Endorsed Recommendations for Disciplinary Processes

Recommendation

Expressly authorize the Registrar to:

• Inform the public that APEGA is conducting an investigation, inquiry, or practice review into a member’s or permit holder’s practice.
• Publish discipline decisions and interim suspensions including the names of members and permit holders
• Inform the public of action against unlicensed use-of-title and scope-of-practice violators
• List in the Register all discipline decisions and interim suspensions

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Criteria will be developed in Council Policy to define when and how the authority will be used

Recommendation

Authorize the Registrar to:

• Require a member or applicant to undergo independent, third-party mental or physical examinations to assess the person’s fitness to practise
• Restrict or suspend a member’s licence pending receipt of the results of any required medical assessments on the person’s fitness to practise.
• Maintain the restriction or suspension until the incapacity has been treated and addressed.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Criteria will be developed by a Council Regulation to define when and how the authority will be used

Recommendation

• the term consent order will replace the current recommended order terminology
  • the term consent order more accurately reflects that it is a negotiated agreement between the investigative panel and the member or permit holder under investigation that has admitted to unskilled practice or unprofessional conduct.
• a consent order will be approved by a discipline panel, rather than the Registrar
  • negotiated agreements may involve disciplinary sanctions and should be approved by the appropriate disciplinary arm that has the authority to impose sanctions.
  • the criteria for approving consent orders will be set by the Discipline Committee, in policy, to ensure consistency.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

• Increase to discipline related fines
• Recovery of discipline related fines and costs through a court order rather than litigation
• Increase fines for Use-of-Title and Scope of Practice Violations

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Criteria will be developed by a Council Regulation and Policy to define when and how these recommendations will be used

Recommendation

• To give the Registrar the same authority as the Investigative Committee to dismiss complaints and the complainant has the right to appeal if the Registrar dismisses a complaint.
• To change the wording used to dismiss a complaint on the basis that the conduct is too minor to warrant a sanction or there are not sufficient grounds to proceed rather than on the basis of the current “frivolous or vexatious” and “insufficient evidence” wording.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Criteria will be developed through Council Regulation and Policy to define when and how these recommendations will be used

Recommendation

Time Frame to Send Notice of Preliminary Investigation

The Registrar must, within 30 days of receiving a complaint, send a notice to an investigated person (member or permit holder) that a preliminary investigation will be conducted and provide details of the complaint.

Time Frame to Respond

An investigated person must, within 30 days of receiving notice of a preliminary investigation or longer if agreed to by the Registrar and the investigated person, provide a written response to the Registrar.

Time Frame to Review Complaint

An investigative panel must, within 90 days after the conclusion of a preliminary investigation, render a decision on whether to dismiss the complaint, refer the complaint to a discipline hearing, or begin discussions with the investigated person for a consent order.

Time Frame to Reach Consent Order

The time frame to reach a consent order between an investigated person and an investigative panel is 90 days from the date negotiations began or longer if agreed to by both parties.

Time Frame to Schedule a Discipline Hearing

If a matter is referred to a discipline panel for a hearing, the Registrar must, within 90 days after receiving the referral, set a date for the hearing and give all parties notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Time Frame to Respond to Notice of Discipline Hearing

If a date is set for a hearing by a discipline panel, the investigated person and investigative panel must, within 30 days of receiving notice of the hearing date, respond to the Registrar confirming their availability on that date or propose alternative dates.

If the parties and Registrar are not able to agree to a hearing date within an additional 30 days, the Registrar may set a date for the hearing and the hearing shall commence on that date.

Time Frame to Render a Decision Following a Discipline Hearing

A discipline panel must, within 120 days after the conclusion of a hearing, render a written decision.

Time Frame to Schedule an Appeal Hearing

If a discipline decision is appealed, the Registrar must, within 90 days after receiving the notice of appeal, set a date for the appeal hearing and give all parties notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing.

Time Frame to Respond to Notice of Appeal Hearing

If a date is set for a hearing by an appeal panel, the investigated person and investigative panel must, within 30 days of receiving notice of the hearing date, respond to the Registrar confirming their availability on that date or propose alternative dates.

If the parties and Registrar are not able to agree to a hearing date within an additional 30 days, the Registrar may set a date for the hearing and the hearing shall commence on that date.

Time Frame to Render a Decision Following an Appeal Hearing

An appeal panel must, within 120 days after the conclusion of a hearing, render a written decision.

Time Frame Extensions

If an investigative, discipline, or appeal panel has not rendered a written decision within the required time frame, it must at the end of that period inform the parties, in writing, that the decision has not been completed and continue to report to them on the progress of the decision every 30 days.

As is currently the case under the existing Act, the Registrar shall, immediately upon receiving a decision, serve the decision. The time frame in which a person may appeal a decision will remain 30 days from receipt of notice.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

• Require members and permit holders to advise APEGA if they have had discipline orders made against them in other jurisdictions.
• Authorize APEGA to share discipline decisions with other professional associations and regulators.
• Authorize the Registrar to use another provincial or territorial engineering or geoscience association’s discipline record of proceedings, decisions, and orders to make equivalent orders without conducting a full investigation and disciplinary hearing.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

The legislation be amended to expand the sanctions that can be imposed:

• in discipline matters to include creative sanction provisions
• by the court against unlicensed title and practice violators to include creative sanction provisions
• These amendments should adopt provisions similar to what is contained in section 234 of the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and section 41.1 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
• Non-compliance with a creative sanction order may result in the suspension of a licence or permit until the order is fulfilled.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

Council endorses the proposed recommendation that the EGP Act and General Regulation be amended to explicitly indicate the authority to impose interim suspensions and interim restrictions on members and permit holders will rest with investigative panels (rather than with the Registrar or Investigative Committee).

It is recommended that the General Regulation be amended to add a section describing the circumstances under which investigative panels can impose interim suspensions and restrictions on members and permit holders pending the outcome of preliminary investigations or discipline proceedings. These circumstances would include:

• when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a serious and imminent risk exists to life, personal safety, or health of the public or environment, in accordance with criteria approved by Council
• when a delay in holding proceedings under this part would be prejudicial to the public interest, in accordance with criteria approved by Council
• when a member is convicted of an offence that would render a member unsuitable to practise engineering or geoscience or adversely affect the reputation of the professions, in accordance with criteria approved by Council.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

• Compelling Witnesses, Producing Documents and Entering Premises
• Clarify the role and authority of investigative panels. The investigative panel will become the decision-making authority

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Criteria will be developed by a Council Regulation and Policy to define when and how these recommendations will be used

Recommendation

• consolidate the sections describing the authority of investigators in conducting investigations
• explicitly enable APEGA to apply to the court, on reasonable grounds, for an order authorizing investigators, accompanied by police as necessary, to enter and search buildings, dwellings, or places for documents, media, or other records as part of an investigation
• require APEGA’s statutory entities to report suspected criminal activity if found in the course of an investigation or review. Statutory entities would advise the Registrar, who would inform the Minister of Justice and Solicitor General or police of the concern. Statutory entities would not be required to complete their investigation before reporting an activity, if it were in the public interest to do so.

Council's Position

Endorsed by Council

Recommendation

The timeframe within which a complaint against a former member or Permit Holder may be commenced be increased to 10 years from two years following the date of cancellation of membership.

Council's Position

Council Amendment to the Recommendation: Endorse the amended recommendation to clarify that a complaint against a current or former member or Permit Holder may be commenced within the limitation periods provided under the  Alberta Limitations Act.

Criteria will be developed by a Council Regulation and Policy to define when and how these recommendations will be used