Terri-Jane Yuzda


Activity Report

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 illegally.

Active files as of January 1, 2003   435
Files opened during period   614
Files Resolved for Individuals   382



Ceased using restricted title


Personal registration


Verified not practicing

Files Resolved for Companies   262



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   431

*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 name.

• 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 (M.I.T.) designations 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.

Home | Past PEGGs | PEGG Search | Contact Us