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
|Verified not practicing
|Files Resolved for Companies
|Permits issued or re-instated
|Ceased using restricted title/violate
|Verified not practicing
|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."
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
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.