COMPLIANCE

Activity Report

Editor’s Note: The following statistics track this year’s APEGGA Compliance Department activity from Jan. 1 to Feb. 29. 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.

*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.

Examples
The following is a sampling of recent compliance and enforcement activities.

• A career advertisement for an engineering position was placed in the Edmonton Journal by a non-permit-holding company. Through discussions with management, it was determined that the company is practicing engineering as defined in the EGGP Act, Section 1(q), and a permit to practice was eventually obtained.

• APEGGA’s permit department alerted Compliance of a company with the word “geophysics” in its name. The company had submitted a partial permit to practice application and follow-up attempts to get the remainder of it were unsuccessful. The Compliance Department pursued the issue with the company’s legal counsel, resulting in the remainder of the application being submitted. The permit has now been approved.

• The Compliance Department researched a cancelled permit and determined that there had been a change in company management. Attempts to make contact with the new manager of the company were unsuccessful. Since we were aware of a professional member involved in the company at a senior level, we began a dialogue with the member. The member advised that the company was undergoing a corporate restructuring into two separate entities, both of which would require permits. Upon the completion of the restructuring, the original permit was reinstated for the original company, and an additional permit for the second company is expected soon.

• Two companies employing professional engineers and not holding permits to practice were contacted by the Compliance Department to verify their activities. As a result, it was determined that their activities constitute the practice of engineering as defined in the EGGP Act, Section 1(q). After the requirement for a permit to practice was explained to management, both companies submitted applications and are now registered with APEGGA.

• An individual living in Alberta, that is registered and licensed to practice engineering in Quebec, was contacted through the Compliance Department’s out-of-province campaign. The individual was advised that registration with APEGGA is required to practice engineering and/or use a job title that implies registration in Alberta. An application for registration was received shortly afterwards.

• Compliance contacted two companies engaging in environmental site assessments without holding permits to practice. Dialogue with management at each company resulted in both obtaining permits.

• The Compliance Department made contact with a company employing professional engineers to confirm whether or not their activities would be considered the practice of engineering. Through discussions with management, it was concluded that the company operates as a contractor and is therefore exempt from the permit to practice requirement under section 2(4) (a) of the EGGP Act.

• A company with “engineering” in its name came to the Compliance Department’s attention during a routine review of APEGGA’s database. Contact was made with the owner and it was determined that engineering is not being practiced by the company. The matter was resolved when the name of the company was changed to remove the word “engineering.”

Q. Under what circumstances is a person acting under the “supervision and control” of a member of APEGGA?

A. When the member of APEGGA has in place an adequate supervision and control system including an appropriate approval process and the person being supervised is included in that system.

Q. What is an adequate supervision and control system?

A. An engineer, geologist or geophysicist’s supervision and control system is adequate when that engineer, geologist or geophysicist is willing to accept responsibility for and thus incur liability for, both to the public and to APEGGA, the results of the engineering, geological or geophysical tasks done by others working under his or her supervision and control.