JANUARY 2009 issue
|
Compliance
Report a Violation
If you are aware of practice or title violations and you are able to provide evidence (reports, letters, business cards, websites, etc.), we encourage you to contact Frank Perich, P.Eng., Assistant Director, Compliance, at fperich@apega.ca. Because the Compliance Department deals with non-members, we do not reveal the source of complaints when you make contact.
|
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 unlicensed individuals and companies — those that may be, inadvertently or otherwise, holding themselves out as professional members or practicing the professions illegally.
The Activity Report provides statistics from Oct. 1 to Oct. 31, 2008, during which time four new files were opened and 38 resolved. Also in this article are explanations of the various categories with actual examples. These are identified as a result of the Compliance Department’s proactive efforts and member, public or anonymous complaints with supporting evidence.
Ceased using restricted title/holding out. Following are examples of individuals and companies found to be using a restricted title or holding out in some other manner as entitled to practice while not licensed.
-
Company whose permit lapsed was investigated by the Compliance Department. It removed all references to engineering services from its website and media.
-
Confirmation received that a company investigated due to a listing in the Oil & Gas Inquirer changed its website, clarifying that all engineering services are provided by a third-party licensed firm.
-
Investigation of a company with a job posting on Workopolis for a structural engineer revealed it does not practice engineering. Company confirmed it will no longer use restricted titles and it changed its website to reflect that no engineering work is provided.
-
Investigation of a company’s website that implied the practice of engineering determined that the activities are not engineering as defined by the EGGP Act under Section 1(9).
Verified not practicing. Following are examples of individuals and companies contacted because their activities implied the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics. Websites and all other information must be modified to remove all implications of practice. A disclaimer letter goes to each company advising it that, if its activities change to include the practice, a permit will be required.
-
A member complaint said that a company implied it practices engineering. The Compliance investigation, however, determined that its activities are exempt under the EGGP Act, Section 2(4)(a).
-
A public complaint led to an investigation, which determined that the company’s activities do not constitute the practice of engineering as defined by the act.
-
Compliance reviewed a company because it did not hold a permit but employed several professional members. Review confirmed that it was not engaged in the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics, and outsourced those needs to companies with valid APEGGA permits.
Permits issued/reinstated. This applies to non-permit-holding companies whose activities constitute the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics, as well as companies whose permits have lapsed or been struck while their activities have not changed. The following are examples
of companies contacted that have since obtained a permit.
-
Company was contacted by the Compliance Department and submitted a permit application after a member complaint that geological services were offered on its website.
-
Permit application received from company investigated due to an APEGGA member complaint that it was holding out to be practicing engineering, geology and geophysics.
-
Company listed in Alberta Gazette with the word engineering in its name was contacted and consequently registered for a permit.
-
Company applied for a permit after being contacted by the Compliance Department because it employs several professional members.
Other applies to files resolved for other reasons, such as
-
confirmation that an individual or company is already registered with APEGGA
-
clarification that a company is actually a trade name or a member operating as a sole proprietor
-
lack of sufficient evidence or other information available to further pursue a violation at this time
-
determination that one of the exemptions applies under the EGGP Act, Sections 2(1)(4), 5(1)(4) or 7(1)(4)
-
Files cancelled due to a lack of evidence.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION
Q What organizations require a permit to practice?
A The EGGP Act requires that all partnerships, corporations and other such entities engaged in the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics, or any combination of them, in the province of Alberta have a permit to practice. There is a common misconception that the permit is not a requirement for individual corporations and is only required for consultants. This is not so. The EGGP Act does not differentiate between the size of a company or whether it is practicing for internal or external purposes.
|