july 2008 Issue
COMPLIANCE
Report a Violation
If you are aware of practice or title violations and you are able to provide evidence (reports, letters, business cards, websites, etc.), we encourage you to contact Allison Cammaert at acammaert@apega.ca.
Because the Compliance Department deals with non-members, we do not reveal the source of complaints when you make contact
Editor’s Note: The Compliance Department’s job is to enforce the right-to-practice and right-to-title provisions of the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act. The department’s focus, therefore, is on individuals and companies that are not registered — those that may be, inadvertently or otherwise, holding themselves out as professional members or practicing the professions illegally.
The Activity Report provides statistics from May 1 to May 31, 2008, during which a total 33 files including both engineering and geoscience cases were opened and 51 resolved. Below are explanations of the various categories with actual examples identified as a result of the Compliance Department’s proactive efforts and member, public or anonymous complaints with supporting evidence.
|
Ceased using restricted title/holding out. One individual and seven company files were resolved in this category, which involves the use of a restricted title or holding out in some other manner as entitled to practice while not licensed.
-
Complaint investigated that employees of a company were practicing and using the word engineer in their title while not licensed. Confirmation received that employees using the title engineer are registered, and those eligible for registration were encouraged to apply.
-
Newly incorporated company whose name violated the EGGP Act was forced to change it through Corporate Registries under the Business Corporations Act.
-
Confirmation received that a company changed employee titles from Field Engineer to Field Technician.
-
Company forced to modify its website to clarify that engineering is carried out through a consultant with a permit to practice.
-
Non-registered individual’s website title of Chief Geophysicist was replaced with Vice President.
Personal registration. One non-licensed individual contacted for practice and/or title violation.
-
The case involved an individual who had relocated from another province and applied for registration with APEGGA as a result of the Compliance Department’s Out of Province Campaign.
Verified not practicing. Eight company cases were resolved involving activities that implied the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics. Websites and all other information were required to be modified to remove all implications of practice. We also sent disclaimer letters advising that if the activities should change in the future to include the practice, a permit will be required.
-
Investigation of a company due to a public complaint determined that its activities do not constitute the practice of engineering.
-
Company contacted due to the use of the word engineering in its name found to be the trade name of a registered member.
-
Investigation of a company using the word engineered in its name found to be not practicing.
Permits issued/reinstated. This applies to non-permit-holding companies whose activities constitute the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics, as well as companies whose permits have lapsed or been struck while their activities have not changed. Twenty-six companies obtained a permit to practice.
-
Company advertising on Oilweek magazine’s website submitted a permit-to-practice application after being contacted by the Compliance Department.
-
Permit application received from company investigated as the result of an APEGGA member complaint.
-
Consulting engineering company listed in Alberta Gazette was contacted and consequently registered for a permit.
-
Company applied for permit after being contacted when the Compliance Department found a job posting on workopolis.com for a metallurgical engineer.
-
The Compliance Department reviewed Alberta land sales, and contacted a company employing APEGGA members. A permit was later issued.
Other applies to the three individual files and five company files resolved for other reasons, such as
-
confirmation that an individual or company is already registered with APEGGA
-
clarification that a company is actually a trade name or a member operating as a sole proprietor
-
lack of sufficient evidence or other information available to further pursue the violation at this time
-
determination that one of the exemptions applies under the EGGP Act, Sections 2(1)(4), 5(1)(4) or 7(1)(4)
-
company taken over by a permit-holding corporation
-
deficient evidence.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION
Q As a professional member of APEGGA, am I obligated to respond to information requests by the Compliance Department?
A Yes. Bylaw 32.1 of the EGGP Act says:
Onus to Respond
32.1 Professional members, licensees, permit holders, life members, registered professional technologists, members-in-training, joint firms, or certificate holders, shall respond promptly and appropriately to any duly served communication of a regulatory nature received from the Association that contemplates a reply.
Failure to respond could give cause for the Enforcement Review Committee to lodge a complaint of unprofessional conduct with the APEGGA Investigative Committee for unprofessional conduct.