Terri-Jane Yuzda


Activity Report

Editor's Note: The following statistics track this year's APEGGA Compliance Department activity from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31. 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  
Files opened during period  
Files Resolved for Individuals  
Ceased using restricted title 20
Personal registration 90
Verified not practicing 98
Files Resolved for Companies  
Permits issued or re-instated 74
Ceased using restricted title/violate 14
Verified not practicing 40
Active Files at August 31, 2003  

*Note: Remaining Compliance files included in above totals 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, directory listings relocated to a non-restricted heading or removed etc.


The following are examples of recent violations along with the source and resolution of the complaint.

  • A routine review of the Alberta Gazette noted a recently incorporated company who was not registered as a permit holder with and was using the word "engineering" in its name. Contact was made with the owner of the company, and the requirements of the EGGP Act explained. Further investigation confirmed that the company is not practicing engineering. Several attempts to persuade the owner to remove the word "engineering" from the company's name were rejected. As a result, Corporate Registry was advised that, in the opinion of APEGGA, the company name was in violation of the Business Corporations Act. Corporate Registry agreed, and notice was sent advising the company to comply with the requirements of the EGGP Act by removing the word "engineering" or receive a numbered company name. The owner of the company complied by voluntarily changing the company's name to remove the word "engineering."

Frequently Asked Question

Q. What does the EGGP Act state regarding the use of the words
engineering, geology or geophysics in the name of a firm?

A. Regulation 52 of the EGGP Act states: "No partnership,
corporation or other entity may be incorporated or registered
in the Province of Alberta under a name including the words
'Engineering', 'Geology' or 'Geophysics', or variations of those words,
unless it holds and continues to hold a valid permit issued under section 48."

  • An APEGGA member submitted a copy of a non-registered individual's business card on which "Senior Development Engineering Specialist" was being used as a job title. Contact by the Compliance Department revealed that the individual is actually a registered engineering technologist (R.E.T.). The suggestion was made that the issue could be resolved by using the R.E.T. designation, in addition to the title "Senior Development Engineering Specialist," to clarify the position. The issue was discussed with the Enforcement Review Committee and it was agreed that this suggestion did not satisfy the requirements of Section 3(1) of the EGGP Act. The committee agreed that qualifying the title with the R.E.T. designation was misleading, and the title "engineering specialist" implies that the position is that of a specialized engineer. The ERC's decision was passed on to the individual, resulting in the word engineering being removed from the title.

  • A software company employing APEGGA members and not holding a permit to practice was contacted by APEGGA's Compliance staff. The company was unaware of the requirements for a permit and immediately co-operated by confirming that it practices engineering and by submitting an application, which has subsequently been approved.

  • Compliance staff conducted a routine investigation of a permit to practice that had been struck for non-payment of membership dues and failure to submit an annual report. Investigation confirmed that the company is owned by a professional engineer who had accepted employment as an employee with another company. As a result, the permit holding company had been inactive since before the permit was struck. The member was contacted and confirmed that the permit would be re-instated if and when the company becomes re-activated. It is a permit holder's responsibility to advise APEGGA of major changes affecting the permit's status. In this situation, if the individual had advised APEGGA of the company's status and cancelled the permit in good standing, it would not have been necessary for the Compliance Department to follow up on this matter.


Home | Past PEGGs | PEGG Search | Contact Us