March 2013 PPE Seminar

EIT Seminar
Professional Practice Exam
Keys to Success
Grant Boundy, P.Eng., FEC
M. Walcott
The Professional Practice Exam comes in two parts (Part “A” and Part “B”).
Both parts are handed out at the beginning of the exam period.
Table of Contents
Part “A”
Sample Topics with Key Words – August 11, 2012 - Part “A” – Question 1 .......................................... 3
August 11, 2012 Exam - Part “A” - Professional Practice and Ethics ..................................................... 5
Study Guide - August 11, 2012 Reprint – Part “A” ............................................................................... 10
April 14, 2012 Exam - Part “A” - Professional Practice and Ethics ...................................................... 13
Study Guide - April 14, 2012 Reprint - Part “A”.................................................................................... 17
Part “B”
Sample Topics with Brief Notes - Part “B” Question 1 ........................................................................ 21
August 12, 2012 Exam - Part “B” - Engineering Law and Professional Liability ................................... 22
Study Guide - August 11, 2012 Reprint – Part “B” ............................................................................... 26
April 14, 2012 Exam - Part ‘B’ - Engineering Law and Professional Liability ........................................ 29
Study Guide - April 14, 2012 Reprint – Part “B” ................................................................................... 32

August 11, 2012 - Part "A"
(Topics with Key Words)
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.
Definition:
th
practice of professional engineering - actions, principles, safeguards A 1. (13 item)
PEO Objects:
principal - regulate the practice, in order to serve and protect the public interest A 2.(3)
additional - knowledge, practice standards, ethics, public awareness, other duties 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 to the public A 14., A 15., A 18
receive complaints about conduct or technical competency - discipline, if referred A 24., A 28
Requirements / Conditions for

P.Eng. licence: A 14.(1), R 33
o 18 years
o academics
o experience 48/12 months Canadian
o character
o PPE
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, P.Eng. Collaborator, 12 months, qualifications A 18.(1), R 42., R 43., R 44.
Limited licence: services specified, technology diploma or equivalent A 18.(1), R 45., R 46.
Limited Licence (LL), requirements: tech diploma, 13 years experience, PPE, good character R 46.
Engineering Intern (EI), Engineering Student (ES) requirements: 3 for EI, 2 for ES R32.1, R32.2.
Certificate of Authorization: P.Eng(s) responsible, 5 yrs 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.
PEO organization and processes: Council, Committees - regulation A 3., A 10., A 12., A40.
Seal, Engineer’s, consequences for misuse: charges of misconduct R 53., R 72.(2)(e),
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.
Penalties for enforcement: licences and C of As. A 40.(1), A 40.(3)
Penalties for leading to the belief: when not holding a licence or seal A 40.(2)
Liability insurance, conditions for a C of A: insurance limits / conditions R 47.3., R 74.
C of A limits; Temporary Licence (TL): expiry on latest date of last TL to expire R 49.(2)
Documents prepared or checked - licence holder to sign, date and seal R 53., R 72.(2)(e)
EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 3

August 11, 2012 - Part "A"
(Topics with Key Words)
Code of 'misconduct' R72.: could lose licence but not for 'ethics' R 77. R 72.(2)(g)
Competence: depends on judgment of individual practitioner R 72.(2)(h), R 77.1.v.
Advertising: professional, factual, without criticism, without seal reference R 75.
Work other than employer: no conflict, status as employee, limits, inform employer R 77.5.
Licence display, consequences if not: none, ethics code is not misconduct R 72.(2)(g), R 77.2.iv.
Temporary, Provisional or Limited Licence: not a member of PEO (Temporary is a P.Eng.) A 18.(5)
Provisional or Limited licence holder: not a P.Eng. (by ‘inference’ from this sub-section) A 40.(2)
Seal, return of: resignation, revocation, fees default, (LL) end of services A 36., 22 R 45.2., 54., 55.

August 11, 2012
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.

August 11, 2012
Question 1
(5) (a) Is the code of ethics enforceable under the Professional Engineers Act? Explain.
(5) (b) Can limited licence holders call themselves professional engineers? Explain.
(5) (c) Pi, a professional engineer signed and sealed documents that were not prepared by
Pi nor by subordinates working under Pi’s direct supervision.
Are there any possible consequences for Pi’s actions, under the Association’s Code
of Ethics and/or Definition of Professional Misconduct? Discuss.
(5) (d) A P.Eng. and a Temporary Licence holder may hold a Certificate of Authorization.
Are there any limitations on the C of A held by the Temporary Licence holder?
(5) (e) The principal objective of Professional Engineers Ontario PEO is to regulate the
practice and govern professional engineering to serve and protect the public
interest. The association has additional objectives to pursue under the Act. What is
the essence of these additional objectives?

August 11, 2012
Question 2
Aurora Radio Manufacturing Inc. (“Aurora”) is a well-known manufacturer of radio

broadcast equipment. Aurora employs Solo, a professional engineer, on a full-time
basis as an engineering sales representative in Ontario.
In addition to working for Aurora, Solo performs independent consulting professional

engineering services for radio broadcasters. Solo’s services include technical analyses
of broadcast systems. As part of these services, Solo often makes recommendations for
the selection and purchase of broadcast equipment by broadcasters. Sometimes, Solo
recommends Aurora’s equipment.
Specify and explain:
(10) (a) the requirements, if any, stipulated in the Professional Engineers Act and its
Regulations (Code of Professional Misconduct) that Solo must satisfy in order
for Solo to be legally allowed to provide such consulting professional
engineering services; and
(15) (b) the requirements, if any, stipulated in the Code of Ethics of the Professional
Engineers Act and its Regulations that Solo should satisfy with respect to the
manner in which such consulting professional engineering services are
performed.
Question 3
Vision Transportation (‘Vision’) is a design-build firm and has been hired by a

municipality in Ontario to engineer, procure and construct an automated light rail
transit system (the “LRT”).
You are employed as a professional engineer by Vision and are on the design team that
is designing the LRT. The LRT’s design includes a new, sophisticated computer-
controlled system for the operation of its trains.
One night after work, you get together for dinner with a P.Eng. colleague you met
years ago, while at university. Your colleague also works at Vision but is not working
on the LRT design. After a few drinks, your colleague commented that Vision was
rushing ahead too fast with the LRT project under the pressure of a tight completion
schedule. Your colleague also stated that Vision is not conducting sufficient testing of
the LRT and is concerned that flaws in the computer control system may go undetected
until the LRT goes into operation.
The next day, you approach your direct supervisor, Omega, P.Eng., to discuss these

August 11, 2012
concerns. Your supervisor advises that your friend, although very competent, is an
alarmist. Omega adds that with too much testing the project could be delayed
unnecessarily causing it to be cancelled. Its cancellation would not only result in the
loss of many jobs, it would also deprive the public of the benefits of a much needed
transit system. Your supervisor reasons that all technological advancement entails
some degree of uncertainty and risk and that insistence upon absolute safety would
impede engineering progress.
Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide:
(15) (a) In view of the above stated facts, what do you see as your ethical obligations
as a professional engineer as it relates to your employer and the public?
(5) (b) Comment on Omega’s conduct.
(5) (c) What do you think about your colleague’s actions?
Question 4
Kappa, P.Eng., is employed by a municipality in Ontario as head of the municipality’s

procurement department. Kappa’s responsibilities include establishing procurement
policies and procedures for the municipality as well as participating in the bid selection
and contracting process.
The municipality is currently considering hiring a company to design and build a

wastewater treatment facility. The municipality’s staff has prepared a draft Request for
Tenders for the project. Before it is issued to prospective bidders, it is reviewed by
Kappa. Kappa is generally satisfied with the draft and makes only a few revisions,
including revisions to the scoring formula used to select the winning bidder. The
current formula awards points based on price and compliance with various technical
requirements in the Request for Tenders. According to Kappa’s revisions, up to 10
points could be awarded based on the amount of experience the bidder has in designing
and building such projects, and local bidders would receive 10 points automatically.

August 11, 2012
Kappa chairs a committee charged with evaluating, scoring and selecting the winning
bidder. Of the bids received, ABC and XYZ received the most points from the
committee as described in the table below:
Possible Points ABC’s Score XYZ’s Score

Technical 40 points 35 points 35 points
Price 40 points 28 points 40 points
Experience 10 points 10 points 3 points
Local Bidder 10 points 10 points 0 points
Total 100 points 83 points 78 points
Although ABC and XYZ have similar experience, XYZ was awarded only 3 points for
experience because, according to statements made by Kappa at the committee, XYZ’s
engineers had produced a poor design on one of its previous projects. In addition,
ABC was the only local bidder. The committee informed ABC that it had won the job.
Later that evening, Kappa was treated to a celebration dinner at an expensive restaurant
by A. Complice. Kappa is married to A. Complice, the president of ABC.
(25) Discuss Kappa’s conduct.
Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guides

Study Guide
August 11, 2012 Reprint - Part "A"
The purpose of Part "A" is to examine a knowledge of PEO functions (question 1), a knowledge of the
Misconduct and Ethics Codes (questions 2, 3 & 4) and an ability to apply the sub-sections of the
codes.
Regulation 941 has these codes in sections 72. & 77. These two sections are supplied at the exam
but they should be carefully studied before the exam. This will facilitate recognition of comparable
situations within the questions, and an appropriate response to each situation, and noting the exact
code numbers.
Answers should be given within about 20 minutes each. During study time, try practice writing, review
and re-writing, to develop a timing skill. Then try answering without aids, even using the same
questions.
The references below are from sections of the PE Act or from Regulation 941 (R 941). These
references are for study purposes and are not anticipated in an answer, except for 72. & 77.
1(a) Code of Ethics: is not enforceable under the PE Act because R 941 section 72.(2) says
"professional misconduct" means, (g) breach of the Act or regulations, other than an action that is
solely a breach of the Code of Ethics. A breach of Ethics is like 'a warning' and the giving of a 'second
chance' but a Misconduct breach may lead to disciplinary action and that is enforceable, including loss
of licence.
1(b) Limited licence holders: cannot call themselves P.Eng. and are not members of PEO because
their work is limited to specific services, PE Act, sects 18. (5) and 40. (2).
1(c) Misconduct by Pi: signing and sealing when not prepared by, is a Misconduct violation. There
are no consequences under the Code of Ethics but there could be a charge under Misconduct,
72.(2)(e).
1(d) Certificate of Authorization (C of A) held by Temporary Licence (TL) holder(s): is limited to one
year but may be renewed, or is limited to 'expiry of the last' TL, R 941 sections 49.(1) and 49.(2).
1(e) Essence of additional objects: establish, develop and maintain standards - of knowledge and
skill; of qualification and practice; of professional ethics - and promote awareness of PEO,
PE Act 2. (4).

Study Guide
2(a) To legally provide services (re Misconduct) Solo must:
1) hold a licence to perform engineering services, e.g., P.Eng., PE Act section 12. (1)
2) hold a Certificate of Authorization (C of A), PE Act 12 (2), R 941 sections 47.1. & 47.2.
3) be appropriately insured according to the regulation, R 941 section 47.3.
4) be a designated "consulting engineer" and may use that title or variation thereof, R 941 sect
56. & 59.
2(b) To engage in outside work (re Code of Ethics) Solo should:

1) be competent in the performance of services for the outside clients, 77.1.v.
2) be satisfied this 'moonlighting' will not conflict with work for Aurora, the full-time employer
3) inform the full-time employer of the outside work
4) ensure the employer has no objection to the work, or in recommending equipment from
Aurora
5) give the outside clients a written statement of status as an employee, and as well, for outside
clients
6) give a written statement about limitations, on work hours and nature of specific assignments,
77.5.
3(a) LRT sufficient testing, P.Eng. obligations: my priority obligation is to regard the public welfare as
paramount, 77.2.i. Even though having been overruled by my supervisor Omega, 72.(2)(f), to be truly
loyal to my employer, I should meet with a more senior level manager, 77.1.i. To ensure accuracy I
must investigate the information from my colleague. I must have management agreement to do this,
77.1.iv.
If the result is still unsatisfactory, and even though I should act as a faithful agent to my employer,
77.3., I should report this situation to the municipal authorities, 72.(2)(c). I should ensure reasonable
provision for the safeguarding of life, health or property, 72.(2)(b), and be acting with fidelity to public
needs, 77.1.ii. If I do not take these actions I am exposing myself to a charge of misconduct, 72.(2)(j).
All of these actions assume I have the necessary competence to do the investigation, 77.1.v.
3(b) Omega's conduct: has failed to show a duty to the public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i., and
failure to act toward me with courtesy and good faith, 77.7.i. Although I do not wish to injure the
reputation of another P.Eng., 77.7.iii., I should expose Omega's conduct before the proper tribunals,
77.8., and initiate a charge of unprofessional conduct against Omega, and any other P.Engs in the
company who are complicit in compromising public welfare, 72.(2)(j).
3(c) Colleague's actions: if the information is not correct, especially if being 'under the influence', my
colleague should be charged with disgraceful conduct and be subject to discipline, 72.(2)(j). If the
information is correct, my colleague should have brought it to the company's attention beforehand,
since the public welfare is paramount, 77.2.i. Having done this would also show loyalty to the
employer, 77.1.i.
Study Guide
4 Bid selection process, Kappa's conduct: was unprofessional and this conduct is clearly a conflict of
interest, 72.(2)(i). The interest Kappa has with ABC (Kappa's spouse, A. Complice is the president)
should have been disclosed to the municipality, 77.3. & 77.4. Arrangements should have been made
so Kappa was not directly involved, in revisions to the scoring formula, or in sitting on the selection
committee, so as to act with devotion to high ideals, 77.1.iii.
It appears Kappa adjusted the scoring formula to give an advantage to ABC, which is not being fair
and loyal to the employer municipality, 77.1.i. In addition, it is absconding with public funds, and not
being faithful to public need, 77.1.ii. Kappa should have been asked to justify the revised scoring
formula, otherwise this action represents a statement inspired by another interest, 72.(2)(i)5.
Without a second opinion or back-up information about XYZ's poor design on a previous project,
Kappa's statement is an injury to the reputation of another practitioner, 77.7.iii. This unprofessional
conduct should be exposed before the proper tribunals, 77.8., and Kappa should be charged with
professional misconduct, 72.(2)(j).

April 14, 2012
completed.

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.

April 14, 2012
Question 1
(10) (f) Briefly define the practice of professional engineering.
(5) (g) Does merely being designated as a “Consulting Engineer” allow a professional
engineer to offer professional engineering services to the public? Explain.
(5) (h) There are three situations that would require the return of your seal and certificate.
Please provide 2 of these three.
(5) (i) PEO is authorized to discipline its members, licensees and holders of Certificate of
Authorization. Give a brief outline of the Association’s disciplinary process.
Question 2
Epsilon, P.Eng, has been in the employ of Enterprise Engineering Inc since his
graduation from engineering school six (6) years ago. Since obtaining his
P.Eng licence, two (2) years ago, he has been discussing with his supervisor,
Sigma, P.Eng the possibility of being assigned more challenging projects.
Sigma agreed to provide Epsilon with the challenge he is seeking. However the
opportunity does not appear to be forthcoming and Epsilon has therefore
become frustrated. Epsilon reviews and evaluates bids submitted to Enterprise
by suppliers of services and products.
Consequently, while Epsilon is still waiting to receive the promised challenging

assignments at Enterprise Engineering Inc, he learns of an opportunity to do
some engineering work in the evenings and on weekends for Supply
Engineering Ltd, a regular supplier to Enterprise Engineering Inc. Epsilon
agrees to work part-time for Supply Engineering.
A few months after starting the part-time job, Epsilon is asked by his primary
employer, Enterprise Engineering to review a bid from Supply Engineering. He
had helped prepare the bid for Supply Engineering.
(10) (a) Discuss the appropriateness of Epislon`s employment arrangements.
(10) (b) How should Epsilon respond to Enterprise`s request to review the bid from
Supply? Discuss.
(5) (c) Would Epsilon need a Certificate of Authorization to provide services to

Supply Engineering? Explain.

April 14, 2012
Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide in

answering each part of the above question.
Question 3
Beta is a licensed professional engineer with over 15 years experience in the

design of door latching systems for the aircraft industry. He was the senior
designer of the door systems for a new line of executive jets his company had
recently launched. After the plane went into production, Beta, using new
software that simulated various failure modes, determined that the latching
systems might fail under certain circumstances. Design modifications were
reviewed and determined to be very expensive.
Beta’s boss, Alpha, also a P.Eng., believed that the failure circumstances were
incredibly remote and that the design met all the commonly used design and
safety criteria. The design was similar to the one used on executive jets for
many years without any problems. She was also concerned about the financial
viability of the firm if the expensive design changes were made especially with
a recall of the already delivered planes. In addition, all regulators had reviewed
the design and found no reason to question its safety. Consequently, she
directed Beta to leave the design alone. She also decided that she would not
authorize any further review of Beta’s work to determine if there was a problem
and did not inform senior management.
Beta was very concerned that the design was inadequate and might fail. He
had reviewed the results of the simulations many times before bringing the
matter to Alpha’s attention and believed that his analysis was correct. Since no
failures of the design had been reported at the time of his review, Beta
accepted Alpha’s decision and did not pursue the matter further.
Six months after Beta had brought the potential problem to Alpha’s attention, a
door latch failed during a flight and the plane had to make an emergency
landing. Fortunately no one was injured. Alpha directed Beta to be quiet about
having raised some concerns about the design since it might have implications
with the regulators.
Using the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide:

(10) (d) Discuss the Beta’s behaviour and actions before the door latch failed
including any consequences he might face.
(7)
(e) Describe the actions Beta should now take.

April 14, 2012
(8) (f) Discuss Alpha’s behaviour and actions including any consequences she
might face.
Question 4
Delta, P.Eng. (an independent practitioner with a Certificate of Authorization) was

engaged by Eng Inc. (an engineering firm with a Certificate of Authorization) to
perform a conceptual design and prepare drawings for a fully-automated high-
temperature and low-pressure reactor system in accordance with the existing safety
regulations. Upon completion of the work, Delta affixed his seal with his signature and
the date on the original drawings and turned the original drawings over to Omnicron
P.Eng. the project manager of Eng Inc.
Delta was later retained to inspect the newly installed reactor facility. He found that
many crucial aspects of his design had been ignored.
Using the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide:
(10) (a) Discuss the situation, including Delta’s actions and professional responsibility.
(15) (b) What steps should Delta now take?

Study Guide
April 14, 2012 Reprint – Part “A”
The purpose of Part "A" is to examine a knowledge of PEO functions (question 1) and a knowledge of
the Ethics and Misconduct Codes (questions 2, 3 & 4) and to apply these codes by sub-section
numbers.
Regulation 941 has these codes in sections 72. & 77. These 2 sections are supplied at the exam but
they should be carefully studied before the exam. This will facilitate recognition of comparable
situations within the questions, an appropriate response to each situation, and noting the exact code
numbers.
Answers should be given within about 20 minutes each. During study time, try practice writing, review
and re-writing, to develop a timing skill. Then try answering without aids, even using the same
questions.
The references below are from sections of the PE Act or from Regulation 941 (Reg 941). These
references are for study purposes and are not anticipated in an answer, except for 72. & 77.
1(a) Practice of professional engineering: is the application and delivery of scientific and
engineering principles in such a manner as to be of benefit to a segment of society. The practice has
3 principal elements 1) engineering principles 2) plans and actions making use of these principles and
3) overall concern for safety and security of life, health and property, PE Act section 1., 13th clause.
1(b) Consulting Engineer designation: does not by itself permit one to offer services to the public.
Also required is a Certificate of Authorization (C of A), identifying the P.Eng(s) involved,
PE Act section 12. (2).
1(c) Situations for return of seal and certificate: 1) non-payment of fees 2) revocation for
Discipline 3) expiry 4) resignation or 5) death, PE Act sect. 22.(1) & 28.(4)(a) & Reg. 941 sect.
42.(1)(d), 45., & 55.
1(d) Disciplinary process: where the Complaints Committee has not been able to resolve complaints
(including with staff support) these are forwarded to the Discipline Committee. The Discipline
Committee will form suitable panels, conduct hearings and decide on necessary discipline, PE Act
sections 27. & 28.
2(a) Appropriate employment arrangements: 1) Epsilon must be satisfied the part-time work at
Supply Engineering (SE) will not conflict with a duty to Enterprise Engineering (EE). 2) Epsilon must
inform EE about the work and the EE must have no objection to it. 3) Epsilon's status at EE must be
confirmed in a written statement to SE and 4) this statement must include the attendant limitations on
Epsilon's services to SE, e. g., hours of work and any assignments connected with EE, 77.5.

Study Guide
2(b) Review a bid, response: to do the review would be a clear conflict of interest between a duty to
the primary employer EE, 77.3., and to the part-time employer SE, 72.(2)(i)1. & 77.4. The response
should be to decline the assignment. To do otherwise would not be devotion to high ideals of personal
honour and integrity, 77.1.iii. Epsilon could suggest an exchange of assignments with another SE
P.Eng.
2(c) C of A need: if SE has a C of A, and a P.Eng. assumes responsibility for services, Epsilon does
not need a C of A. If this is not the case, then Epsilon does need a C of A, PE Act section 12.(3)(b).
3(a) Beta's behaviour before latch failure: Beta did regard public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i., and
actions were intended to safeguard life, 72.(2)(b). Beta was overruled, 72.(2)(f), but should not have
accepted Alpha's decision. Beta should review the matter with a more senior level manager, 77.1.i.
This person may understand the consequence of failures, including the costs of recall of product, and
be ready to change the design, especially if codes of the regulators were not all exactly met, 72.(2)(d).
If there is still no resolution, Beta should regard public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i., disregard
company confidential information, 77.3., take action and report the danger, 72.(2)(c). This is fidelity to
public needs, 77.1.ii. If not taking these actions, Beta could be charged with unprofessional conduct,
72.(2)(j).
3(b) After latch failure, needed actions: although Beta would not want to injure the reputation of
another P.Eng, 77.7.iii., Beta must now expose Alpha's conduct as unprofessional, 72.(2)(j), and bring
it before the proper tribunals, 77.8. This is devotion to high ideals of honour and professional integrity,
77.1.iii.
If there are other P.Engs who are directly responsible for the design and production process, they
should all be charged. Beta's actions may enhance public regard for the profession, 77.2.ii. Beta
should contemplate seeking other employment. If discharged, Beta should file an action for wrongful
dismissal.
3(c) Alpha's behaviour and actions: by making a judgement that failure was remote, without further
investigation, Alpha failed in fidelity to public needs or expectations, 77.1.ii., and was unprofessional,
72.(2)(j). By giving priority concern to financial viability, Alpha has ignored a paramount duty to public
welfare, 77.2.i. Even though all regulators had reviewed the design, to entirely depend on this without
some investigation, it is like signing and sealing without checking, 72. (2)(e). Failure to inform senior
management is being unfair and disloyal to the employer, 77.1.i. Alpha could be faced with the
consequences of being charged with unprofessional conduct, 72.(2)(j).
4(a) Delta's actions and responsibility: were improper by having signed, sealed and dated original
drawings and then relinquished control of them. Originals could be changed, unknown to the
originator, and there would be no proof of what was actually on the original. If changes were ever
made and safety compromised, Delta would be seen as being responsible and be exposed to liability
claims, 72.(2)(b).

Study Guide
Drawings turned over to a client should have an original signature and stamp, but these should be
placed only on copies of originals, 72.(2)(e).
Eng Inc proceeded to have the reactor facility installed, during which time there was apparently no
contact with the designer, Delta. This is unusual. One would think that Delta would have at least
inquired about the progress of reactor fabrication and then would have discovered the deficiencies.
4(b) Delta's next steps: should be to list the results of inspection and specifically the crucial aspects
of design that were ignored. The consequences of each of these omissions should be described in
writing and how each of these represent failure to make provision for safeguarding of life, 72.(2)(b),
failure to provide for the applicable standards and codes, 72.(2)(d), failure to comply with fidelity to
public needs, 77.1.ii., and failure to regard the public welfare as paramount, 77.2.i. Delta should then
approach the senior management at Eng Inc and warn them of the consequences. This would be a
step in acting to correct a danger, 72.(2)(c), and thereby be 'deeply' fair and loyal to Eng Inc, 77.1.i.
If Eng Inc is not cooperative, Delta should expose this before the proper tribunals, 77.8. and initiate a
charge of unprofessional conduct against Omnicron and other responsible P.Engs at Eng Inc, 72.(2)(j).

PART “B”
EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 20

Part “B” – Question 1
Topics with Brief Notes
Professional Practice Exam - Study Preparation - Part "B"- Question 1 - Topics with Brief Notes
th
For further information, please see Marston text, 4 Edition, page numbers given here Page#
Arbitration & Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - without recourse to courts and costs, is binding 235
Arbitration specified for international contracts - to minimize costs of foreign systems, pg 30 and 35
Bid shopping - after tenders are closed an owner attempts to negotiate a lower price with a bidder 131
Civil-law – based on codes of behavior expected by governing bodies, used in Quebec 33
Common-law - relies on precedents to establish predictability in court decisions, judge-made law 2
Concurrent tortfeasors - 2 or more parties found liable in a tort case 55
Consideration - something of value exchanged by contracting parties 91
Contra proferentem, rule of - in clause ambiguity, settlement is against party that drafted clause 136
Contract 5 elements - offer accepted, mutual intent, consideration, capacity, lawful purpose 79
Contract A - formed by submitting a tender(s); Contract B - formed when 1 contract is signed 121
Contract A breach - to agree on a provision not specified in the tender documents 122
Defamation - false public statement (libel, slander) by a person to damage the reputation of another 64
Director's fiduciary duty - to act honestly for the corporation and exercise prudent diligence 21
Discoverability concept - when limitation period begins, 2 years on discovery, 15 years from cause 71
Dispute Resolution Board (DRB), purpose - avoid major claims litigation, select before project start 31
Duress - threatened or actual violence to sign a contract, party's will is not free, may be repudiated 110
Duty to mitigate damages - plaintiff because of a breach must take reasonable steps to reduce loss 149
Employment (workplace) rights - equal treatment, 14 items (google Ontario Human Rights Code) 322
Equitable estoppel – a means to obtain an equitable result if a gratuitous promise is not being kept 92
Fiduciary duty – an obligation to act honestly in favour of a corporation, and not for personal interest 21
Fraudulent misrepresentation - careless statement(s), party deceived may rescind contract & sue 109
Indirect (or consequential or special) damages - losses beyond control, e.g., interruption of supply 148
Limitation periods - time windows within which a claim must be filed, basic 2 yrs, ultimate 15 yrs 71
Liquidated damages - costs of contractor failure, must be a genuine pre-estimate of probable loss 149
Mediation – dispute resolution by negotiation through an impartial mediator, it is not binding 239
New York Convention - arbitration decisions will be enforced by signing nations (over 135 in 1958) 30
Parol evidence rule - verbal agreements not allowed, except if condition precedent to define terms 136
Quantum meruit - ‘as much as is reasonably deserved’, for contractor relief in case of termination 150
Repudiation - when one party stops performing a contract, the other can claim damages 146
rd
Secret commission - bribe to one party, by a 3 person, to secretly defraud interests of other party 179
Specific Performance - court award where simple damages would not be a satisfactory remedy 152
Statute of frauds - to prevent losses by fraudulent verbal testimony (contracts should be in writing) 107
Statutory Holdback - % contract price held until after substantial performance, covers project liens 249
Trade-mark - to distinguish wares or services offered by a company from those of others 285
True construction approach - a liability clause as constructed, expresses clear intent of the parties 159
Undue influence - used by 1 party to dominate the will of another, the contract may be repudiated 113
Unilateral mistake - made by one party and discovered after tendering, may require deposit forfeit 115
Vicarious liability - employer (with deep pockets) is responsible, in liability, for actions of employee 52

August 11, 2012
Part “B” – Engineering Law and Professional Liability
completed.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part “B”. Each of the four questions is worth 25
marks.

August 11, 2012
(25) 1. Briefly define, explain or answer any five of the following:
(i) Contract A in tendering

(ii) Dispute Resolution Board
(iii) Five examples of equal treatment employment rights to which individuals are entitled under
Ontario’s Human Rights Code (list only).
(iv) Statutory holdback applicable to construction contracts
(v) The New York Convention
(vi) The rule of contra proferentem
(vii) The essential elements of an enforceable contract
(viii) The discoverability concept
(25) 2. A mining contractor signed an option contract with a land owner which provided that if the mining
contractor (the “optionee”) performed a specified minimum amount of exploration services on the property of the
owner (the “optionor”) within a nine month period, then the optionee would be entitled to exercise its option to
acquire certain mining claims from the optionor.
Before the expiry of this nine-month “option period”, the optionee realized that it couldn’t fulfil its
obligation to expend the required minimum amount by the expiry date. The optionee notified the optionor of its
problem prior to expiry of the option period and the optionor indicated that the option period would be extended,
however, no written record of this extension was made, nor did the optionor receive anything from the optionee
in return for the extension.
The optionee then proceeded to perform the services and to finally expend the specified minimum
amount during the extension period. However, when the optionee attempted to exercise its option to acquire the
mining claims the optionor took the position that, on the strict wording of the signed contract, the optionee had
not met its contractual obligations. The optionor refused to grant the mining claims to the optionee.
Was the optionor entitled to deny the optionee’s exercise of the option? Identify the contact law
principles that apply, and explain the basis of such principles and how they apply to the positions taken by the
optionor and by the optionee.
(25) 3. An owner/developer (the “owner”) entered into a contract with an architectural firm (the
“architect”) for design and contract administration services in connection with the construction of a ten-
storey commercial office building.
The building was designed to be entirely surrounded by a paved podium concrete deck used for
parking and driving, and the design provided for a parking area below the deck. The podium deck was
divided by construction joints and expansion joints placed to allow thermal expansion of the concrete as
the temperature changed. The land on which the building was located sloped towards a river so the
lower parking deck was designed to be partially open to the outside.
The architect engaged a structural engineering firm (the “engineer”), as the architect’s
subconsultant on the project. The engineering firm, in its agreement with the architect, accepted

August 11, 2012
responsibility for all structural aspects of construction, and also specifically acknowledged
responsibility for the design of the paved podium concrete deck and the parking area below.
Upon completion of the design and the tendering process, the owner entered into a contract for
the construction of the project with an experienced contractor who had submitted the lowest bid.
Unfortunately, within two years following construction, a significant number of leaks occurred
in the podium deck, which resulted in water leaks in the lower parking garage.
The contract specifications had called for a specific rubberized membrane to be installed for the
purpose of waterproofing the podium deck. However, during the construction, at the suggestion of the
roofing subcontractor and without the knowledge of the owner, another asphalt membrane product was
substituted for the rubberized membrane product specified. Neither the engineer nor the architect
objected to the substitution when it was suggested. The roofing subcontractor had suggested the
substitute membrane because it was more readily available and would speed completion of
construction. The design engineer and the architect took the position that they would rely on the
subcontractor’s recommendation.
During the investigation into the cause of the leaks, another structural engineering firm provided
its opinion that the rubberized membrane as specified in the contract was a superior product to the
substituted membrane; that the substituted membrane was brittle and could fracture or crack under
certain circumstances, particularly on podium decks with expansion joints; that the winter temperatures
had contributed to the breakdown of the substitute membrane as it became more brittle at colder
temperatures; and that the substitute membrane should not have been used over expansion joints on a
dynamic surface podium deck. The second engineering firm also expressed the opinion that the
designers ought to have taken into account the non-static nature of the deck that featured these
expansion joints and should not have accepted the substitute membrane.
Ultimately, to remedy the leaks, the substitute membrane had to be replaced by the rubberized
membrane originally specified in the contract.
What potential liabilities in tort law arise in this case? In your answer, explain what
principles of tort law are relevant and how each applies to the case.
(25) 4. A joint venture consisting of both engineering and contracting firms entered into a contract with
an Ontario city to design and build an all-electronic toll highway “expressway” featuring both
underground tunnel portions and surface portions of the highway. The contract also required the joint
venture to design, install and implement an electronic tolling system to accommodate specified
numbers of vehicles, all as specified in the request for proposal for the design and construction of the
all electronic expressway, as published by the city.
The contract between the city and the joint venture provided that the all-electronic highway
expressway was to be fully operational by a specified date, failing which the joint venture contractor
would be responsible to pay to the city liquidated damages (based on lost total revenues in accordance
with the project’s feasibility study and financial plan) of $300,000 for each day beyond the specified

August 11, 2012
completion date until the expressway and its all electronic tolling technology was finally installed and
fully operational. The contract also included a provision limiting the contractor's liability for liquidated
damages under the contract to the maximum amount of $30 million.
With the city's approval, the joint venture contractor then subcontracted, to a firm specializing in
tolling technology, the obligations to design, install and implement the tolling technology system as
required by the city's specifications. The subcontract contained a provision obligating the tolling
technology subcontractor to be responsible to the joint venture contractor to provide a fully operational
tolling system by the same specified date and for the same $300,000 of daily liquidated damages
(subject to the same maximum amount of $30 million in liquidated damages as set out in the joint
venture contract between the joint venture contractor and the city).
Although the expressway was otherwise operational by the specified completion date, the
tolling technology subcontractor experienced difficulties in completing the installation and
implementation of the tolling technology in accordance with the requirements of the
subcontract. In fact, the tolling technology subcontractor was 120 days late in successfully
completing the design, installation and implementation of the tolling technology system as
required by the subcontract (and the Contract).
Explain and discuss what claim the joint venture contractor could make against the tolling technology
subcontractor in the circumstances. In answering, explain the approach taken by Canadian courts with
respect to contracts that limit liability and include a brief summary of the development of relevant case
precedents.

Study Guide
August 11, 2012 Reprint - Part “B”
The purpose of Part "B" is to examine a knowledge of elementary law, as this may apply in an
engineer’s work experience. Question 1. is definitions with 8 options and requiring only 5 answers.
Questions 2., 3. and 4. are case studies. Each answer should include the names of relevant legal
terms and principles, and how each term or principle applies to one or more elements of the case.
A candidate should be able to show an understanding of the elementary legal principles of tort and
contracts, and each of the 3 case study answers are expected to reach a pass value on their own.
Page references below are for the Marston Text, 4th Edition. These are for study purposes and are
not anticipated in an answer. In the case of a perceived ambiguity, the text should be taken as
authoritative.
1.(i) Contract A in tendering: is automatically formed by an offer and a responding bid. A request
for proposals is an offer and submission of a bid that is compliant with the terms, is acceptance. Any
violation of the conditions of the tender is a breach of Contract A. There are as many Contract A's as
there are bidders. Contract B is one signed agreement with the one successful bidder, pages 119 -
134.
1.(ii) Dispute Resolution Board (DRB): is to resolve a dispute without going to court and thereby to
reduce or eliminate the costs of litigation. A DRB is formed by the contracting parties before work
starts. A panel of 3 neutral individuals are selected, who have expertise in the applicable industry,
page 31.
1.(iii) Equal entitlement: means employment without discrimination because of (list only 5 of 15)
race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed / religion, sex, sexual orientation,
age, marital status, family status, record of offences, handicap, or in event of sexual harassment, page
322.
1.(iv) Statutory holdback: a percentage amount, of the value of services or materials as they are
supplied including the amount of any lien claims, which an owner holds back from a contractor(s) until
all liens have been satisfied, provided for by payment into court, discharged or expired, pages 250 –
253.
1.(v) New York Convention: under United Nations auspices, an agreement signed in 1958 by over
135 countries including Canada. The convention agreement is that the courts of signing countries will
enforce an arbitration decision from any other signing country, and thereby minimize the costs of

Study Guide
foreign litigation to that country. International contracts should be with a party from a signing country,
page 30.
1.(vi) Contra proferentem, rule of: where a contract provision is ambiguous, it will be construed or
interpreted against the party who drafted the provision. Who drafted what, should be noted, page 136.
1.(vii) Contract, essential elements: 1) offer made and accepted 2) mutual intent to enter into the
contract 3) consideration 4) capacity (ability to perform) of the parties, and 5) lawful purpose, page
79.
1.(viii) Discoverability concept: represents a point in time when a limitation period begins. For the
2- year basic limitation period, it begins when the damage or loss is discovered, or ought reasonably to
have been discovered. For the 15-year ultimate limitation period, it begins when the act or omission
took place, e.g., when a building was built. A tort action or an action for breach of contract must be
commenced within these limitation periods otherwise it will be ‘statute barred’, pages 71 - 73.
2. Contract, equitable estoppel: the optionor (owner) was not entitled to deny the optionee’s
(contractor’s) exercise of the option. A ‘gratuitous promise’ was made by the optionor, without
consideration, to extend the option period. The optionee was depending on this promise and
continued to perform services as otherwise agreed. If the optionor persists, the optionee could invoke
the principle of ‘equitable estoppel’, preventing the owner from returning to strict contractual rights,
because if so, the result would then be inequitable. This is an exceptional remedy and can be
enforced, even though the promise was not in writing. A relevant case precedent is Conwest
Exploration vs. Letain, page 92.
3. Tort, potential liabilities - the purpose of tort law is to compensate an aggrieved party for
damages, so far as money will suffice. The 3 essential principles of tort law are relevant, and they are:
1) a duty of care
2) a breach of that duty; and,
3) damage or injury as a result of the breach.
The owner (TO) has contracts with the architect (TA) and the experienced contractor (EC) but does
not have contracts (privity) with the engineer (TE) or the roofing subcontractor (RS). Therefore legal
action(s) by TO against TE and RS, would be in tort.
Although only responsible for the structural aspects, a TE working in this field ought to be competent
about the characteristics of membranes. So also should the EC and especially the RS. Expert
testimony by the second engineering firm would establish that TA and TE should have objected to the
substitution.

Study Guide
The architect, the engineer, experienced contractor and roofing subcontractor all had a duty of care:
1) to provide a podium deck roof membrane which would perform under winter temperatures. This duty
was breached; 2) since a significant number of leaks occurred in the podium deck. There was
resulting damage or loss; 3) since the substitute membrane had to be replaced by the rubberized
membrane originally specified in the contract.
Potential liabilities may be TA 20%, EC 30%, TE 20% and RS 30%. They are concurrent tortfeasors.
The TA and EC liabilities are in contract and perhaps some in tort. The TE and RS liabilities are in
tort.
A relevant case precedent is Unit Farm Concrete vs. Eckerlea Acres, page 46.
4. Contract, breach of and liability: the joint venture contractor (JVC) could make a claim against
the tolling technology subcontractor (TTS) for damages to the limit of $30,000,000 as named in the
contract. However, in the case of a fundamental breach, a clause to limit liability is not normally
enforceable. The actual loss was $300,000 per day for each of the 120 days the system was not
operational and therefore $36,000,000 would be the claim, i.e., $6,000,000 more than the limit in the
liability clause.
In recent years Canadian courts have allowed the enforceability of liability clauses. If the intent of the
parties as expressed or constructed in the liability clause is clear and true, the "true construction
approach" to the wording is said to have taken place. As well, if the amount specified represents a
genuine pre-estimate for liquidated damages, the clause is enforceable, pages 159 -160.
Therefore the law has changed in this area. TTS would only be responsible for the $30,000,000 and
JVC (or the city) would sustain the loss of $6,000,000.
Similar case precedents are Harbutt's Plasticene vs. Wayne Tank and Pump where the clause was not
enforced, page 156, and Hunter Engineering vs. Syncrude where the clause was enforced, page 159.

April 14, 2012
completed.
All four questions constitute a complete paper for Part “B”. Each of the four questions is worth 25
marks.

April 14, 2012
(25) 1. Briefly define, explain or answer any five of the following:
(i) Duress (in contracting)

(ii) New York Convention
(iii) Five examples of equal treatment employment rights to which individuals are entitled
under Ontario’s Human Rights Code (list only) .
(iv) The difference between resolution of a dispute through
mediation and resolution of a dispute through arbitration.
(v) Equitable estoppel
(vi) The parol evidence rule
(vii) The discoverability concept as it relates to limitation periods.
(viii) DRB
(25) 2. An Ontario municipality (the “Owner”) decided to update and expand its water treatment facilities. To
do so, the Owner invited competitive tenders from contractors for the construction of the new water treatment
facility.
The Owner’s consultant on the project, a professional engineer, designed the facility and prepared the Tender
Documents to be given to contractors interested in bidding on the project. Each of the bidders was required to be
prequalified and approved by the Owner for participation in the bidding. The Tender Documents included the
Plans and Specifications, the Tendering Instructions which described the tendering procedure and other
requirements to be followed by the bidders, the Tender Form to be completed by the bidders, the form of written
Contract that the successful contractor would be required to sign after being awarded the contract, and a number
of other documents.
According to the Tendering Instructions, each tender bid as submitted was to remain “firm and irrevocable and
open for acceptance by the Owner for a period of 60 days following the last day for submitting tenders”. The
Tendering Instructions also provided that all bids were to be submitted in accordance with the instructions in the
Owner’s Tender Documents and that the Owner was not obligated to accept the lowest or any tender.
Tenders were submitted by five bidders. All bids were submitted in accordance with the Owner’s Tender
Documents. The lowest bid was well within the Owner’s budget.
Within the 60 days specified and before the Owner’s consultant had made a recommendation to the Owner as to
whom the contract should be awarded, the consultant was called to a meeting with a prominent member of the
Municipal Council who noted that the lowest bidder was not one of the bidders who were “local bidders” from
within the Municipality. The Councillor expressed a very strong view that the contract should in fact be awarded
to a local bidder. The Councillor also noted that if one item that had been included in the specifications was
deleted from the bids the result would be that the bid of the lowest “local contractor” would become the lowest
bid overall and the Councillor’s preference for awarding the contract to a “local contractor” could be satisfied.
There had been no reference in the Tendering Instructions to any preference being shown to local contractors.
How should the consultant deal with the political pressure being applied by the Council member?
If the contract is awarded to the lowest local bidder what potential liabilities in contract law may arise? If the
consultant engineer recommends to the Owner that the contract be awarded as the Councillor suggests what
liabilities may arise for the engineer? Please provide your reasons and analysis.
April 14, 2012
(25) 3. An information technology firm assigned to one of its junior employee engineers the task of developing
special software for application on major bridge designs. The employee engineer had recently become a
professional engineer and was chosen for the task because of the engineer’s background in both the construction
and the “software engineering” industries.
The firm’s bridge software package was purchased and used by a structural engineering design firm on a major
bridge design project on which it had been engaged by contract with a municipal government.
Unfortunately, the bridge collapsed in less than one year after completion of construction. Motorists were killed
and injured.
The resulting investigation into the cause of the collapse concluded that the design of the bridge was defective
and that the software implemented as part of the design did not address all of the parameters involved in the
scope of this particular bridge design. The investigators concluded that although the design software would
suffice for certain types of structures it was not appropriate in the circumstances of the particular subsurface
conditions and length of span required for this particular application. The investigators’ report also indicated that
the design software package was not sufficiently explicit in warning users of the software of the scope of the
design parameters addressed by the software. The investigators’ report also stated that even an experienced user
of the software might reasonably assume that the software would be appropriate for application on this particular
project and that too little attention had been paid to ensuring that adequate warnings had been provided to
software users of the limitations on the application of the software.
What potential liabilities in tort law arise in this case? In your answer, explain what principles of tort law are
relevant and how each applies to the case. Indicate a likely outcome to the matter.
(25) 4. Clearwater Limited, a process-design and manufacturing company, entered into an equipment-supply
contract with Pulverized Pulp Limited. Clearwater agreed to design, supply, and install a cleaning system at
Pulverized Pulp’s Ontario mill for a contract price of $800,000. The specifications for the cleaning system stated
that the equipment was to remove ninety-eight percent of certain prescribed chemicals from the mill’s liquid
effluent in order to comply with the requirements of the environmental control authorities. However, the
contract clearly provided that Clearwater accepted no responsibility whatsoever for any indirect or consequential
damages, arising as a result of its performance of the contract.
The cleaning system installed by Clearwater did not meet the specifications, but this was not determined until
after Clearwater had been paid $720,000 by Pulverized Pulp. In fact, only seventy percent of the prescribed
chemicals were removed from the effluent.
As a result, Pulverized Pulp Limited was fined $60,000 and was shut down by the environmental control
authorities. Clearwater made several attempts to remedy the situation by altering the process and cleaning
equipment, but without success.
Pulverized Pulp eventually contracted with another equipment supplier. For an additional cost of $950,000, the
second supplier successfully redesigned and installed remedial process equipment that cleaned the effluent to the
satisfaction of the environmental authorities, in accordance with the original contract specifications between
Clearwater and Pulverized Pulp.
Explain and discuss what claim Pulverized Pulp Limited can make against Clearwater Limited in the
circumstances. In answering, explain the approach taken by Canadian courts with respect to contracts that
limit liability and include a brief summary of the development of relevant case precedents.
Study Guide
April 14, 2012 Reprint – Part “B”
The purpose of Part "B" is to examine a knowledge of elementary law, as this may apply in an
engineer’s work experience. Question 1. is definitions with 8 options and requiring only 5 answers.
Questions 2., 3. & 4. are case studies. Each answer should include the names of relevant legal terms
and principles, and how each term or principle applies to one or more elements of the case.
A candidate should be able to show an understanding of the elementary legal principles of contracts
and tort, and each of the 3 case study answers are expected to reach a pass value on their own.
Page references below are for the Marston Text, 4th Edition. These are for study purposes and are
not anticipated in an answer. In the case of a perceived ambiguity, the text should be taken as
authoritative.
1.(i) Duress in contracting: threatened or actual, violence or imprisonment used to persuade a party
to enter into a contract. Such a contract is voidable, page 110.
1.(ii) New York Convention: under United Nations auspices, an agreement signed by over 135
nations including Canada in 1958. The convention agreement is that arbitration decisions will be
enforced by the courts of signing nations, to avoid or minimize the costs of foreign litigation.
International contracts should be with a party from a signing nation, page 30.
1.(iii) Equal entitlement: means without discrimination based on (list only 5 of the 14 given here)
race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed / religion, sex, sexual orientation,
age, marital status, family status, record of offences, handicap; and freedom from sexual harassment,
pg 322.
1.(iv) Dispute resolution: mediation is by negotiation through an impartial mediator. Arbitration is

through a board of one or more persons, whose judgment, the disputant parties agree, will be binding.
The difference between them is arbitration is binding whereas mediation is not, pages 235 – 239.
1.(v) Equitable estoppels: after a contract is underway, if one party agrees to a change by a
'gratuitous promise', e.g., a time limit, and the other party continues performance relying on that
promise, the first party cannot later insist on contract rights. Even though there was nothing in writing,
the performing party may invoke the legal process of 'equitable estoppel' to ensure a fair result, page
92.
1.(vi) Parol evidence rule: verbal agreements not written into a contract cannot be taken as evidence
to enforce a contract. However, if it can be established that a condition needed to be precedent before
a contract was signed, then verbal evidence of that condition may be admitted, page 136.

Study Guide
1.(vii) Discoverability concept: represents a point in time when a limitation period begins. For the 2-
year basic limitation period, it begins when the damage or loss is discovered, or ought reasonably to
have been discovered. For the 15-year ultimate limitation period, it begins when the act or omission
took place, e.g., when a building was built. A tort action or an action for breach of contract must be
commenced within these limitation periods otherwise it will be ‘statute barred’, pages 71 - 73.
1.(viii) DRB (Dispute Review or Resolution Board): to resolve a dispute without going to court and
thereby avoid the extra costs of litigation. A DRB is formed by the contract parties before work starts.
A panel of 3 neutral individuals are selected, who have expertise in the applicable industry, page 31.
2. Contract tender changes, liabilities: the consultant P.Eng. (CPE) should say 'sorry, no' to the
prominent Council member (PCM). The Owner's Tender Documents (OTD) represent an agreement
in the formation of a 'Contract A'. The Contract A concept is from the Ron Engineering case, page
121.
Any change in treatment of the OTD instructions or specifications, would compromise the Contract A.
Contract A is formed when each bidder submits a bid and 5 Contract A's have been duly formed.
When the final contract is signed with a bidder, one 'Contract B' is formed. If a signing were 'outside'
the OTD with the lowest local bidder (LLB), then the other 4 bidders could sue the owner municipality
(OM) for breach of their Contract A’s. The potential liabilities could include bid expenses and lost
profits. The total expense of legal defense by the OM and damages could come in well over OM's
budget.
If CPE does go along with PCM and recommends the award to the LLB, then CPE is open to a suit by
OM for breach of trust and damages. Furthermore, CPE is open to a charge of misconduct by
Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), Regulation 941, section 72.(2)(j).
An alternative is to reject all bids and issue a revised tender package, without the 'limiting item' and
also to clearly state that preference would be shown to local contractors. Then all previous bidders
would be on a level playing field and could decide whether or not to bid. This has the possible
exposure of reducing the number of bidders and the 'local contractor' could come in with a higher bid
than before, especially if confidential information happens to be given through the PCM.
The PCM must have known well before the preparation of OTD, that water treatment facilities were to
be updated and expanded. Representation to Council, and agreement on preference to local bidders,
should have been reached before the preparation of the OTD.
3. The relevant principles of tort law are:

1) a duty of care,
2) a breach of that duty, and
3) resulting damage or loss.

Study Guide
This is a tort case because there was no contract between the municipal government (TMG) and the
information technology firm (ITF). A tort action is intended to compensate an aggrieved party(s) as far
as it is possible with money.
AMG will claim that ITF, as verified by the resulting investigation:

1) did not give adequate care or warnings about the limitations and scope of software parameters,
2) the bridge collapsed thus breaching a duty of care, traced back by the investigators (expert
testimony) to the unsatisfactory software,
3) motorists were killed and injured, so there was resulting damage and loss.
The potential liabilities that arise are to the structural engineering design firm (SEF) and to the ITF.
The liability funds would be used to compensate the injured, families of the deceased, and rebuild the
bridge.
A likely outcome is, the liabilities to SEF would be about 40 %, and to ITF would be about 60%.
SEF and ITF would be concurrent tortfeasors.
The ITF would be vicariously liable for the actions of its junior engineer.
A similar case precedent is Unit Farm Concrete vs. Eckerlea Acres, page 46.
Although persons awarded P.Eng. have met certain minimum qualifications, a junior engineer's work
should have had at least a brief review by a seasoned engineering designer or manager at SEF. Also,
even the construction contractor may have noticed deficiencies compared to other similar bridges.
4. Contract, breach of and liability: Pulverized Pulp Limited (PP) can make a claim for damages
against Clearwater Limited (CL), because of fundamental breach of the contract. Based on a history
of these cases, a clause to limit liability is not normally enforceable. The cleaning system was only
70% effective, well short of the 98% specified, and not satisfactory to the environmental control
authorities. PP had expected their costs to be $800,000 and have paid $720,000 so should still expect
to pay a net balance of $80,000. PP can make a claim against CL for the costs from another
equipment supplier of $950,000 plus the fine from the authorities of $60,000, a total of $1,010,000, but
less $80,000, for a net claim of $930,000. They should also include costs in their claim for delay, lost
production, etc.
Some Canadian courts have allowed the enforceability of limited liability clauses. If the ‘construction
of’ the wording, about the amount of money in a limited liability clause, is clear and true, and the
liquidated damages provisions are supported in detail by a genuine pre-estimate of the costs of a
possible breach, then the legal principle of a 'true construction approach' is said to have taken place
and the clause is enforceable. Therefore the law has changed in this area. The contract as signed by
Pulverized Pulp, provided that Clearwater accepted no liability for damages, so CL would not be liable
for any costs.

Study Guide
Similar case precedents are Harbutt's Plasticene vs. Wayne Tank and Pump where the clause was not
enforceable, and Hunter Engineering vs. Syncrude where it was, pages 155. 159.

March 2013 PPE Seminar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 2013 PPE Seminar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EIT Seminar

Professional Practice Exam

Grant Boundy, P.Eng., FEC

Study Guide - August 11, 2012 Reprint – Part “A” ............................................................................... 10

Study Guide - April 14, 2012 Reprint - Part “A”.................................................................................... 17

Sample Topics with Brief Notes - Part “B” Question 1 ........................................................................ 21

Study Guide - August 11, 2012 Reprint – Part “B” ............................................................................... 26

Study Guide - April 14, 2012 Reprint – Part “B” ................................................................................... 32

PEO Main Functions:

Requirements / Conditions for

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 3

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 4

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

White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.

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

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 5

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 6

Aurora Radio Manufacturing Inc. (“Aurora”) is a well-known manufacturer of radio

In addition to working for Aurora, Solo performs independent consulting professional

Specify and explain:

Vision Transportation (‘Vision’) is a design-build firm and has been hired by a

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 7

Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide:

(5) (c) What do you think about your colleague’s actions?

Kappa, P.Eng., is employed by a municipality in Ontario as head of the municipality’s

The municipality is currently considering hiring a company to design and build a

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 8

Possible Points ABC’s Score XYZ’s Score

(25) Discuss Kappa’s conduct.

Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guides

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 9

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 10

2(a) To legally provide services (re Misconduct) Solo must:

2(b) To engage in outside work (re Code of Ethics) Solo should:

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 12

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

White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.

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

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 13

(10) (f) Briefly define the practice of professional engineering.

Consequently, while Epsilon is still waiting to receive the promised challenging

(10) (a) Discuss the appropriateness of Epislon`s employment arrangements.

(5) (c) Would Epsilon need a Certificate of Authorization to provide services to

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 14

Use the Codes of Ethics and Professional Misconduct as your guide in

Beta is a licensed professional engineer with over 15 years experience in the

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

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 15

Delta, P.Eng. (an independent practitioner with a Certificate of Authorization) was

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 16

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 17

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 18

EIT Seminar March 2013 – Keys to Success Page 19

EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 20

EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 21

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

White Answer Book for Part A white question paper.

Coloured Answer Book for Part B coloured question paper.

EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 22

(25) 1. Briefly define, explain or answer any five of the following:

(i) Contract A in tendering

EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 23

EIT Seminar March 2013 - Keys to Success Page 24