaint with the Attorney General of Ontario.

You can also place these and other questions (with a link to this site) on DIY forums and social media where people discuss electrical repairs or general renovation topics.

Miscellaneous points and questions. Choose and use any one of them.

We have to pay Electrical Safety Authority our money, so we feel we have the right to ask Qs to understand how it works and what we are paying for.

Your CSRs have already spent so much of their and of our time avoiding our questions that it would be more than enough to answer them three times over instead.

Again, the ESA orders us to pay our money for mandatory services. We would like to know what exactly we are going to pay for, why, and how it all works. We would like to have all answers and info in writing and ASAP.

How many times should we ask for the answers?

We would like to kindly ask your organization to answer each and all the questions please. We have the right to know what our money is being spent on and why.

Could you please ask you manager or supervisor to answer our particular and specific questions.

You have forgotten to answer a few questions again. Could you please answer them now?

Post a Comment

  1. Food truck owner3 July 2016 at 09:31

    Inspector 1 issued a deficiency notice consisting of two points. LEC fixed them.

    Inspector 2 came to check, approved the 2 point from above but then issued a deficiency notice consisting of another two points. LEC fixed them too.

    Inspector 3 came to check, approved the 2 point from inspector 2 but then issued a deficiency notice consisting of two other points. I fixed them too.

    Inspector 4 came to check, approved the 2 point from inspector 3 but then issued a deficiency notice consisting of two other points. LEC fixed them too.

    Inspector 4 returned and finally passed the food truck's electrical.

    I paid initial inspection fee and 3 additional ones. And I wasted 10 days of not working.

    ESA inspector are criminals. It was done on purpose or the inspectors were not qualified.

    They have emptied my pockets and got paid for the crime. Oh no, it was all legal. Am I now guilty of defamation?

    Inspectors should give a printed list, dated and signed from the first inspection and should not be allowed to change their requirements if another inspector comes along. This should be a law.

    Otherwise ESA should pay for extra inspections, extra repairs not found by the first inspector, and for my wasted time.

    Now ESA is responsible for one thing collecting fees. It shall be responsible for their work, mistakes, and outcome of such.

  2. I dont know how a electrical contractors can tolerate what ESA is doing to them.


all content is based on experience of a particular corporation and
opinions and thoughts of this blog readers or members
any such opinion and all the content could be
absolutely wrong or unintentionally false

SECA - Small Electrical Contractor Association. We should create it in order to fight for what is just, fair and right

ECAO - Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario

CoAC - Contractor Advisory Council

OESC - Ontario Electrical Safety Code