March 2007 ISSUE

Home > Members > Publications > The PEGG > March 2007

COMPLIANCE

Complaint Leads To Court Injunction

Editor’s Note: The Compliance Department’s job is to enforce the right-to-practice and right-to-title provisions of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. The department’s focus, therefore, is on individuals and companies that are not registered — those which may be, inadvertently or otherwise, holding themselves out as professional members or practicing the professions illegally.

The statistics in the Activity Report (right) track departmental activity from Jan. 1 to Jan. 31. During this period, a total of 18 practice and title violations were resolved, two involving individuals and 16 involving companies.

The Compliance Department’s report this month begins with information on an important decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta. A full reproduction of the decision appears on page 24 of this month’s PEGG.

With legislative backing, APEGGA maintains that public safety is at risk when non-engineers present themselves as licensed engineers. There are a few exceptions, but in most cases APEGGA has right-to-title in Alberta on the words engineer, geologist, geophysicist and their derivatives.

On Jan. 31 a Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta decision was released that upholds right-to-title and right-to-practice provisions of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. These provisions form the basis of the Compliance Department’s role and are critical to APEGGA’s mandate to protect the public.

The decision grants an APEGGA application. It enjoins the respondents APEGGA named from holding themselves out as entitled to engage in the practice of engineering until they are registered, as required by the EGGP Act. These respondents are Broere Electric Ltd., carrying on business as Broere Electric and A.C. Dandy Products Ltd., and Hans Broere.

The case originated with a complaint from an APEGGA member, whose concern has led to an Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench judgment that supports APEGGA.

On electrical drawings, Hans Broere used designations implying he was an engineer. Mr. Broere is not, however, registered with APEGGA, and his company does not hold a permit to practice. 

nvestigation by the Compliance Department, including two meetings at Mr. Broere’s Wetaskiwin facility, determined that the activities Mr. Broere and his company perform do not constitute the practice of engineering. However, the investigation revealed additional “holding out” violations by Mr. Broere and his group of companies. 

The Compliance Department’s repeated requests that Mr. Broere comply were not honoured. We asked that he remove all personal references to engineering, as well as references on buildings, vehicles, drawings, advertising materials, etc.

Proceedings were commenced last spring and court heard our application on Nov. 30 for a court injunction under Section 9 of the EGGP Act.

That application was successful. The full memorandum of decision of the Hon. Mr. Justice E.A. Marshall appears on page 24 of this month’s PEGG. (click here to view online)