Engineering Dimensions Spring 2024

THE LIMITED LICENCE

Recognizing specialized knowledge and skill

Take a 360° approach to protecting your loved ones. Engineers Canadasponsored Insurance Plans can help cover every angle. There’s more than one way to help protect your and your family’s health and finances with Engineers Canada-sponsored Insurance Plans.

Take advantage of exclusive features, innovative benefits and some of the best rates in the industry.

Plus, if you’re a first-time Term Life Insurance applicant, you can get $50,000 of additional coverage at no extra cost for up to two years.*

$2,780 is the average out-of-pocket health and dental cost per year.¹ Health & Dental Insurance can help.

$281,880 is what it costs to raise a child to 18 in Canada.2 Term Life Insurance can help.

2 in 5

Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime.⁴ Critical Illness Insurance can help. 1 in 3 Canadians will be out of work due to a disability before age 65.3 Disability Income Protection can help.

1 Statistics Canada, “Survey of Household Spending in Canada,” 2022.

2 ctvnews.ca, “How much money does it take to raise a child in Canada?” July 2022.

3 clhia.ca, “A guide to disability insurance,” 2021.

⁴ Canadian Cancer Society, “Cancer Statistics at a Glance,” 2023.

* For complete details, see manulife.ca/newmember

** Limitations and exclusions apply.

Individual circumstances may vary. You may wish to contact one of Manulife’s Licensed Insurance Advisors or your licensed insurance agent if you need advice about your insurance needs. Conditions, limitations and exclusions apply. See policy for details.

PUBLICATIONS STAFF Editor

Nicole Axworthy

editor@peo.on.ca

Associate editor

Adam Sidsworth

Contributing writer

Natalya Anderson

Senior graphic designer

Cindy Reichle

CONNECT WITH US

Director, communications

Katarina Praljak

Manager, communications

Duff McCutcheon

Digital communications specialist

Michelle Yiu

ADVERTISING SALES

Senior account executive

Vince Naccarato vnaccarato@dvtail.com

Engineering Dimensions (ISSN 0227-5147) is published quarterly by Professional Engineers Ontario and is distributed to all PEO licence holders.

Engineering Dimensions publishes articles on regulatory business and professional topics of interest to the professional engineer. The magazine’s content does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of PEO Council, nor does PEO assume any responsibility for unsolicited manuscripts and art. All material is copyright. Permission to reprint editorial copy or graphics should be requested from the editor.

Approximately $5.00 from each membership fee is allocated to Engineering Dimensions and is non-deductible.

EXECUTIVE STAFF

CEO/registrar

Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D

Vice president, regulatory operations and deputy registrar

Americo Viola, MBA, P.Eng.

Vice president, policy and governance

Dan Abrahams, LLB

Vice president, corporate operations and digital transformation

Arun Dixit, P.Eng.

PEO COUNCIL

Officers

President

Roydon Fraser, PhD, P.Eng., FEC president@peo.on.ca

Past president

Nick Colucci, MBA, P.Eng., FEC

President-elect

Greg Wowchuk, P.Eng.

Vice president (elected)

Christopher Chahine, P.Eng.

Vice president (appointed)

Leila Notash, PhD, P.Eng., FEC

Executive Members

Lorne Cutler, MBA, P.Eng.

Michelle Liu, MASc, JD, P.Eng.

Councillors

Councillors-at-large

Vajahat Banday, P.Eng., PE (Michigan), FEC

Leila Notash, PhD, P.Eng., FEC

Glen Schjerning, P.Eng.

Eastern Region councillors

Tim Kirkby, P.Eng., FEC

Michelle Liu, MASc, JD, P.Eng.

East Central Region councillors

David Kiguel, P.Eng., FEC

Nanda Layos Lwin, P.Eng., FEC

Northern Region councillors

Dana Montgomery, P.Eng.

Luc Roberge, P.Eng., FEC

Western Region councillors

Vicki Hilborn, MASc, P.Eng.

Susan MacFarlane, MSc, PhD, P.Eng.

West Central Region councillors

Pappur Shankar, P.Eng., FEC

Ravinder Panesar, P.Eng., FEC

Lieutenant governor-in-council appointees

Arjan Arenja, MBA, P.Eng.

Lorne Cutler, MBA, P.Eng.

Andy Dryland, C.E.T.

Paul Mandel, MBA, CPA, CA

George Nikolov, P.Eng.

Scott Schelske, P.Eng., FEC

Uditha Senaratne, P.Eng., FEC

Sherlock Sung, BASc

Engineers Canada Directors

Arjan Arenja, MBA, P.Eng.

Christian Bellini, P.Eng., FEC

Tim Kirkby, P.Eng., FEC

Nancy Hill, P.Eng., LLB, FEC, FCAE

Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC

Learn on Demand - Prefab Precast Concrete Free Educational Webinars

Learn on Demand - Prefab Precast Concrete is a continuing series of interactive educational courses for engineers and other AEC Professionals who want to learn more about prefab precast concrete products and services.

Upon completion, participants receive a certificate to qualify for Professional Development Hours (PDH) and Continuing Education Units (CEUs) and/or Continuing Education Credits (CECs).

For more information and educational presentations check out Learn on Demand, a 24/7/365 online platform. Visit: cpci-learnondemand.com/

CIRCA 1877 | Waterloo, ON

Bramalea GO Parking | Brampton, ON

Third Crossing Bridge | Kingston, ON

AMAZON Fulfillment Centre | Ottawa, ON

A Licence That’s Anything but Limiting

By Nicole Axworthy

limited licence, this in no way reflects its importance to PEO. Helping potential applicants realize their dream of entering the profession—while upholding our mandate to protect the public—has remained one of PEO’s top priorities since it updated the licensing requirements for the P.Eng. last spring.

Notably, following the implementation of new rules by way of the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act, individuals are only eligible to apply to become a professional engineer if, among other requirements, they hold a Canadian accredited bachelor’s

LET US KNOW

degree in engineering or a recognized international equivalent. This means individuals who hold an engineering diploma, a post-graduate engineering degree or a non-engineering undergraduate degree don’t qualify.

Enter the limited licence, or LEL. As Associate Editor Adam Sidsworth explains in “The Limited Licence: An Alternate Path to PEO Licensure” (p. 24), PEO recognizes that some people have the academic and experience credentials to practise professional engineering within a specialized and well-defined area. And with broader academic requirements, this licence is a viable option for those who took a different learning path. While the limited licence doesn’t have the open-ended scope of the P.Eng., it is anything but limiting. In fact, a limited licence holder can, among other things, seal documents and take responsibility for a certificate of authorization matching their scope of practice.

Among this class of licences, PEO also offers a licensed engineering technologist (LET) designation that recognizes the unique engineering capabilities of engineering technologists (C.E.T.s) certified by the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists, providing more opportunity for qualified C.E.T.s to expand in their careers.

This issue, we’re also featuring the team behind an innovative wastewater energy transfer project in downtown Toronto. In “The Sewage Solution” (p. 34), contributing writer Natalya Anderson details how engineers are harnessing energy from the sewer system to provide 90 per cent of the heating and cooling needs of Toronto Western Hospital.

We’re also celebrating the 65th anniversary of the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education. This not-for-profit organization, founded by a group of PEO volunteers, provides scholarships to engineering students across the province. Find out more about the important work of the foundation—and how you can support it—on page 39.

Lastly, we announce the results of PEO’s recent Council elections on page 9. Members of the 2024–2025 term will take office at PEO’s hybrid annual general meeting later this month. More details on the event can be found on page 44. I encourage you to attend either in person or virtually, but we’ll also bring you all the details of the business meeting and new Council in the next issue of Engineering Dimensions. e

To protect the public, PEO investigates all complaints about unlicensed individuals or companies, and unprofessional, inadequate or incompetent engineers. If you have concerns about the work of an engineer, fill out a Complaint Form found on PEO’s website and email it to complaints@peo.on.ca If you suspect a person or company is practising engineering without a licence, contact PEO’s enforcement hotline at 800-339-3716, ext. 1444, or by email at enforcement@peo.on.ca

A Vision Statement Update

By Roydon Fraser, PhD, P.Eng., FEC

At the beginning of my term as president-elect, I set out to help PEO develop a common vision for the future of engineering regulation in Ontario. In 2022, I proposed the strategic plan goal to “refresh PEO’s vision to ensure all stakeholders see relevance and value in PEO,” which was accepted by Council. In summer 2023, as my term as president began, work towards this strategic goal started with amazingly high interest from members. By fall 2023, 99 PEO member volunteers were divided among 10 vision advisory groups.

Apart from stimulating valuable stakeholder engagement with PEO, the real goal of the visioning work is to deliver a vision statement and accompanying interpretive document. A good vision statement is goal-oriented, audacious, inspiring and widely accepted by an array of stakeholders. In the case of PEO, these stakeholders include but are not limited to PEO members, Council and staff; students (i.e. future P.Engs); government; and industry. Remember, a vision statement is not an organization’s mission statement; a vision guides an organization to achieve its mission. PEO’s mission is derived from the Professional Engineers Act. It is to regulate the practice of professional engineering and govern the engineering profession in the public interest.

Phase 1 of the visioning work took place in fall 2023 and saw the 10 advisory groups generate through iteration 62 possible preliminary vision statements. I was very pleased and impressed by the passion, insight and efforts

of all advisory group members. From these 62 vision statements, 10 common themes were identified with the top five being as follows: 1. Empowerment and Excellence in Engineering; 2.

Phase 2 began in winter 2024 with the goal of developing the interpretive document from the identified themes. In Phase 2, 47 member volunteers, divided among three advisory groups, remain available for the high level of engagement needed. And Phase 3 is taking place this spring, where a shortlist of vision statements and an interpretive document will be generated for consideration. An array of stakeholders have already provided the advisory groups with feedback, and further stakeholder input is planned.

To enable a stronger appreciation for the value of a good vision, consider the following where future visions currently collide in the absence of a common vision.

Currently, the language used at PEO and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE) is that PEO regulates and OSPE advocates. This interpretation does not recognize areas of overlap but rather seeks to distinctly place activities in either the realm of PEO or of OSPE. It is my hope that PEO’s visioning work more clearly recognizes areas of overlap between PEO and OSPE for the purpose of co-operation. For example, both PEO and OSPE may support a given demand-side legislation that has both a protection-of-the-public impact and a member-benefit impact, respectively. Figure 1 (below) is one possible vision of how this overlap might be interpreted. I do not yet know if the vision provided by Figure 1 will be supported by the visioning work or not.

A PERSONAL REFLECTION

The P.Eng. designation represents the highest standards of engineering knowledge, experience and professionalism in the country. Being licensed demonstrates a commitment to safeguarding the public and engineering excellence; it also demonstrates that the licence holder has the right skills, education and attitude and that they’re a responsible professional with proven problem-solving abilities. My goal as PEO president was to bring more relevancy and value to the P.Eng. The visioning work we started in 2023 is a positive step towards realizing this goal.

I remain hopeful for PEO’s future because of the passion for the profession I see among engineers and engineering students. I am also hopeful that the visioning work will guide PEO, and in turn the P.Eng., to improved relevancy. e

Figure 1: A possible vision for PEO and OSPE that recognizes today’s split—that PEO regulates and OSPE advocates—but also embraces overlap.

Bringing Kindness to Professional Regulation

By Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D

As another Council term comes to an end, I want to extend my appreciation to the councillors who served on PEO’s 2023–2024 Council and acknowledge their commitment as well as that of staff. Together, we completed all 23 deliverables under our 2023 Operational Plan. These will ensure PEO achieves the outcomes anticipated by PEO’s 2023–2025 Strategic Plan. Staff and I look forward to working with the new 2024–2025 Council to continue delivering on our mandate and driving sustainable growth and innovation across the organization.

Among the highlights of the past year were the successful introduction of a new licensing process in May 2023. The new approach complies with recent amendments to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act (FARPACTA). It allows PEO to make faster licensing decisions without the former mandatory Canadian work experience requirement, which was subsequently removed from our regulations in the Professional Engineers Act. This is welcome news for applicants. It is especially helpful for those who are internationally trained, and who, under our previous requirements, often lacked only the required Canadian experience component for licensure.

Over the years, councillors, volunteers and staff have heard many compelling stories from those who have sought to be licensed as professional engineers. Modeste Muhire P.Eng., PE (New York et al), PMP, who is originally from Rwanda, recently shared his path-to-licensure story (see p. 13). Muhire received his engineering education in the United States, where he worked as a civil engineer for

over a decade and is licensed in 10 US states. Muhire submitted his application to PEO in 2019 but wasn’t awarded his licence until last year, when PEO assessed his experience under our new competency-based assessment, which examines 34 engineering competencies across several categories.

Muhire was one of many applicants under PEO’s legacy process who benefitted under our new licensing model and is committed to encouraging other internationally trained applicants to pursue PEO licensure. “The new regulations opened a door of professional opportunities not only for internationally trained engineers but for the whole industry,” Muhire explains.

Inviting legacy applicants to resubmit their application is a move consistent with the objectives of FARPACTA, which is primarily focused on fair access to regulated professions, including engineering. It is also the kind thing to do, and kindness is increasingly a consideration for regulators—including PEO.

KINDNESS IN REGULATION

According to a June 2022 article in the International Journal for Quality in Health Care, kindness in regulation is not only possible but necessary. The co-authors make the point that “kindness in regulation is about developing humane approaches that maintain a strong focus on risk and patient safety while considering practitioner well-being.”

At the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (OCSWSW), Registrar and CEO Denitha Breau, MSN, MBA, RN, exercises kindness in regulation by ensuring OCSWSW connects with communities outside the regulatory body’s typical reach—including First Nations, Métis and Inuit communities—to better understand how OSCWSW’s licensed professionals work in their communities, recognize the impact of their work and appreciate the diversity of stakeholders across the province. “No matter what sort of professional capacity you work in [in regulation],” Breau says, “you can still execute your tasks by infusing a certain level of kindness in your day-to-day work while also staying factual.”

PEO is equally committed to incorporating kindness—along with equity, diversity and inclusion—into our operations. Our recent licensing change allowed an accomplished engineer like Modeste Muhire to become licensed in Ontario. With a new customer service model now in place, we respond to queries in a timely fashion while ensuring applicants and licence holders have improved access to information. We have many initiatives also underway in support of PEO’s Anti-Racism and Equity Code, and we will soon share our roadmap showcasing the activities underway to achieve it. Additional examples include our ongoing gender audit, which is exploring the representation of women among PEO licence holders; and our strong relationship with Indigenous Community Engagement to better engage Indigenous Peoples in PEO’s licensing process. PEO is also committed to consistently improving the work environment for its staff to support improved mental health and a continued culture of psychological safety. Together, we are making kindness a PEO trait. e

New Council to Begin 2024–2025 Term

PEO Council, which includes new President Greg Wowchuck, begins its new term on April 20.

By Nicole Axworthy

PEO Council for the 2024–2025 term will take office at PEO’s 2024 Annual General Meeting (AGM) on April 20. Greg Wowchuck, P.Eng., FEC, will be the new president, and several new councillors will also take office following a month-long election period earlier this year.

The election results, which were announced in late February, revealed that Fred Saghezchi, P.Eng., FEC, captured the role of president-elect. This will be Saghezchi’s first time serving on Council following over two decades serving on the Willowdale/Thornhill Chapter. Saghezchi will automatically transition to the presidency for the 2025–2026 Council term at PEO’s 2025 AGM.

Guy Boone, P.Eng., FEC, was elected to the role of vice president (elected). Boone previously served on Council as an Eastern Region councillor.

This year, 11.5 per cent of eligible licence holders voted during the election cycle, a percentage that has been holding steady for the last four years.

Other new councillors elected or named to Council for the 2024–2025 term include:

• Councillor-at-Large Randy Walker, P.Eng., FEC;

• Northern Region Councillor Ahmed Elshaer, PhD, P.Eng.;

• Eastern Region Councillor Chantal Chiddle, P.Eng., FEC;

• East Central Region Councillor Shahandeh Hannah Ehtemam, P.Eng. (acclaimed);

• West Central Region Councillor Pappur Shankar, P.Eng., FEC (acclaimed); and

• Western Region Councillor Vicki Hilborn, P.Eng.

Additionally, at the new Council’s first meeting on May 3, councillors will be appointed to the position of vice president (appointed) and to the Executive Committee, along with positions on Council’s four governance committees. The full 2024–2025 Council will be featured in the Summer 2024 issue of Engineering Dimensions

HOW YOU VOTED

Province Updates Regulatory Requirements for Cranes at Construction Projects

Changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act concern safety requirements at construction projects, including the inspection of cranes by professional engineers.

By Adam Sidsworth

Earlier this year, the provincial Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development introduced regulation changes to the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), increasing the responsibility of P.Eng. and limited licence holders to inspect cranes used at construction sites across Ontario. (Temporary licence holders are currently not permitted to inspect cranes.)

Most amendments to O. Reg. 213/91 of the OHSA took effect on January 1, 2024; however, some amendments, one of which regards the inspection of cranes more than 10 years old, will take effect on January 1, 2025.

Among the key changes introduced under O. Reg. 213/91 are:

• The adoption of industry standards, such as Canadian Standards Association’s Z248:17 (Code for tower cranes) and the Electrical Safety Authority’s Electrical Safety for Tower Cranes;

• Updated and more comprehensive inspection requirements that ensure cranes undergo thorough assessments to identify any potential safety hazards or risks;

• An emphasis on the detailed evaluation by engineers of the safety of tower cranes to lessen the risks associated with crane failures and improper crane setups; and

• The incorporation into the regulation of the PEO practice standard Review of Tower Cranes as Required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, introduced in 2015 and located in O. Reg 260/08 of the Professional Engineers Act (PEA).

“The intention of the changes was primarily to enhance safety for crane and hoisting operations in Ontario,” notes Saeed Khorsand, P.Eng., DFE, provincial engineer, Specialized Professional Services program at the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development (MLITSD). “These changes were prompted by requests from the industry to the ministry, as well as by ministry inspection blitzes on tower cranes, which revealed significant inconsistencies in maintenance and inspection practices across the province. The overarching goal is to improve the health and safety of construction workers operating on or around tower cranes, thereby safeguarding public safety as well. Overall, these changes establish more rigorous safety standards and procedures for crane operations.”

CHANGES AIM TO ENHANCE SAFETY

The initial changes to O. Reg. 213/91 this past January include:

• enhanced requirements for engineering inspections and requirements for the inspections covering mechanical, hydraulic and electrical components, as well as structural non-destructive testing inspections. Engineers, and those conducting inspections under the supervision of an engineer, must conduct more thorough and comprehensive evaluations to identify any potential issues or weaknesses in crane systems.

Additional changes scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2025, include:

• New minimum requirements for engineers’ knowledge of the design standards and specifications of cranes and related safety equipment; and

• Comprehensive 10-year inspections to ensure cranes maintain their safety and operational integrity over time.

“By staying updated on these changes, engineers can play a crucial role in ensuring the safe and efficient operation of cranes on construction sites, ultimately contributing to the success of construction projects while prioritizing worker safety,” notes Khorsand. “Engineers working on construction sites, especially those involved with cranes, should be keenly aware of these changes aimed at enhancing safety and efficiency.”

Khorsand adds that the MLITSD is implementing a six-month educational period specifically aimed at compliance with section 158 of O. Reg. 213/91, which pertains to tower crane inspection standards as prescribed under Review of Tower Cranes as Required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, a PEO performance standard regulating how engineers perform tower crane inspections. Under the PEA, all licensed engineers must adhere to all performance standards or face possible disciplinary action by PEO.

“This educational period is to give the industry time to become familiar with these changes,” notes Khorsand. “Furthermore, certain requirements will only take effect on January 1, 2025, providing additional time for the engineering community to adapt to the new changes.” Amendments that come into effect on January 1, 2025, include the hoisting operation clearance requirements of multiple cranes on a project, the inspection of tower cranes at 10-year intervals and the erection, dismantling and climbing of tower cranes in accordance with the CSA’s Z248.17.

According to Khorsand, the last two requirements were introduced to update ministry requirements to align with industry safety standards. The regulation now explicitly refers to self-erecting tower cranes because these types of cranes are becoming increasingly prevalent in the industry. Specific requirements for self-erecting tower cranes were made to account for specific operational needs for these types of cranes as they differ from other types of tower cranes. Expanded requirements for the inspections of tower cranes, including those more than 10 years old, is to ensure operational safety because yearly inspections do not always detect the wear and tear of mechanical, electrical or structural parts.

“By implementing more thorough inspections every 10 years, including dismantling and examining components, it becomes possible to assess the adequacy of their performance and address any potential issues that may have developed over time,” observes Khorsand. “This proactive approach helps mitigate risks and ensures the continued safe operation of cranes, thereby safeguarding both personnel and property.”

REGULATORY RESOURCES

For further information on the new regulations, Khorsand invites engineers to visit the province’s Technical Guideline on Requirements for Cranes at Construction Projects. The MLITSD has also developed a webinar, in collaboration with the Infrastructure Health and Safety Association, to provide further information.

Additionally, licence holders should visit PEO’s Practice Advisory Bulletin #7, which spells out the responsibilities of the review engineer during crane inspections. If you have further questions, contact PEO’s practice advisory team at practice-standards@peo.on.ca.

PRACTICE STANDARD UNDER REVIEW

PEO is currently reviewing its Review of Tower Cranes as Required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act practice standard to ensure it reflects the 2024 and 2025 changes to O. Reg. 213/91 and engineering standards of care and improved industry practices and technical standards introduced since 2015.

Draft revisions will be shared with engineering firms, industry associations, construction companies, manufacturers and insurers in the tower crane sector, as well as the MLITSD for their feedback. The proposed amendment to the practice standard will be forwarded to PEO’s Regulatory Policy and Legislation Committee for further review. Their recommendations will be forwarded to PEO Council, who will consider asking the provincial cabinet to approve the necessary amendments to the performance standard in O.Reg. 260/08, which will refer to the updated practice standard.

Right: Deana David, P.Eng., structural engineer at Tatham Engineering, chats with Karolina Kukielka, C.E.T., also from Tatham, at the NEM kickoff event.

Left: Stephanie Smith, P.Eng., Candu Energy senior vice president of engineering and AtkinsRéalis chief nuclear engineer, participates in a panel discussion during the NEM kickoff event at the CN Tower.

Anthony Colangelo, P.Eng., of the St. Lawrence Seaway System, asks a question during the NEM kickoff event.

Janusz Koziński, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, dean of engineering at Lakehead University, answers a question during the panel discussion at the NEM kickoff event, while Jim Sarvinis, P.Eng., global managing director of Hatch, looks on.

Above: A screenshot from the NEM event by Modeste Muhire, P.Eng., PE (New York et al), PEP, for internationally trained applicants considering applying for PEO licensure

Right: Nick Mocan, P.Eng., president of Crozier during the NEM kickoff event panel discussion

NEM Hosts Week of Events About the P.Eng.

National Engineering Month began with a week of discussions about the P.Eng. licence.

By Adam Sidsworth

National Engineering Month (NEM), which is hosted annually in March, kicked off its first week dedicated to insightful events and discussions about the journey to becoming a professional engineer and the P.Eng. designation’s significance for the engineering profession.

March has been recognized as NEM since 1992 and is co-presented in Ontario by Engineers Canada and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). The aim of NEM is to advance the engineering profession, spark an interest in the next generation of engineering professionals and celebrate the role that engineers play in society by providing “purposeful learning experiences that improve knowledge, skills and competencies with a personal, civic and/or employment-related perspective.”

On March 5, OSPE hosted its annual kickoff event for NEM at the CN Tower in Toronto, ON. With the theme “Understanding the True Value of Engineering Services and How to Boost Them,” the event’s discussion focused on the undervaluation and underappreciation of engineering in Canada, especially compared to other countries, and how Canada can improve the working environment so Canadian engineers don’t explore more lucrative opportunities abroad.

The evening’s panelists were Nick Mocan, P.Eng., president of Crozier Consulting Engineers; Stephanie Smith, P.Eng., Candu Energy senior vice president of engineering and AtkinsRéalis chief nuclear engineer; and Jim Sarvinis, P.Eng., global managing director, energy, of Hatch. Moderating the panel was David Carnegie, P.Eng., partner at Malroz Engineering and vice chair of OSPE. The panelists were introduced by Janusz Koziński, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, dean of engineering at Lakehead University, who also answered attendees’ questions.

EXPLORING A CONSULTING ENGINEERING CAREER

During an online event on March 6, titled “Unlocking Your Excellence—Navigating the Consulting Engineering Career Path,” three engineering panelists spoke about the challenges of pursuing a career as consulting engineers. Panelists included Chris Metaxas, P.Eng., vice president and geostructural practice lead at GEI Consultants; Montana Wilson, P.Eng., PMP, CEO and founder of Grit Engineering; and Domenica D’Amico, P.Eng., director, roads and transportation, Ontario, at WSP.

Wilson and D’Amico both spoke about the unique challenges of women in the consulting engineering sector, particularly in the field. Wilson noted that women in consulting engineering lack other women mentors, and D’Amico noted the province’s recent mandating of washrooms at construction sites goes a long way to making work equitable for women in engineering and construction.

JOURNEY TO BECOMING A P.ENG.

During an online event on March 7, Modeste Muhire, P.Eng., PE (New York et al), PMP, shared his experience as an internationally trained professional navigating PEO’s updated licensing process, which was amended in May 2023 to comply with new requirements under the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act Notably, the amendments compelled professional regulators like PEO to remove Canadian professional experience from their licensing requirements.

Muhire, who was born in Rwanda and received his engineering education in the United States, obtained his Ontario P.Eng. in 2023. Prior to PEO removing the requirement that applicants obtain one year of work experience in a Canadian jurisdiction, Muhire found that his application to PEO was complicated by his engineering experience, which although extensive, lacked Canadian experience. “The recent changes in [PEO’s licensing] process allowed me to use my decade of experience in the USA to satisfy the competence requirements,” Muhire tells Engineering Dimensions. “My application started under PEO’s old model but was completed under the new regulations.”

Muhire, who also hosted an NEM event on March 15 for civil engineers and civil engineering firms, wants to help other internationally trained applicants pursue PEO licensure. “The new regulations opened a door of professional opportunities not only for internationally trained engineers but for the whole industry,” says Muhire.

In addition to these events, NEM’s “Journey to the P.Eng.” week also included events such as a networking opportunity for undergraduate and postgraduate students and professional engineers, a visit to National Research Council’s Manufacturing and Automotive Innovation Hub in London, ON, and a luncheon and panel discussion about women in STEM.

Engineers Canada CEO Set to Retire in June

Gerard McDonald, who has been at the helm of Engineers Canada for the last six years, will be retiring this summer.

By Adam Sidsworth

The head of the national organization that represents Canada’s 12 provincial and territorial engineering regulators will be stepping down from the position this summer.

Engineers Canada CEO Gerard McDonald, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D, announced that his last day on the job will be June 28. Engineers Canada has yet to announce McDonald’s replacement.

McDonald joined Engineers Canada in 2018. Previously, McDonald was the registrar of PEO for four years. PEO’s current CEO/registrar, Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D, praised McDonald for his commitment to harmonizing engineering regulation across Canada. “Gerard brings a passion to engineering leadership and has worked tirelessly to increasingly harmonize engineering regulation across Canada,” notes Quaglietta. “During his tenure at Engineers Canada, Gerard helped strengthen organizational excellence. Canada’s over 300,000 licensed engineers are better regulated thanks in large part to Gerard.”

IMPROVING REGULATOR RELATIONSHIPS

In an interview with Engineering Dimensions, McDonald notes that during his tenure at Engineers Canada, the organization improved its working relationship with the 12 provincial and territorial regulators, who collectively constitute Engineers Canada’s membership. “Our job is to try and bring them together,” McDonald explains. “It’s not to dictate to them but rather to work with them to increase collaboration and harmonization across the country and have more consistency in the profession.”

McDonald notes that the increased collaboration is most evident in the work Engineers Canada has done to develop its new strategic plan, which is scheduled to take effect next year. “I think it’s built up trust in the organization by the regulators,” McDonald says. “The organization feels better about itself, and I think that’s really where we’ve made strides over the past six years.”

Additionally, the organization’s current 2022–2024 Strategic Plan’s vision centres on national collaboration by focusing on advancing the engineering regulatory framework; championing an equitable, diverse, inclusive and trustworthy engineering profession; and upholding Engineers Canada’s commitment to excellence.

Reflecting on his years at Engineers Canada, McDonald notes that engineering regulation has become increasingly symmetrical across the country, with all engineering

regulators now mandating continuing professional development as a requirement of continued access to their licence and title and practice rights. And many provincial and territorial regulators have shifted away from a strictly time-based experience requirement for licensure to a competency-based assessment for licensure.

Importantly, McDonald notes, provincial and territorial governments across Canada are taking a vested interest in professional self-regulation, and engineering regulation in particular. Noting British Columbia’s Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance, Quebec’s Office des professions du Québec and recent regulatory umbrella legislation in Alberta, McDonald observes: “We’re seeing acts…telling regulators how they’re supposed to be organized, what things they should be doing and shouldn’t be doing and what elements they should have in their mandate.”

A CIVIL ENGINEER SHIFTS TO ADMINISTRATION

McDonald earned his undergraduate degree in civil engineering from the University of Waterloo before beginning his engineering career in the transportation sector. McDonald eventually relocated to Ottawa, ON, where he was employed by the federal government in various administrative positions, including as the executive director of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, director general of marine safety and then, eventually, assistant deputy minister of safety and security at Transport Canada.

McDonald left the federal government to become PEO registrar in 2014. For four years, he commuted between Ottawa, where his family remained because his kids were still in school, and Toronto, ON, where PEO’s office building is located. When the position at Engineers Canada became available, McDonald took it in part because it allowed him to both live and work in Ottawa.

Although McDonald is retiring, he suspects he will remain busy. McDonald and his wife live on a large property in Cornwall, ON, just outside of Ottawa, where his grown children keep him busy. “We have five children, so they always have projects for Dad to do one thing or another,” McDonalds says. “And my wife and I want to travel a bit. She’s going to be retiring at the same time, so we’re just looking forward to not having too much of a schedule and being able to do what we want to.”

BC Mandates Fairer and Speedier Licensing Decisions for Internationally Trained Applicants

British Columbia will require its engineering and geoscience regulator to remove Canadian experience requirements and implement licensing decision deadlines.

In a bid to reduce barriers for internationally trained professionals seeking jobs in British Columbia (BC), the BC government is introducing the International Credentials Recognition Act requiring 18 professional self-regulators— including Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC)—to remove Canadian professional experience from their licensing requirements. Additionally, the self-regulators will be required to make licensing decisions within a prescribed amount of time.

Coming into force this summer, the new legislation means the affected regulators will also:

• Not be able to require internationally trained applicants to provide additional English test results if they have already submitted valid results;

• Be required to charge similar fees to both internationally trained and Canadian-trained applicants;

• Have to publish their credential assessment processes online; and

• Be responsible to protecting public health, safety and the environment by using fair and inclusive processes for those qualified to become licensed.

Additionally, the province will set up a superintendent responsible for promoting fair credential recognition, monitor regulatory authority performance and enforce regulators’ compliance with the new legislation. The superintendent role will be merged into the existing Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance, a provincial agency to whom EGBC and five other regulatory bodies are already responsible (see “BC Announces Amendments to Professional Governance Act,” Engineering Dimensions, July/August 2022, p. 19).

PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS

The legislation grew out of public consultations between then-Minister of State for Workforce Development Andrew Mercier, JD, and BC’s professional regulators, internationally trained professionals, business associations, educational institutions and immigrant-serving organizations, with almost 1500 people participating. Eight themes emerged from the consultations, including that:

• Complex licensing processes needed to be simplified and decision timelines shortened;

• The accessibility, consistency and transparency of information about the licensing process needed to be improved;

By Adam Sidsworth

• There needed to be alternate ways to recognize international credentials; and

• There should be strengthened collaboration between regulatory authorities, educational institutions, employers and immigrant-serving organizations to support the licensing process and integration.

“For too long, the issue of attracting and retaining qualified workers has been ignored, leaving many qualified professionals on the sidelines and British Columbians without access to the services they need,” notes Mercier. “Our goal is to ensure that our province’s workforce is inclusive, diverse and balanced as we continue to grow our economy over the next decade.”

“By working collaboratively with internationally trained professionals, our regulatory authorities, employers and other partners, we can ensure that all qualified professionals can get to work in their fields, instead of sitting on the sidelines,” Mercier adds.

HOW THE LEGISLATION AFFECTS EGBC

Under its current licensing requirements, EGBC requires that applicants for a P.Eng. must typically demonstrate an equivalent to a four-year accredited undergraduate degree in engineering, geoscience, science or technology and four years of engineering work experience. However, EGBC already moved away from requiring Canadian experience in 2020, when it introduced Canadian environment competencies (CEC) to its competency-based assessment (CBA) framework, which has been in existence since 2013. The CEC is a subset of competencies that all applicants must meet at a required exposure level and

allows for internationally trained applicants to draw from their experience to demonstrate how it can be appropriately applied in a Canadian environment.

Additionally, most applicants for licensure already receive a licensing decision within four to six months. However, because the government has yet to introduce the specific regulations spelling out the deadlines for licensing decisions for international applicants, EGBC does not know if its timeline of current licensing decisions will meet the new requirements under the International Credentials Recognition Act

According to Jason Ong, director of registration at EGBC, the regulator conducted a benchmarking exercise against the draft standards that the government distributed as a precursor to the new legislation. “We found that we were mostly or fully aligned with the vast majority of standards with our present process,” Ong says. “This was further confirmed by the Office of the Superintendent of Professional Governance as part of our 2023 regulator performance review specifically looking at admissions for internationally trained applicants.”

NEW EXPECTATIONS ACROSS CANADA

BC joins other Canadian provinces in eliminating the requirement for Canadian experience and implementing licensing decision deadlines for its professional self-regulators. In 2019, Alberta’s engineering and geoscience regulator and other others were required to make licensing decisions within a six-month

deadline when that province adopted its Fair Registration Practices Act (see “Alberta’s New Fairness Law Affects its Engineering Regulator,” Engineering Dimensions, November/December 2019, p. 14). Although the legislation didn’t specify that Alberta drop its Canadian experience requirement, the regulator adopted a CBA at the request of the Alberta government.

And in May 2023, PEO became the first regulator under the revised Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act to adopt the mandated sixmonth decision timeline for all applicants and drop its mandatory one year of supervised Canadian experience requirement for licensure (see “PEO Becomes First to Remove Canadian Experience Under FARPACTA,” Engineering Dimensions, Summer 2023, p. 12). In lieu of Canadian experience, PEO also adopted a CBA of applicants’ experience.

WEST CENTRAL REGION SYMPOSIUM FOCUSES ON ENGINEERING IN THE FUTURE

PEO CEO/Registrar Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D, hosted a panel discussion on the future of women in engineering at the West Central Region symposium on February 24. The discussion was one of many panel discussions that took place within the context of the symposium’s theme, “Engineering Today for Tomorrow.”

Noting that women are underrepresented among PEO licence holders, Quaglietta stated: “I want to focus our discussion today on the challenges that women face during the various phases of their engineering careers. What prevents high school girls from choosing the requisite classes to study engineering? Why have women been underrepresented in engineering programs? Why do women find it harder to sustain an engineering career? What is imposter syndrome? And what can we do to encourage women to become the engineering leaders of tomorrow?”

Quaglietta led a panel that included Stephanie Smith, P.Eng., Candu Energy senior vice president of engineering and AtkinsRéalis chief nuclear engineer, where she oversees over 1000 engineers and is committed to increasing the representation of women on her team; Kim Jones, PhD, P.Eng., associate professor of chemical engineering at McMaster University, where she researches inequalities in representation in engineering, particularly in relation to gender and sexual orientation; and Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC, assistant dean and director, diversity, inclusion and professionalism at the University of Toronto. Sterling is also a former president of PEO. During her presidency, Sterling was committed to increasing equity, diversity and inclusion at PEO.

During the panel discussion, Quaglietta introduced two women engineering interns, May Marefat, PhD, EIT, and Newsha Haghgoo, EIT, whom Quaglietta noted represent the engineering leadership of tomorrow. Coincidently, Marefat and Newsha were recently featured in an Engineering Dimensions article (see “Engineers of Yesterday and Tomorrow,” Engineering Dimensions, Winter 2024, p. 36). “Both are committed to becoming the engineering leaders of tomorrow,” Quaglietta observed. “But importantly, their career paths are very different. Indeed, women are not a monolith.”

Quaglietta’s participation at the West Central Symposium is part of PEO’s Event Engagement Model, which will see an increased presence of PEO employees participating in chapter events.

From left to right: Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC, Newsha Haghoo, EIT, May Marefat, PhD, EIT, and Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D., moments before the women in engineering panel

From left to right: Stephanie Smith, P.Eng., Kim Jones, PhD, P.Eng., and Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC, participate in the women in engineering panel discussion.

EVERY MOMENT MATTERS

In honour of National Volunteer Week, PEO recognizes and thanks our volunteers, including those who serve on Council, committees and their subcommittees, task forces and the Government Liaison Program; and PEO chapter leaders and volunteers, as well as those who represent PEO on external boards and advisory groups and participate in chaptersponsored programs.

Engineer Transforms Views for People With Impaired Vision

Heather Sheardown, PhD, P.Eng., has dedicated her career to engineering novel solutions to treat eye conditions and diseases.

By Natalya Anderson

When it comes to visualizing the future, Heather Sheardown, PhD, P.Eng., has little time to contemplate. As the dean of the engineering faculty at McMaster University and a researcher in ophthalmology, Sheardown is always on the move—she is the driving force behind her C20/20 research team and creator of the Sheardown Lab, where she conducts world-renowned research and nurtures future engineers in her field. Ask her about her work developing therapies and devices for people with visual impairments, however, and Sheardown will slow down for a moment to look at the horizon.

“This I could talk about for hours,” says Sheardown. “I have spent the last 25-plus years working on different biomaterials-based therapies for a host of vision issues. The early work was focused on artificial corneas for treating cornea blindness. We have done work with contact lenses, including understanding the properties of lenses, looking at drug-release lenses and looking at bandage contact lenses.”

Sheardown is quick to shift praise onto her team, describing some of the challenges and triumphs they’ve shared in the lab. They looked at trying to solve the problem of secondary cataract formation in patients who have had cataract surgery and received an intraocular lens by manipulating the cells in the lens that remain following the surgery.

“Most of the work has focused on how to better deliver drugs to the eye,” explains Sheardown. “Most ocular treatments are delivered by eyedrops. However, these are simply not effective. Even with the best instillation techniques, the eyes are very good at clearing the drop

through tearing and draining, meaning that less than 5 per cent of the drug put on the eye remains after five minutes. With spillage onto the cheek, you can imagine how much less drug actually gets to the tissues that are targeted.”

IMPROVING EFFICACY OF EYEDROPS

The team has met each obstacle with the development of various systems aimed at improving the efficacy of eyedrops. Their most successful is a particle that sticks to the mucin layer that acts as the interface between the cornea and the tears. The team found that they could release a drug from a single drop for up to three days by binding the particle to a layer.

“A collaboration with one of our Brockhouse colleagues suggests that if we put a drop into the eye every day, which is the standard treatment for glaucoma, we get significantly improved outcomes,” adds Sheardown. “We continue to refine this system to release other drugs looking at treating other conditions. The back of the eye is even trickier. Current therapies are injected into the eye monthly—something that works but is inconvenient and painful for the patient. The idea of drug delivery is to be able to deliver the same drug using the same technique for periods of six months or more—something we have not quite reached. Revolutionary ocular therapies like gene therapy are going to need different delivery methods to get the drug to the target tissue at a concentration that is effective.”

It’s clear why Sheardown and her C20/20 team were recently awarded the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada’s Brockhouse Canada Prize for Interdisciplinary Research in Science and Engineering for helping to improve the lives of people with eye diseases and vision impairment. “Because of this funding, [we’ve been] able to attract some of the most talented graduate and undergraduate students who were an absolute pleasure to work with,” Sheardown adds. “The Brockhouse prize allowed us to meet with government officials and some of the most amazing researchers in Canada which was a terrific experience.”

INFLUENCING THE NEXT GENERATION

Her passion for McMaster Engineering is in every part of Sheardown’s life today, and it’s a passion she harnesses while nurturing future engineers in her eponymous research lab. The experience has led to the establishment of a range of startups.

“The Sheardown Lab is really the academic side of what we do,” explains Sheardown. “That is where I get to be creative and work with my graduate students and post-docs to create new technologies and new materials to treat conditions in the eye. In addition to building this research program, we used C20/20 as a way of building the brand.” They have been fortunate to work with a range of companies, including startups that want to develop or validate their technologies or treatments and major contact lens companies looking to test their materials.

Ultimately, Sheardown wants to bring the experience she’s had into her conversations with the next generation. “To me, the most rewarding thing is to see a student you have worked with thrive, succeed and meet their potential,” Sheardown says. “I don’t think we ever know who we have influenced, but I will be happy if there are a few young engineers out there who in some small way have been positively impacted by interacting with me over the years.” e

Heather Sheardown, PhD, P.Eng., is the force behind the award-winning Sheardown Lab at McMaster University.

READ LISTEN

The Future is Big: How Emerging Technologies are Transforming Industry and Societies by Uma Vanka, 2023: Technology has had a massive impact on our lives. The pace of this innovation has been particularly colossal in this industrial era, continuously disrupting our lives. Where will this imminent technology take us in the future?

Open Circuits: The Inner Beauty of Electronic Components by Windell Oskay and Eric Schlaepfer, 2022: Our phones, computers and appliances are made of hundreds of internal components, each precisely engineered to perform a certain function. Through vividly detailed cross-section photography, Open Circuits reveals the surprising— and often accidental—beauty hiding inside the electronic components that drive our everyday devices.

LISTEN

Engineering Founders Podcast

A podcast for engineering leaders making the leap to start their own company engineering-founders.simplecast.com

Diverse: A Society of Women Engineers Podcast

A podcast featuring interviews with thought leaders and allies in the STEM community. swe.org/podcast/

The following events may have an in-person and/or online component. See individual websites for details.

ATTEND

APRIL 20

PEO Hybrid Annual General Meeting, Barrie, ON peo.on.ca

APRIL 24

30 by 30 Virtual Discussion & Workshop site.pheedloop.com/event/30by30conference

MAY 21–25

Engineers Canada Spring Meeting & Annual Meeting of Members, Winnipeg, MB engineerscanada.ca

MAY 22

30 by 30 Conference, Winnipeg, MB site.pheedloop.com/event/30by30conference

MAY 28–30

Canadian Medical and Biological Engineering Conference, Toronto, ON cmbes.ca/news-events/cmbec-conference/ cmbec46

JUNE 5–7

CSCE Annual Conference, Niagara Falls, ON csce2024niagara.ca

JUNE 13–15

International Conference on Civil, Structural & Transportation Engineering, Toronto, ON iccste.com

JUNE 15–19

Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference, Edmonton, AB ceea.ca/conference/conference-2024

JUNE 19–21

International Conference on Science, Engineering & Technology, Toronto, ON icset.global-learnconference.com

The Civil Engineering Podcast

A podcast dedicated to helping civil engineers create extraordinary careers engineeringmanagementinstitute.org/ cep-podcast

The Engineering Career Coach Podcast

A motivational segment, a live career coaching session and careerchanging advice are regular features of this podcast. engineeringmanagementinstitute.org/ the-podcast

Pragmatic

This podcast contemplates the practical application of technology by looking at how great ideas are transformed into products and services. engineered.network/pragmatic

WATCH

Interesting Engineering

This YouTube channel aims to uncover the inner workings of the latest scientific breakthroughs and technological innovations. youtube.com/@Interesting engineeringofficial

Council Appoints New Northern Region Councillor

By Nicole Axworthy

561st and 562nd Meeting, February 23 and April 5, 2024

At its April meeting, Council appointed Ahmed Elshaer, PhD, P.Eng., as the Northern Region councillor for the 2024–2026 Council terms. Elshaer was the first runner-up for the position in the 2023 Council election.

Because no one was nominated for the office of Northern Region Councillor in the 2024 election earlier this year, Council was required to follow the “Filling a Councillor Vacancy” process set out in section 29.1 of By-Law No 1. Per subsection 15.1(1) of Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act (PEA), where no one is nominated, the office “shall be filled by a Member appointed by a majority of the Council.” At its February 2024 meeting, Council decided to appoint a licence holder residing in the Northern Region for the office of Northern Region Councillor at its April 2024 meeting, prior to the new Council taking office. Elshaer will take office on April 20 at PEO’s 2024 Annual General Meeting (AGM).

DIRECTOR CONDUCT PLAN

At its February meeting, Council approved a three-step plan proposed by staff regarding governance controls for director conduct. The Director Conduct workplan includes:

1. Council prescribing conditions that disqualify councillors from sitting on Council as well as eligibility criteria to stand for election to Council. These criteria will eventually be added to the regulation to make all director conduct policies, including the Code of Conduct, enforceable;

2. A review of the Code of Conduct in conjunction with the Anti-Workplace Violence, Harassment and Discrimination Policy to ensure Council’s expectations for councillor conduct are appropriately confirmed in these documents; and

3. Ensuring there are compliance and enforcement mechanisms in place that enable Council to address misconduct and behaviour that deviates from the standards set by Council. These mechanisms will aim to guarantee procedural fairness.

Council initially received the Governance Controls Good Practices report in November 2023 and adopted a resolution directing staff to propose a plan by February 2024 to confirm Council’s expectations for councillor conduct, along with enforcement mechanisms. These governance controls assist the regulator in maintaining public trust and ensure an objective and impartial basis upon which a board can make decisions.

With Council’s approval, the Governance and Nominating Committee (GNC) will begin the work and bring back recommendations to Council at a future meeting.

RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY

At its February meeting, Council approved the proposed risk management policy as presented at the meeting. The policy was recommended by the GNC to support effective risk-management oversight of PEO’s governance and operations, aligning with PEO’s 2023–2025 Strategic Plan.

A risk management framework helps identify, assess and treat uncertainty that could affect the outcomes of an organization’s objectives. Addressing and reporting on risks in a systematic manner improves overall performance. Critical elements of a risk management methodology are the risk management policy, risk register and risk prioritization. For PEO, it is a high-level policy that sets out key principles and key accountabilities for the board and its governance committees, provides definitions for key terms and specifies reporting frequency. Under the policy, the risk register (a report providing a high-level summary of the strategic risks to the organization) will be presented and discussed annually at a meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee (AFC) and annually at a meeting of Council.

MEMBER SUBMISSION GUIDE

At its February meeting, Council approved the revised Guide for Member Submissions at the Annual General Meeting as presented at the meeting, with three changes made by Council:

• That section 2.4 be corrected from “The minimum time for presentation of submissions is two minutes” to “The maximum time for presentation of submissions is two minutes”;

• A friendly amendment to the guide that all references to the number of days be referenced as calendar days as needed; and

• An amendment to the guide that section 3.1 be modified so that submitters of motions be notified of the date of the Council meeting when the AGM submissions will be discussed.

With Council approval, staff will use the revised document as part of the process of preparing for the 2024 AGM.

IN-CAMERA SESSION PROTOCOLS

At its February meeting, Council approved a new in-camera session protocol, as recommended by the GNC and presented at the meeting. Keeping accurate records of Council and committee minutes is an essential practice for good governance. The protocol will assist Council to understand why, when and how in-camera sessions of Council and governance committee meetings should be conducted and how records should be taken and maintained.

Council and governance committees may hold an in-camera session to privately discuss and deliberate on sensitive matters. In the interests of maintaining accountability and transparency, the use of in-camera sessions is limited to only occasions that are necessary.

CEO/REGISTRAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

At its February meeting, Council approved the CEO/Registrar 2024 Goals Review Form, as determined in consultation with the Human Resources and Compensation Committee (HRCC) and presented at the meeting. Per the process approved by Council, the proposed goals are tied to PEO’s strategic plan and the accompanying operational plan.

Under the PEA, Council has one critical employee, the CEO/ registrar. Setting and monitoring goals and objectives for the CEO/registrar is an important component of Council’s role in moving the organization forward. The document presented at the meeting included outcome measures, process measures and qualitative and quantitative indicators for each objective in the performance plan, which addresses key questions raised at the November 2023 Council meeting.

With Council’s approval, the CEO/registrar will move forward with the performance goals, and a mid-year review will be conducted at the June 2024 Council meeting.

CONSIDERING CARETAKER CONVENTION PRACTICES

At its February meeting, Council defeated a motion asking that a working group of members provide recommendations to Council on what aspects of a caretaker convention PEO should adopt with recommendations provided, or an update on progress, at the June 2024 Council meeting. The purpose of the motion was to help ensure PEO elections integrity.

EMERGING DISCIPLINES DISCUSSION

At its February meeting, Council considered a motion asking it to direct the Regulatory Policy and Legislation Committee (RPLC) to create the “Emerging Disciplines Working Group” to review and recognize emerging and emerged engineering disciplines and establish a process for producing rights to practice. Ultimately, however, Council directed the RPLC to add “Emerging Disciplines” to the RPLC 2024–2025 work plan.

ENGINEERS CANADA ITEMS

At its February meeting, Council nominated Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC, and Arjan Arenja, MBA, P.Eng., as members representing PEO on Engineers Canada’s board of directors. Sterling and Arenja currently serve on the board with terms that expire at Engineers Canada’s annual meeting of members (AMM) on May 25. Council’s nomination will extend their term for an additional three years.

At its April meeting, Council approved a motion to endorse Realizing Tomorrows: Engineers Canada 2025-2029 Strategic Plan and directed PEO’s member representative, or their proxy, to vote in favour on the motion proposed by Engineers Canada at its AMM. The content of the plan was developed collaboratively with the presidents and CEOs of all 12 provincial and territorial regulators, and Engineering Deans Canada. The plan carries forward some of the accreditation, inclusivity and promotion work that Engineers Canada has been doing as part of its current

2022–2024 Strategic Plan, and adds a few new emerging issues of focus, including governance and sustainability.

Council also approved a motion to endorse the National Statement of Collaboration proposed by Engineers Canada and directed PEO’s member representative, or their proxy, to vote in favour on the motion proposed at Engineers Canada’s AMM. The draft statement, created by Engineers Canada’s Collaboration Task Force, aims to increase national collaboration and regulatory harmonization among Engineers Canada and the country’s 12 engineering regulators.

Additionally, Council approved a motion directing PEO’s member representative to vote in favour of an increase in Engineers Canada’s 2026 per capita assessment fee to $10. This is $2 more than the per capita fee for 2024 and 2025; and 21 cents less than the fee between 2006 and 2023, which was $10.21. This per capita assessment fee is the same amount for all provincial and territorial regulators and was increased largely because Engineers Canada is operating in a deficit of nearly $5 million. Ultimately, Engineers Canada is required to ensure that an annual budget is developed to enable its strategic plan and deliver on its 10 core purposes. Coupled with a $568,000 (4.6 per cent) reduction in operating expenses in 2024, increased revenues will help the organization return to a balanced operating budget.

AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

At its April meeting, Council approved the audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2023, and the auditor’s report and authorized the president and president-elect to sign the audited financial statements on Council’s behalf. With Council’s approval, the audited financial statements and the auditor’s report will be presented to licence holders at PEO’s 2024 AGM, published in Engineering Dimensions (see p. 45) and on PEO’s website, as required by legislation and By-Law No. 1.

Additionally, Council approved a motion to recommend to licence holders at the AGM that Deloitte LLP be appointed as PEO’s auditor for 2024 and hold office until the next AGM or until a successor is appointed.

PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

At its April meeting, Council approved a motion directing the GNC to oversee the development of a legal expenses framework for the payment by PEO of legal expenses incurred by individuals performing functions under the PEA.

The question of PEO covering legal expenses incurred by councillors in performing their duties was brought forward by a councillor. PEO has statutory authority to indemnify individuals from costs arising out of legal actions they attract in performing functions under the PEA. Currently, decisions regarding the discretionary payment of legal expenses by PEO outside of what is covered by insurance would be made on a case-by-case basis. A framework will provide clarity and predictability; however, the briefing note for this motion pointed out that it could also open PEO to significant liabilities, including legal expenses, as well as reputational risk. With Council’s direction, the work to develop a framework will be added to GNC’s work plan.

GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE CHARTERS

At its April meeting, Council approved the revised charters of the AFC, GNC, HRCC and RPLC, as presented to the meeting. At their June 2023 meetings, all four of PEO’s governance committees reviewed their charters and made recommendations for changes. Other changes were proposed in alignment with subsequent Council or committee discussions. And at its meeting of March 8, 2024, the GNC reviewed this matter and recommended that Council approve the revised charters.

Now with Council’s approval, the revised documents will be presented to each governance committee at its initial meeting of the 2024–2025 term.

ORDER OF HONOUR UPDATES

At its April meeting, Council approved the reviewed and updated Terms of Reference for the Order of Honour Selection Committee (OSC), as recommended by the OSC and presented at the meeting. The activities performed by the OSC were reviewed during Phase 4 of PEO’s Governance Roadmap and the following changes were made to its Terms of Reference, to reflect the changes previously approved by Council in 2023:

• The committee’s name has changed from the Awards Committee (AWC) to the OSC;

• After the transfer of the Ontario Professional Engineers Awards program to the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE), the only responsibility of the committee is to promote and raise awareness of the Order of Honour (OOH), review and assess eligible nominations for the program, and make recommendations for potential recipients, for approval by Council; and

• Some responsibilities performed previously by AWC have been operationalized, such as participation in establishing parameters for the OOH ceremony and oversight of nominations for the external programs.

Additionally, Council approved improvements to the OOH nomination process, as proposed by staff and the OSC and presented at the meeting. They include:

• Replacing letters of support with a specific rationale and examples that nominators will provide directly in their online nomination;

• Nominations can be submitted only after PEO’s call for nominations is distributed, and before the deadline; and

• Nominations and upgrades are submitted online, and previously used nomination and upgrade forms have been discontinued.

SPECIAL RULES REVIEW

At its April meeting, Council passed three motions related to Council’s Special Rules of Order. Following a review of the Special Rules of Order, the GNC recommended that Council:

• Amend By-Law No. 1 so that the Special Rules no longer require annual adoption;

• Amend the Special Rules to incorporate minor changes that reflect current practice, the substantive addition of voting thresholds and circumstances for special resolutions, and a supplemented Special Rules provision dealing with councillor submissions (to be supported by a councillor submissions mechanism and a Council Registry of Activities and Open Issues); and

• Require that the Special Rules provisions dealing with councillor submissions, along with the councillor submissions mechanism, be reviewed by GNC in April 2025 with a view to improvement.

With Council approval of these items, staff will incorporate any changes into the Councillor Submissions Protocol/Governance Manual and ensure the review of the Special Rules provisions dealing with councillor submissions and its mechanism is added to the GNC 2025 workplan.

DISCONTINUATION OF STERLING AWARD

At its April meeting, Council approved discontinuing the G. Gordon M. Sterling Engineering Intern Award Program and standing down the Sterling Award Subcommittee with thanks to all current and previous members, effective immediately. After a diligent consultation process and review in which PEO staff consulted with all stakeholders who support and are involved in the Sterling Award program, the final recommendation was to discontinue the award. Staff reviewed options to preserve this program but, after exploring possible options, this item was brought back to Council for a final decision.

An outcome of the Phase 4 review of PEO’s Governance Roadmap was that PEO, as a professional and modern regulator, should not offer awards and, following consultations with stakeholders and risk management and mitigation, all PEO awards have been either transferred to other organizations, discontinued or redesigned to support PEO’s regulatory mandate.

PEO’s remaining award program, the Sterling Award was introduced in 2010 in conjunction with PEO’s EIT program. Following the award’s suspension in June 2023, further review was performed by a focus group, concluding with a recommendation to transfer the Sterling Award to the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education. However, the foundation board met on January 16 to discuss the proposal and supporting documentation provided by PEO staff, and they voted firmly against the transfer.

ITEMS FOR COUNCILLOR ISSUES REGISTRY

At its April meeting, Council approved several suggested items to be placed on the Council Issues Registry. The suggestions include:

• The creation of a Past Presidents Advisory Group that meets at least twice a year, chaired by the immediate past president;

• That staff review the costs relating to offering a virtual learning platform that will be available to all PEO licence holders in order to maintain their mandatory CPD requirements and bring forward for consideration in future budgets;

• That staff look at partnering with OSPE to combine future AGMs with an engineering conference to assist licence holders in obtaining their CPD hours; and

• That staff provide an update on the consultants used in 2022 and 2023, including a summary of company name, type of work, amount budgeted, budget line, actual amount spent, reason for use of consultant and steps being taken to complete this work in-house.

Additionally, at its April meeting, Council passed a motion asking that a generative discussion about the definition of “public interest” be added to the Council Issues Registry, specifically defining the term in the context of PEO’s mandate.

Detailed information on all motions can be found in the Council meeting agendas at https://www.peo.on.ca/about-peo/council/agenda-minutes-and-audio e

Most PEO licence holders hold the P.Eng., which licenses them without scope to any specific engineering discipline or practice. However, PEO recognizes that some people have the educational and experience credentials to practise within a limited scope. In this article, we explore PEO’s limited licence. By Adam Sidsworth

Let’s consider the case of Alison. When Alison was in grade school, she competed in the science fair, mixing baking soda and vinegar into a paper mâché volcano and watched the resulting carbon dioxide create an explosion. In high school, she took chemistry and became fascinated by energy changes and rates of reaction. Alison ultimately decided to pursue an undergraduate degree in chemistry. It was a natural fit for her: Alison loved learning about potential sources of reliable energy, and she thought she’d one day be a chemistry professor or laboratory researcher.

Studying chemical engineering never hit Alison’s radar, yet she ultimately became employed in the energy sector, where she performed engineering work under the supervision of licensed engineers. Alison loved the engineering she was doing and went back to school to get a graduate degree in chemical engineering. Alison’s colleagues encouraged her to apply for licen-

sure with PEO so she could take responsibility for her own engineering work.

Alison visited PEO’s website, where she completed the Am I Ready to Apply for a P.Eng. Licence with PEO? questionnaire. When Alison answered “no” to the question, “Do you have a bachelor’s degree in an engineering program that is at least four years in length?” she was told by the website that “you appear not to be ready to apply at this time.”

While Alison does not qualify for a P.Eng., she could still consider applying for a limited licence. If you, like Alison, have never heard of this alternate path to an engineering licence, you may not be alone.

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A P.ENG. AND A LIMITED LICENCE?

The case of Alison described above is fictitious, but it may be typical of those with engineering work experience who attempt to apply for a P.Eng. without an accredited four-year undergraduate engineering degree. Subsection 12(1) of the Professional Engineers Act (PEA) states that “no person shall engage in the practice of professional engineering or hold himself, herself or itself out as engaging in the practice of professional engineering unless the person is the holder of a licence, a temporary licence, a provisional licence or a limited licence….”

Of the 87,385 licensed engineers in Ontario as of the end of 2023, the vast majority—86,966—were holders of the P.Eng. At least in theory, having a P.Eng. allows the licence holder to practise without being restricted to a specific engineering discipline or scope of practice, although P.Eng. licence holders have a professional obligation to only practise in areas where they have the requisite skill and competence. Applicants for a P.Eng. must meet the standards set out in the PEA and the regulations, including:

• Being of at least 18 years of age;

• Being of good character;

• Demonstrating the successful completion of a Canadian bachelor’s degree in an engineering program accredited to Council’s satisfaction or equivalent;

• Completing 48 months of acceptable engineering work experience measured by PEO’s competency-based assessment; and

• Successfully passing the National Professional Practice Exam (NPPE).

The limited licence lacks the open-ended scope of the P.Eng. “Imagine there’s an engineering technologist who studied renewable energy, and they worked for a solar company doing installation over the years under the supervision of a P.Eng.,” notes José Vera, P.Eng., director of licensing at PEO. “We license them to do only structural design of solar panel installations. Their licence may restrict them to buildings that are not higher than six storeys. Or maybe they’re restricted by the size of the panel, or they are limited to the amount of electricity. The scope is that specific.”

PEO had 353 limited licence holders at the end of 2023. Like the P.Eng., a holder of a limited licence must also be at least 18 years of age, be of good character and pass the NPPE. But the academic and experience requirements are noticeably different. A limited licence holder must specifically:

• Have a three-year degree or diploma in engineering, technology or science or equivalent and possess the knowledge related to the scope laid out in the limited licence; and

• Have eight years of professional engineering experience, of which six years must be related to the scope of practice laid out in the limited licence.

VERA ADMITS THAT THE TERM “LIMITED LICENCE” IS A BIT DECEIVING. “I THINK WE HAVE A BIT OF A MARKETING ISSUE,” HE ADMITS. “IT SOUNDS BAD. YOU’RE LIMITED.”

LIMITED LICENCE AS A VIABLE OPTION

As of last year, changes to the provincial Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act require PEO, along with all other non-healthcare regulatory bodies, to make licensing decisions for internationally trained applicants within six months and drop Canadian work experience requirements. Implementing these changes into PEO’s licensing process meant that Council needed to tighten its academic and experience requirements for all applicants to allow PEO to make speedier licensing decisions. So, effective May 15, 2023, Council has required that, without exception, all P.Eng. applicants must have a bachelor’s degree in engineering that is accredited by the Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board or—based on a November 2022 Council motion—a recognized program that is listed in Engineers Canada’s International Institutions and Degrees Database accompanied by the successful completion of a standardized technical exam program (see “Council Approves Changes to Licensure Process,” Engineering Dimensions, Winter 2023, p. 36).

The revised academic qualification requirement for P.Eng. licensure will allow PEO to make licensing decisions for all applicants within the six-month deadline. Indeed, since last May, PEO has made licensing decisions for a number of P.Eng. applicants under the new licensing requirements—all of them within the required six-month timeframe.

However, the restricted academic requirement now channels holders of bachelor’s degrees in technology or other science-based undergraduate degrees or diplomas away from the P.Eng. Even a holder of a postgraduate degree in engineering who lacks an accredited (or equivalent) undergraduate engineering degree would not qualify for a P.Eng. Previously, their academic qualifications could have potentially been seen as equivalent to the academic qualifications for the P.Eng.

A viable option for these candidates is the limited licence. PEO’s limited licence was introduced in 1984, when the province introduced the last major rewrite of the PEA (see “PEO Turns 100,” Engineering Dimensions, May/June 2022, p. 34). Under the 1984 amendments, the definition of engineering was updated, nonengineers were permitted to practise engineering under the

supervision of licensed engineers and new classes of licences were introduced, including limited and temporary licences.

Changes to the legislation implemented in 2015 amended the qualifications for the limited licence, lowering the experience requirement from 13 years to eight, created more measurable academic requirements and added practice privileges for limited licence holders they previously didn’t have (see “Licensing, Certificate of Authorization Changes Strengthen Regulation of Professional Engineers,” Engineering Dimensions, January/February 2016, p. 34). Like a P.Eng., a limited licence holder:

• Has protected title and practice rights (they can put the designation LL or LEL after their name);

• Can seal documents (a limited licence seal is unique from the P.Eng. seal); and

• Is able to take responsibility for a certificate of authorization, whose scope must match that of the limited licence holder.

Vera admits that the term “limited licence” is a bit deceiving. “I think we have a bit of a marketing issue,” he admits. “It sounds bad. You’re limited.” Vera prefers to think of limited licence holders as being very competent in a very specific area. “Some companies have engineering technologists who have been doing the same under the supervision of an engineer for years. There’s a school of thought that technologists could be better in that one area than a P.Eng. you find on the street.”

In the future, Vera suggests, PEO might wish to consider renaming the limited licence to allow holders to better highlight their skillsets. Indeed, other provincial and territorial engineering regulators in Canada offer licences with a restricted scope of practice with more encompassing names. The engineering and geoscience regulators in British Columbia and Alberta, for example, have a professional licensee designation (abbreviated P.L.Eng.) that,

like PEO’s limited licence, specifies the scope of practice for P.L.Eng. licence holders.

LIMITED LICENCE FOR ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGISTS

The Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists (OACETT) is the regulatory body for Ontario’s engineering technicians and technologists. Like PEO’s licence holders, OACETT’s certification holders have title rights, adhere to a code of ethics, participate in mandatory continuing professional development and are liable to disciplinary action. OACETT and PEO have enjoyed a long working relationship, with OACETT founded under the auspices of PEO in 1962 to certify engineering technicians and technologists. In 1984, OACETT became an independent self-regulatory body with title rights.

With the long collaborative relationship between PEO and OACETT, it was only fitting that in the same 2015 update to the PEA that clarified the LEL, PEO introduced a class of limited licence that recognizes the unique engineering capabilities of engineering technologists, or C.E.T.s. The introduction of PEO’s licensed engineering technologist designation, abbreviated LET, like the P.Eng. and the LEL, is a protected title. Like the LEL, the LET specifies a scope of practice within the licence holder’s practice rights.

The LET licence has all the requirements for licensure as the LEL but with one additional requirement—to maintain your LET designation, you must hold the C.E.T. certification with OACETT and be in good standing with them. PEO rules stipulate that should an LET lose their engineering technologist designation with OACETT, their licence will be shifted over to an LEL.

Although the LET is an exclusively PEO licence, its existence is an indication that both PEO and OACETT recognize the value of engineering technologists having engineering practice and title rights, albeit within

a scope of practice. Indeed, when the first LET was awarded their licence in 2016, the then presidents of PEO and OACETT attended the licence ceremony.

LET BRINGS VALUE

The idea that the LET can help advance a career isn’t lost on Kimberly Pickett, C.E.T., LET.

“One of the main benefits for me and for many [OACETT] members is specifically in the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), which requires a professional geoscientist or a professional engineer as a qualified person. They don’t recognize a C.E.T.,” says Pickett, a former president of OACETT. “Currently, OACETT is left off the table of the EPA. What I do is Phase 1 and Phase 2 environmental site assessments, so with my LET, I am able to stamp my own work. It also helps people in other disciplines because it gives them the ability to work under a professional engineering [type of] licence and submit drawings in a way that a technologist’s scope of practice would not allow. The LET is good for me because PEO has recognized the LET as being valuable.”

OACETT, too, sees the value of PEO’s LET designation, telling C.E.T. holders that “in enacting regulations to establish the LET, PEO has recognized the wider range of work engineering technologists are qualified to perform, subject to meeting licensing requirements. These requirements are demanding and in keeping with the need to protect the public. The LET is not intended to be a natural progression from a C.E.T., but for OACETT members who are suitably qualified and require the designation for their line of work, this limited licence creates a pathway toward professional advancement.”

Current OACETT President Micheal Mooney, C.E.T., and OACETT CEO Cheryl Farrow concur. “Our members take engineering- and applied science–based programs, which their work experience is specifically tied to,” Mooney says. “Also, because OACETT has experience requirements and law and ethics requirements that they’ve already undertaken with us, an LET [can be perceived] as more similar to what a P.Eng. requires than the LEL designation.”

Indeed, like PEO’s Vera, Mooney and Pickett agree that there is nothing limiting about a limited licence holder. “When I was going through [PEO’s licensing] process, one of the engineers supporting my licence actually commented that the LET was not limiting, since many engineers limit their scope on their own,” Pickett says. “A geotechnical engineer said to me, ‘I would never sign off on what a chemical or structural engineer would be signing off on. We’re already limited. If you’re not in that niche, you shouldn’t use your P.Eng. for a wide scope anyway because it’s not a part of what you would do.’”

Mooney concurs, observing: “With the limited licence, you and PEO both sign off and agree on what your scope of practice is… It does create a different level of interaction.” e

Amended Decision and Reasons

In the matter of a hearing under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28; and in the matter of a complaint regarding the conduct of GRANVILLE B. VICKERMAN, P.ENG., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and V.M.E. TECHNOLOGIES INC., a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.

The Panel of the Discipline Committee of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO” or “Association”) convened to hear and determine allegations of professional misconduct on the part of Mr. Granville B. Vickerman, a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“Mr. Vickerman”), and V.M.E. Technologies Inc., a holder of a Certificate of Authorization from the Association (“VME”). The matter had been referred to the Discipline Committee by a decision of the Complaints Committee dated February 7, 2023. The Panel heard the matter on November 20, 2023, by means of an online video conference platform. All participants in the proceedings, including Mr. Vickerman, VME, Independent Legal Counsel to the Panel, counsel for the Association and counsel for Mr. Vickerman and VME attended via videoconference.

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

Counsel for the Association advised the Panel that the Association, Mr. Vickerman and VME had reached an agreement on the facts. Counsel for the Association introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), which was signed by the parties on November 16, 2023.

The ASF (not including the Schedules) provides as follows:

1. Vickerman graduated from Concordia University in 1985 with a Bachelor of Engineering specializing in building engineering. He has been licensed with the PEO since 1988.

2. At all material times, VME (alternative name Granville B. Vickerman & Associates) was the holder of a Certificate of Authorization (“C of A”) and listed Vickerman as the individual taking professional responsibility for engineering services provided thereunder.

3. The complainant, Dr. Navdeep Mehta (“Mehta”), is an individual residing in Sudbury, Ontario.

4. In or around May 2, 2008, Mehta submitted an application for a permit to the City of Greater Sudbury (the “City”) for the addition of a new two-tier deck (the “Project”) at the rear of his home located at 358 Stewart Drive in Sudbury, Ontario (the “Property’’). As part of the permit application, the City received general standard deck sketches prepared by Mehta himself. The City issued the permit on May 15, 2008.

5. On August 19, 2008, Mehta received a proposal from Planet Earth Organic Landscaping Inc. (“Planet Earth”) to perform demolition, tree removal, excavation, landscaping and Project construction. Mehta retained Planet Earth as the General Contractor. Planet Earth retained DSP Contracting Services (“DSP”) as a subcontractor to complete the Project construction. Darren Parker (“Parker”) was the owner and point of contact for DSP.

6. On September 25, 2008, Tony Pileggi (“Pileggi”), the City building inspector, reviewed some of the constructed Project foundations. He noticed the work did not generally match the permit drawings. As a result, Pileggi requested that Mehta submit revised drawings.

7. Parker prepared deck design sketches. Parker asked Vickerman to review, sign and seal the sketches. Vickerman signed and sealed the sketches (the “Sketches”). His seal is dated September 17, 2008. Attached as Schedule “A” are copies of the Sketches. The Sketches were subsequently submitted to the City.

8. The City placed a note on the Sketches stating that a general conformance letter was required at the final inspection.

9. On November 13, 2008, the City conducted a final inspection. It noted that the work was not complete. The inspection report also noted that an engineer’s report was required from Vickerman.

10. On November 21, 2008, Vickerman issued a signed and sealed “Letter of General Conformance”, which was filed with the City (the “General Review Report”), a copy of which is attached as Schedule “B”.

11. The General Review Report did not make any reference to any interim or other site review conducted by Vickerman or anyone from his office. ln response to an inquiry from PEO’s investigator, Vickerman advised on March 10, 2021, that, if no reference was made in the document to interim site reviews, then his office did not perform any. He further stated that his conclusion in this regard

was reinforced by the fact that there were no site review reports filed with the City.

12. The General Review Report noted in relevant part: This general review which was undertaken in accordance with Section 2.3.2 of the Ontario Building Code and the performance standards of the Professional Engineers of Ontario has determined that the components were constructed in general conformity with the documents that formed the basis for issuance of the building permit.

13. On June 30, 2009, Pileggi conducted a second final inspection of the Project, which again failed. He did not approve the Project citing the following reasons:

a. revised drawings were required for stairs and upper deck portion;

b. posts supporting stairs need to be supported; and

c. additional new piers may be required.

14. On July 6, 2009, the City received revised sketches signed and sealed by Vickerman (but still dated September 17, 2008) which were substantively identical to the Sketches. Copies of these revised sketches are attached as Schedule “C”. Included with the revised sketches was a new sheet entitled “upper and lower stair/landing”. It was signed and sealed by Vickerman on July 3, 2009.

15. The City inspected and approved the Project on July 6, 2009.

16. According to Mehta, some of the Project piers gradually started to shift on the sloped bedrock in the north direction in 2016.

17. In June 2020, Mehta requested that Parker visit the site. Parker did so and provided Mehta with the building permit drawings and the sketches signed and sealed by Vickerman.

18. Mehta submitted a complaint to PEO, dated August 30, 2020. PEO received the complaint form and supporting documents by mail and filed the complaint on October 15, 2020.

19. PEO retained 1768509 Ontario Inc. o/a Duke Engineering as independent experts to review the work done by Vickerman and VME. Daniel W. Duke, P. Eng., provided a signed and sealed report dated January 3, 2022

(the “Expert Report”) setting out his findings, opinions and conclusions concerning the conduct of the Respondents in connection with the Sketches and the General Review Report.

20. The Expert Report concluded (among other things) that:

a. Since the maximum slope of the bedrock was not noted in the Sketches and the built up beam and posts exceeded their allowable spans and height, the Sketches should not have been signed and sealed by Vickerman;

b. The Respondents failed to conduct a site visit or inspection prior to completing the General Review Report;

c. The Respondents failed to set out any limitations in the General Review Report; and

d. The Respondents failed to retract or update the General Review Report after signing and sealing additional sketches on July 3, 2009.

21. Mr. Duke further opined in the Expert Report that, as a result of the above errors and omissions, Vicker man and VME failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner in the circumstances.

22. For the purposes of these proceedings, the Respondents accept as correct the findings, opinions and conclusions from the Expert Report as set out in paragraphs 21 and 22, above. The Respondents admit that they failed to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances.

23. By reason of the foregoing, the parties agree that Vickerman and VME are guilty of professional misconduct under section 72(2) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 941 (“Regulation 941”), as follows:

24. Vickerman and VME were negligent, amounting to professional misconduct under section 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941, by failing to maintain the standards that a reasonable and prudent practitioner would maintain in the circumstances, including by failing to:

a. identify the errors in the sketches/plans in relation to beam span, column height and/or slope of bed rock which would have been identified during a detailed review of the plans or calculations that a prudent practitioner would have completed;

b. conduct a site visit or inspection prior to issuing the General Review Report;

c. set out any limitations in the General Review Report; and

d. retract or update the General Review Report after signing and sealing additional sketches on July 3, 2009.

25. It is further agreed that, based on the foregoing, Vickerman and VME are guilty of professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(i) of Regulation 941 for conduct relevant to the practice of professional engineering that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional.

The Respondents have had independent legal advice, or have had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, with respect to their agreement as to the facts, as set out above. Counsel for the Association pointed out certain issues with Mr. Vickerman’s work in this matter. For instance, as per paragraph 11 of the ASF, the General Review Report referred to therein did not reference any site review conducted by Mr. Vickerman or anyone from his office. In a response to an inquiry from PEO’s investigator, Mr. Vickerman advised that if no reference was made to interim site reviews, none were performed by his office. In addition, Mr. Vickerman stated that this conclusion is reinforced by the fact that there were no site review reports filed with the City of Greater Sudbury. Furthermore, the Expert Report referred to in the ASF concluded that Mr. Vickerman and VME’s work was problematic. For example, as per paragraph 20 of the ASF, the Expert Report stated that since the maximum slope of the bedrock was not noted in the Sketches1 and the built-up beam and posts exceeded their allowable spans and height, the Sketches should not have been signed and sealed by Mr. Vickerman. In addition, the Expert Report stated that Mr. Vickerman and VME failed to conduct a site visit or inspection prior to completing the General Review Report and failed to set limitations in the General Review Report. Furthermore, Mr. Vickerman and VME failed to retract or update the General Review Report after signing and sealing additional sketches on July 3, 2009. The Expert Report stated that, based on the errors and omissions noted above, Mr. Vickerman and VME failed to meet the standard expected of a reasonable and prudent practitioner in the circumstances.

Relevant Section re Misconduct in Regulation 941

The following subsections are cited regarding Mr. Vickerman and VME’s professional misconduct in paragraphs 23 to 25 of

1 See paragraph 7 of the ASF for the definition of “Sketches” in this matter.

the ASF, noted above - namely subsections 72(2)(a) and 72(2) (j) of Regulation 941 of the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28 (the “Act”):

Subsection 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941 states -

“professional misconduct” means, (a) negligence,

Subsection 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 states -

“professional misconduct” means,

(j) conduct or an act relevant to the practice of professional engineering that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by the engineering profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, [emphasis added]

As per paragraph 25 of the ASF, the Association was seeking a finding that the conduct of Mr. Vickerman and VME was “unprofessional” pursuant to Subsection 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941 and not “disgraceful” and “dishonourable” pursuant to Subsection 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.

PLEA BY MR. VICKERMAN & VME

Mr. Vickerman and VME admitted to all of the facts set out in the ASF and pled guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct therein. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that Mr. Vickerman and VME’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

DECISION RE ASF

The Panel considered the ASF and determined that the facts support the findings of professional misconduct as set out in it and, in particular, finds that based on the evidence, Mr. Vickerman and VME committed the acts of professional misconduct as set out in it. With respect to the allegations regarding Subsection 72(2)(a) and (j) of Regulation 941, the Panel finds that Mr. Vickerman and VME were “negligent” and “unprofessional” respectively.

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY AND COSTS

The Parties advised the Panel that a Joint Submission as to Penalty and Costs (“JSP”) had been agreed upon in this matter. The JSP was signed on November 16, 2023. The relevant parts of the JSP, taken directly from the JSP, are as follows:

DECISIONS AND REASONS

1. Granville B. Vickerman, P.Eng. (Vickerman”), and V.M.E. Technologies Inc. (“VME”) are the Defendants in this matter. Vickerman was at all material times a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”). VME was at all material times the holder of a Certificate of Authorization issued by the PEO.

The Defendants have had independent legal advice, or have had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice, with respect to the penalty set out above.

In the matter of a hearing under the Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28, and in the matter of a complaint regarding the conduct of HOUSTON T. ENGIO, P.ENG., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and HOUSTON ENGINEERING & DRAFTING INC., a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.

2. The Defendants are the subject of a proceeding before a panel of the Discipline Committee of the PEO pursuant to section 28 of the Professional Engineers Act (the “Act”).

3. The PEO and the Defendants make the following joint submission on penalty and costs:

a. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, the Defendants shall be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for a period of one year.

b. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(b) of the Act, Vickerman’s licence and VME’s certificate of authorization shall both be suspended for a period of ten (10) days, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision.

c. 2Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) of the Act, there shall be a term and condition on Vickerman’s licence requiring him to successfully complete the National Professional Practice examination (the “NPPE”), within fourteen months after the date of pronouncement of the decision of the Discipline Committee (the “Date’’).

d. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(e) and (k) of the Act, a restriction shall be imposed upon Vickerman’s licence prohibiting him from practicing professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer who shall take professional responsibility for the work by affixing his or her signature and seal on every final drawing, report or other document prepared or sealed by Vickerman, which restriction shall be suspended for a period of fourteen months from the Date. If Vickerman successfully completes the NPPE at any time before or after the fourteenmonth period referred to above, this restriction shall be permanently removed.

e. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(i) and s. 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with the reasons therefor, together with the names of the Defendants, in the official publication of the PEO.

f. There shall be no order as to costs.

SUBMISSIONS & ANALYSIS REGARDING JSP

Counsel for the Association stated that an aggravating factor in this matter was sketches that gave rise to serious concerns. In particular, counsel stated that it is important that sketches should not be signed and sealed without careful review. Furthermore, counsel for the Association stated that the JSP provides for specific deterrence, as it punishes Mr. Vickerman and VME for the sketches giving rise to the serious concerns. Counsel for the Association also stressed the problematic nature of the lack of appropriate site reviews in this matter, which was reflected in the penalty of the JSP. In particular, counsel for the Association noted that Mr. Vickerman and VME failed to conduct a site visit or inspection prior to completing the General Review Report. The Panel considers this to be an aggravating factor, given that the General Review Report is an important document that is relied upon as part of the construction process.

In addition, counsel for the Association noted the requirement for Mr. Vickerman to pass the National Professional Practice Examination (“NPPE”) within fourteen months, as per the JSP. Counsel for the Association stated that passing the NPPE is necessary because, both the course and the NPPE examination deal with the importance of the seal and of carefully reviewing documents.

Counsel for the Association also noted that the JSP contains a restriction of practice supervision but suspends that restriction in the manner enumerated in the JSP. In particular, the JSP states that if Mr. Vickerman successfully completes the NPPE at any time before or after the fourteen-month period for passing the NPPE in the JSP, the restriction requiring practice supervision shall be permanently removed.

As per the JSP, Mr. Vickerman’s licence and VME’s Certificate of Authorization shall both be suspended for 10 days, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision. Pursuant to the Act, publication with names is necessary when a member receives a suspension3,

2 Numbering of Articles of JSP has been changed to correct the inadvertent use of “b” for two consecutive Articles, as agreed to by the Parties during the Hearing.

3 28(5) of the Act states:

28(5) The Discipline Committee shall cause an order of the Committee revoking or suspending a licence or certificate of authorization, temporary licence, provisional licence or limited licence to be published, with or without the reasons therefor, in the official publication of the Association together with the name of the member or holder of the revoked or suspended licence or certificate of authorization, temporary licence, provisional licence or limited licence.

as in this case. The Panel believes that the suspension and publication with names supports both specific and general deterrence. The Panel also believes that a reprimand and the fact of the reprimand being recorded on the Register for one year, supports specific and general deterrence.

The Panel carefully considered the JSP. Counsel for the Association provided a case demonstrating that the penalty agreed to in the JSP falls within the range of penalties that have been previously ordered by discipline panels (Wang et al. v. Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, dated September 23, 2022). In addition, counsel for the Association presented caselaw regarding the high threshold that discipline panels must meet if they decide to reject a JSP, including the case Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (CanLII) (“Bradley”). Bradley, in turn, cited the Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 (CanLII) (“Anthony-Cook”) in which the Supreme Court of Canada stated the following:

…a trial judge or discipline panel should not depart from a Joint Submission on Penalty unless the proposed penalty would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. This is an undeniably high threshold to meet…

In Anthony-Cook, the Supreme Court of Canada also stated the following: a joint submission should not be rejected lightly… Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold… [emphasis added]

Counsel for Mr. Vickerman and VME stated that the test laid out by the Association regarding accepting the JSP is well-settled law and that the penalty is in the range that should be accepted.

The Panel concluded that the proposed penalty is reasonable and in the public interest. While Mr. Vickerman’s actions in this matter culminated in

this hearing, ultimately Mr. Vickerman co-operated with the Association in this matter. In particular, the Panel notes Mr. Vickerman’s co-operation with the Association through the ASF and JSP and notes that Mr. Vickerman has demonstrated that he has accepted responsibility for his actions. By agreeing to the facts and a proposed penalty, Mr. Vickerman has also avoided the necessity for a contested hearing, which would be of a longer duration than the hearing that was conducted.

PENALTY DECISION

The Panel accepts the penalties in the JSP as appropriate, and accordingly orders:

a. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, the Defendants shall be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for a period of one year.

b. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(b) of the Act, Vickerman’s licence and VME’s Certificate of Authorization shall both be suspended for a period of ten (10) days, commencing upon pronouncement of the Discipline Committee’s penalty decision.

c. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(d) of the Act, there shall be a term and condition on Vickerman’s licence requiring him to successfully complete the National Professional Practice examination (the “NPPE”) within fourteen months after the date of pronouncement of the decision of the Discipline Committee (the “Date’’).

d. Pursuant to s. 28(4)(e) and (k) of the Act, a restriction shall be imposed upon Vickerman’s licence prohibiting him from practising professional engineering except under the direct supervision of another professional engineer, who shall take professional responsibility for the work by affixing his or her signature and seal on every final drawing, report or other document prepared or sealed by Vickerman, which restriction shall be suspended for a period of fourteen months from the Date. If Vickerman successfully completes the NPPE at any time before or after the fourteen-month period referred to above, this restriction shall be permanently removed.

e. Pursuant to s.28(4)(i) and s. 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with the reasons thereof, together with the names of the Defendants, in the official publication of PEO.

f. There shall be no order as to costs.

REPRIMAND

The Panel administered an oral reprimand to Mr. Vickerman and VME at the end of the hearing.

Glenn Richardson, P.Eng., signed this Decision and Reasons for the decision as Chair of the Discipline Panel and on behalf of the members of the Discipline Panel: Alisa Chaplick, LL.B., LL.M., and Michael Rosenblitt, P.Eng.

SEWAGE THE SOLUTION

From the sewers under a busy downtown Toronto intersection, Ontario professional engineers are creating clean energy in the world’s largest wastewater energy-transfer project.

By Natalya Anderson

RAW WASTEWATER

and sewage systems are not images that spring to mind when considering the health and wellbeing of humanity and our planet. At Toronto Western Hospital (TWH), however, renewable energy company Noventa Energy Partners is using energy from Toronto’s sewers in a revolutionary way that might, in fact, be integral to our survival for generations to come.

The company’s distinctive Wastewater Energy Transfer (WET) project, supported by the City of Toronto, is using new proprietary technology to harness energy from raw wastewater flowing in the Mid-Toronto Interceptor sewer below the street to provide 90 per cent of the hospital’s heating and cooling needs. According to the city and Noventa, it is the world’s largest raw wastewater energy project.

When viewed as part of the city’s TransformTO strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in Toronto to net zero by 2040, it’s hard to look at sewers as anything but healing.

“The high order idea from the city perspective is the leveraging of existing municipal infrastructure and assets for climate action,” says Fernando Carou, P.Eng., then manager of renewable energy and net-zero development, City of Toronto. One example is the city’s deep lake water cooling system—the largest of its kind—that leverages the drinking water infrastructure to provide renewable energy cooling for more than 100 of the most iconic buildings in Toronto.

A new addition to Toronto’s clean-energy technology, WET is a system that displaces natural gas use in buildings, which represent the largest source of GHG emissions in Toronto. Noventa’s project aims to reduce the hospital’s direct GHG emissions by close to 8400 metric tonnes annually, which they equate to the removal of 1811 cars from city streets. The company further projects that the energy supplied to TWH will include 1.8 billion kilowatt hours of energy over the life of the project, 19 megawatts of thermal energy capacity, more than 2400 tons of cooling capacity and over 33,000 MBtu of heating capacity.

The City of Toronto is encouraging such projects that align with the TransformTO goal. “In terms of the

business model for wastewater energy, the city permits feasible connection to municipal trunk servers for energy transfer,” explains Carou. “Proponents such as Noventa work with customers to develop the projects, fund, construct and operate the wastewater energy systems to displace fossil fuel use in buildings and realize significant GHG reductions and thus advance climate action.”

Working as an engineer in the City of Toronto’s Environment and Climate (E&C) Division, Carou explains that the team includes engineers from Toronto Water, Transportation Services and Engineering and Construction Services who are involved with the sewer connection process for wastewater energy projects. At the energy project developer level, these engineers engage with companies like Noventa and their external civil, mechanical and electrical engineering partners to design, permit, construct and operate the systems put in place.

“The overall benefits of this project include leveraging existing infrastructure for climate action at no cost to tax or rate payers, and that the private sector takes project delivery and operational risk,” adds Carou. “There is also the benefit of local economic development, showcasing engineering and business innovation for climate action, GHG emissions reductions and significant freshwater consumption reduction from decommissioning evaporative cooling towers.”

ENGINEERING PARTNERSHIPS

When R.V. Anderson Associates Limited (RVA) announced its expansion of green energy services in July 2023 to become a Noventa Development Partner, it became part of the company’s innovative and proprietary solutions to decarbonize buildings. It is through these kinds of alliances that Noventa and RVA hope to redirect heating and cooling in commercial, multi-residential and institutional systems across the country. The companies say their shared foundation of values around reducing carbon emissions, decreasing operating costs and conquering the climate crisis is allowing the WET project to become part of their long-term outlook for future technologies and projects.

Below: An internal view of the Wet Well shaft, which was created under the street of the busy downtown intersection of Bathurst and Dundas West streets.

“In September 2021, RVA began working with Noventa to refine the structural design of the TWH Wet Well shaft. This is a 9.5-metre-diameter by 40-metre-deep shaft founded in shale bedrock of the Georgian Bay Formation,” says Mark Bruder, P.Eng., senior associate at RVA. “Soon after, RVA joined the TWH designbuild team under Bird Construction and took over the full Wet Well design, including structural, civil, mechanical, process, electrical and instrumentation/controls.”

RVA’s work at TWH also includes the structural/civil design of the Energy Transfer Station building (a retrofit built inside the shell of the existing Scotiabank onsite) and the structural and civil design of a 40-metre-long shallow Energy Transfer Loop tunnel. “RVA continues to support Noventa and Bird on TWH and many other WET projects throughout the city, and we’re proud to have been made an official Noventa Development Partner in 2023, alongside Bird, C&M McNally, and MCW,” Bruder says.

Bruder says that Noventa, RVA and Bird have been coordinating closely with the city and Toronto Water so that the operation and maintenance of the new Wet Well shaft does not adversely impact the existing sewer network, residents or local businesses. The Wet Well shaft will be operated by Noventa. Several safety components completely isolate the system from the sewer network, allowing Toronto Water to inspect and clean their sewer network and Noventa to perform operations and maintenance of their own Wet Well shaft. It also protects the entire system from potential stormwater events.

RVA has also completed fluid and air analyses using the computational fluid dynamics software Ansys Fluent. This helped the team identify the locations where turbulence exists so the effects can be mitigated using good engineering practices in accordance with Toronto Water’s design standards.

SAFETY FIRST

Late last year, the 9.5-metre-diameter by 40-metre-deep hole was created downtown in the public right of way on Toronto Transportation Services land, which revealed old pipes and, as Noventa Vice President of Engineering, North America Cam Quinn, P.Eng., has described, “a vortex chamber” of concrete built in the 1970s. Demolition of the vortex led to the more intricate part of the project, during which Quinn and his team drilled holes across the sewer main to allow sewage to flow into the WET system and then return to the deep-rock Mid-Toronto Interceptor Sewer.

The engineering team at Noventa says that developing this unprecedented initiative continues to be a collaborative experience.

Left: The 40-metre-deep Wet Well shaft at Toronto Western Hospital leads to the sewer main, where the Noventa team drilled holes to allow sewage to flow into the WET system.

“At Noventa, we believe that tackling climate change will require bold initiatives and disruptive innovation that challenges conventional practices to decarbonize our communities,” says Quinn. “To that end, we worked with our industry-leading technology, design and construction partners and Toronto Water to overcome incredible challenges to develop our WET System at TWH.”

Quinn is quick to add that the project required support from organizations “who dared to be bold,” including the University Health Network, then city councillor Mike Layton, Toronto City Council, the E&C Division and Toronto Water. Toronto Water was especially helpful in removing barriers and providing advice to develop the initiative, despite the busy downtown environment. Other important engineering, technology and construction partners like Huber Technology, MCW Group, RVA, Grounded Construction Group and Bird helped implement the project design, while the federal government, Canada Infrastructure Bank and VanCity bank provided funding.

Quinn says Toronto’s E&C Division, which is responsible for the TransformTO initiative, was an early supporter of Noventa’s plans to introduce WET systems as a viable and practical solution to achieve meaningful GHG reduction in Toronto’s dense urban neighbourhoods. Over the past six years, Noventa has had a fruitful relationship with E&C and Toronto Water in developing a Toronto wastewater policy, which has now been adopted by many cities across North America. Engineers involved in the new technologies throughout the project have experienced remarkable outcomes thus far.

Of huge importance is environmental and public safety, which the team has put a great deal of focus on. “Our patented Huber ThermWin technology and the unique design of our WET systems ensure that environmental and public safety are not compromised,” says Quinn. “The Huber Rotomat RoK4 screen and pumping station in our Wet Well allows us to avoid handling wastewater.” Notably, the technology ensures that solids and odour are contained at the sewer level, and only sieved brown water flows to the RoWin heat exchangers in the Energy Transfer Station. In turn, the RoWins patented self-cleaning mechanism virtually eliminates the need for human contact to open the heat exchanger to clean the biofouling buildup.

LEARNING FROM CHALLENGES

Naturally, a project of such magnitude has not been without its challenges. “At Bathurst and Dundas Street, this meant working around hydro and TTC wires and next to a busy library, community centre and public park,” explains Quinn. “These external challenges were exacerbated by having to implement major modifications to the HVAC system of a live hospital that was undergoing significant renovations and expansion.”

Additionally, Bruder says there were numerous challenges when designing the Energy Transfer Station to be located inside the existing Scotiabank—a building that was formerly a bank and, later, a COVID-19 Assessment

An aerial view of Phase 1 of the innovative WET project at Toronto Western Hospital.

Onsite at the Toronto Western Hospital WET project are (left to right) Vice President of Engineering, North America

Cam Quinn, P.Eng., Noventa Management Services President Alex Sotirov, P.Eng., and Noventa Founder and CEO Dennis Fotinos

Centre. “The basement had to be underpinned by six feet, the interior had to be completely gutted and the exterior walls/roof had to be maintained while the team constructed a new building inside the shell,” Bruder says.

But the challenges are well worth it. Bruder and Quinn say that, at 19 megawatts of thermal energy capacity, there is no other raw wastewater energy project in the world today providing that amount of carbon-free heating and cooling. The team notes that it has the potential to double in energy output, which will add to its status for the foreseeable future. “While other installations are providing thermal energy from wastewater, none are doing so at this scale or for a critical-care facility that demands reliability and security,” Quinn points out.

Looking forward, Noventa and RVA are both delivering additional projects to reach the 2040 goal. Noventa is designing projects in the US, Scotland and England that they hope to announce later in 2024, and in Toronto, they are at different stages of design for nine more projects, one of which is the recently announced WET project at Glendon College. RVA has many ongoing district energy projects across the Greater Toronto Area and is continuing to expand its portfolio in the renewable energy sector.

“We continue to help our clients accomplish their goals through our engineering consulting services, as well as our ongoing coordination with stakeholders and funding agencies,” says Bruder. “RVA is committed to delivering significant opportunities in renewable technologies for our clients and communities that will enable the large-scale transformations needed to meet global emissions targets.” e

The computational fluid dynamics model of the Wet Well being implemented at Toronto Western Hospital.

65 YEARS of Supporting

Ontario’s Future Engineers

The Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education, a not-for-profit charity that has given more than $4 million in scholarship funding to over 4000 engineering students in Ontario, celebrates its 65th anniversary this May. BY ADAM SIDSWORTH

MAY 1959 :

A quart of dairy milk was 23 cents, a pound of chicken was 47 cents and a pound of butter clocked in at 70 cents. A dozen eggs? 52 cents. The average hourly salary across Canada was $1.72. A typical buyer of a house had an annual income of $5,716 and bought a bungalow costing $14,516.

That same year, there were almost 16,000 undergraduate engineering students across Canada—of whom just 73 were women—and they paid on average $382 in school fees, plus an average of $82 for books and supplies and $507 on room and board during the school year. Paradoxically, students earned approximately $660 in summer jobs and part-time work. And, importantly, only 29 per cent of engineering students received bursaries and scholarships, which totalled $564.

Given the financial strains of engineering students at the time, a group of PEO volunteers decided to take action to help remove barriers to engineering education. On May 7, 1959, PEO volunteers incorporated the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education (foundation) at the provincial level—and later that year registered with the federal government—as a not-forprofit corporation with a mandate to provide funding for students studying engineering across Ontario.

Indeed, PEO Council’s meeting on July 25, 1959, had a note from one-time licence holder and volunteer

C.D. Howe, P.Eng., minister of munitions and supply during the Second World War, read into its record. “The Engineering Foundation for Education is now a fact,” Howe wrote. “The Scholarship Committee will meet in early September to prepare recommendation[s] as to its operation.”

FUNDING SCHOLARSHIPS

The mandate of the foundation, as defined in 1959 included, among other things, “to promote the training and education of professional engineers… to provide for scholarships to persons attending or proposing to attend any school, college or university…to provide for bursaries or financial assistance” and “to solicit, receive and accept all manner of contributions, gifts, bequests and legacies from any person, firm or corporation….”

The original foundation directors included a who’s who of PEO licence holders, including past and future presidents John Fox , P.Eng. (1957), Charles Carson, P.Eng. (1958), Andrew McQueen, P.Eng. (1959), Dwight Simmons, P.Eng. (1960) and Gordon McHenry, P.Eng. (1968).

The ability of PEO to include scholarships as part of its activities is indicative of PEO’s historical dual role as a regulatory and advocacy body. (Advocacy was officially devolved from PEO’s activities in 2000.) Indeed, PEO had existing scholarships for engineering students at the University of Toronto (U of T) and Queen’s University going back to at least 1951. In July 1958, Council passed a motion to further explore raising funds for engineering scholarships that would qualify for tax exemptions for doners.

However, with the expansion of engineering schools in Ontario—11 more were being introduced—and a legal opinion that licence holders could only be solicited for funding through a separate corporation, the foundation was born in 1959. Initial funding was pegged at $250 per scholarship for students in their first, second and third years of study at U of T and Queen’s; a $500 entrance scholarship for the Queen’s student with the highest mark; and a Gold Medal for the fourth-year student at both U of T and Queen’s with the highest exam marks. By the time the initial foundation scholarships were granted in May 1960, U of T and Queen’s were joined by the University of

Scholarship recipients gather at PEO’s headquarters in Toronto, ON, on June 25, 2019, during the annual general meeting of the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education.

Ottawa and the University of Western Ontario (now Western University), followed by other schools.

Today, the foundation provides annual funding of $153,000 in scholarships to students from each of Ontario’s 16 accredited engineering schools in Ontario. It raises the funds through donations and forwards the scholarship funds to the individual schools, whose award committees choose the recipients based on criteria provided by the foundation.

To date, there have been 4000 scholarship recipients who have received an accumulative $4 million in scholarship funds. Currently, the foundation provides 106 scholarships annually, with each accredited Ontario engineering school receiving two entrance scholarships and between two and eight undergraduate engineering scholarships.

The foundation continues to provide the Gold Medal to each accredited school’s graduating engineering student with the highest academic standing in their class. The current value of the individual scholarships is $1,500.

“Ideally, we would like to increase the size of our individual scholarships to match the current needs of students. The greatest wish of the foundation is that we are fully funded to continue to gift those most talented and deserving in perpetuity,” notes foundation President Réjeanne Aimey, MBA, P.Eng. “To do this effectively, an increase in donations annually would help. So too would bequests from those who are in a position to assist future generations of engineers.”

MEETING EVOLVING NEEDS

In 1960, the foundation raised $3,500 for its initial crop of scholarship recipients. In 2022, the foundation had received close to $90,000 in donations, with almost three quarters of donation funding coming from PEO licence holders. Other sources of donations include individual donations through the foundation’s website and from members of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers.

Historically, licence holders renewing their licences in PEO’s online portal have been able to optionally click on a box allowing PEO to forward a donation from the licence holder to the foundation. However, that will come to an end on December 31, 2024, due in part to PEO’s data-protection policy, which aims to have PEO “share personal data with a third party only for regulatory purposes or when required by law.” Additionally, because of PEO’s increased focus on its regulatory mandate in recent years, any participation on the part of PEO in the work or fundraising of the foundation could be perceived as impacting the impartiality PEO needs to maintain its role as the engineering regulator.

Aimey remains optimistic that licence holders will continue to recognize the importance of the work of the foundation. “The essence of engineering and the engineer has long been the pursuit of an ideal that ultimately shapes our world for generations to come. This is our gift to the public, and I know we will always support those who pursue what we cherish,” notes Aimey, who also observes that the foundation has long supported increasing equality, diversity and inclusion in the engineering sector.

Indeed, in 1990, the foundation decided to mandate a gender-balanced awarding of scholarships to each school and in 2018 reaffirmed a genderbalanced awarding of all scholarships by the following year. Additionally, in 2021, the foundation signed five-year donor agreements with each accredited engineering school stating that in addition to the criteria already stated by the foundation’s board of directors, each engineering school will:

• Endeavour to select an equal number of students who identify as women or non-binary as those who identify as men;

• Try to give preference to students from underrepresented minorities in the schools’ engineering programs; and

• Make sure students’ combined scholarships for the academic year should not be more than $10,000 from all sources, including the foundation.

“Our founding directors would be pleased at what has been accomplished and how we have continued to facilitate pathways for all genders to participate in engineering,” says Aimey. e

To make a donation to the foundation, visit https://engineersfoundation.ca/donate

DONATING through the decades

Since its beginnings in 1959, the Ontario Professional Engineers Foundation for Education has provided scholarships to the growing number of accredited engineering schools across the province. Here is a timeline of when Ontario schools started receiving scholarships.

University of Toronto, Queen’s University, University of Ottawa, Western University

Carleton University, McMaster University, University of Windsor

1960 1961 1962

University of Waterloo

1964

Royal Military College of Canada

1968

University of Guelph

1975

Lakehead University

1986

Laurentian University

1993

Toronto Metropolitan University

2007

York University, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

2021

Conestoga College

ALAC, Jan

Rockwood, ON

AMZA, Cristiana North York, ON

THE ASSOCIATION HAS RECEIVED WITH REGRET NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATHS OF THE FOLLOWING LICENCE HOLDERS (AS OF FEBRUARY 2024).

ANDERSON, Edward William Newmarket, ON

BARSOUM, Magdi Fahmy

Toronto, ON

BENNER, Sheldon Dean

Toronto, ON

BENNETT, Edward James Pickering, ON

BILLINGS, Neil Andrew Mississauga, ON

BILLINGSLEY, John George Selby Newark, DE

BULSON, Robert Edward Richmond Hill, ON

BURGESS, Alan Roy Surrey, BC

BURNS, George Rodgers

Sutton West, ON

CANNARD, John Clarke Sudbury, ON

CARLING, Peter George Penetanguishene, ON

CHANDRAKUMARAN, Kandiah Richmond Hill, ON

CHAPIN, John Charles Tiverton, ON

CHEREPACHA, Danny Scarborough, ON

CHIN, Leslie Stanislaus Scarborough, ON

CLERMONT, Raymond Marc

Alfred, ON

CONSTANTINE, Theodore Andrew

London, ON

CORBETT, Neil Patrick Kitchener, ON

CRUPI, Vincent Ottawa, ON

DAVIES, Robert John Collingwood, ON

DEMARCO, Kimberly Joy

Windsor, ON

DOMPIERRE, Jacques Andre Orleans, ON

EARLS, Joseph Francis Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON

EASTON, William Thomas Etobicoke, ON

EDMONDS, Paul Alliston, ON

EL KHAZEN, Alfred Hanna

Ajax, ON

FERGUSON, Ian James East Gwillimbury, ON

FERGUSON, Paul Douglas Newmarket, ON

FICNAR, Frank

Toronto, ON

FINKELSTEIN, Laurence Stephen

Toronto, ON

FOX, Christopher John Orleans, ON

FRIND, Emil Otto

Waterloo, ON

FULTON, Donald Stewart

Thessalon, ON

FURST, Per North Bay, ON

FYNN, Kenneth Edward

Canmore, AB

GAMBLIN, William Emery

Seymour

Ottawa, ON

GANESAN, Krishnamurthy

Oakville, ON

GEE, Gordon Lang

Sterling, VA

GILVESY, Andrew Tillsonburg, ON

GOBATTO, Jeffrey Peter

Newmarket, ON

GOLEC, Richard John

Brampton, ON

GOODWIN, Karl Austin

Toronto, ON

GORDON, George William

Skinner

Toronto, ON

GREBENC, John

Windsor, ON

GREEN, Brian Sheldon

North York, ON

GRUNBERG, Silviu Valentin

North York, ON

GUGLIELMI, Richard Henry

Cape Coral, FL

HALL, Barrie Robin Bradburn

Pakenham, ON

HARDT, Helmut Rudolf

Niagara Falls, ON

HAWES, Douglas William

London, ON

HAWKINS, Thomas Foster

Georgetown, ON

HELSTEN, Allan John

Niagara Falls, ON

HICKMAN, Michael Owen

Guelph, ON

HILL, Kenneth John

Mississauga, ON

HODGES, Kenneth William

London, ON

HU, Hao

LaSalle, ON

IRWIN, Archie Raymond

Sarnia, ON

ISHERWOOD, Brian

Oakville, ON

JEKYLL, Robert Gammell Francis

Toronto, ON

JELEN, Jiri George

Holland Landing, ON

JENNEKENS, Jon Hubert Felix

Ottawa, ON

JOHNSON, Clark Robert

Thunder Bay, ON

JOHNSTONE, James Kendall

Whitby, ON

JUHASZ, Peter Stephen

Mississauga, ON

KNIGHT, Harold Gordon

Toronto, ON

LEAN, Arne Ralph

Thornhill, ON

LEGRADY, Otto John

Budapest, Hungary

LENOFF, Ralph David

San Rafael, CA

LOOTSMA, Arend Edward

Kitchener, ON

MACLACHLAN, Duncan Train

Kingston, ON

MANERY Lloyd Grant

Ottawa, ON

MARCELLE, Rawlins Gabriel

North York, ON

MASON, John David

Dwight, ON

MATTEAU, Luc Charles

Peterborough, ON

MAYOR, Peter Guelph Maple, ON

MCCLELLAND, James Baillie Kingston, ON

MCGREGOR, Ian Robert Mississauga, ON

MCKITRICK, Ronald Bruce Guelph, ON

MELLETT, John David Ward Caledon East, ON

MILLS, Gregory Paul Uxbridge, ON

MILLS, James Kimberley North York, ON

MISTER, Jean Marie Alphonse Orleans, ON

MONKMAN, John Davis Burlington, ON

NEWMAN, Bruce Derek Etobicoke, ON

NORTHCOTT, Gary Alan Wallaceburg, ON

OBEE, William Elmer Minden, ON

OEY, Hok-Liang Mississauga, ON

PALMERTON, Robert Henry New Dundee, ON

PATTERSON, Gregory Alan Barrie, ON

PERERA, Hilaire Mervyn Ananda Markham, ON

PLUMMER, David John Toronto, ON

PRAVET, Andrei-Constanti Thornhill, ON

PUCHYR, Jerry Jaroslav Richmond Hill, ON

RICHARDS, David Allen Callander, ON

ROBERTS, Francis Lloyd Newmarket, ON

ROBINSON, Ralph Edwin Etobicoke, ON

ROSENTHAL, John Michael Robert

Shuniah, ON

RUDNISKI, Jack Whitby, ON

RUTHERFORD, Beverley Alvin Collingwood, ON

SABAU, Paul North York, ON

SAHGAL, Ashok Orleans, ON

SAKAMOTO, Victor Hidekazu Etobicoke, ON

SANDERSON, Gordon Tremain Sault Ste. Marie, ON

SELVADURAI, Antony Patrick Sinnappa

Beaconsfield, QC

SENATHIRAJAH, Kanapathipilla Senpagavaratha

Toronto, ON

SHADPOUR, Atefeh

Woodbridge, ON

SHAVELEV, Dmitri Keswick, ON

SHIPLEY, Eric Leo

Bath, ON

SKONE, John Henry

Edmonton, AB

SPRAGUE, Hugh Henry

Dundas, ON

STERNE, Richard Wilton Edward Brantford, ON

STEVENSON, Brian Allan

Belleville, ON

STRASBERG, Lewis

North York, ON

STRIPINIS, Vida Joana

Duntroon, ON

SWEET, Francis Walter

Fruitville, BC

THORNE, Mederick Bruce

Red Deer, AB

TODD, Wayne Dean

Toronto, ON

VACHON, Bruce Raymond

Toronto, ON

VANDEWAETERE, Georges Lucien

Ottawa, ON

VILLATORO, Herbert Rolando

Brampton, ON

VON KURSELL, Andrew Herbert

Surrey, BC

WALLI, Douglas Patrick

Nipissing, ON

WILLIAMS, Cory James

Torbay, NL

WRIGHT, Robert Walter

Gananoque, ON

YADAV, Sachin Sadashiv

Saint John, NB

NOTICE OF 2024 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ONTARIO (PEO) 2024 HYBRID AGM

In-person location: Horseshoe Resort, Alpine Room, 1101 Horseshoe Valley Road West, Barrie, ON

Virtual location: Webcast information will be posted on peo.on.ca

PEO President Roydon Fraser, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, will preside and present his report to the AGM. President-elect Greg Wowchuk, P.Eng., and CEO/Registrar Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D, will also provide remarks. The president-elect, officers and councillors for the 2024–2025 term will officially take office at the conclusion of the meeting.

As noted in section 17 of By-Law No. 1, the PEO AGM is held for the following purposes:

• To lay before licence holders the reports of the Council and committees of the association;

• To inform licence holders of matters relating to the affairs of the association; and

• To ascertain the views of the licence holders present at the meeting on matters relating to the affairs of the association.

PARTICIPATION IN MEETING

The AGM will be held using a hybrid meeting format. This means proceedings will be conducted via live webcast with some in-person participation. P.Eng. licence holders will have the opportunity to ask questions live (in person or virtually) during the meeting, submit questions online during the meeting and provide submissions in advance, as discussed below. Licence holders interested in participating in the meeting, including voting on business properly brought before the meeting, will need access to an internetconnected device for the full duration of the meeting.

APRIL 20, 2024

10 A.M. EDT

MEETING PRE-REGISTRATION

In-person space is limited. All wishing to attend the meeting must pre-register online at conveneagm.com/ca/2024peoagm. To register with voting status, P.Eng. licence holders must register using their name, email address and licence number that is registered with PEO. If you have not provided an email address to PEO, please ensure you do so through the PEO online portal at secure.peo.on.ca/ebusiness

Registration closes Saturday, April 20, 2024, at 10 a.m. EDT.

SUBMISSIONS

P.Eng. licence holders can make submissions on matters of importance to the work of PEO. To make a submission, please use the template in the Guide for Member Submissions at peo.on.ca/aboutpeo/annual-general-meetings/2024-agm. Submissions must be received by Saturday, April 6, 2024, at 11:59 p.m. EDT. Submissions received after this time will not be considered at the AGM. Once received, submissions will be posted on the PEO website.

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS OF ONTARIO

Opinion

We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”) which comprise the Statement of financial position at December 31, 2023, and the statements of operations and changes in net assets, and cash flows for the year then ended, and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies (collectively referred to as the “financial statements”).

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of PEO as at December 31, 2023, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for notfor-profit organizations.

Basis for Opinion

We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards (“Canadian GAAS”). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are independent of PEO in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in Canada, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Responsibilities of Management and those Charged with Governance for the Financial Statements

Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing PEO’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate PEO or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so.

Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing PEO’s financial reporting process.

Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Canadian GAAS will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.

As part of an audit in accordance with Canadian GAAS, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

We also:

• Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control.

• Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of PEO’s internal control.

• Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by management.

• Conclude on the appropriateness of management’s use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on PEO’s ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditor’s report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditor’s report. However, future events or conditions may cause PEO to cease to continue as a going concern.

• Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation.

We communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit.

STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023

Revenue

P. Eng. revenue

Application, registration, examination and other fees

Building operations (Note 4)

Investment (loss) income

Affinity program (Note 6)

Chapter revenues

Advertising income

Expenses

Staff salaries and benefits/retiree and future benefits (Note 10)

Building operations (Note 4)

Purchased services

Legal (corporate, prosecution and tribunal)

Computers and telephone

Contract staff

Engineers Canada

Chapters (Note 13) Occupancy costs (Note 4)

fees

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.

STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION, AS AT DECEMBER 31, 2023

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. Approved by Council.

STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023

Operating activities

Excess of revenue over expenses

Add (deduct) items not affecting cash

Amortization

Amortization—other assets

Employee future benefits expensed

Change in unrealized losses (gains) on marketable securities

Losses (gains) on disposal of marketable securities

Change in non-cash working capital items (Note 11)

Financing activities

Repayment of mortgage (Note 5)

Contributions to employee future benefit plans

Investing activities

Net change in marketable securities

Additions to capital assets

(1,088,796) (1,375,800) (2,464,596) (705,102) (107,936) (813,038)

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

DECEMBER 31, 2023

1. NATURE OF OPERATIONS

The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO” or the “Association”) was incorporated by an Act of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. Its principal activities include regulating the practice of professional engineering, and establishing and maintaining standards of knowledge, skill, and ethics among its members in order to protect the public interest. As a not-for-profit professional membership organization, it is exempt from tax under section 149(1) of the Income Tax Act

2. SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations and reflect the following accounting policies:

a) Financial instruments

PEO initially recognizes financial instruments at fair value and subsequently measures them at each reporting date, as follows:

Asset/liability

Cash and marketable securities

Accounts receivable

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

Long-term debt

Measurement

Fair value

Amortized cost

Amortized cost

Amortized cost

Financial assets measured at amortized cost are assessed at each reporting date for indications of impairment. If such impairment exists, the financial asset shall be written down and the resulting impairment loss shall be recognized in the statement of operations and changes in net assets for the period. Transaction costs are expensed as incurred.

b) Hedge accounting

PEO entered into an interest rate swap in order to reduce the impact of fluctuating interest rates on its long-term debt. The policy of PEO is not to enter into interest rate swap agreements for trading or speculative purposes.

The interest rate swap held by PEO is eligible for hedge accounting. To be eligible for hedge accounting, an instrument must meet certain criteria with respect to identification, designation, and documentation. In addition, the critical terms of the derivative financial instrument must match the specific terms and conditions of the hedged item. The fair value of derivative instruments eligible and qualifying for hedge accounting is generally not recognized on the Statement of financial position. Gains and losses on such instruments are recognized in the Statement of operations and changes in net assets in the same period as those of the hedged item.

Interest on the hedged item is recognized using the instrument’s stated interest rate plus or minus amortization of any initial premium or discount and any financing fees and transaction costs. Net amounts receivable or payable on the interest rate swap are recorded on the accrual basis of accounting and are recognized as an adjustment to interest on the hedged item in the period in which they accrue.

PEO may only discontinue hedge accounting when one of the following situations arises:

(i) The hedged item or the hedging item ceases to exist other than as designated and documented;

(ii) The critical terms of the hedging item cease to match those of the hedged item, including, but not limited to, when it becomes probable that an interestbearing asset or liability hedged with an interest rate swap will be prepaid.

When a hedging item ceases to exist, any gain or loss incurred on the termination of the hedging item is recognized as an adjustment of the carrying amount of the hedged item.

When a hedged item ceases to exist, the critical terms of the hedging item cease to match those of the hedged item, or it is no longer probable that an anticipated transaction will occur in the amount designated or within 30 days of the maturity date of the hedging item, any gain or loss is recognized in net income.

c) Revenue recognition

Licence fee revenue, excluding the portion related to the Building Fund, is recognized as revenue on a monthly basis over the licence period. Building Fund revenue is recognized as revenue at the commencement of the licence period. Affinity program revenue is recognized when received. Other revenues are recognized when the related services are provided.

d) Donated services

The Association receives substantial donated services from its membership through participation on council and committees and as chapter executives. Donations of services are not recorded in the financial statements of the Association.

e) Employee future benefits

Pension plans

The cost of PEO’s defined benefit pension plans is determined periodically by independent actuaries using the projected benefit method prorated on service. PEO uses the most recently completed actuarial valuation prepared on the going concern basis for funding purposes for measuring its defined benefit pension plan obligations. A funding valuation is prepared in accordance with pension legislation and regulations, generally to determine required cash contributions to the plan.

Other non-pension plan benefits

The cost of PEO’s non-pension defined benefit plan is determined periodically by independent actuaries. PEO uses the most recent accounting actuarial valuation for measuring its non-pension defined benefit plan obligations. The valuation is based on the projected benefit method prorated on service.

For all defined benefit plans, PEO recognizes:

(i) The defined benefit obligation, net of the fair value of any plan assets, adjusted for any valuation allowance in the statement of changes in net assets;

(ii) The cost of the plan for the year.

f) Capital assets

Capital assets are recorded at cost. Amortization is calculated on the straightline basis at the following annual rates:

g) Use of estimates

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-profit organizations requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Accounts requiring significant estimates and assumptions include capital assets, accrued liabilities, and employee future benefits.

The association’s investment in capital assets is included as part of net assets on the Statement of financial position.

3. CAPITAL ASSETS

4. BUILDING OPERATIONS

PEO maintains accounting records for the property located at 40 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, ON as a stand-alone operation for internal purposes. The results of the operation of the building, prior to the elimination of recoveries and expenses related to PEO, are as follows:

revenue over expenses

4. BUILDING OPERATIONS CONT’D

For purposes of the Statement of operations and changes in net assets, the operating costs recoverable from PEO of $794,919 ($716,235 in 2022) have been eliminated. The portion of costs allocated to PEO is reallocated from Building operations and is included in Occupancy costs on the Statement of operations and changes in net assets.

above

5. BUILDING FINANCING

On April 5, 2019, the Association refinanced its outstanding loan of $5,443,952 with the Bank of Nova Scotia. The refinanced loan is secured by a first mortgage on the property located at 40 Sheppard Avenue West, a general security agreement and a general assignment of tenant leases. The loan is repayable in monthly installments of principal plus interest and bears a floating interest rate based on variable banker’s acceptances. The Association entered into a swap agreement related to this loan, where the floating rate debt is swapped for a fixed rate debt at an interest rate of 3.47 per cent and settled on a net basis. The notional value of the swap is $5,443,952 with a start date of April 5, 2019, and a maturity date of April 5, 2024, on which date the loan will be fully paid.

6. AFFINITY PROGRAM

In 2023, PEO entered into an insurance affinity agreement with Engineers Canada (EC). Like other provincial and territorial engineering regulators, PEO is a member association of EC. EC has negotiated a national home and automobile insurance affinity program with Meloche Monnex Inc. (MMI). Under this agreement, MMI provides EC with a share of insurance revenues it derives from professional engineers. EC in turn pays PEO for providing MMI with an exclusive opportunity to offer home and automobile insurance to PEO members. These monies are the payment from EC to PEO under this agreement.

7. EMPLOYEE FUTURE BENEFITS

The Association’s pension plans, and post-retirement benefits plan covering participating employees (full time and retirees) are defined benefit plans as defined in Section 3462 of the CPA Canada Handbook and accounted for as per Section 3463. The pension plans provide pension benefits based on length of service and final average earnings. The post retirement benefits plan provides hospitalization, extended health care and dental benefits to retired employees. Participation in the pension plans and benefits plan (for post-retirement benefits) has been closed to all new employees as of May 1, 2006. All employees joining after this date have the option of participating in a self-directed or group RRSP (registered retirement savings plan). During the year, the Association recorded $411,816 ($355,476 in 2022) in employer contributions to the selfdirected and group RRSP.

The funded status of the Association’s pension plans and post-retirement benefit plan using actuarial assumptions as of December 31, 2023, was as follows:

7. EMPLOYEE FUTURE BENEFITS CONT’D

The funded status of the Association’s pension plans and post-retirement benefit plan using actuarial assumptions as of December 31, 2022, was as follows:

Accrued benefit obligation

Plan assets at fair value

Funded status—plan surplus (deficit)

PEO measures its defined benefit obligations and the fair value of plan assets related to the basic and supplemental pension plans for accounting purposes as at December 31 each year based on the most recently completed actuarial valuation for funding purposes. The most recently completed actuarial valuation of the pension plans for funding purposes was as of January 1, 2022 with the liabilities projected forward to December 31, 2023. PEO measures its obligations related to its other non-pension benefit plan using an actuarial valuation for accounting purposes. The most recent actuarial valuation for accounting purposes for the non-pension benefit plan is as of December 31, 2023.

Remeasurements and other items resulting from these valuations are reported directly in net assets in the Statement of financial position and are reported separately as a change in net assets in the Statement of operations and changes in net assets.

8. NET ASSETS

The net assets of the Association are restricted to be used at the discretion of Council and includes the Association’s investment in capital assets of $26,850,499 ($26,971,901 in 2022).

9. COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY RESERVE

The Council discretionary reserve is an internal allocation from the operating reserve used at the discretion of Council to fund expenses related to special and strategic plan projects approved by Council. These figures include $391,076 ($58,843 in 2022) for salaries and benefits costs of full-time staff for time spent on these projects. Expenses from the discretionary reserve were incurred on the following projects:

10. FULL-TIME SALARIES AND BENEFITS

During the year, the Association incurred a total of $15,146,499 ($14,398,695 in 2022) for salary and benefits costs for its full-time staff. Out of this amount, $391,076 ($58,843 in 2022) was directly attributable to special projects approved by Council and disclosed in Note 9.

11. CHANGE IN NON-CASH WORKING CAPITAL ITEMS

Accounts receivable

Prepaid expenses and deposits

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities

Fees in advance and deposits

12. COMMITMENTS

(1,355,450)

(1,091,551)

The Association has obligations under non-cancelable operating leases and agreements for various service agreements. The payments to the expiry of the leases and agreements are as follows:

13. CHAPTERS OF THE ASSOCIATION

During the year, the Association paid chapter expenses totaling $987,561 ($817,516 in 2022) and also incurred additional costs of $345,628 ($386,439 in 2022) related to chapter operations including staff salaries and benefits, and for various support activities. These amounts have been included in the various operating expenses reported on the Statement of operations and changes in net assets.

14. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Interest rate risk

PEO is exposed to interest rate risk, which is the risk that the fair values or future cash flows associated with its investments will fluctuate as a result of changes in market interest rates. Management addresses this risk through use of an investment manager to monitor and manage investments.

Liquidity risk

PEO’s objective is to have sufficient liquidity to meet its liabilities when due. PEO monitors its cash balances and cash flows generated from operations to meet its requirements. As at December 31, 2023, the most significant financial liabilities are accounts payable and accrued liabilities.

Currency risk

Currency risk is the risk that the fair value or future cash flows of a financial instrument will fluctuate due to changes in foreign exchange rates. PEO’s international and US equity pooled fund investments are denominated in foreign currencies the value of which could fluctuate in part due to changes in foreign exchange rates.

15. GOVERNMENT REMITTANCES

Accounts payables and accrued liabilities includes $145,147 ($173,549 in 2022), with respect to government remittances payable at year end.

16. CONTINGENCIES

PEO has been named in litigation matters, the outcome of which is undeterminable and accordingly, no provision has been provided for any potential liability in these financial statements. Should any loss result from these claims, which is not covered by insurance, such loss would be charged to operations in the year of resolution or earlier if the loss is likely and determinable.

CEO/REGISTRAR’S FINANCIAL REPORT

FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023

HIGHLIGHTS

For the year ending December 31, 2023, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) generated an excess of revenue over expenses of $8.2m (vs $5.5m in 2022) before Council discretionary and strategic plan project expenses. The spend on Council discretionary and strategic plan projects was $3.9m in 2023, compared to $3.5m in 2022, resulting in a net excess of revenues over expenses of $4.3m, compared to $2.1m in 2022. The 2023 Council discretionary and strategic plan project expenses consist of spend on several projects, such as the FARPACTA (Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act) project, various HR and governance related initiatives, various strategic plan projects for improving licensing processes, PEAK, digital transformation projects and other initiatives.

Revenue

Total revenue in 2023 was $37.6m vs $32.7m in 2022 which is $4.9m or 15 per cent higher than the prior year largely due to the following reasons:

• Higher investment income ($2.5m in 2023 vs $0.6m loss in 2022). An increase of $3m or 517 per cent in investment income in 2023 is due to favorable performance of PEO’s investment portfolio.

• Monies from the affinity program that PEO started receiving in 2023, amounting to $1.1m.

• Higher application, registration, exam and other fees ($10.8m in 2023 vs $10.3m in 2022). An increase of $451k or 4.4 per cent mainly due to higher revenues from P.Eng. applications, registration fees and exams revenues.

The above increases were partially offset by:

• Lower advertising revenue ($56.3k in 2023 vs $77.9k in 2022). The decrease of $21.6k is due to fewer advertisements in Engineering Dimensions

Expenses

Total expenses in 2023 before spending on Council discretionary and strategic plan projects was $29.4m vs $27.1m in 2022. This represents an increase of $2.3m or 8.3 per cent in comparison to the prior year spend. This increase is primarily due to the following:

• Higher legal (corporate, prosecution and tribunal) expenses ($1.9m in 2023 vs $1.4m in 2022). The $520k increase is largely due to higher spend on independent legal counsel for enforcement-related matters, discipline hearings and employmentrelated matters.

• Higher staff salaries and benefits ($14.8m in 2023 vs $14.3m in 2022). The increase of $415k is largely due to higher spend on salaries, benefits, including new hires.

• Higher costs for purchased services ($2m in 2023 vs $1.6m in 2022). The $410k increase in costs in 2023 is largely due to higher costs for the setting and marking of Professional Practice and Technical exams, audio visual for Council elections, etc.

• Higher spend for contract staff ($1.2m in 2023 vs $796k in 2022). The increase of $360k is due to an increase in the usage of contract staff in 2023 compared to 2022.

• Higher spend on chapters ($988k in 2023 vs $818k in 2022). The increase of $170k is due to an increase in various chapter-related activities and events with the easing of pandemic restrictions starting mid-2022.

• Increase in professional development costs ($222k in 2023 vs $79k in 2022). The increase of $143k was due to higher spend on various educational courses, personal development training and workshop for staff and volunteers.

• Higher spend for volunteer expenses ($298k in 2023 vs $191k in 2022). The higher spend of $107k in 2023 is for travel and related costs such as mileage, accommodation, meals and air/train fares due to an increase in in-person attendance at various events and meetings.

The above increases were partially offset by:

• Lower amortization expenses ($471k in 2023 vs $576k in 2022). The $104k decrease is largely due to completion of amortization on several IT projects and furniture purchased at the time of the PEO move to 40 Sheppard in 2009.

• Lower spend on postage and courier expenses ($178k in 2023 vs $272k in 2022). The $94k decrease is due to lower postage and courier costs for sending various correspondence.

• Lower spend on insurance ($145k in 2023 vs $166k in 2022). The $21k decrease represents a lower spend in insurance premiums in 2023.

BUILDING OPERATIONS

The building generated $3.3m in revenue, including PEO’s share of recoverable expenses. Total recoverable expenses were $2.3m and other expenses totaled $669k, thereby creating an excess of $341k as compared to $325k in the prior year. The $16k increase in excess revenue over expenses in 2023 was largely due to the increase in operating cost reimbursements.

PEO occupies approximately 39k square feet as of December 31, 2023. The market rent for office space in the Sheppard-Yonge area is approximately $43.2 per square foot. Based on this, PEO’s costs for leasing equivalent office space works out to approximately $1.7m. However, the total costs incurred by PEO work out to approximately $1.5m, thereby resulting in savings of approximately $200k.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

Total capital spending in 2023 was $108k as compared to $145k in 2022. Building improvements both to PEO space and common space totaling $20k for the LED lighting retrofit were made to the building. In addition, spend of $88k was incurred on audio-visual enhancements in meeting rooms and other equipment.

CONCLUSION

In 2023, PEO started several new projects including various strategic plan initiatives, many of which are currently underway. During this time, the association has been able to manage its affairs responsibly and is left with a reasonable reserve to continue work on these various initiatives and discharge its regulatory mandate in the public interest. e

1 800-7SAMSON | samson.ca@samsongroupna.com

Mandatory continuing professional development for licensed engineers

AD INDEX

PEO’s mandatory Practice Evaluation and Knowledge (PEAK) program is designed to help licence holders maintain their professional knowledge, skills and competence as engineers and is in keeping with PEO’s regulatory, public protection mandate as set out in the Professional Engineers Act

p. 9

Licence holders must comply with the annual program unless they are automatically exempt (those enrolled in PEO fee remission, like retirees). Not complying with PEAK obligations can lead to an administrative licence suspension. For more details, visit www.peopeak.ca

p. 59

p. 60

professional engineers. Contact: Beth Kukkonen, Dovetail Communications, bkukkonen@dvtail.com

May/June is March 25, 2020.

AD INQUIRIES

Your business card here will reach over 90,000 licence and certificate of authorization holders.

Contact: Dovetail Communications, Vince Naccarato, 905-707-3509, vnaccarato@dvtail.com

Deadline for Summer 2024 is June 11, 2024.

Feel confident with preferred rates on Home and Car Insurance. PEO members could save more when you bundle your Car with Home, Condo and Tenant's Insurance.

Get a quote and see how much you could save!

Go to tdinsurance.com/peo Or call 1-844-257-2365

SienaStone™ Smooth

BOLD & BUILT TO LAST

MANUFACTURED FOR PERFORMANCE & MODERN APPEAL

Experience the bold and dramatic presence of SienaStone Smooth. Manufactured to offer exceptional strength and durability, these large-scale blocks strike an impressive profile when used for large engineered walls. Beyond performance, the smooth finish of this segmental retaining wall provides a sleek, linear aesthetic, which presents designers and engineers with a sophisticated and contemporary solution for a range of heavy-duty structural wall projects. With the ability to be mechanically installed, SienaStone Smooth also simplifies the installation process and delivers cost savings by reducing labor expenses.