Editor’s Note: The following statistics track this
year’s APEGGA Compliance Department activity from Jan.
1, 2003, until Dec. 31, 2003. The department’s job
is to enforce the right to practice and right to title provisions
of the EGGP Act Part 1. The Compliance Department’s
focus, therefore, is on individuals and companies that aren’t
members – those that may be, inadvertently or otherwise,
holding themselves out as members or practicing the professions
|Active files as of January 1, 2003
|Files opened during period
|Files Resolved for Individuals
Ceased using restricted title
Verified not practicing
|Files Resolved for Companies
Permits issued or re-instated
Ceased using restricted title/violate
Verified not practicing
Active Files at Dec. 31, 2003
|Active Files at Nov. 24, 2003
*Note: Compliance files not mentioned above were resolved
for various other reasons such as confirmation that an individual
or company is already registered with APEGGA, verification
that an individual contacted is not living or working in
Alberta, clarification that a company is actually a trade
name of a member etc.
Following are examples of recent activities and violations,
along with the source and resolution of the complaint.
• A company with “engineering” in its
name was listed in the Alberta Gazette. The company does
not hold a permit to practice and no APEGGA members are employed.
Compliance contacted the company and it was determined that
it does not engage in the practice of engineering.
However, there was still the issue of title use in the company’s name.
Management refused to comply with the EGGP Act by removing “engineering” from
the name. After unsuccessful attempts to persuade the company to voluntarily
comply, a forced name change was pursued with Alberta Corporate Registry under
the provisions of the Business Corporations Act and Regulations. Corporate
Registry revoked the company’s chosen name and replaced it with a numbered
• Compliance contacted an oil and gas exploration
company employing APEGGA members and not holding a permit
to practice. This was to determine whether or not the company’s
activities constitute the practice of engineering, geology
or geophysics. Management at the company agreed that it is
practicing, and an application for a permit to practice was
submitted and approved.
• An APEGGA member reported a copy of an unregistered
company’s corporate brochure, which implied that the
company engages in the practice of engineering. Follow-up
investigation determined that the activities did not involve
engineering. After a discussion with APEGGA’s Enforcement
Review Committee, suggestions for removing misleading statements
from the company’s advertising literature were passed
on, agreed to and implemented.
• Routine contact of a company whose permit to practice
had been struck for non-payment of dues was made by the Compliance
Department staff to determine whether or not the company
was still practicing engineering. The company belonged to
an APEGGA member, who advised that he had found full-time
employment as an employee of another permit holding company
and had terminated operations of his company.
• Compliance received a complaint regarding an individual
signing off as a P.Eng. on reports and decisions issued by
a government department. The reports were relating to specific
issues and implied this person was a professional engineer.
Compliance staff made contact and this individual is now
registered as a P.Eng.
• The Compliance Department received a complaint from
a member about a company operating in the environmental area
without a permit to practice. The Enforcement Review Committee
was able to obtain a copy of a report done by the company,
and after comparing its activities to the EGGP Act’s
definition of the practice of engineering, the ERC determined
that the company is practicing engineering. After Compliance
explained the requirement for a permit to practice, an application
was submitted and approved.
Q. The Compliance Department often
deals with queries regarding the use of the member in training
with qualifiers such as “John Doe, E.I.T./Geol.I.T./Geoph/I.T.” and
titles such as “Project Engineer/ Geologist/Geophysicist.” Are
the titles “Engineer,” “Geologist,” “or “Geophysicist” permissible
under the EGGP Act without professional registration?
A. An updated legal opinion from APEGGA’s legal counsel
states the following:
The Engineering, Geological, and Geophysical Professions
Act (Sections 3(1), 6(1), and 8(1)), is quite clear that
only members who are registered in certain categories within
APEGGA can use the titles “engineer,“ geologist” and “geophysicist” in
a matter that implies that they hold professional accreditation.
Therefore, it is my opinion that an engineer-in-training
cannot use a job title that involves that use of the word “engineer.” Essentially,
an E.I.T. has no greater status to use that word than a non-member
of APEGGA. The fact that an E.I.T. is in a membership category
with APEGGA does not afford that individual the right to
use of title. Similarly, a professional geologist could not
call himself an engineer, etc.