EIT Seminar

July 8 and 9, 2015

Keys to Success –
Best Approaches to Writing
the Professional Practice
Examination

Grant Boundy, P.Eng., FEC

 Table of Contents

Part “A”
Professional Practice and Ethics

Basics to Know – Question 1 – Part “A” (Key Words) ........................................................................................ 3

December 6, 2014 Professional Practice Exam - Part “A” ................................................................................. 4
Study Guide December 6, 2014 - Part “A” ........................................................................................................... 8
August 9, 2014 Professional Practice Exam - Part “A” ..................................................................................... 11
Study Guide August 9,, 2014 - Part “A” ............................................................................................................. 15

Part “B”
Engineering Law and Professional Liability

Basics to Know - Question 1- Part “B” (Key Words) ...........................................................................................19

December 6, 2014 Professional Practice Exam - Part “B” .................................................................................20
Study Guide December 6, 2014 – Part “B” ..........................................................................................................25
August 9, 2014 Professional Practice Exam - Part “B” .......................................................................................28
Study Guide August 9, 2014 – Part “B” ...............................................................................................................33

Additional References .........................................................................................................................................37

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 2

 Professional Practice Exam
Part "A" – Professional Practice and Ethics
Question 1
Basics to Know - 'Key Words' Format

For the section references below, 'A' means Professional Engineers Act (PE Act), and 'R' means Ontario
Regulation 941 (O. Reg. 941). Please refer to these sections for more comprehensive information.

th
Definition: practice of professional engineering - actions, principles, safeguards A 1. (13 item)

PEO: principal object - regulate the practice, to serve and protect the public interest A 2.(3)
additional objects - knowledge, practice standards, ethics, public awareness, other A 2.(4)

PEO main functions: - enforce requirements for licences and Certificates of Authorization (C of A)
under authority of the PE Act - penalties for offences are in A 40. A 12.(1), A 12.(2)
 issue licences and C of As : a C of A is a permit to offer services A 14., A 15., A 18
 receive complaints re conduct or technical competency - discipline, if referred A 24., A 28

PEO organization and processes; Council, Committees - regulate the practice A 3., A 10., A 12., A40.

Requirements / conditions for:

 P.Eng. licence: 18 years, academics, experience 48 months 12 Cdn, PPE, good character A 14.(1), R 33
 Provisional licence: all of A 14.(1) except experience, valid 12 months A 14.(7), A 18.(1), R 44.1.(1)
 Temporary - specific work/client, P.Eng. collaborator, 12 months, qualifications A 18.(1), R 42., R 43., R 44.
 Limited Licence (LL): specific services, tech. diplm, 13 years experience PPE, good char A 18.(1), R 45., R 46.

 Certificate of Authorization: P.Engs responsible, 5 years after degree A 15., A 17., R 47., R48., R49
 Consulting Engineer: P.Eng., + 5 years, 2 years independent practice, 5 years valid R 56., R 57., R 59., R60.
 Liability insurance, conditions for a C of A: insurance limits / conditions R 47.3., R 74.
 Engineer’s Seal - sign, date and seal documents - charges for misconduct R 53., R 72.(2)(e)

 Penalties for enforcement offences - when no licences or C of As. A 40.(1), A 40.(2), A 40.(3)
 Complaints committee: consider and investigate, may act or otherwise refer A 24.(1), A 24. (2)
 Discipline committee: hear and determine allegations, impose penalties A 28.
 Fees Mediation committee: fee disputes; mediate, or arbitrate with consent A 32.
 Conflict of interest: must be disclosed, (5 conditions) if disclosed then not misconduct 72.(2)(i)
 Work other than employer: no conflict, status as employee, limits, inform employer R 77.5.
 Advertising: professional, factual, without criticism, without seal reference R 75.
 Code of 'misconduct', R72.: could lose licence but not for 'ethics', R 77. R 72.(2)(g)
 Competence - depends on judgment of individual practitioner, good character R 72.(2)(h), R 77.1.v.

EIT Seminar – July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 3

 ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – December 6, 2014

PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

You will be given a total of 90 minutes to complete this examination.

Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal
after completed.

White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.

Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.

This is a “CLOSED BOOK” examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from the
1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of
Ethics) supplied at the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.

The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and the
ability to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any doubt
about the meaning of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question.

All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part “A”. Each of the four questions is worth 25
marks.

WHERE A QUESTION ASKS IF A CERTAIN ACTION BY AN ENGINEER WAS

ETHICAL OR NOT, A SIMPLE “YES” OR “NO” ANSWER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. YOU
ARE EXPECTED TO COMMENT ON AND DISCUSS THE ACTION OF THE
DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND/OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN EACH
SITUATION AS IF YOU WERE PERSONALLY INVOLVED.

You should identify where applicable the appropriate clauses in Regulation 941. SIMPLE
REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE CLAUSES WITHOUT A DISCUSSION OF HOW
THE CLAUSE APPLIES IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 4

 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – December 6, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 1

(5) (a) PEO has enforcement as one of its regulating functions. What does the term enforcement
mean?

(5) (b) PEO issues a Limited Licence. In addition to paying the necessary fee, briefly state three
other requirements to obtain such a licence.

(5) (c) The practice of stamping an original drawing exposes a P. Eng. to liability. Why is it not
a good practice to release drawings which bear only a photocopy of the practitioner’s
stamp and signature?

(5) (d) In order to be designated as a “Consulting Engineer” one must meet a number of
requirements. Briefly list three of them. What additional privileges or rights are granted
by this designation?

(5) (e) A P.Eng. has publically criticized a fellow P.Eng. contrary to [77.7.iii]. What
consequences might he face? Explain.

Question 2

Delta, a professional engineer (P.Eng.) is hired in a contract capacity to provide expert

advice on the installation of a control system for a power plant being built by Upstart
Energy. Delta has all the necessary licenses (P.Eng, C of A, liability insurance) to provide
these services to Upstart Energy. The project manager Sigma, who is also a P.Eng., works
for the client Upstart Energy and is responsible for supervising all construction labour.

It soon became apparent to Delta that the facility has no safety procedures in place for its
work crew; i.e. no hard hats, safety shoes nor eye protection are worn by the workers. The
workers were engaging in very unsafe practices that Delta knew were against provincial
labour regulations.

(15) (a) Does Delta, who is hired to only give technical advice about the construction of the
power plant, have any obligation in respect of the possible danger that the work crew
faces? If so, what action should Delta take? Discuss, giving reasons and
consequences.

(10) (b) What are the responsibilities of Sigma? Do they differ from Delta? Discuss, giving
reasons and consequences.

Use the Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Misconduct as your guide.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 5

 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – December 6, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 3
RetailCo. operates a small chain of retail stores that specialize in selling home improvement
products. In order to improve its distribution efficiencies, RetailCo would like to build a
central warehouse that would serve all of its stores. RetailCo contacted DesignCo, a large
engineering firm, to inquire about hiring them to design the facility.
Eager is employed as a professional engineer by DesignCo. At the request of Honcho, the head
of Eager's division, Eager accompanied Honcho to a meeting at DesignCo's offices with some
representatives of RetailCo to discuss how DesignCo might be able to assist RetailCo with the
potential project. At the meeting, RetailCo 's representatives described to Honcho and Eager
the attributes that RetailCo was looking for in the proposed new warehouse. They also asked
about the fees that DesignCo proposed to charge for its services. Upon being advised of
DesignCo's standard rates, RetailCo's representatives stated that, unfortunately, they could not
afford to hire DesignCo for this project. Honcho was not prepared to discount DesignCo's
quoted rates, which Honcho described as being "extremely competitive". Although everyone
was disappointed, the meeting ended pleasantly.
The next day, Eager received a telephone call from Frugal, one of the representatives of
RetailCo. Frugal was wondering if Eager would be interested in preparing the design for the
warehouse "on the side", after work in the evenings and on weekends. RetailCo was prepared
to pay Eager at an hourly rate that was 50% of the hourly rate that DesignCo would have
charged for Eager's time. In a hushed voice, Eager undertook to give the proposal some
consideration and get back to Frugal.
Eager thought about Frugal's offer. It had been three years since Eager had last received a
salary increase from DesignCo. Even at rates discounted by 50% from those charged by
DesignCo, this would be a very profitable opportunity for Eager. The money Eager would earn
from RetailCo would be more, on an hourly basis, than the rate on which Eager's current salary
was based, and unlike DesignCo, Eager didn't have to worry about big overheads and other
expenses. Eager then thought about how DesignCo might react to the arrangement, but decided
that since DesignCo wouldn't be getting this work anyway, there shouldn't be a problem.
Besides, Eager thought, there was no reason why they even needed to know about it.
Even though Eager had not designed a project this large by himself, he called Frugal back the
next day to accept the engagement and enthusiastically began working on the project that
evening.
Using PEO’s Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide:
(10) a) Comment on and discuss the appropriateness of Eager's conduct
(10) b) Are there any further actions Eager should take? Discuss giving your reasons.
(5) c) Would eager face any consequences from PEO? Discuss giving your reasons.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 6

 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – December 6, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 4

Omega, P.Eng. as a process engineer for Universal Chemical Corporation signed a

secrecy agreement with Universal that prohibits Omega from divulging information
that the firm considers proprietary. Universal Chemical developed an adaption of a
standard piece of equipment that makes it highly efficient for cooling viscous plastics
slurry. The company decided not to patent the idea but to keep it a trade secret.

Omega subsequently left the employment of Universal to work for a candy processing
facility that is not in any way competition to Universal. Omega soon realized that a
modification similar to Universal’s trade secret could be applied to a machine used for
cooking fudge and at once arranged for the change to be made.

(13) (a) Has Omega acted ethically? Discuss the situation in relation to PEO’s Code of
Ethics and Code of Professional Misconduct.

(7) (b) What steps, if any, should Omega take?

(5) (c) Would PEO take any steps to discipline Omega? Discuss.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 7

 Professional Practice Examination
Study Guide
Part "A" – Professional Practice and Ethics
December 6, 2014

The purpose of Part "A" is to examine a candidate's understanding of PEO functions (Question 1)
and the Misconduct and Ethics Codes in Regulation 941 sections 72. & 77. (Questions 2, 3 and 4).

Sections 72. & 77. will be supplied at the examination but they should be carefully studied before
the examination. Advance study will facilitate the matching of situations in the questions with
situations in the codes, and the inclusion of exact code numbers and their sub-sections within the
written answers.

During study time, try to develop a writing process and timing skill by practice writing, review and
re-writing. Questions may be re-used. Writing at first may be with study aids but later should be
without aids and under time pressure. This Study Guide may contain more material than usual in a
20 minute answer.

The references given below are from the PE Act, and from Regulation 941 (R 941). These
references are here for study purposes only and are not expected in an answer, except for
sections 72. & 77.

1 (a) Enforcement function: To prosecute people or companies who are offering professional
engineering services to the public, but who do not have a license or a Certificate of Authorization
(C of A), PE Act 12.

1 (b) Limited Licence (LL): Needs fee and 1) technologist diploma or equivalent;
2) 13 years experience - including academics, 1 year P.Eng. supervision, and the last 2 years in a
narrow field to which the LL is to apply; 3) pass the Professional Practice Examination (PPE); and,
4) be of good character, R 941 46.

1 (c) Stamp and signature: A photocopy should not be used or accepted. Its authenticity cannot
be verified and control is lost. Documents for distribution should each have an original stamp and
signature. Visit www.peo.on.ca, ‘Forms and Publications’ - Practice Guideline - Use of
Professional Engineer's Seal.

1 (d) Consulting Engineer (CE), requirements 3 of, and a right: 1) a P.Eng. member;
2) experience of 5 years as a P.Eng.; 3) responsibility of 2 years in 'independent practice' (may be
within 5 years as a P.Eng.); and, 4) passed exams unless exempt, R 941 56. A right is to use the
title 'Consulting Engineer', R 941 59.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 8

Study Guide Part "A" - December 6, 2014  Professional Practice and Ethics

1 (e) Consequences of public criticism of a fellow P.Eng.: This falls within the Code of Ethics,
77.7.iii, and there are no consequences since it is an exception to the definitions of professional
misconduct, 72.(2)(g).

2 (a) Delta P.Eng., obligations beyond specific contract work: Yes, Delta has obligations in respect
to the possible dangers the work crew is facing. The workers are part of the public. Delta is
obligated to regard public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i., and to act with fidelity to public needs
including safety, 77.1.ii. Delta should first contact Sigma P.Eng., who is responsible for
supervising the construction labour, 77.1.i.

If Upstart has directed Sigma to ignore the regulations, Delta should try to meet with management
and present clearly the consequences of safety deviations, 72.(2)(f). If there is no action, Delta
must report the situation to the labour regulators, 72.(2)(c), and to safety standards regulators,
72.(2)(d).

Delta should make a complaint to the proper tribunals at PEO, and expose this misconduct by
Sigma and any other P.Eng.s at Upstart, without fear or favour, to maintain the honour of the
profession, 77.8. If Delta does not do these things then Delta is exposed to the consequences of
misconduct, 72.(2)(j). Upstart may try to break their contract with Delta and if so, Delta should sue
for wrongful dismissal.

2 (b) Sigma P.Eng., responsibilities: These are the same as Delta's. Sigma should have ensured
compliance with safety regulations before the project start, 72.(2)(d). Sigma should act now to
make a reasonable provision for safeguarding of workers, 72.(2)(b), or Sigma could be subject to a
charge of misconduct, 72.(2)(j). As in 2 (a) above, Delta should send a complaint to PEO, 77.8.
The Complaints Committee (CC) should forward this to the Discipline Committee (DC) for their
action. As a consequence, Sigma's P.Eng. licence could be revoked, PE Act 28.

3 (a) Eager's conduct: Is not appropriate because the 'evening and weekend work' (EWW) which
is also known as 'moonlighting', is being deliberately concealed from DesignCo. This EWW is
contracting for other than the employer and, unless prior disclosure is given, is in a conflict of
interest, 72.(2)(i)4. Eager P.Eng. is being unfair to DesignCo, 77.1.i., and not acting as a faithful
agent or trustee, 77.3. Eager's interest in RetailCo might be prejudicial to Eager's judgment at
DesignCo, 77.4. Calling Frugal to accept the engagement was furtive and not devotion to high
ideals, 77.1.iii. This is disgraceful conduct, 72.(2)(j).

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 9

Study Guide Part "A" - December 6, 2014  Professional Practice and Ethics

3 (b) Eager's further actions - DesignCo should be informed and then must be satisfied there is no
conflict. If there is a conflict, the EWW is against the Code of Ethics, 77.5. If not, Eager is clear to
work with RetailCo. Eager should ensure in writing to Frugal, and through to RetailCo, that they
are aware of the limitations on Eager's EWW services and the status as an employee at DesignCo.
Eager has not designed a project this large by himself and there could be a question of
competence, 72.(2)(h) and 77.1.v. If not already, Eager must obtain a Certificate of Authorization
(C of A) from PEO, PE Act 12.(2).

3 (c) Consequences to Eager from PEO: If Eager's work is incompetent, a complaint and charge
could be made, and Eager's P.Eng. licence could be revoked, 72.(2)(h). Breaches in ethics are
exempt, 72.(2)(g).

4 (a) Omega P.Eng., actions: Omega has not acted ethically in making process changes at the
new employer, using a trade secret from a former employer, 77.1.i. Omega has failed to keep
confidential, a former employer's process, 77.3. Even though the new employer is not in
competition with Universal in any way, the action is still a breach of trust and is not acting with a
devotion to high ideals, 77.1.iii.

This action is negligent failure to maintain the standards of a prudent practitioner, 72.(2)(a). It is
conduct that would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable, 72.(2)(j). Even though the ethical
violations would normally be exempt from misconduct, 72.(2)(g), it is still clearly theft and cannot
be condoned. Omega could; however, use non-proprietary information as learned about while at
Universal.

4 (b) Omega's next steps: Having made the error, there is exposure to potential legal action by
Universal. Omega should first contact a patent lawyer and seek advice. Possibly a licensing
agreement can be made. If the lawyer agrees, the next step would be to open negotiations with
Universal, to see if there is an interest and at what price, 77.1.i. If the result is unfavourable,
Omega must change the process at the candy processing facility back to what it was before and
make any needed restitution to Universal.

4 (c) Discipline by PEO: Whatever the final results in 4 (b), Omega can be alleged to be a thief.
PEO should process a charge of disgraceful conduct, 72.(2)(j), and limit or revoke the P.Eng.
licence, PE Act 28.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 10

 ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – August 9, 2014

PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

You will be given a total of 90 minutes to complete this examination.

Use the correct colour-coded Answer Book for each part, place in the correct envelope and seal
after completed.

White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.

Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.

This is a “CLOSED BOOK” examination. No aids are permitted other than the excerpts from the
1990 Ontario Regulation 941 covering sections 72 (Professional Misconduct) and 77 (Code of
Ethics) supplied at the examination. Dictionaries are not permitted.

The marking of questions will be based not only on academic content, but also on legibility and the
ability to express yourself clearly and correctly in the English language. If you have any doubt
about the meaning of a question, please state clearly how you have interpreted the question.

All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part “A”. Each of the four questions is worth 25
marks.

WHERE A QUESTION ASKS IF A CERTAIN ACTION BY AN ENGINEER WAS

ETHICAL OR NOT, A SIMPLE “YES” OR “NO” ANSWER IS NOT SUFFICIENT. YOU
ARE EXPECTED TO COMMENT ON AND DISCUSS THE ACTION OF THE
DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS AND/OR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN EACH
SITUATION AS IF YOU WERE PERSONALLY INVOLVED.

You should identify where applicable the appropriate clauses in Regulation 941. SIMPLE
REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE CLAUSES WITHOUT A DISCUSSION OF HOW
THE CLAUSE APPLIES IN THE SITUATION DESCRIBED IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 11

 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – August 9, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 1

(5) (f) According to a P.Eng’s. strongly held views, homosexuality is wrong and should
not be tolerated. She has continued to make derogatory and insensitive comments
to a co-worker who is in a same sex relationship although her co-worker has asked
her to stop several times. What are the consequences, if any under the Professional
Engineers Act?

(5) (g) Describe the roles performed by PEO’s Complaints Committee and Discipline
Committee

(5) (h) PEO issues Certificates of Authorization. Who or what is eligible to receive one?
Why is it necessary to obtain one?

(10) (i) What is the principal object of Professional Engineers Ontario?

Question 2

You are a licensed (mechanical) professional engineer charged with enhancing the
efficiency of a liquid detergent production line for your employer, a soap manufacturer.
During your work you have access to confidential company information and observe
that the company is adding very small quantities of a well- known carcinogen (i.e. a
substance suspected of causing cancer) to the detergent but is not listing it as an
ingredient. This confidential information is irrelevant to your work. However, you are
aware that the additive is a banned substance.

You inform your supervisor, Passive P.Eng., of your concerns. Passive tells you that
this issue is not your concern and that management know what they are doing. He tells
you to forget about what you have found and to just do your own job.

Using the Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Misconduct as your guide:

(20) (a) Discuss what action(s) are you obligated to take as a professional engineer.

(5) (b) Discuss the actions and obligations of Passive.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 12

PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – August 9, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 3

Alpha is a 50 year-old engineer who, along with his family, recently immigrated to
Canada and took up residence in Smalltown, Ontario. Soon after arriving in Ontario,
Alpha obtained a Provisional Licence from PEO. Unfortunately, despite that
designation and Alpha’s 25 years of experience as a structural engineer outside
Canada, Alpha has had difficulty finding employment. In order to help support
Alpha’s family while continuing to look for a full-time job, Alpha decides to take on
engineering assignments on a solo, “freelance” basis, working from home. Alpha
begins advertising in the classified section of Smalltown’s local newspaper and orders
several hundred business cards. The advertisement includes the statement, “Don’t
settle for poor quality and costly services of the big engineering firms in Smalltown -
call Alpha to get the best for less!” On the business cards, beside Alpha’s name, the
term “Prof. Eng.” is used. The ads generate a great deal of interest and Alpha is soon
retained by several clients and begins to perform professional engineering services on
various small projects.

6 (a) Comment on the suitability of the Provisional Licence under these

circumstances. If you are of the opinion that the Provisional Licence is not
suitable, what action might PEO take against Alpha?

8 (b) What other approval would Alpha need to obtain from PEO under these
circumstances? Does Alpha have the qualifications to obtain that approval?
Comment on the possible consequences to Alpha of not having that approval.

6 (c) Comment on Alpha’s advertisement. Is it appropriate? If not, what action

might PEO take against Alpha as a result?

5 (d) Comment on Alpha’s business card. Is it appropriate? If not, what action might
PEO take against Alpha as a result?

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 13

 PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE EXAMINATION – August 9, 2014
PART “A” – Professional Practice and Ethics

Question 4

Oversight P. Eng. and holder of a Certificate of Authorization (C of A), was requested by a

client to conduct a design that could be used in multiple locations. Oversight informed the
client that he had no experience in that area and it was agreed that Oversight would
coordinate the project for the client and engage an engineer who had the necessary
experience. Oversight then contacted Theta P.Eng., who was very experienced in this area to
conduct the design. Theta is employed by ProDesign who hold a valid C of A. ProDesign
agreed for Theta to prepare the design under their C of A.

Theta prepared a design, sealed, dated and signed the design and sent the design to
Oversight. Oversight passed the design on to the client but did not affix his seal. Oversight
conducted some tests on the design and sent the client an opinion letter expressing a positive
review of the design prepared by Theta but cautioning that a qualified engineer should assess
the on-site conditions to allow the use of the design.

Two years later the client asked Oversight to update his opinion letter and Theta’s design to
the current date. Oversight changed the dates on all the documents including Theta’s design
and placed his seal on Theta’s design. Theta was not asked to review or revise the design.
Oversight did not place any disclaimer beside his seal on the drawing.

The design was distributed to potential users by the client. It was found that the design did
not meet the necessary codes and the client brought the matter to the attention to PEO. A
review by an independent P.Eng. determined that the design was inadequate and did not
meet the codes. The codes had not changed since Theta performed the original design.

(a) Discuss the conduct of Oversight and possible action by PEO.

(10)
(b) Discuss the conduct of Theta and possible action by PEO.
(10)
(c) Discuss the conduct of ProDesign and possible action by PEO.
(5)
Use PEO’s Code of Ethics and Code of Professional Misconduct as your guide

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 14

 Professional Practice Examination
Study Guide
Part "A" – Professional Practice and Ethics
August 9, 2014

The purpose of Part "A" is to examine a candidate's understanding of PEO functions (Question 1)
and the Misconduct and Ethics Codes in Regulation 941 sections 72. & 77. (Questions 2, 3 and 4).

Sections 72. & 77. will be supplied at the examination but they should be carefully studied before
the exam. Advance study will facilitate the matching of situations in the questions with situations in
the codes, and the inclusion of exact code numbers and their sub-sections within the written
answers.

During study time, try practice writing, review and re-writing, to develop a timing skill. Questions
may be re-used. Writing at first may be with study aids, later writing should be without aids, except
72. & 77. This Study Guide may contain more material than would be usual in an answer within 20
minutes.

The references given below are from the PE Act and from Regulation 941 (R 941). These
references are here for study purposes only and are not expected in an answer, except for
sections 72. & 77.

1 (a) Harassment, consequences: The co-worker should send a written complaint about the
harassment to the PEO Complaints Committee (CC), where the matter may be resolved. If not,
the CC may refer the complaint to the Discipline Committee (DC). The P.Eng. would likely be
charged with harassment, R 941 72.(2)(n), and misconduct, 72.(2)(j). The consequences could
include loss of licence, PE Act 28.(4).

1 (b) Complaints (CC) and Discipline (DC) Committees: The CC considers and investigates
written complaints, PE Act 24. If a resolution is reached a file is closed. If a complaint is referred
to the DC they will conduct a hearing, PE Act 28.(1). The DC has power to make an order against
a P.Eng., PE Act 28.(4).

1 (c) Certificates of Authorization (C of A), who can receive and why needed: Received by a
P.Eng(s) or Temporary Licence (TL) holder(s) or by an engineering firm. The C of A is needed to
authorize the offering of services within the practice of professional engineering in the public
marketplace, PE Act 12.(2).

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 15

Study Guide Part "A" – August 9, 2014  Professional Practice and Ethics

1 (d) Principal object of PEO - to serve and protect the public interest. This means the practice of
professional engineering is governed and regulated under the authority of the PE Act, regulations
and by-laws. This governance applies to Members (P.Eng.), Temporary Licences (TL), Provisional
Licences (PL), Limited Licences (LL), and holders of Certificates of Authorization (C of As), PE Act
2.(3).

2 (a) Actions as a P.Eng.: My first obligation is to advise my supervisor I am aware of the

deviation. My intent is to be loyal to my employer, 77.1.i., and be a faithful agent regarding
confidential information, 77.3. In response, Passive P.Eng. said the issue is not my concern and
management knows what they are doing.

However I do have a duty to regard the public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i., and to act with fidelity
to public needs, 77.1.ii. I have an obligation to make provision for the safeguarding of life and
health, 72.(2)(b), and to comply with regulations and codes, including about banned substances,
72.(2)(d).

I must contact senior management. If the result is still unfavourable, I must report the situation to
the proper health authorities, 72.(2)(c). These are standards a prudent P.Eng. would maintain,
otherwise I could be charged with negligence, 72.(2)(a), and unprofessional conduct, 72.(2)(j).

2 (b) Actions of Passive: The obligations are the same as mine and especially for ignoring the
safety of the public, 72.(2)(b). Passive, and any other P.Engs in management, should be exposed
before the proper tribunals, 77.8., and should be charged with unprofessional conduct, 72.(2)(j).

If I am uncomfortable working at this company, I should look for other work. In fact, I might be
released.

3 (a) Provisional Licence (PL), suitability: A PL requires supervision by a P.Eng.. Without this
supervision, a PL by itself is not suitable to perform engineering services, R 941 44.1.(1)2. The
actions as described are a failure to abide by the terms of the PL, 72.(2)(k), are a breach of the Act
and regulations, and are therefore misconduct, 72.(2)(g). PEO can revoke Alpha's PL, PE Act
28.(4).

3 (b) Approval needed from PEO: To hold a Certificate of Authorization (C of A) for which Alpha
does not have the qualifications. Alpha is contravening PE Act 12.(2), and for this is subject to a
fine, PE Act 40.(1). For breaching the Act, Alpha could have the PL revoked, 72.(2)(g).

If a P.Eng. with at least 5 years of experience were contracted by Alpha to be a supervisor, and
were to be named on a C of A, then Alpha could offer services under that C of A, R 941 47.1.

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 16

Study Guide Part "A" – August 9, 2014  Professional Practice and Ethics

3 (c) Alpha's advertisement: Is not appropriate because it is undignified, R 941 75.(a), and critical
of P.Engs in Smalltown, 75.(c). It does not show courtesy toward other practitioners, 77.7.i., nor is
it devotion to high ideals, 77.1.iii. Again PEO could charge Alpha with misconduct and revoke
Alpha's PL, 72.(2)(j).

3 (d) Business card: Using the term "Prof. Eng." could lead to the belief the person is P.Eng. and
this is a breach of PE Act 40.(2). The card is not appropriate. As above, PEO could revoke
Alpha's PL, 72.(2)(g).

4 (a) Oversight's conduct: Although Oversight gave a positive review of Theta's design 2 years
earlier, this design was not clearly prepared or checked by Oversight, 72.(2)(e), and did not meet
codes, 72.(2)(d). Unless Oversight had gained additional training or experience, 72.(2)(h), he was
not competent in this area, 77.1.v. Oversight's conduct is failure to maintain the standards of a
prudent practitioner, 72.(2)(a).

Oversight should have asked Theta to review the design but did not, thus breaching courtesy to
another practitioner, 77.7.i. Oversight placing his seal on Theta's design without a disclaimer, was
a further failure to give proper credit for engineering work, 77.7.v. PEO could process a charge of
unprofessional conduct against Oversight, 72.(2)(j).

4 (b) Theta's conduct: The original design was found 2 years later to be inadequate and did not
meet codes which had not changed, 72.(2)(c). Theta was incompetent, 72.(2)(h) and 77.1.v.
Theta failed to maintain the standards of a reasonable practitioner and so was negligent, 72.(2)(a).
The conduct could reasonably be regarded as unprofessional and PEO could press a charge,
72.(2)(j).

4 (c) ProDesign's conduct: A responsibility of a Certificate of Authorization (C of A) holder is to

supervise the services, R 941 section 47.1., and to devote sufficient time to the work, 47.2.iv.
Since the design was inadequate, one may assume the supervision was also. This is a failure to
abide by the terms of a C of A, 72.(2)(k). PEO could revoke the C of A, PE Act 28.(4).

EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 17

 PART “B”
Engineering Law and Professional Liability



EIT Seminar - July 8 and 9, 2015 Page 18