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.
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.
2 in 5 Canadians will develop cancer in their lifetime.⁴ Critical Illness Insurance can help.**
Engineers Canada-sponsored Insurance Plans are underwritten by The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (Manulife).
We explain why professional engineers or firms providing engineering services to the public require a certificate of authorization from PEO.
By Marika Bigongiari
30 MAKING WAVES IN SUSTAINABILITY
We explore how sustainability concerns, government regulations and cleaner technology are driving change in marine engineering.
By Sharon Aschaiek
We celebrate Ontario’s engineering advocacy body, which champions the issues that matter most to engineers.
By Adam Sidsworth
PUBLICATIONS STAFF
Managing editor and communications specialist
Nicole Axworthy editor@peo.on.ca
Contributing writers
Sharon Aschaiek
Marika Bigongiari
Senior graphic designer
Cindy Reichle
Director, communications
Katarina Praljak
Manager, communications and media relations
Duff McCutcheon
Digital communications specialist
Michelle Yiu
ADVERTISING SALES
Vice president, media sales
Laura Maurice laura.maurice@finallycontent.com 647-394-5567
Engineering Dimensions (ISSN 0227-5147) is published quarterly by Professional Engineers Ontario and is distributed to all PEO licence holders.
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 and chief legal officer
Dan Abrahams, LLB
Vice president, corporate operations and digital transformation
Arun Dixit, P.Eng.
Chief people officer
Deborah Sikkema
PEO COUNCIL Officers
President Gregory P. Wowchuk, P.Eng., FEC president@peo.on.ca
Past president
Roydon Fraser, PhD, P.Eng., FEC
President-elect
Fred Saghezchi, MASc, P.Eng., FEC
Vice president (elected) Guy Boone, P.Eng.
Vice president (appointed) Nanda Layos Lwin, P.Eng., FEC
Executive Members
Shahandeh Hannah Ehtemam, P.Eng.
Eastern Region councillors
Chantal Chiddle, P.Eng.
Michelle Liu, MASc, JD, P.Eng.
East Central Region councillors
Shahandeh Hannah Ehtemam, P.Eng.
Nanda Layos Lwin, P.Eng., FEC
Northern Region councillors
Ahmed Elshaer, PhD, 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
Lorne Cutler, MBA, P.Eng.
Andrew Dryland, C.E.T.
Paul Mandel, MBA, CPA, CA
Rachel Prudhomme, BEng, MSc, P.Eng., BPHE
Scott Schelske, P.Eng., FEC
Marisa Sterling, P.Eng., FEC CONNECT
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 from each membership fee is allocated to Engineering Dimensions and is non-deductible.
Canada Publications Mail Product Sales Agreement No. 40063309. Printed in Canada by Wellington Printworks Inc.
Ahmed Elshaer, PhD, P.Eng.
Vicki Hilborn, MASc, P.Eng.
Glen Schjerning, P.Eng.
Uditha Senaratne, P.Eng., FEC
Councillors
Councillors-at-large
Leila Notash, PhD, P.Eng., FEC
Glen Schjerning, P.Eng.
Randy Walker, P.Eng.
Uditha Senaratne, P.Eng., FEC
Sherlock Sung, BASc
Engineers Canada Directors
Arjan Arenja, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D Christian Bellini, P.Eng., FEC
Tim Kirkby, P.Eng., FEC
Nancy Hill, P.Eng., LLB, FEC, FCAE
What’s Best for Business
By Nicole Axworthy
go hand in hand. For individuals and businesses looking to offer engineering services to the public, obtaining a certificate of authorization (C of A) from PEO is a key step toward professional recognition and trust. More than just a legal requirement, the C of A demonstrates a commitment to high standards and regulatory oversight, ensuring engineering services meet the expectations of both the industry and the public.
In “The Certificate of Authorization: Behind the Business of Engineering” (p. 20), contributing writer Marika Bigongiari explains what the C of A is, who needs it and why it’s essential for firms and individuals to operate with confidence and integrity. It is distinct from a licence issued to individuals to practise professional engineering, as it specifically applies to businesses providing engineering services. Whether you’re launching your own engineering practice or expanding your firm’s offerings, understanding the value of this certification is key to success.
“Accountability is essential in a profession where safety and risk are paramount,” Bigongiari writes. “By requiring businesses that offer engineering services to adhere to clear regulations and standards, the C of A system protects the public, ensures a level playing field and prevents unqualified providers from entering the market.”
Also in this issue, contributing writer Sharon Aschaiek dives into marine engineering. In “Making Waves in Sustainability” (p. 30), Aschaiek speaks with professional engineers involved in advancing the development of hybridelectric or fully electric vessels—from the Hornblower ferry that transports passengers along the Niagara Falls to custom-built catamarans for private clients—to reduce carbon emissions and improve efficiency.
This month, we also celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE). On page 34, we take you down memory lane by sharing the events that led to the creation of the province’s engineering advocacy body. With a mandate that is distinct from PEO, OSPE has worked hard to represent the interests of professional engineers and provide an independent voice on policy discussions and industry affairs.
On a final note, the results of PEO’s recent Council elections can be found on page 8. Members of the 2025–2026 term take office later this month at PEO’s hybrid annual general meeting. More details on the event can be found on page 29. I encourage you to participate, but we’ll also bring you all the details of the business meeting and new Council in the next issue of Engineering Dimensions. e
LET US KNOW
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
The Wake-Up Call
By Gregory P. Wowchuk, P.Eng., FEC
for Ontario-based manufacturers. Around 1989, however, under the first US-Canada Free Trade Agreement, almost all of my clients closed their Canadian plants and moved production to the US, closer to its immense market. They could ship product duty-free back into Canada, so why remain in Canada?
Later, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in 2020, our hemorrhage of manufacturing only worsened. In 2017, Trump called NAFTA “the worst trade deal in history,” imposed unjustified tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum and softwood lumber and pressured Canada and Mexico to concede more, resulting in CUSMA. Now, even those concessions are insufficient, and he's threatening illegal tariffs on all our products.
Canadians have always assumed we’ll have a good relationship with America, and hitching a ride on its huge economy will always benefit our economy. The miscalculation, however, was assuming we can have a modern industrial economy without industry. NAFTA assumed the US would do the innovation, Mexico would provide cheap labour and Canada would supply resources.
Each manufacturing job supports six other jobs. Manufacturing employs legions of engineers, who design both product and production facilities. Supporting manufacturing is challenging and very satisfying. We have resources and agriculture, but manufacturing makes a country rich—and if you don't do manufacturing, you don't need engineers.
From 1981 to 2021, Canada's standard of living fell from sixth place to 13th place among 20 industrialized countries. Our productivity—which comes from innovation driven by engineering—also fell dramatically. During this period, other countries used industrial policy to distort normal market forces and give them a leg up on the competition. Canada, however, has not used these to the degree our competitors do. Trump's tariffs, however, are blunt and crude, not industrial policy.
THE REINDUSTRIALIZATION MOVEMENT
It's a wake-up call, not just for political leaders, but for engineers and engineering, and there now is opportunity as well as harm. Politicians suddenly want us to be more self-sufficient, to “re-industrialize.” If re-industrialization is to occur, engineers will make it happen.
Manufacturing needs labour, capital and innovation. Engineers do the innovation. Canadian engineers did the Avro Arrow, CANDU reactors, Nortel Networks, the Canadarm, the BlackBerry. In 1974, we even produced an allCanadian car, the Bricklin SV-1. We have an abundance of skilled and educated labour. Our universities turn out top-quality engineers and scientists; we can do the innovation. What is lacking is capital, and policy that encourages companies to invest it.
Some say we can’t turn Canada into an industrial force again. During World War II, however, Canada and the US became “the arsenal of democracy,” supplying the war effort in Europe and Asia. Clarence Decatur Howe, an engineer—and, ironically, an American—had been building a network of grain elevators in the Prairies to support our burgeoning agricultural sector.
Howe was made the “Minister of Everything” and directed to turn Canada into an industrial power overnight. He did it. Many of his factories operated in cities and towns until the NAFTA era. Canada produced not only military hardware, but also, subsequently, consumer goods for a growing population. Government had the will, engineers created the product and production, and Canada benefitted.
Now facing economic threat, we can—and must—do it again. PEO and the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers must demand of provincial and municipal politicians—and industry—a paradigm shift. Tell them engineers are ready and eager to do the job. At work tomorrow, don't just put your head down and do the usual. Contemplate how your employer can become more productive. Don't just create, innovate. Canadian engineers are the best. Our standard of living need not remain at #13.
Ontario is counting on us. Canada is counting on us. Our time to shine is now. e
Engineering a Future of Trust and Innovation
By Jennifer Quaglietta, MBA, P.Eng., ICD.D
of innovation has the potential to fundamentally change how we live and work. We know we must evolve our own approaches to ensure any AI-supported changes are implemented in a way that is both responsible and ethical.
Institutions looking to adopt AI with purpose must ask critical questions, such as those posed by Sara Diamond, PhD, OCAD University research chair and president emerita: How will AI impact our economy, products and services? What value will it bring, and what jobs will it change? Do we have a circular economy in place? These reflections ensure AI adoption aligns with long-term sustainability, social balance and ethical responsibility.
Here at PEO, we are exploring AI as part of our modernization and digital transformation efforts. There is tremendous potential for AI to enhance our regulatory operations, such as answering questions from potential applicants in real-time through our website or supporting scanning environments in unlicensed practice. Importantly though, AI must be strategically linked to regulatory outcomes, ensuring it enhances oversight, improves decision-making and drives accountability.
With all its potential, it is also crucial to address the risks and build a culture of trust around AI’s use. Key concerns include data privacy and security; algorithmic bias that could lead to unfair or unsafe outcomes; and an
over-reliance on AI that reduces human oversight, creating moral hazards. These considerations will require transparency, accountability and oversight to ensure fairness, safety and public confidence in its applications.
As we navigate this era of technological progress, PEO remains steadfast in its commitment to regulating the engineering profession in the public interest. You will notice our efforts to reinforce our licensing processes in alignment with the Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act (FARPACTA). You will see we are refining our discipline and enforcement mechanisms through lean principles, data-driven metrics and fostering a regulatory environment that supports and encourages professional excellence. With these and other measures, we will help ensure engineers remain at the forefront of responsible innovation.
Engineers have a clear duty as technology evolves. That duty is not just to build, design and innovate, but to do so with the highest integrity. PEO’s role is to ensure this integrity remains unwavering. This is because engineering regulation is not just about compliance; it is about confidence—confidence that the engineers designing our cities, developing our healthcare solutions and innovating for the future are held to the highest professional and ethical standards. As Ontario’s engineering regulator, we will continue to champion engineering excellence, embrace responsible innovation and uphold the trust placed in our profession.
A NEW EIT PROGRAM IS COMING
PEO is also taking an active role in guiding engineering graduates on their path to licensure. With Council’s support, staff are currently developing a detailed proposal and a high-level action plan to implement a new Engineering Intern (EIT) program. This initiative will replace the previous program, which was suspended in 2023 because it was incompatible with PEO’s FARPACTAcompliant licensing process.
Thank you to the hundreds of stakeholders who participated in our consultation earlier this year. It has become clear that the EIT program is valuable to many, including students, employers and PEO chapters. Among other benefits, the program offers a vital opportunity for aspiring engineers to connect with PEO before obtaining their licence. It fosters early engagement with PEO’s standards, ethics and competency requirements, ensuring EITs understand their professional responsibilities. This connection helps create a smoother transition to licensure while instilling a strong sense of accountability to the profession and its regulator. Keep an eye on our communications channels— including our website, social media channels and future issues of Engineering Dimensions—for progress on this initiative. e
New Council to Begin 2025–2026 Term
PEO Council, which includes new President Fred Saghezchi, begins its new term on April 26.
By Nicole Axworthy
PEO Council for the 2025–2026 term will take office at PEO’s 2025 Annual General Meeting (AGM) on April 26. Fred Saghezchi, P.Eng., FEC, will be the new president, and a few new councillors will also take office following a month-long election period. This year, 10.4 per cent of eligible licence holders voted during the election cycle.
The election results, which were announced in late February, revealed that Leila Notash, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, captured the role of president-elect and will automatically transition to the presidency for the 2026–2027 Council term at PEO’s 2026 AGM. Notash has served in various volunteer capacities with PEO, including councillor-at-large and vice president (appointed) on Council, chair and vice chair of the Academic Requirements Committee and vice chair of the Kingston Chapter.
Sardar Asif Khan, PhD, MSME, MBA, P.Eng., FEC, PMP, was acclaimed to the role of vice president (elected). Khan previously served as past chair of the WindsorEssex Chapter.
Other new councillors elected to Council for the 2025–2026 term include:
• Councillors-at-Large Paula R. Klink, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, and Sean Decloux, MEng, MBA, P.Eng., PMP;
• Eastern Region Councillor Susan Jingmiao Shi, MEng, P.Eng.;
• East Central Region Councillor Nanda, Layos Lwin, P.Eng., FEC (acclaimed);
• Western Region Councillor Susan MacFarlane, PhD, MSc, P.Eng.;
• West Central Region Councillor Ravinder Panesar, P.Eng., FEC (acclaimed); and
• Northern Region Councillor Luc Roberge, P.Eng., FEC (acclaimed).
At the new Council’s first meeting on May 2, 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 2025–2026 Council will be featured in the Summer 2025 issue of Engineering Dimensions
HOW YOU VOTED
PRESIDENT-ELECT
Leila Notash, PhD, P.Eng., FEC 41.1 per cent
Guy Boone, P.Eng., FEC 35.4 per cent
Darla Campbell, P.Eng., FEC, CSR-P 23.5 per cent
VICE PRESIDENT
Sardar Asif Khan, PhD, MSME, MBA, P.Eng., FEC, PMP acclaimed
COUNCILLOR-AT-LARGE
Paula R. Klink, PhD, P.Eng., FEC 27.7 per cent
Sean Decloux, MEng, MBA, P.Eng., PMP
26.5 per cent
Glen Schjerning, P.Eng. 23.4 per cent
Vajahat Banday, P.Eng., FEC, PE (Michigan) 22.3 per cent
EASTERN REGION
Susan Jingmiao Shi, MEng, P.Eng 54.3 per cent
Tim Kirkby, BEng, P.Eng., C.E.T., FEC 45.7 per cent
EAST CENTRAL REGION
Nanda Layos Lwin, P.Eng., FEC acclaimed
WESTERN REGION
Susan MacFarlane, MSc, PhD, P.Eng 53.6 per cent
Kris Popiolek, P.Eng., FEC 46.4 per cent
WEST CENTRAL REGION
Ravinder Panesar, P.Eng., FEC acclaimed
NORTHERN REGION
Luc Roberge, P.Eng., FEC acclaimed
Dura-Hold®
STRONG. DURABLE. BOLD
Connect with a Unilock Representative for Information & CEU Seminars.
MANUFACTURED FOR STRENGTH & DURABILITY
Dura-Hold® is a great alternative to poured in place retaining walls. Its large-scale blocks are disguised by false joints which cast bold shadows, giving the illusion of several individual blocks in each unit. Build gravity walls up to 6ft (1.8m) or grid reinforced walls up to 40ft (12m). Notably, Dura-Hold® can be machine placed, significantly accelerating the installation process. For design and engineering support, Risi Stone® Inc. offers expert assistance, from detailed product information to customized, site-specific solutions.
Project: West London Dyke, London, ON // Designer: Stantec London & Risi Stone® Inc // Product: Dura-Hold® in Natural
Calling of an Engineer Ceremony Modernized in Time for Centenary
The update follows a three-year review of the ceremony’s relevance in the 21st century.
By Adam Sidsworth
The Corporation of the Seven Wardens is updating the Calling of an Engineer, informally known as the iron ring or obligation ceremony. The modernized ceremony aims to be more inclusive and relevant to contemporary engineering practices.
The revised ceremony preserves traditional elements, such as the obligation and the presentation of iron rings to candidates, while integrating them into a refreshed narrative that highlights the ceremony’s origins, history, core values and the ongoing significance of the obligation in contemporary engineering.
“The iron ring ceremony has long been a defining moment for Canadian engineers, symbolizing our ethical responsibility to protect the public and uphold the highest standards of our profession,” says Engineering Deans Canada Chair Mary Wells, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, who was a panelist at the unveiling of the changes during National Engineering Month in March. “The recent revisions to the ceremony, including referring to it as the ‘Calling of an Engineer,’ reflect a necessary evolution—one that acknowledges both the breadth of those who chose to study engineering and the growing complexity of engineering in the 21st century.”
Two new original poems commissioned specifically for the calling’s centenary include the English-language poem “The Hand that Wears the Ring,” by Gisela Hippolt-Squair, director, member engagement and communications for the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta; and the French-language poem “Horizons,” by Réjean Plamondon, PhD, ing, full professor of electrical engineering at Polytechnique Montréal. Both poems were chosen in November 2024 after the Seven Wardens held a 100th anniversary poem contest. Additional content for the ceremony has been supplied by writers, poets and engineers representing diverse people from across Canada.
A MULTI-YEAR REVIEW
The changes come after nearly three years of reviews and consultations by the Corporation of the Seven Wardens, the volunteer-run, nonprofit organization that administers and regulates the Calling of an Engineer ceremonies. The Seven Wardens struck a review committee and received input from various stakeholders, including Engineers Canada, Engineering Deans Canada and the Canadian Federation of Engineering Students.
Prior to the review, calls for an updated ceremony came from many organizations, including PEO, which at its February 2022 Council meeting publicly supported the “Retooling of the Iron Ring Ritual” change initiative and urged the Seven Wardens to implement meaningful changes to reflect contemporary engineering practice, values and inclusion (see “PEO Supports Changes to Iron Ring Ceremony,” Engineering Dimensions, Spring 2023, p.14).
HISTORY OF THE IRON RING
The Calling of an Engineer has been a tradition in Canada since 1925. The ceremony includes an oath or obligation and the bestowing of an iron ring to graduates of Canadian accredited undergraduate engineering programs. In recent years, the Seven Wardens has also held senior ceremonies, which bestow an iron ring to internationally trained graduates who are licensed by a provincial or territorial engineering regulator. The ceremony seeks to inspire graduates to recognize the profession’s societal impact while allowing experienced engineers to welcome, support and mentor them. The iron ring serves as a symbol of an engineering graduate’s commitment to upholding integrity and ethics in service to the public.
The newly modernized ceremony will be formally launched in Montreal on April 25, exactly 100 years after the first ceremony took place. “As we look to the future, this modernized ceremony will continue to inspire new generations of engineers to uphold the principles of integrity, innovation and service that have shaped our profession for over a century,” Wells says.
Does the iron ring make you an engineer?
Unique to Canada, the Calling of an Engineer is an important step on the journey to becoming an engineer. However, while the iron ring is a symbolic tradition for engineering graduates, licensure is the legal requirement to practise professional engineering.
Upon graduation, you may call yourself an engineering graduate, not an engineer. To practise engineering and use the title “engineer” or “professional engineer” or the “P.Eng.” designation, you must be licensed by the engineering regulator for the province or territory where the title is being used. In Ontario, the title “engineer” is restricted to Ontario licence holders under section 40(2)(a.1) of the Professional Engineers Act
APEGA Names New CEO and Registrar
Paul Wynnyk steps into the top role of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta.
By Adam Sidsworth
Alberta’s engineering and geoscience regulator has named Paul Wynnyk, P.Eng. (Alberta), CMM, MSM, CD, as its new CEO and registrar. Wynnyk, who assumed the position of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) on April 1, replaced Jay Nagendran, P.Eng. (Alberta), FCAE, ICD.D, FEC, FGC (Hon), who announced his retirement a year ago.
“It is clear I am blessed with an efficient and positive team committed to regulatory excellence and the safety of the public,” Wynnyk told Engineering Dimensions. “I really enjoy working with highly motivated and engaged people, and I’m excited to have been selected to lead such a respected and professional organization in my home province of Alberta.”
Previously, Wynnyk was in leadership positions in the Government of Alberta, most recently as deputy minister of Alberta’s Executive Council. His government work followed a nearly four-decade-long career with the Canadian Armed Forces, where he began as a gunner in the militia before earning the rank of lieutenant general and eventually commanding of the Canadian Army and becoming vice-chief of the defence staff.
Wynnyk suspects that his government and military leadership experiences will support his new role at APEGA, but he notes that strong leadership means being a part of a strong team. “I’ve been fortunate to hold many different jobs in both my military and public service careers,” observes Wynnyk. “However, the one constant I’ve learned is that leadership is fungible, regardless of the profession or environment. Principled and ethical leadership never goes out of fashion, and great things can be accomplished when individuals come together to work as a team. It really is true that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and good leaders recognize and encourage this.”
INTRODUCTION OF BILL 40
One of Wynnyk’s first challenges will be Alberta’s proposed regulatory umbrella legislation. The Professional Governance Act (Bill 40) was introduced into the legislature on March 11 and will unify 22 professional regulatory organizations, including APEGA, under a single act. It establishes common guidelines for governance, accountability, professional practice and conduct across all the affected regulators while allowing for profession-specific schedules and regulations to be developed individually.
“This has been in the works for many years, and APEGA has played a substantial role in providing input and advice to the government,” notes Wyynyk. “In the medium to longer term, APEGA and the professions we represent will need to continue evolving to leverage emerging technologies, find ways to address the growing demand for STEM-trained professionals and navigate increasingly complex regulatory environments.”
If proclaimed, each of the organizations involved will see their existing acts repealed and formally replaced by the new Professional Governance Act. APEGA will continue to collaborate with the government in developing specific regulations for engineering and geoscience, which will include scope of practice and authentication. “The current and quickly shifting geopolitical situation adds another dimension to the many challenges that lie ahead,” Wyynk adds. “However, I’m confident that APEGA has the staff, knowledge and expertise to navigate these challenges and excel in meeting them.”
Paul Wynnyk, P.Eng. (Alberta), CMM, MSM, CD, stepped into the role of CEO and registrar of Alberta’s engineering and geoscience regulator in early April.
PEO Hosts Chapter Activity Visioning Session
On March 8, PEO’s chapter office hosted an in-person collaborative session with representatives across the chapter network. The Chapter Activity Visioning Session provided a forum for chapter representatives to discuss common goals around chapter activities that support PEO’s regulatory mandate, inclusivity best practices for chapter members and volunteers and opportunities to enhance collaboration across the chapter network. It also included roundtable discussions hosted by PEO’s pre-licensure, communications, 30 by 30 and PEAK teams.
The full-day session provided an opportunity for chapter volunteers and PEO staff to discuss strategies for enhancing the chapter member experience, such as ensuring a variety of engagement and outreach opportunities support current and prospective licence holders, and educating local communities about the benefits of licensure, all while ensuring a consistent approach across all chapters. The visioning session also highlighted
By James Schembri
opportunities for deeper engagement and ensured alignment on key aspects of chapter operations, which will be incorporated into PEO’s Chapter Procedure Manual, set to launch this year. This manual is intended to support PEO’s chapter leaders and volunteers in creating a consistent approach to managing chapter operations. Moreover, staff and volunteers continue to work together to further advance engagement and collaboration in pursuit of PEO’s regulatory mandate.
Organized into five regions, PEO’s 36 chapters promote the value of engineering to local communities and provide an important link between licence holders and engineering interns and PEO Council. They perform a range of functions that include organizing licence certificate ceremonies, hosting technical seminars and social events, providing a forum for members to exchange knowledge and ideas, and offering professional networking opportunities.
For more information about PEO’s chapters and how to get involved, visit www.peo.on.ca/chapters.
James Schembri is PEO’s director, volunteer engagement.
A breakout session led by PEO’s communication team aimed to advance communication between PEO staff and chapters.
Chapter leaders and representatives discuss creating a common approach to chapter activities across PEO’s chapter network.
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
APRIL 27–MAY 3, 2025
VOLUNTEERS MAKE WAVES
I n honour of National Volunteer Week, PEO recognizes and thanks our volunteers who serve in chapters and chapter-sponsored programs, as well as on Council, committees and their subcommittees, task forces, the Government Liaison Program, external boards and advisory groups. Your commitment and contributions make a lasting impact.
Aerospace engineer George Zhu is innovating to make space exploration safer and more efficient.
George Zhu, PhD, P.Eng., is developing autonomous space robots at York University’s Space Engineering Design Lab.
With space becoming increasingly crowded with potentially dangerous debris, there has never been a greater need for the novel solutions of world-renowned aerospace engineer George Zhu, PhD, P.Eng.
As director of the Space Engineering Design Laboratory at York University’s Lassonde School of Engineering, Zhu studies how to clean up the more than 100 million pieces of junk—including spent satellites, rocket booster fragments and paint flecks from spacecraft—filling earth’s low orbit. If uncontrolled material crashes into a satellite, it could disrupt vital information and communication systems. Or when re-entering earth’s atmosphere at speeds of up to 30,000 kilometres per hour, it could collide with an aircraft in flight. In fact, Canadian researchers recently determined that there’s a 26 per cent annual chance of space debris entering a busy flight area.
“Space debris poses many risks and is a great source of stress for the space industry,” says Zhu, winner of the 2024 Ontario Professional Engineers Awards Gold Medal. “If you can imagine all of our skies covered with space debris, we may one day not be able to launch a rocket into space.”
THE MAKING OF ROBOTS
For Zhu, clearing out space pollution entails developing specialized robots that can function autonomously with artificial intelligence (AI) and operate in the zero-gravity space environment. He is currently working on a robotic manipulator equipped with a camera that can independently detect and capture a mock satellite set up in the room. Several sensors affixed to the machine provide vital data used to optimize its zero-gravity performance.
Zhu is also researching swarm robotics, a system of small satellite vehicles with powerful computational abilities that can operate independently without centralized control. Inspired by the collaborative behaviours of insects, birds and fish, they can communicate and cooperate with each other to detect and grab space debris.
Both types of robots would push debris into the earth’s atmosphere, where it would automatically incinerate—but Zhu says swarm robotics is the more cost-effective option. “Swarm robots are much cheaper and quicker to produce than a single large robot, so we can afford to let them burn with the debris,” says Zhu, the Tier 1 York research chair in space robotics and artificial intelligence.
For Zhu, studying how to make space exploration safer and more efficient has also involved researching 3-D printing in space. Referring to a NASA report indicating that astronauts use only 5 per cent of the spare parts and tools they bring along on missions, he notes that printing them in space would significantly lighten the load of rocket ships, thus allowing them to burn less fuel. Zhu’s current research projects are funded by almost $5.5 million in grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Ontario Research Fund and the Canada Foundation for Innovation.
THE ROUTE TO SPACE RESEARCH
Zhu’s ascent to the global upper echelon of space research was sparked by a childhood fascination with the cosmos. Growing up in China, he recalls marvelling at the moon and stars in the night sky and wondering what else might exist in the dark, vast expanse. Zhu studied mechanical
engineering through to the doctoral level at Shanghai Jia Tong University. After moving to Canada, he built on that education by completing a master’s degree in robotic control at the University of Waterloo in 1998 and a PhD in mechanical engineering at the University of Toronto in 2004.
Zhu’s foray into aerospace engineering began in industry as a senior stress and structural engineer at engineering design and manufacturing firm Curtiss-Wright EMS–INDAL, where he studied the best way to tether a helicopter to a ship when it lands in high seas. Seeking to further explore and develop engineering innovations for the aerospace sector, Zhu made the switch to academia in 2006 and joined York. Since then, he has served in increasingly senior positions at Lassonde, including chair of the department of mechanical engineering and founding co-director of the Manufacturing, Technology and Entrepreneurship Centre. He was also the inaugural director of York’s Research Commons, which funds York researchers.
THE SECOND SPACE RACE
The investigations of Zhu and his team—he supervises 14 graduate students and two postdoctoral candidates— have become increasingly relevant in recent years as
SUBSCRIBE!
technological gains, geopolitical ambitions and growing space tourism have driven what’s being called a second space race. Currently, there are approximately 10,000 satellites in space, and this number is projected to significantly increase as more companies and nations join the action. Meanwhile, the emergence of weapons designed to disable satellites could exponentially increase the amount of space debris.
Understanding that enhancing space exploration is a long-term collaborative effort, Zhu generously shares his knowledge with up-and-coming engineers. He has engaged undergraduates from diverse engineering disciplines in designing and building a miniature satellite that, in 2023, was launched into orbit by International Space Station astronauts; equipped with a wide-angle camera, it is monitoring permafrost thawing in Canada’s Arctic region. He is also leading a comprehensive multi-university student training initiative focused on AI, computer vision and autonomous robots for space that involves experts from the Canadian Space Agency and National Research Council Canada.
Zhu’s intense interest in supporting aspiring engineers extends to his active participation in PEO’s York Chapter. Each year, he invites fellow chapter members to serve as industry advisors to fourth-year engineering students at York as they complete a capstone design project. “There are so many unknowns to explore and discover in space…I’m in a lucky position where I can fulfill my curiosity,” Zhu says. “But the most rewarding part of my job is training young people, the next generation of engineers, to find their path.” e
Sign up for a free subscription service to receive specific practice guidelines, standards and advisory bulletins related to your practice and interests.
Subscribers will receive updates via email when practice resources are updated or published, along with new supporting materials and tools. Sign up at www.peo.on.ca/knowledge-centre/practice-advice-resources-and-guidelines
How Do Practitioners Determine Their Practice Status?
Licence holders are required to self-declare their practice status to PEO every year. We explain how to assess your work to determine if you are practising professional engineering.
By Jane Mustac, P.Eng.
As a licensed engineer, you might be solving complex problems, designing systems or analyzing data—but does that mean you’re actually practising professional engineering? The distinction isn’t always obvious, yet it carries implications when it comes to the annual requirements for maintaining your licence with PEO.
Specifically, one of the first steps in PEO’s Practice Evaluation and Knowledge (PEAK) program is to self-declare a “practising” or “not practising” status. Although anyone with a valid PEO licence can call themselves a professional engineer, not all licence holders’ work fits the criteria outlined in the definition of professional engineering in the Professional Engineers Act (PEA). This is why it’s important for licence holders to carefully assess their work before declaring their status.
Section 1 of the PEA defines the practice of professional engineering using a three-part definition:
• Any act of planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing or supervising, or managing such act;
• That requires the application of engineering principles; and
• Concerns the safeguarding of life, health, property, economic interests, the public welfare or the environment.
An individual’s practice status with PEO is not influenced by where they live or their job title, employer, work sector, employment type or status, or whether they seal engineering documents, whether the industrial exception
NOT ALL LICENCE HOLDERS’ WORK FITS THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE DEFINITION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING IN THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ACT
could potentially apply to their work situation or whether their practice activities are free or paid work. In other words, you are considered a practising engineer if you: Apply engineering knowledge and principles. This includes activities that require the use of engineering skills in the areas of design, analysis, research, development, testing or supervising projects; Make decisions that affect public safety, health and welfare. A key principle for determining whether you are practising is whether your engineering work involves decision-making that impacts safety (e.g., structural design, safety systems, environmental impact); or
Supervise or oversee the technical aspects of engineering. This includes roles where you are managing, guiding or overseeing engineers and their work in a way that involves direct application of engineering principles, such as project management with engineering oversight.
Additionally, you are considered practising if you are practising professional engineering for Ontario-based clients or employers.
For PEO purposes, you are not practising if you are not currently engaged in the practice of professional engineering (all three parts of the definition) for clients or employers in Ontario, including your part-time and intermediate, volunteer and unpaid work. You are also not practising, for PEO purposes, if you hold a PEO licence while you reside outside Ontario and you practise professional engineering for clients or employers who are located outside Ontario (the practising status only applies if you have clients or employers in Ontario). However, it is your responsibility to update your practice status within 30 days if your circumstances change at any time during the year.
As a reminder, individuals who hold a licence with PEO but are enrolled in PEO’s fee remission program must not practise professional engineering while on fee remission. This includes fee remission enrollees who are retired; on parental, medical or full-time study leave; or unemployed.
PRACTISING VS NON-PRACTISING SCENARIOS
Let’s look at some scenarios of practising and nonpractising engineers.
A practising engineer: Sara is employed in a position unrelated to professional engineering. However, Sara wants to utilize her engineering background, so she volunteers with an organization that provides pro-bono assistance to small businesses in need of experts. In her volunteer role, Sara provides engineering advice to businesses undergoing extensive renovations.
In this scenario, Sara is carrying out professional engineering work for small businesses on a volunteer basis. This means she is considered a practising engineer. It’s also important to note that to provide these services, Sara must be working under the umbrella of a certificate of authorization. Carrying out professional work as a volunteer does not excuse a licence holder from the requirements of the PEA.
A non-practising engineer: Aarav has a background in engineering, but his current role isn’t focused on directly applying engineering principles. Instead, he works as an engineering project coordinator at a construction com-
ASSESSING YOUR WORK
pany. Aarav’s role involves overseeing project timelines, coordinating teams and ensuring compliance with industry regulations for engineering projects, such as constructing new commercial buildings. He communicates with contractors, manages budgets and monitors progress. He also ensures engineering teams have the resources they need to complete their tasks. Aarav does not make technical decisions about how the building will be designed, constructed or analyzed. He isn’t working on engineering calculations or selecting materials for the structure. Instead, his role is more about ensuring everything runs smoothly, from logistics to ensuring the project complies with regulations and standards.
In this scenario, Aarav is considered a non-practising engineer because his work does not involve directly applying engineering knowledge to solve technical problems or make decisions that affect safety, performance or functionality. He is not doing the designing, analyzing or problem-solving that defines professional engineering. His job is focused on management, coordination and administration within an engineering context, not engineering practice itself. This example shows how someone with an engineering background can still work in the engineering field without directly engaging in professional engineering. In this case, Aarav‘s expertise supports the engineering project but doesn’t involve technical engineering work that requires a P.Eng. to be directly applied.
For more information about PEO’s PEAK program and its requirements, visit www.peopeak.ca. e
Jane Mustac, P.Eng., is PEO’s manager, practice advisory services.
If your work involves the three-part definition of professional engineering, you should declare yourself a practising engineer. Still unsure? Ask yourself:
1. What do you do at work? Are you involved in any activities in all three parts of the definition?
2. Is your work being done to safeguard something? Is that something one of the values or interests listed in the definition? The issue of protecting the public interest and the question of whether the public is at risk must be considered in the broadest terms. The component, product, device, system, process, etc. that is the outcome of the engineering work must be viewed from its broader societal perspective.
3. Do you rely on your skills and knowledge in technical subjects gained in your engineering education?
THE ASSOCIATION HAS RECEIVED WITH REGRET NOTIFICATION OF THE DEATHS OF THE FOLLOWING LICENCE HOLDERS (AS OF FEBRUARY 2025).
BAIRD, Robert Lewis Markham, ON
BEDELL, Philip Lucan, ON
BLAHNIK, Karel Toronto, ON
BRODERSEN, Kenneth Terkild Ottawa, ON
CASHIN, Patrick James North Sydney, NS
CLIPSHAM, Robert Esmond Cheltenham, ON
COULSON, Adam Lee Toronto, ON
CRISTOVICI, Marius Ottawa, ON
DA SILVA, Guilherme Joao Scarborough, ON
DAVIES, Barry John Trent Lakes, ON
ERWIN, Gerald Frank Port Elgin, ON
FAN, Hong Fa Hamilton, ON
GARDNER, Edwin Ottawa, ON
GENEST, George Ludger Ottawa, ON
GIDNEY, Lionel Charles Caledon East, ON
GILCHRIST, Ian William Ernest Fredericton, NB
GONNSEN, Karl Grimsby, ON
GOODALL, William Roderick Arthur Sault Ste Marie, ON
GOODMUNDSON, Terry Whitney, ON
GREASON, William Duncan Dorchester, ON
GREEN, William Angus Oshawa, ON
GREWAL, Amarjit Singh Mississauga, ON
HAMID, Hany Nabih Aurora, ON
HICKS, Dale Bryan Campbellville, ON
JEFFCOATT, Roger Keith Etobicoke, ON
JOHNSON, Garwood Samuel Nepean, ON
JOHNSTONE, Robert Scott Aurora, ON
KACIRA, Niyazi North York, ON
KIRKWOOD, Michael John White Rock, BC
KITCHER, Emmanuel Dornu Carp, ON
KROEKER, Hans-Rudi Ridgeway, ON
LAROCQUE, Ronald Lawrence Elora, ON
LAWLOR, John Gregory Riverview, NB
LI, Philip Cheung Shing Mississauga, ON
MACDONALD, Norman David Deep River, ON
MACINNIS, Earl Vincent Belwood, ON
MACMILLAN, Donald Edward Ottawa, ON
MARSHALL, Melvyn Charles Delta, BC
MARTENS, Nicholas Andrew Ottawa, ON
MASSICOTTE, Jean Marc Sittsville, ON
MCCALLUM, Donald Etobicoke, ON
MCGINNIS, Daniel Warren Saint Louis, MO
MCKINNON, Ronald Vincent Winnipeg, MB
MCLELLAN, John Joseph Nepean, ON
MCMULLEN, John David Ancaster, ON
MILLEN, Royston James Nepean, ON
MOSS, Byron Geoffrey Sault Ste Marie, ON
NANNE, Gerald Anthony Sault Ste Marie, ON
NEALLY, Robert James Toronto, ON
NOWSKI, Stanley James Markham, ON
PAU, Pierre-Yves Marie Kerlouan, France
PETRYSCHUK, Walter Fredrick Sarnia, ON
POOLE, William Hope Ottawa, ON
POON, Edward Kai-Jee Richmond Hill, ON
PRESSER, Gustav Montreal, QC
RANDMAA, Hanno North York, ON
ROBERTS, Gordon Arthur Stratford, PE
ROSS, Carolyn Marie Oakville, ON
SAUNDERS, Thomas Frank Toronto, ON
SHALLWANI, Mehdi Azizali North York, ON
SHRIMPTON, Howard Uxbridge, ON
SIMPSON, Michael William Thornhill, ON
SMITH, Kenneth Carless Toronto, ON
STEINBERG, Roy Frederick Rockwood, ON
STEWART, Bruce Elliott Calgary, AB
STEWART, James Nixon Hamilton, ON
SZPINDEL, Motel North York, ON
THEUERLE, Douglas Stephen St. Catharines, ON
TRIBE, Richard Bedingfield London, ON
TUCKER, Gordon Barry Picton, ON
VISCARDI, Roberto Cambridge, ON
WALKER, John Arthur Sanders Nepean, ON
WALLACE, Graham Jeffery Nanaimo, BC
WATSON, Donald Keith Toronto, ON
WILLIAMS, Andrew Paul Mississauga, ON
WONG, Kwok Cheung Scarborough, ON
YOSHIDA, Gordon Hiromu Scarborough, ON
YU, Hong Wen Port Elgin, ON
ZAJAC, Richard Walter Maple, ON
ZARUBICK, Eugene Michael Kincardine, ON
THE CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION:
Behind the Business of Engineering
BY MARIKA BIGONGIARI
At its core, the C of A system is about protecting the public. entities. A licence to practise is reserved for individuals
A P.Eng. licence permits a person to practise; a C of A permits a business to offer engineering services to the public.
who meet rigorous academic and experience requirements, something a business cannot fulfill. Instead, a corporation, partnership or an individual offering engineering services may apply for a C of A, which PEO issues to allow business entities to offer and deliver engineering services to the public. The certificates are valid for 12 months and must be renewed to continue offering such services.
In this sense, the C of A is like a business permit. In contrast to other regulated professions like law or medicine, where professional corporations must be owned by licensed practitioners, engineering firms in Ontario can be managed by individuals who are not engineers. However, a professional corporation must comply with the requirements of the Business Corporations Act (BCO) and the relevant governing body of the profession. This includes acquiring a C of A from the governing body to operate as specified in its legislation— the PEA, in the case of engineering.
PEO requires every C of A holder to designate a licensed engineering professional (or professionals)—a P.Eng. or qualified temporary or limited licence holder—to assume responsibility for the work. This ensures a suitably qualified individual (or individuals) oversees the provided services. Qualified limited licence holders, including limited engineering licensees (LLs or LELs) and licensed engineering technologists (LETs), can assume professional liability for the C of A.
A business cannot legally offer engineering services to the public without a C of A, even if its staff includes licensed engineers. The legal obligation applies to the business activity, not just the people involved. This separation exists because professional engineering is not only practised by individuals; it is also provided as a business service. The C of A ensures that when engineering services are commercialized, they continue to meet the professional standards and oversight required by law.
In short, a P.Eng. licence permits a person to practise; a C of A permits a business to offer engineering services to the public.
WHEN IS A C OF A NEEDED?
“If a business provides engineering services to the public, it will need a C of A,” explains José Vera, PEO’s director of licensing. “The ‘public’ generally means clients of engineering services, such as municipalities, property owners, contractors or other engineering firms.”
To determine if the provided work qualifies as engineering under the PEA, consider the following questions:
1. Does the work involve planning, designing, composing, evaluating, advising, reporting, directing, supervising or managing any of these acts?
2. Are engineering principles required to carry out the act?
3. Does the work concern safeguarding life, health, property, economic interests, public welfare or the environment?
“If the service is provided to the public and the answer to all three questions is yes, then according to the PEA, the service provided qualifies as professional engineering and a C of A is required,” says Vera. Confusion surrounding the C of A often occurs when engineers do contract or part-time work. The key distinction lies in who is offering the services to the public. In summary, if an individual or their company is performing the work and that work is not done as an employee for their employer, a C of A is likely required. Situations where a C of A is needed include:
• A licensed engineer offering consulting services on the side, outside of their day job;
• An incorporated company promoting or advertising engineering services;
• A non-engineer owning a company that hires engineers to deliver technical work to clients;
• A P.Eng. starting a small firm offering design and evaluation services for local businesses;
• A product development firm offering custom engineering design as part of its sales;
• An incorporated firm offering engineering design services; or
• An engineering firm providing pro bono engineering services.
THE ROLE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE
Professional liability insurance is a key component of the C of A framework. By default, C of A holders must carry insurance that meets specific standards under Regulation 941 of the PEA. Liability insurance is a critical safety net that protects clients and the public in case of errors, omissions or professional negligence. It’s a hallmark of responsible practice that’s mandatory for most firms, with these exceptions:
• The holder participates in the Indemnity Plan of the Ontario Association of Architects, and their practice is limited to professional activities covered by that plan;
• Nearly all claims related to services would be covered by alternative insurance; or
• The insurance would cover pollution, nuclear, aviation or shipping hazards.
Practitioners should note that in many cases, clients will contractually require professional liability insurance beyond what is required in the PEA.
BUILDING TRUST IN THE PROFESSION
Professional engineering encompasses more than just technical skills; it includes accountability, professional integrity and public protection. The C of A applies these principles to the business side
of the profession. This makes the C of A an essential regulatory tool that is more than a compliance requirement; it’s part of a broader system that builds trust in professional engineering.
When a business holds a C of A, it signals to its clients, the public and other professionals that it meets PEO standards and is subject to oversight. Operating without a C of A is a serious violation of the PEA. Individuals or firms caught offering services without authorization may face fines of up to $25,000 for a first offence and $50,000 for subsequent ones. PEO may also pursue disciplinary actions against the licensed individuals involved.
Accountability is essential in a profession where safety and risk are paramount. By requiring businesses that
offer engineering services to adhere to clear regulations and standards, the C of A system protects the public, ensures a level playing field and prevents unqualified providers from entering the market.
The C of A plays a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of the engineering profession. e
For more information about the C of A, read PEO’s Certificate of Authorization Requirements Guide, available at www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2019-09/ CofA_Infoguide.pdf. If you have questions about applying for the C of A, email PEO at cofa.new@peo.on.ca.
HOW TO APPLY FOR A C OF A
The application process is straightforward but requires attention to detail. Here are the main steps: Visit PEO’s website (www.peo.on.ca) and download and complete the Certificate of Authorization application form.
Designate a qualified licence holder (or holders) who will take professional responsibility. Submit the necessary business registration documents. For example, Certificates of Incorporation, Proof of Business Registration or Master Business Licence, as needed. Include the resumes of professional engineers listed in the application. Submit a Certificate of Professional Liability Insurance showing the business entity as the name insured (if applicable). Pay the application fee, currently $904.
PEO typically takes three weeks to review first-time applications. Once approved, the certificate is mailed. The holder of a C of A must notify PEO within 30 days of any change to the information submitted in their application or renewal form.
For complete details on how to apply for a C of A, visit www.peo.on.ca/apply/certificate-
1. A C of A is needed to offer or provide professional engineering services to the public.
2. This applies to all business entities, including engineers that operate as a business.
3. C of A holders must designate a qualified licensed professional engineer (or engineers) to take responsibility for the work.
4. The C of A is separate from a P.Eng. A P.Eng. is a licence for individuals only; business entities need a C of A.
5. Cs of A are issued for 12 months and must be renewed annually.
6. Liability insurance is a key requirement.
7. A business cannot advertise its services as “Engineers” unless it holds a current C of A under the Professional Engineers Act. For more information, see “Advertising Information for Certificate of Authorization Holders” at www.peo.on.ca/sites/default/files/2019-08/ AdInfoCofA2015.pdf.
8. C of A holders must notify PEO within 30 days of any change to the information submitted on their application or renewal form.
9. Non-compliance can result in severe fines, discipline or prosecution.
10. C of A holders are listed in PEO’s public directory at www.peo.on.ca/directory.
10 FACTS about the certificate of authorization
The following events may have an in-person and/or online component. See individual websites for details.
Sustainable Business: Insights from the Field of Sustainability Engineering, by Bruce Taylor, 2025: This book uses case studies to outline a proven path to profitably secure net zero for facilities and their supply chains, further empowering businesses and other organizations to create additional economic, environmental and social benefits.
Biomechanical Engineering Step by Step: Principles & Practices for Modern Biomechanical Engineers—Motion, Structure and Function in Living Systems, by James King, 2024: This book provides an accessible yet detailed roadmap to understanding how biology and engineering converge. With real-world examples and cutting-edge insights, you’ll explore how biomechanical principles are transforming healthcare, sports, robotics and beyond.
READ LISTEN WATCH
Engineering Matters
ATTEND
APRIL 26
PEO 2025 Annual General Meeting, Toronto, ON www.peo.on.ca/about-peo/ annual-general-meetings/2025-agm
MAY 1–2
International Conference on Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering Conference, Ottawa, ON https://efstm.com/event/index. php?id=2883549
MAY 12–13
International Conference on Aeronautical Engineering and Innovative Spacecraft Technologies, Quebec City, QC https://researchleagues.com/event/ index.php?id=2896836
MAY 21
30 by 30 Conference, Vancouver, BC https://site.pheedloop.com/ event/202530by30/home
The winner of three Publisher Podcast Awards, Engineering Matters provides an overview of engineering topics ranging from manufacturing and agriculture to construction and transportation. https://engineeringmatters.reby.media
Causality
Listen to the how and why from an engineer’s perspective regarding what went right and what went wrong in some of the world’s worst engineering disasters. https:// engineered.network/causality
Engineering Influence
Engineering Influence is the award-winning podcast of the American Council of Engineering Companies, offering content ranging from interviews with newsmakers to in-depth conversations on the engineering and design services industry. https://acecnational.podbean.com/
The Intentional Engineer: A Guide to a Purpose-Driven
The Intentional Engineer: A Guide to a Purpose-Driven Life and Career for Engineers and Technical Professionals, by Jeff Perry, 2023: Jeff Perry shares his vast experience coaching and training engineers and technical professionals on leadership, career development and intentional living. In this book, you’ll learn actionable ways to progress in your life and career.
MAY 26–28
Canadian Academy of Engineering Conference, Montreal, QC www.cae-acg.ca/2025-conference/
MAY 26–29
IEEE Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering, Vancouver, BC https://ccece2025.ieee.ca
JUNE 20–21
International Conference on Recent Challenges in Engineering and Technology, Montreal, QC https://iser.org.in/conf/index. php?id=2967290
The Efficient Engineer
This YouTube channel is for mechanical and civil engineers and aims to simplify engineering concepts, one video at a time. www.youtube.com/ @TheEfficientEngineer
Engineering Management Institute
This YouTube channel shows you how to build your soft and interpersonal skills and keeps you up to date on the latest developments in engineering. www.youtube.com/ @EngineeringManagement
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 JIANDE (FRANK) FENG, P.ENG., a member of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario, and FRONTOP ENGINEERING LIMITED, a holder of a Certificate of Authorization.
INTRODUCTION
1. This matter involving Jiande (Frank) Feng, P.Eng. (“Mr. Feng” or the “Member”), and Frontop Engineering Limited (“FEL”) was heard by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (the “Association”) on February 26, 2025. It was heard electronically by way of videoconference pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario as amended, the Professional Engineers Act, and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
THE AGREED STATEMENTS OF FACTS
2. At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Association entered into evidence: (a) the Notice of Hearing, dated January 20, 2025; (b) the decision of the Complaints Committee, dated October 9, 2024, which attached the Statement of Allegations, dated October 7, 2024; and (c) the Registrar’s Certificate, dated February 21, 2025.
3. Counsel for the Association also advised the panel that the parties had reached an agreement on the facts and introduced an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) signed by Mr. Feng on February 14, 2025, and by counsel for the Association on February 21, 2025. The relevant portions of the ASF are reproduced below: This Agreed Statement of Facts is made between the Association of Professional Engineers (“PEO”), and the Respondents, Jiande (Frank) Feng, P.Eng. (“Feng”) and Frontop Engineering Limited (“FEL”) (collectively, the “parties”).
1. At all material times, Feng was a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Act. Feng was first licensed in 2002 and has practised continuously as a Professional Engineer since that time.
2. At all material times, FEL held a Certificate of Authorization (“C of A”) naming Feng as the individual accepting professional responsibility for engineering services provided under the C of A.
3. FEL was established in 2005 and is an architectural and multi-engineering consulting company based in Markham, Ontario. FEL offers noise and vibration monitoring services for construction sites.
4. A key part of the vibration monitoring services provided by FEL involves the installation of vibration monitoring station units (“VMS units”). The VMS units measure the vibrations experienced at the subject site, in order to ascertain whether they are within acceptable limits. The VMS units used by FEL were manufactured by GeoSonics, an American seismic instrumentation company. GeoSonics offers routine calibration services for its VMS units.
Following calibration, GeoSonics issues a calibration certificate which attests to the reliability and accuracy of a VMS unit’s measurements.
5. In or around August 10, 2021, Duron Ontario Limited (“DOL”) awarded FEL a contract to provide vibration monitoring services for a construction project at the TTC Rosedale Station (“Rosedale”).
6. On or around March 30, 2022, FEL installed two vibration monitoring sensor units with serial numbers 3831 and 3888 (the “Rosedale VMS units”) at the Rosedale site.
7. On or around April 21, 2022, Feng signed and sealed a vibration monitoring report for Rosedale (the “Rosedale Report”). The Rosedale Report enclosed two calibration certificates marked with serial numbers 3942 and 4887 (the “initial Rosedale calibration certificates”) purportedly issued by GeoSonics for the two Rosedale VMS units. Attached hereto as Schedule “A” is a copy of the initial Rosedale calibration certificates.
8. The initial Rosedale calibration certificates were incorrect, since they contained identical calibration dates, certificate numbers and readings, and their serial numbers did not match the serial numbers of the Rosedale VMS units.
9. On or around May 9, 2022, FEL submitted two revised calibration certificates to DOL (the “revised Rosedale calibration certificates”), marked with serial numbers 3942/4887 and 3882/4677. These calibration certificates were also incorrect, because their serial numbers did not match those of the Rosedale VMS Units installed on site. Attached hereto as Schedule “B” is a copy of the revised Rosedale calibration certificates.
10. On or around June 16 and August 8, 2022, FEL signed and sealed a revised vibration monitoring report for Rosedale (the “Revised Rosedale Report”), which enclosed new calibration certificates that correctly matched the serial numbers of the Rosedale VMS units (3831 and 3888). This final set of certificates was accurate. Attached hereto as Schedule “C” is a copy of the Revised Rosedale Report.
11. The initial and revised Rosedale calibration certificates were incorrect because they either used duplicate certificate data or mismatched serial numbers, or both.
12. In or around October 2021, Dufferin Construction Company (“DCC”) awarded FEL a contract to provide vibration monitoring services for a construction project at the CN Milton Logistics Hub (“Milton”).
13. On or around February 24, 2022, FEL installed four vibration monitoring station units with serial numbers 3810, 3830, 3832, and 3889 (the “Milton VMS units”) at the Milton site.
14. On around March 21, 2022, Feng signed and sealed a vibration monitoring report for Milton (the “Milton Report”), which attached four calibration certificates marked with serial numbers 3837, 3941, 3944 and 3957 (the “initial Milton calibration certificates”), purportedly for the four Milton VMS units. The initial Milton calibration certificates were incorrect, because the serial numbers did not match the serial numbers of the Milton VMS units and they contained identical calibration dates, numbers and readings. Attached hereto as Schedule “D” is a copy of the Milton Report.
15. On or around May 11, 2022, FEL submitted four revised calibration certificates to DCC (the “revised Milton calibration certificates”). The revised Milton calibration certificates were accurate. Attached hereto as Schedule “E” are copies of the revised Milton calibration certificates.
16. The initial Milton calibration certificates were altered versions of the certificate originally issued for Milton VMS unit 3889. Similarly, the revised Rosedale calibration certificates for VMS units 3942 and 4887 were altered versions of the certificate originally issued for Milton VMS unit 3889. These alterations were evident because the certificate numbers and readings were identical, the handwriting on the pages was identical, and the font style, location and orientation matched across these certificates.
17. On June 7, 2022, PEO received a complaint from Alan Oldfield, P.Eng., the Associate Vice President of AECOM. According to the complainant, AECOM was hired in the role of “Owner’s Engineers” for the two projects described above. AECOM was concerned about the legitimacy of the calibration certificates FEL had submitted as part of its reports. These concerns cast doubt on the validity of the data collected by FEL. The data was required to identify any potential for building or structural damage and to provide a record of compliance of vibration limits under applicable bylaws. A copy of the complaint (without attachments) is attached as Schedule “F”.
18. PEO communicated the complaint in this matter to Feng and FEL on June 14, 2022.
19. On August 17, 2022, Feng and FEL responded to PEO through counsel. In their response, Feng and FEL acknowledged and apologized for mistakenly sending wrong information and inapplicable and
incorrect calibration certificates to DCC. The response noted that FEL had set up a management team to organize and correct the documentation of its instruments and had designated a qualified team member to be responsible for all instrument calibration. FEL also reviewed calibration sheets from 20 other projects to ensure there were no similar problems.
20. On March 21, 2023, Feng and FEL provided further submissions to PEO through counsel. In their response, Feng and FEL similarly acknowledged mistakenly sending wrong information and inapplicable and incorrect calibration certificates to DOL. The response referenced corrective steps taken by FEL which were largely consistent with the initial response of August 21, 2022.
21. Feng and FEL continued to offer their cooperation throughout the duration of PEO’s investigation. On May 28, 2024, Feng and FEL provided further submissions to PEO through counsel, in which they acknowledged ultimate responsibility for the submission of the incorrect calibration certificates.
22. Feng has also engaged in a number of education programs and conferences to improve his skills, including:
a. “Basic Machinery Vibrations Online (SI Version)”, presented by the Vibration Institute;
b. “Professional Ethics for Engineers”, presented by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Ontario;
c. “ABCs of Engineering Ethics – The Project Management Triangle”, presented by the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Ontario;
d. The 2024 Geodetic Picnic; and
e. The 2024 Tunneling Association of Canada Conference;
23. Feng also attended the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Council of Independent Laboratories on April 29, 2024. He also enrolled in relevant coursework for the 2025 calendar year, including “Critical Communication Skills – Senior Document Review Workshop”, presented by the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers. Feng also registered for membership in the Vibration Institute for 2025.
24. In late 2024, Feng and FEL developed a written Calibration Documentation Management Plan (the “Plan”). The Plan was provided to PEO in or about December, 2024. Following review and comments by PEO, counsel for the Respondents provided a revised Calibration Documentation Management Plan (the “Revised Plan”), which is acceptable to PEO. Attached as Schedule “G” is a copy of the Revised Plan. Feng and FEL confirm that the Revised Plan has been implemented, or will be fully implemented in accordance with its terms by no later than February 20, 2025.
25. By reason of the aforesaid, the parties agree that Feng and FEL are guilty of professional misconduct as follows:
a. Negligence, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) of Regulation 941; and
b. Conduct relevant to the practice of professional engineering that would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional, amounting to professional misconduct as defined by section 72(2)(j) of Regulation 941.
PLEA BY THE MEMBER
4. Mr. Feng, on behalf of himself and FEL, admitted the allegations of professional misconduct set out in paragraph 15 of the Statement of Allegations and reproduced in paragraph 25 of the ASF. The panel conducted a plea inquiry and was satisfied that Mr. Feng’s admissions on behalf of himself and FEL were voluntary, informed and unequivocal.
DECISION AND REASONS FOR FINDINGS
5. The panel carefully considered the ASF, together with Mr. Feng’s admissions, and concludes that the facts and evidence support findings of professional misconduct, as alleged and admitted to. Specifically, the panel finds that Mr. Feng and FEL committed acts of professional misconduct as defined by sections 72(1) and 72(2)(a) and (j) of Regulation 941 under the Professional Engineers Act (the “Act”). With respect to section 72(2)(j), the panel finds that the conduct of Mr. Feng and FEL would reasonably be regarded as unprofessional.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY AND COSTS
6. Counsel for the Association advised the panel that a Joint Submission as to Penalty (“JSP”) had been agreed upon. The relevant portions of the JSP are as follows:
a) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Feng and FEL shall both be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for an unlimited period of time;
b) Pursuant to section 28(4)(b) of the Act, the (sic) Feng’s licence shall be suspended for a period of one (1) month, commencing ninety (90) days after the day the penalty decision is pronounced by the Discipline Committee;
c) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(i) and 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with reference to names; and
d) There shall be no order with respect to costs.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS
7. Counsel for the Association and for the Defendants (together, “Counsel”) submitted that the panel must apply the test for assessing joint submissions as outlined in the Bradley v Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (CanLII) decision. That decision reinforced that a panel must accept parties’ joint submissions as to penalty unless doing so would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
8. The panel was directed to consider various prior decisions of the Discipline Committee, which Counsel suggested were reasonable comparator cases. These included
the Gomes (2016), Schor (2018), Tessler and Sonterlan (2019), Vujnovic (2019), Wang (2022) and Clark (2023) decisions. Counsel submitted these cases to demonstrate that the penalty proposed in the JSP falls within a reasonable range of outcomes, as required by the Bradley decision.
9. Counsel highlighted to the panel the aggravating and mitigating factors in this case. The primary aggravating factor was that the misconduct at issue undermined the validity of vibration testing done at two separate sites, which resulted in non-compliance with applicable bylaws and construction safety standards.
10. On the other hand, Counsel noted that Mr. Feng and, as applicable, FEL, undertook several mitigating steps after the complaint against them was initiated. This included developing an action plan to mitigate against any further risks of recurrence; voluntarily enrolling in a number of educational programs to improve Mr. Feng’s skills and competencies; and developing and working collaboratively with the Association to revise a management plan for calibration documentation, which was implemented prior to the hearing date.
11. Mr. Feng also co-operated with the Association throughout the investigation and ensuing proceedings, accepted responsibility for his actions, and showed genuine remorse for his wrongdoings. Furthermore, by agreeing to the facts and the proposed penalty, Mr. Feng and FEL avoided unnecessary expense for the Association in pursuing this regulatory matter.
12. Finally, it was noted that Mr. Feng has been licensed as a professional engineer in Ontario since 2002, with no prior disciplinary findings against him, and with no conditions, terms, conditions or restrictions on his licence or on FEL’s Certificate of Authorization.
PENALTY DECISION
13. Upon considering the parties’ submissions, the panel accepts the JSP, concluding that the proposed penalties are reasonable and consistent with what has been ordered in prior analogous cases. The penalty also satisfies the principles of general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation, and maintenance of the public’s confidence in the profession and appropriately weighs the aggravating and mitigating factors of this case. Accordingly, the panel orders:
a) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(f) of the Act, Mr. Feng and FEL shall both be reprimanded, and the fact of the reprimand shall be recorded on the Register for an unlimited period of time;
b) Pursuant to section 28(4)(b) of the Act, Mr. Feng’s licence shall be suspended for a period of one (1) month, commencing ninety (90) days after the day the penalty decision is pronounced by the Discipline Committee;
c) Pursuant to s. 28(4)(i) and 28(5) of the Act, the findings and order of the Discipline Committee shall be published, with reference to names; and
d) There shall be no order with respect to costs.
14. The panel issued the oral reprimand to Mr. Feng at the end of the hearing. Albert Sweetnam, P.Eng., signed this Decision and Reasons for the decision as Chair of this Discipline Committee panel and on behalf of the members of the panel: Evelyn Spence, LL.B., and Serge Robert, P.Eng.
Complaints Committee: Voluntary Undertaking Under Subsection 24(2)(c) of the Professional Engineers Act
In the matter of a complaint regarding the actions and conduct of a member (the “Member”) of the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (“PEO”).
BACKGROUND
1. The complaint relates to the involvement of the Member in a construction project involving the preparation of renovation drawings and an interior renovation project at a single-family house. The homeowner retained the Member’s construction firm (“Firm A”) with respect to this project.
2. At all material times, Firm A did not hold a Certificate of Authorization (“C of A”) from PEO.
3. Firm A and the homeowner entered into a written agreement, which included provisions regarding the date by which substantial completion of the project was to be completed and directions in the event of a delay.
4. In addition to architectural renovation drawings issued by Firm A for this project, the Member issued a signed and sealed drawing. The title block of this drawing bore the name of a different engineering company, “Firm B,” also owned by the Member.
5. At all material times, Firm B did not hold a C of A from PEO.
6. The City issued an occupancy permit. The homeowner and the Member became involved in a dispute with respect to the project’s completion and payment. The dispute was settled in litigation.
THE COMPLAINT
7. The complaint to PEO raised allegations that the Member produced false invoices for payment by the homeowner and that he subsequently placed an improper lien on the homeowner’s house.
8. The Complaints Committee (the “Committee”) received a response to the complaint from the Member stating that his company, Firm A, completed the scope of the project per its agreement with the homeowner and was entitled to receive
payment based on the issued invoices. The Member added that Firm A was retained by the homeowner to provide general contracting services, and the Member did not offer professional engineering services as part of the scope of the contract.
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
9. The Committee considered the complaint at its meetings on November 2, 2023, and March 19, 2024. The Committee found that the disagreements between the Member, Firm A and the homeowner were regarding a contractual dispute outside of PEO’s jurisdiction and that there was no evidence of professional misconduct in this regard.
10. The Committee, however, had concerns with respect to the signed and sealed drawing by the Member. The Committee noted that neither Firm A nor Firm B had a C of A from PEO, which was necessary in order to offer engineering services to the public. As per section 12 (2) of the Act, “No person shall offer to the public or engage in the business of providing to the public services that are within the practice of professional engineering except under and in accordance with a certificate of authorization.”
11. The Committee considered whether a referral to the Discipline Committee was warranted in all the circumstances and whether it was in the interest of the public and the profession to proceed with the matter. The Committee decided that if the issues raised in the complaint were addressed through certain proactive remedial efforts on the part of the Member, as well as publication of a summary of this matter, the public-interest issues would be addressed.
VOLUNTARY UNDERTAKING
12. The Member voluntarily undertook to not provide engineering services and to not affix his professional engineering seal to documents unless through a company that holds a valid C of A in accordance with the Act and Regulations.
13. Further, the Member voluntarily agreed that a summary of this matter and the voluntary undertaking would be published in PEO’s Gazette without reference to names.
14. The voluntary undertakings described above were accepted by the Committee as a dispositive measure, and pursuant to its powers under section 24(2)(c) of the Act, the Committee decided that this matter would not be referred to the Discipline Committee.
Virtual location: Webcast information will be posted on peo.on.ca
PEO President Gregory Wowchuk, P.Eng., FEC, will preside over the AGM. Council for the 2025–2026 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 internet-connected device for the full duration of the meeting.
MEETING PRE-REGISTRATION
In-person space is limited. All wishing to attend the meeting must pre-register online at https://conveneagm.com/ca/peoagm2025/#/ agm/holder-registration. 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 Friday, April 25, 2025, at 10 a.m. EDT.
SUBMISSIONS
P.Eng. licence holders may make submissions on matters of importance to the work of PEO. While such submissions are not binding on Council, they are considered expressions of the members’ desires and advice and will be considered carefully. To make a submission, please use the template in the Guide for Member Submissions at https://www.peo.on.ca/about-peo/annual-general-meetings/ 2025-agm. Submissions must be received by Saturday, April 12, 2025, 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.
MAKING WAVES IN SUSTAINABILITY
We explore how sustainability concerns, government regulations and cleaner technology are driving change in marine engineering. BY SHARON ASCHAIEK
Amarine engineering project with a focus on sustainability is helping protect the integrity of Niagara Falls as one of the world’s natural wonders.
Hornblower, the company that operates public cruises along the base of the falls, is in the process of converting its two diesel boats into hybrid-electric vessels. Operating for about nine months of the year, the boats transport up to 500 passengers at a time to observe the Niagara Gorge, American Falls, Bridal Veil Falls and Canadian Horseshoe Falls. Motivated to use less fuel and reduce its environmental impact, and inspired by the fully electric boats of its American competitor, the company turned for help to electrical engineering and design firm Canal Marine & Industrial Inc.
“They want to save money on fuel and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and they recognize there’s a reputational advantage to going green,” says Chris Wright, P.Eng., Canal’s chief technology officer.
A 60-person firm based in St. Catharines, ON, with a second location in North Vancouver, BC, Canal provides marine engineering design, development, installation and maintenance services to vessel builders, ship owners and repairers, and naval architects across North America. Wright explains that diesel boats are most fuel efficient when they are “optimally loaded,” meaning in active operation. But during stationary periods when heavy propulsion is not required—such as when loading and unloading passengers—they “run quite dirty,” producing relatively higher quantities of pollutants that are harmful to the planet.
to the cleaner energy source of a 50-kWh lithium-ion battery. The battery will power systems that need to continue functioning while the boat is idle, such as the navigation system, lights, pumps, appliances, and heating and air conditioning. Meanwhile, the battery arrays will gain their charge from the excess energy produced when the vessels are in motion.
“Research shows you can achieve a massive savings on emissions with this kind of hybrid system,” Wright says, estimating the converted Hornblower boats will use 30 per cent less fuel. He adds that the hybrid power system will also reduce wear and tear on the engines by reducing their run times.
Wright says Canal is currently about halfway through what will likely be an 18-month project, having already completed the design, electrical schematics, automatic programming and functional descriptions of each component of the hybrid power system. Currently, his team is conducting mechanical work on the propulsion drive lineups and constructing cupboard-sized rooms to house the batteries. After the system is complete, industrial engineers will conduct the installation, and the boats will be tested to ensure they are fully functional and reliable.
It is these “lightly loaded” operating times, Wright says, that Canal is targeting with its hybrid-electric design for the Hornblower boats. In the future, when these converted vessels are at dock, the captain will be able to easily shut down the diesel engine and switch
The Hornblower project is one of several hybridelectric or fully electric conversions or new builds that Canal has undertaken over the last decade. Noteworthy among them was retrofitting the Marilyn Bell ferry, which transports passengers daily to and from Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport. When completed in 2021, the ferry became the first in Canada to be fully powered by battery, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by about 530 tonnes per year. It also produces significantly less noise and vibration, making it less disruptive to marine life in Lake Ontario.
ADVANCING A GREENER MARINE SECTOR
The uptick in engineering projects focused on eco-friendly vessel conversions and new builds are driven by diverse factors that include rising fossil fuel prices, breakthroughs in battery technology and more stringent pollution regulations. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) estimates that shipping contributes to 3 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions, and it has set a goal for the sector to achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 50 per cent by 2050 over 2008 levels. Meanwhile, Mission Innovation, a global initiative of 24 countries that includes Canada, is seeking to deploy 600 zero-emission shipping vessels into operation by 2030.
Government policy and investment is also influencing the nature and quantity of marine engineering projects. In 2010, Canada’s government introduced its National Shipbuilding Strategy to supply more vessels to the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Coast Guard and Transport Canada. In its 2023 year in review, the government indicated that between 2012 and 2022, it awarded contracts for large and small vessel construction that contributed about $13 billion to the gross domestic product. Last year, Transport Canada announced $14.7 million in funding for 14 green shipping projects, among them a feasibility study on engineering solutions for shorebased electrical power. Meanwhile in Ontario, the government released in 2023 its first-ever Marine Transportation Strategy, which includes a pillar on greening the sector through purchasing electric ferries, investing in research on decarbonization solutions and skilling up the labour force.
Within Canada’s maritime sector, industry organizations of all types and sizes, including engineering firms, have joined forces to form Canada’s Ocean Supercluster, which is working to accelerate the
develop graphene-based protective coating products for vessels and another to create a new technology platform for vessel management and maintenance.
At the provincial level, the industry association Ontario Marine Council works to realize the full economic, environmental and social potential of the marine economy. Canal is among its member firms, as is Ontario Shipyards, a ship repair and construction company based in Hamilton, ON, that operates on the Great Lakes. Among other projects, Ontario Shipyards is helping to extend the lifespan of the CCGS Terry Fox, a heavy icebreaker for the Canadian Coast Guard; and is helping to build Vigilance Next Generation Naval Vessel, which the Royal Canadian Navy will use to conduct sovereignty missions.
Other noteworthy industry developments in the sector include an initiative by Siemens Digital Industries Software and Compute Maritime to use generative artificial intelligence to design more energy-efficient ships. The companies recently partnered to merge their ship-designing software programs so engineers can generate hundreds of design options within minutes and automate simulation processes, which will make it easier to incorporate energy-saving features. Meanwhile, ABB Marine and Ports is working to integrate fuel cell technology into the design of large marine vessels as a zeroemission alternative to internal combustion engines.
DESIGNING ECO-FRIENDLY VESSELS
Another firm dedicated to advancing efficiencies in shipbuilding is BYD-Naval Architects, a midsized family-run marine design and engineering company with an office in Stoney Creek, ON. BYD focuses on new builds and refits for commercial, government and pleasure boating clients. The Stoney Creek office has about 55 projects on the go at any time, while its location in Southampton,
The Marilyn Bell ferry was retrofitted by Canal Marine & Industrial Inc. in 2021, becoming the first ferry in Canada to be fully powered by electricity. Photo: Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport
England usually has about 14 active projects. Last year, it designed Lost Agenda, a custom-built 14.5-metre catamaran for ocean-going exploration equipped with a solar-powered hybrid propulsion system that it engineered for a private client. The year before, it designed a 27-metre fully electric catamaran for a boat cruise company in Ottawa.
When developing the design for a marine structure, BYD uses an advanced engineering simulation method called finite element analysis (FEA). This sophisticated computational tool enables BYD’s engineers to comprehensively and efficiently analyze the structural properties of a vessel; assess its response to different loads, strains and weather conditions; and determine maximum stress thresholds. The software can achieve precise calculations for all sorts of common vessel materials, including steel, aluminum, wood and composites such as fibre-reinforced plastic. The resulting rich data makes it possible to determine a vessel’s optimal dimensions.
“We integrate the FEA method from the beginning of the design process. It helps us gain a more thorough understanding of the problem so we can make effective decisions,” says BYD naval architect Peiwei Xin, P.Eng. “We want to make the structure as robust as it needs to be for its intended task, without overbuilding it. The more efficient we can be when making a vessel, the less energy it will use.”
Xin is contributing to the company’s current project with the Amherstberg Ferry Company in Essex County, which transports vehicles and people along the St. Clair River between the town of Amherstberg and Boblo Island. Its three boats operate around the clock, conducting the seven-minute trip about 70 times per day, and in the
process, burning about 200,000 litres of fuel per year. Seeking to add a fourth boat to its fleet and simultaneously reduce its fuel consumption, Amherst engaged BYD to design a new, completely electric boat.
The 24-metre boat BYD is designing will feature two batteries that each contain arrays producing 250 kWh of electrical power. Xin says the design process involves examining the operation profile of the current boats to fully understand how they use power; factoring in how different types of weather affects river conditions and how this impacts the boats’ operations; and accommodating the weight of electric vehicles—which are heavier than conventional vehicles—as they become more common.
“The weight of a boat can affect a lot of things—stability, power requirements and the budget,” Xin says. “When we are designing a vessel, it’s always a balance between structural integrity and weight control.”
Currently, BYD is refining its concept for the boat, and once the client approves it, they will then flesh it out into a more detailed design. Afterwards, BYD will engage a third-party company to begin the construction process, which will take about 12 months.
Xin is acutely aware of how the brisk pace of innovation in marine engineering affects the way she works in real time, but says she enjoys the challenge of staying current on new ship design methods and technologies. “Vessels can evolve quickly, and what I know today may not work for the future. There is always a learning curve,” Xin says. “I’m a really curious person, so I like to learn about new topics or software, so I can keep my knowledge up to date and be competent in my work.” e
Last year, BYD-Naval Architects designed Lost Agenda, a custom-built 14.5-metre catamaran equipped with a solar-powered hybrid propulsion system.
Photo: BYD-Naval Architects
THE YEAR WAS 2000.
It was an unusually warm April day during PEO’s annual general meeting (AGM) when Ontario’s engineering advocacy body, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers (OSPE), was born—the result of the signing of a memorandum of understanding by PEO and the Canadian Society of Professional Engineers (CSPE).
“I believe we have an unprecedented opportunity before us—an opportunity to create an organization that can make a significant difference to the future of our profession,” noted former PEO president Bob Goodings, P.Eng., FEC, at the AGM in his then-capacity as PEO councillor and co-chair of PEO’s Joint Advocacy Implementation Committee, which oversaw the founding of OSPE. “This is an opportunity to create a respected voice for our profession, one that will be heard regularly on issues having to do with engineering and with our built and natural environments.”
PAVING THE WAY FOR OSPE
Up until this historic moment, PEO acted as equal parts regulator and advocate for Ontario’s engineering profession for 78 years. The push to divide these two distinct functions with the creation of OSPE arose from long-
CELEBRATES 25 YEARS of ENGINEERING ADVOCACY OSPE
A quarter century after its creation, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers continues to elevate the profession and champion the issues that matter to engineers.
By ADAM SIDSWORTH
standing concerns about a single organization being tasked with serving both public and licence holder interests. As a regulatory body established by the provincial government, PEO’s primary mandate has always been to serve the public interest, even when doing so may not align with the interests of individual engineers. While PEO historically provided some member services, its role as a regulator inherently limited its ability to advocate on behalf of engineers.
This separation was further reinforced by PEO’s responsibilities under the Professional Engineers Act (PEA), particularly in enforcing professional conduct and discipline. Acting as both regulator and advocate created a conflict of interest, as the body responsible for overseeing professional accountability must remain impartial and focused on public protection rather than engineer representation.
Decades prior to OSPE’s creation, PEO Council recognized the challenges of balancing its regulatory mandate with advocacy. In the early 1970s, Council approved the creation of several special interest divisions, with the long-term goal of transitioning them into independent organizations. One of these, focused on consulting engineers, successfully evolved into Consulting Engineers of Ontario (now the Association of Consulting Engineering Companies Ontario). Additionally, the Salaried Engineers Division led to the establishment of the CSPE as the national advocacy body.
In 1990, following a push from then-Ontario Attorney General Ian Scott— who reminded Council of the need for senior regulated professions to have separate organizations for licensing and advocacy—PEO took steps to establish an Ontario-based advocacy body for engineers. In 1997, PEO formed the
WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEO AND OSPE?
PEO REGULATES
PEO’s mandate is to regulate the practice of professional engineering and govern the profession to serve and protect the public interest. PEO does this by:
•Licensing individuals who qualify;
•Discipling professional engineers when necessary; and
•Ensuring only licence holders practise professional engineering.
Advocacy Member Services Task Group to explore the concept. Later that year, the task group presented its findings to Council, which approved the idea in principle, pending confirmation from licence holders.
PEO conducted two referenda. The first, in 1998, revealed that 72 per cent of licence holders favoured creating a separate advocacy body. The second, in 2000, showed that 80 per cent supported amending By-Law No. 1 under the PEA, allowing PEO to both raise the annual licence fee and allocate funds to OSPE to support its early development. This made OSPE a reality. As part of the transition, several programs—including the Employment Advisory Service, the Ontario Engineering Competition, National Engineering Week (now National Engineering Month) and the Women in Engineering Advisory Committee—were transferred from PEO to OSPE. Today, PEO and OSPE operate as independent legal entities with distinct mandates (see sidebar).
ESTABLISHING A VOICE FOR ENGINEERS
The establishment of OSPE was a milestone for Ontario’s engineering profession, providing engineers with two sources of support. PEO remained the governmentdesignated regulator responsible for public safety and the licensing and oversight of professional engineering practice. Meanwhile, OSPE emerged as a dedicated advocacy organization advancing the interests of professional engineers and providing an independent voice for the profession in policy discussions and industry affairs.
Over the last 25 years, OSPE has grown steadily to become a respected and integral part of the engineering community. “First and foremost, OSPE is the only organization committed to ensuring that the voice of engineers is at the table,” says Sandro Perruzza, CEO of OSPE. “We advocate for engineers—in all disciplines and industries— to be included due to their unique capabilities to solve problems of the greatest importance and complexity.”
Perruzza emphasizes that OSPE actively engages with stakeholders at all levels of government to ensure the engineering community’s perspectives are considered in policy decisions. To support this, OSPE has established advisory committees, task forces and working groups made up of subject-matter experts from its membership.
OSPE ADVOCATES
OSPE’s mission is to engage, educate and enable the engineering community to lead to create a better future for the profession and society. OSPE does this by:
•Influencing public policy;
•Building awareness of the benefits of engineering to Ontario’s economy; and
•Offering career and professional development programs for engineers.
These groups research key issues, publish white papers, submit recommendations to government bodies and conduct media campaigns to advocate for engineers. “We also work with other organizations and institutions to conduct research, labour market studies and put forward thought leadership topics for both governments and society to consider,” Perruzza says.
OSPE’s membership—which is now more than 10,000 strong—is open to licence holders from any of Canada’s provincial or territorial engineering regulators, graduates of OSPE-recognized engineering programs and Ontario residents enrolled with PEO as an engineering intern. Perruzza notes that many OSPE services are designed to be particularly beneficial to PEO licence holders, including an annual engineering job fair, ongoing career training workshops and continuing professional development webinars and certificate programs. In addition to member benefits, P.Engs can volunteer at numerous OSPE-organized initiatives, such as task forces or working groups, its board of directors or external events. As Perruzza notes, OSPE’s strength in membership comes from its numbers: “Our ability to advocate on behalf of our membership is strengthened when more people actively participate. With more members and more resources, OSPE can do so much more to support engineers in every part of their career.”
MAKING PROGRESS
As OSPE celebrates its quarter century this year, the list of its advocacy achievements throughout the years is commendable. “It is difficult to distill 25 years of existence into just a few highlights,” says Perruzza. Among them, OSPE successfully advocated to the Ontario legislature to create the March 1 P.Eng. Day and launched Canada’s largest annual engineering conference. Additionally, OSPE’s Energy Task Force was recognized by then-Energy Minister Todd Smith for its work in Ontario’s 2023 adoption of its Ultra-Low Overnight Electricity Price Plan. OSPE also successfully supported the adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 241, Control for Infectious Aerosols, into the National Building Code of Canada, as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Perruzza points out that OSPE continues its strong collaborative relationship with PEO. In the past, the two organizations met formally in the OSPE-PEO Joint Relations Committee, now disbanded in large part due to PEO’s ongoing focus on its regulatory mandate; however, the two groups continue to meet informally. “OSPE continues to provide input to PEO on initiatives through formal consultations on an as-needed basis,” notes Perruzza. “OSPE’s executive staff keep in close contact with PEO to ensure both organizations are aware of key issues, initiatives and identify opportunities for alignment to best serve OSPE members and licence holders.” e
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, 2024, 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, 2024, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian accounting standards for not-for-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.
Chartered Professional Accountants Licensed Public Accountants
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2024
Revenue
P.Eng. revenue
Application, registration, examination and other fees
Investment income
Building operations (Note 4)
Affinity program (Note 6)
Chapter revenues
Advertising income
Expenses
Staff salaries and benefits/retiree and future benefits (Note 10)
Purchased services
Building operations (Note 4)
Computers and telephones
Legal (corporate, prosecution and tribunal)
Chapters expenses (Note 13)
Occupancy costs (Note 4)
Engineers Canada
Contract staff
Transaction fees
Consultants
Amortization
Volunteer expenses
Professional development
Insurance
Recognition, grants and awards
Postage and courier
Staff expenses
Office supplies
Printing
Advertising
Excess of revenue over expenses before the undernoted
Council discretionary and strategic plan projects (Note 9)
Excess of revenue over expenses
Remeasurement and other items (Note 7)
Net assets, beginning of year
Net assets, end of year
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements. Approved by Council.
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS, YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2024
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
Increase (decrease) in cash Cash, beginning of year Cash, end of year 2024 $ 1,292,321 1,303,406 24,623 1,235,035 (757,121) (455,372) 2,642,892 325,775 2,968,667 (362,904) (1,237,300) (1,600,204) (4,826,951) (51,886) (4,878,837) (3,510,374) 8,986,393 5,476,019 2023 $ 4,301,808 1,318,134 64,671 1,375,100 (1,514,609) 225,128 5,770,232 (1,091,551) 4,678,681 (1,088,796) (1,375,800) (2,464,596) (705,102) (107,936) (813,038) 1,401,047 7,585,346 8,986,393
The accompanying notes are an integral part of the financial statements.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
DECEMBER 31, 2024
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) 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.
c)
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.
d) 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.
e)
Capital assets
Capital assets are recorded at cost. Amortization is calculated on the straight-line basis at the following annual rates:
The Association’s investment in capital assets is included as part of net assets in the Statement of financial position.
f) 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.
3. CAPITAL ASSETS
Building Building improvements—PEO Building improvements— common area
Building improvements—non recoverable Land Computer hardware and software Furniture, fixtures and telephone equipment
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
Operating cost recoverable—tenants
Rental
Parking
Miscellaneous
Operating cost recoverable—PEO
Recoverable expenses
Property taxes
Utilities
Amortization
Security
Repairs and maintenance
Janitorial
Payroll
Property management and advisory fees
Insurance
Administration
Road and ground
Other expenses
Amortization of building
Amortization of tenant inducements
Other non-recoverable expenses
Amortization of deferred costs
Interest expense on note and loan payable
Excess of revenue over expenses
For purposes of the Statement of operations and changes in net assets, the operating costs recoverable from PEO of $893,292 ($794,919 in 2023) have been eliminated. The portion of costs allocated to PEO is reallocated from Building operations and is included in Occupancy costs in the Statement of operations and changes in net assets.
Building revenue per above Eliminated PEO portion
Building expenses per above Eliminated PEO portion
(893,292) 2,497,490 2,937,028 (893,292) 2,043,736
5.
BUILDING FINANCING
As of April 5, 2024, the mortgage on the Association’s property located at 40 Sheppard Avenue West, Toronto, ON matured and on that date the loan was fully paid. In addition, the interest rate swap that had been entered into for the purposes of fixing the interest rate on the mortgage also matured with no gain or loss to be recognized.
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 $502,165 ($411,816 in 2023) in employer contributions to the self-directed and group RRSP.
The funded status of the Association’s pension plans and post-retirement benefit plan using actuarial assumptions as of December 31, 2024, was as follows:
Accrued benefit obligation
Plan assets at fair value
Funded status—plan surplus (deficit)
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:
Accrued
(50,109,900) 38,048,800 (12,061,100)
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, 2024. 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, with the liabilities projected forward to December 31, 2024.
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 $25,961,883 ($26,850,499 in 2023).
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 $716,907 ($391,076 in 2023) 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:
Council discretionary projects
Governance related matters
HR information system and other initiatives
Organizational transformation and other initiatives
Anti-racism working group
Councillor training
Fair Access to Regulated Professions and Compulsory Trades Act (“FARPACTA”) project
Information Discovery & Digitization Capability (“IDDC”) project
Various IT initiatives
Strategic plan projects
Optimize organizational performance
Improve licensing processes
Refresh vision
Implement governance improvement program
10. FULL-TIME SALARIES AND BENEFITS
During the year, the Association incurred a total of $18,298,316 ($15,146,499 in 2023) for salaries and benefits costs for its full-time staff and retirees. Out of this amount, $716,907 ($391,076 in 2023) was directly attributable to special projects and strategic plan approved by Council and disclosed in Note 9.
Accounts receivable
Prepaid expenses and deposits
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
Fees in advance and deposits
12. COMMITMENTS
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 expenses totaling $1,124,034 ($987,561 in 2023) for its 36 chapters and also incurred additional costs of $618,008 ($345,628 in 2023) related to chapters operations including staff salaries and benefits, and for various support activities. These amounts have been included in the various operating expenses reported in 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 the 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, 2024, the most significant current 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 $64,757 ($145,147 in 2023), 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, 2024
HIGHLIGHTS
For the year ended December 31, 2024, Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) generated a net excess of revenues over expenses of $1.3 million, compared to $4.3 million in 2023. This increase is due to revenues exceeding expenses by $4.4 million (versus $8.2 million in 2023) before Council discretionary and strategic plan project expenses. The spending on Council discretionary and strategic plan projects was $3.2 million in 2024, compared to $3.9 million in 2023. The 2024 Council discretionary and strategic plan project expenses consist of spending on several projects, such as various HR, governance and organizational transformation-related initiatives; and initiatives under the Council approved 2023–2025 Strategic Plan, such as optimizing organizational performance, improving licensing processes, governance improvements and other initiatives.
REVENUE
Total revenue for 2024 was $37.1 million, compared to $37.6 million in 2023, reflecting a decrease of $508,000, or 1 per cent, from the prior year. This decline was primarily driven by:
• Lower application, registration, exam and other fees ($9.1 million in 2024 versus $10.8 million in 2023). A decrease of $1.7 million, or 15 per cent, mainly due to lower P.Eng. applications, and registration fees revenues.
The decrease in revenue was partially offset by:
• Increased revenue from the Affinity program. PEO began receiving monies from this program in June 2023, contributing $1.1 million in 2023 and $2.1 million for the full year in 2024;
• Higher P.Eng. revenue ($20.6 million in 2024 versus 20.4 million in 2023); and
• Higher investment income ($2.6 million in 2024 versus $2.5 million in 2023). An increase of $112,000, or 5 per cent, in investment income in 2024 is due to the favourable performance of PEO’s investment portfolio.
EXPENSES
Total expenses in 2024 before spending on Council discretionary and strategic plan projects were $32.6 million versus $29.4 million in 2023. This represents an increase of $3.2 million, or 11 per cent, in comparison to the prior year spend. This increase is primarily due to the following:
• Higher staff salaries and benefits ($17.6 million in 2024 versus $14.8 million in 2023). The increase of $2.8 million is due to several factors, including the filling of critical and previously vacant positions, market adjustments and salary merit increases for staff, and additional FTE approved by Council to support PEO’s regulatory mandate. Overall salaries and benefits were below the Council-approved 2024 budget by $244,000;
• Higher costs for purchased services ($3.1 million in 2024 versus $2 million in 2023). The $1.1 million increase in costs in 2024 is largely due to higher costs for the setting and marking of professional practice and technical exams; and costs associated with various events, such as the AGM, Volunteer Symposium, etc.;
• An increase in computer and telephone costs ($1.8 million in 2024 versus $1.5 million in 2023). The $263,000 increase is largely due to higher spend on hardware and infrastructure necessary to maintain PEO’s operations and security posture;
• Higher costs for consultants ($657,000 in 2024 versus $511,000 in 2023). The $147,000 increase in costs in 2024 is largely due to higher costs for technical experts for various essential HR services, IT support and security consultants, consultant for Council orientation, etc.;
• Higher spend on chapters ($1.1 million in 2024 versus $988,000 in 2023). The increase of $136,000 is due to an increase in various chapter-related activities and events; and
• Higher spend for volunteer expenses ($376,000 in 2024 versus $298,000 in 2023). The higher spend of $79,000 in 2024 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 legal (corporate, prosecution and tribunal) expenses ($1.3 million in 2024 versus $1.9 million in 2023). The $597,000 decrease is largely due to lower spend on independent legal counsel for enforcement-related matters, discipline hearings and employment-related matters;
• Lower spending on contract staff ($800,000 in 2024 versus $1.2 million in 2023). The decrease of $356,000 is attributed to reduced reliance on contract staff in 2024; and
• Engineers Canada membership expenses decreased to $809,000 in 2024 from $1 million in 2023. The $225,000 reduction is attributed to a 2.1 per cent decrease in Engineers Canada’s assessment rate in 2024 compared to 2023.
BUILDING OPERATIONS
The building generated $3.4 million in revenue, including PEO’s share of recoverable expenses. Total recoverable expenses were $2.4 million and other expenses totaled $552,000, thereby creating an excess of $454,000 as compared to $341,000 in the prior year. The $113,000 increase in excess revenue over expenses in 2024 is largely due to the increase in operating cost reimbursements and higher rental income. The mortgage was fully paid in April 2024, and the net book value of the building as of December 31, 2024, stands at $26 million.
Mandatory continuing professional development for licensed engineers
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
Licence holders must comply with the annual program unless they are automatically exempt (those enrolled in PEO fee remission, like retirees). N PEAK obligations could lead to an administrative suspension. For more details, visit
CAPITAL ASSETS
Total capital expenditures for 2024 amounted to $52,000, a decrease from $108,000 in 2023. Key investments included $24,000 in recoverable building improvements, covering enhancements such as a heat pump and a ground floor lighting control system, compared to $20,000 in 2023, which was allocated to an LED lighting retrofit project. Additionally, $28,000 was spent on audiovisual upgrades and on-site defibrillators, significantly lower than the $88,000 spent in 2023 on audiovisual equipment.
CONCLUSION
In 2024, PEO successfully advanced several Council initiatives and strategic plan projects while maintaining prudent financial management. The association continues to uphold its regulatory mandate in the public interest and retains a reasonable reserve to support ongoing strategic initiatives and future commitments. e
Council Approves Governance Performance Metrics
Decisions made by Council at its 567th meeting on February 21, 2025
By Nicole Axworthy
At its February meeting, Council adopted the recommendations in the Council Evaluation Framework Report by Watson Board Advisors, as presented at the meeting, and directed staff to develop an action plan for implementing the recommendations starting with the 2025–2026 Council term.
Regularly assessing PEO’s governance practices and performance using an evidence-based framework can help identify areas to enhance governance performance and PEO’s impact. Previously, Council approved the development of an evaluation framework to support PEO’s 2023–2025 strategic goal of continuous governance improvement. Through a request-for-proposal (RFP) process, Watson was selected as PEO’s consultant to guide the development of a framework.
To inform this work, Watson reviewed PEO’s governance documents, conducted a literature scan, convened expert panels, surveyed councillors and select members of management and facilitated a focus group with Governance and Nominating Committee members. Using these insights, Watson prepared a Council evaluation framework and a report providing the rationale for the recommendations reflected in the framework. The framework outlines a multiyear plan that includes an annual Council evaluation, Council meeting evaluations and a graduated approach to introducing councillor feedback.
GOVERNANCE SCORECARD
Council reviewed and accepted proposed changes to the indicators reported in the PEO Council Governance Scorecard, with a friendly amendment to retain the 30 by 30 licensure rate. The list of indicators for inclusion in the 2025 scorecard were brought forward for review by Council following the scorecard’s first year of use. The changes for 2025 include removing the year-end performance review completion indicator and adding a customer service experience rating.
In alignment with PEO’s 2023–2025 Strategic Plan, the PEO Council Governance Scorecard was unanimously approved by Council at its November 2023 meeting as part of PEO’s strategic goal of continuous governance improvement. The balanced scorecard is comprised of qualitative indicators aligned to PEO’s core functions that are used to support governance oversight by measuring organizational performance and the outcomes of operational activities. The indicators are published in advance of each Council meeting and provide a basis for ongoing reporting to Council, the PEO leadership team and the public.
2026+ STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRESS UPDATE
Council heard a progress report from MDR Strategy Group on the development of PEO’s 2026+ Strategic Plan and approved a motion to make the strategic plan a five-year plan, with a hard reset at three years.
To date, PEO has consulted with internal and external stakeholders on the new plan, including focus groups, meetings and surveys. A working group has
also developed a list of strategic goals for further discussion. Following additional consultation and plan development, a 2026–2031 Strategic Plan will be presented to Council in June.
ENGINEERS CANADA BOARD REPRESENTATIVES
Council nominated Christopher Chahine, P.Eng., and Roydon Fraser, PhD, P.Eng., FEC, as PEO directors to the Engineers Canada board of directors, each for a threeyear term effective as of Engineers Canada’s 2025 Annual Meeting of Members on May 24. Chahine and Fraser replace PEO representatives Christian Bellini, P.Eng., FEC, and Nancy Hill, LLB, P.Eng., FEC.
COUNCIL RENUMERATION FRAMEWORK
Council approved a motion endorsing the development of a competitive remuneration structure for councillors as well as the development of a skills and competencybased nomination model. As part of the motion, Council also agreed to define councillor role expectations and directed staff to develop an action plan and cost estimate for implementing the recommendations in Santori Consulting’s Council renumeration report, to be presented to Council by June.
At the meeting, Council considered a report from Satori Consulting recommending Council adopt a remuneration framework that recognizes the time and effort of councillors without compromising PEO’s volunteer ethos, shifts to a nomination model focused on skills and competencies and has role descriptions for councillors to enhance transparency and accountability.
Through a motion in February 2023, Council directed the study of a Council remuneration framework with a report back to Council for further consideration. A third party, Satori Consulting, was engaged through an RFP process to conduct the study to mitigate any perceived or actual conflicts of interest that Council or staff have in relation to the topic. Satori Consulting conducted primary research of other regulators, secondary literature research and a survey of all licence holders before making its recommendations to Council.
CEO/REGISTRAR GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Council approved the CEO/registrar performance goals for 2025, as determined in consultation with Council’s Human Resources and Compensation Committee (HRCC) and presented at the meeting.
Under the Professional Engineers Act, Council has one critical employee: the CEO/registrar. Seeing and monitoring goals and objectives for the CEO/registrar is an important component of Council’s role in moving the organization forward. The 2025 CEO/registrar goals are tied to the 2023–2025 Strategic Plan and outline quantitative and qualitative targets to meet or exceed expectations for each objective.
The performance goals will be evaluated by way of a performance review, and meetings will take place as required with the HRCC. A mid-year review of the performance goals will be conducted at the June 4 HRCC meeting and the June 20 Council meeting; and the yearend review will be conducted at the November 6 HRCC meeting and the November 28 Council meeting.
EIT PROGRAM UPDATE
Council was provided with a progress report on work completed towards the redevelopment and reintroduction of an improved Engineering Intern (EIT) program. Council committed to reinstating a new EIT program at its November 2024 meeting. The Regulatory Policy and Legislation Committee is expected to provide a policy proposal to Council no later than April.
To support this work, PEO staff have conducted 13 focus groups to gather a broad range of stakeholder perspectives, including current and former EITs, students, employers, the Strategic Stakeholder Advisory Group, PEO chapters, Ontario deans, the Ontario Society of Professional Engineers and other relevant groups. Emerging themes arising from the consultations include program benefits and value, eligibility criteria and duration, professional experience and mentorship, oversight and accountability,
and a graduated licence program. At the meeting, councillors were asked to provide feedback on the themes, identify additional areas to explore and any additional information necessary for decision making.
VISION STATEMENT UPDATE
Council revisited the work on a PEO vision statement and approved a motion to preserve and continue to reference this work as Council embarks on developing a new multi-year strategic plan. The vision statement work involved engaging with numerous stakeholders and was aimed at reflecting the long-term aspirations of how PEO will protect the public through its governance of the profession and aligning stakeholders around a common purpose and direction.
To keep licence holders and vision statement consultation participants apprised of the extensive process that produced ideas and inputs to inform PEO’s vision, Council directs people to page 44 of the Winter 2025 issue of Engineering Dimensions
ROLE OF PRESIDENT AND CHAIR
Council approved a motion directing staff to review By-Law No. 1 and any applicable policies and propose changes that would align them with Council’s decisions regarding the role and responsibilities of the chair as Council’s chosen representative. This is specifically in relation to internal administrative functions, including calling meetings and the approval of contracts and expenditures above a specified threshold, subject to potential licence holder input as needed. e
AD INQUIRIES
Your business card here will reach over 90,000 licence and certificate of authorization holders.
Contact: Finally Content, Laura Maurice, laura.maurice@finallycontent.com, 647-394-5567
Deadline for the Summer 2025 issue is June 9, 2025.
WE BROUGHT BACK PRINT COPIES!
YOU NOW HAVE THE OPTION TO RECEIVE a print or digital version of
Go to www.peo.on.ca and click on “Log In” at the top of the homepage. You will be directed to the PEO portal, where you can log in and choose the print or digital version of Engineering Dimensions under the Profile tab. If you don’t choose a preference, you will continue receiving the digital version. To ensure the magazine gets to you, please check that your email and mailing addresses are updated in the portal, too.
