September 2006 ISSUE

COMPLIANCE

Case Details

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 which may be, inadvertently or otherwise, holding themselves out as professional members or practicing the professions illegally. The following statistics track activity from May 1 to May 30. During this period, a total of 21 practice and title violations were resolved; 11 involving individuals and 10 involving companies.

Ceased using restricted title/holding out applies to individuals or companies using a restricted title or holding out in some other manner as entitled to practice while not licensed.

• Three individuals whose job descriptions on company websites implied the practice of geology and were not registered with APEGGA were contacted. They have applied for registration.

• Individual using title of vice president of engineering on a company website and whose registration, through further research, was found to be struck was contacted. Status has been reinstated.

• Three non-permit-holding companies whose names included the word engineering found in the Alberta Gazette. Follow-up investigation determined that their activities were not the practice of engineering and the companies voluntarily removed the word from their names.

• Anonymous complaint regarding a non-licensed individual using the title senior geophysicist on a business card. Contact with the individual resulted in the title being changed to senior explorationist.

Personal registration applies to non-licensed individuals contacted regarding a practice or title violation or who have relocated from another province.

• While investigating a non-permit-holding company practicing geology in Alberta, an employee who was listed as a geologist was found to be not registered. Further contact resulted in the individual registering with APEGGA and the company obtaining a permit to practice.

• Complaint from a member that an individual was using the P.Eng. designation while not registered. Follow-up contact resulted in the individual registering with APEGGA.

Permits issued/reinstated applies to non permit-holding companies whose activities constitute the practice of engineering, geology and/or geophysics, as well as companies whose permits have lapsed or been struck while their activities have not changed.

• Four non-permit-holding companies using “engineering” in their name were listed with the Alberta Gazette. Further contact determined that the companies were practicing engineering and permits were obtained.

• Reinstatement of a permit to practice for city that cancelled its permit for not practicing. Further contact concluded the city now has an engineer on staff.

• Investigation of a career advertisement for an engineer in the Edmonton Journal resulted in identifying two other engineering job vacancies. Contact with the company resulted in registration with a permit to practice.

• Complaint from a company regarding a non-permit-holding company resulted in investigation into the complaining company. Further contact with the complaining company resulted in registration with a permit to practice.

Verified not practicing applies to individuals or companies we have contacted and after an investigation concluded that their activities do not constitute the practice of engineering, geology or geophysics in accordance with the legal definition in the EGGP Act. In all situations where activities are deemed not to be the practice of engineering, geology, or geophysics, notice is given to revise websites and all applicable information, to remove any implications of Practice.

• Three career advertisements found in the Calgary Herald and Edmonton Journal implied that the companies’ activities may constitute the practice of engineering. The Compliance Department determined that the companies’ activities do not constitute engineering.

• A company’s website implied the practice of engineering. The implications were unclear and brought before APEGGA’s Enforcement Review Committee for confirmation. It was concluded that the company’s activities did not constitute engineering.