GNG 4170 Notes

1
HBRL8IGNG 4170 Lec 1

January 14, 2008
Two Main Sources of Law
1 Legislation
Legislation is rules set down by the government (Acts, codes). At a Provincial level, new legislation or an
amended legislation is created.

Division of powers: who writes the laws and what the laws are about? (Engineering is provincial
legislation, Criminal code is federal legislation)
2 Common Law
Common law is Judge made law: past decisions are important to current cases. Theory of Precedence
-The strongest decisions are made by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Criminal Case: R. V.s. _______
(King or Queen)

The state is initiating the action and bringing proceedings
against the party. Sentence is imposed on the party (when
guilty), nothing on the victim.

2.1 Civil Law
Victim V.s. _______
The victim in bringing private legal action against the wrong-doer. If the wrong-doer is liable, the victim
gets the money.
2.1.1 Contract Law
The person has breached the contract which is a private law between two people, they create the
obligations themselves.
2.1.2 Tort Law
A set of standards of behavior imposed on all of us. Committing a tort is doing something against one of
these standards.
Tort Law

Intentional Unintentional
(Negligence)

PDF Created with deskPDF PDF Writer - Trial :: http://www.docudesk.com
2

Intentional
Defamation: Reputation of the victim is damaged by the untrue public statements made by the
tortfeasor. There are two kinds: -Slander (verbal)
-Libel (written)
Negligence
When we get a negligence hypothetical:

Vicarious Liability: Employer is liable for the employees torts (based on the deep pockets theory).
Two reasons for vicarious liability:
1. Most of the time, the employee would not have the money to compensate the victim.
2. Recognizes that the employees do make money for the company, but the company also
has to take responsibility.

Injury Bad things that can happen to you (injury to car, house, body)
Damages Amount of money given to compensate you for injuries.

Test for Negligence
Defendant Plaintiff
must prove 3 things on a balance of probabilities showing that the 3 things are more likely than
not (is a lower standard of proof than prove beyond a reasonable doubt)
Asking if:
1. (Each) owed the a Duty of Care? (Yes/No question)
Is it reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff could be injured as a result of the defendants
work?
2. (Each) breached that DOC ?
Either it was breached or not. First thing that needs to be established is a STANDARD OF CARE
What would a reasonable engineering firm have to do (Ex. making sure designs are up-to-
date)
In a hypothetical you must define the standard of care Identify all defendants and those that
have breached (or fallen below the standard of care).
3. 's injuries are a direct result of the breach(es) (causal connection) ?
State that it is clear that the plaintiffs injuries are directly caused by the defendant; therefore,
the defendant is liable in negligence to the plaintiff.
1. Plaintiff is entitled to reasonably foreseeable damages (but there is a limit to how much
compensation in damages) Therefore, add that the plaintiff is entitled to reasonably
foreseeable damages which include ..
2. If defendants are equally at fault (or different degrees of fault) explain why and split the
damages.

1. State that it is an unintentional tort (Negligence)
2. Describe Tort Law provided that the fault is found; the main goal is to compensate the
victim, NOT punish the wrong-doer.
3. Identify the parties:
Plaintiff person who raises the complaint.
Defendant person who defends their action. When we have 2 or more defendants they are
potentially concurrent tortfeasors. (In this class Employer will be defendant when an
employee has done something wrong Should state that the case is Vicarious Liability)

3

Pg. 321 of textbook Case #2 (Negligence)

1. This is a case of Unintentional Tort (Negligence); the main goal is to compensate the victim and
NOT punish the wrong-doer, provided that fault is found.

2. Identify parties:
Plaintiff: OILI
Defendants: CRUDDI and MESSI

3. State the test for every Negligence case
OILI must prove 3 things on a balance of probabilities
i. Did each of CRUDDI and MESSI owe a duty of care to OILI?
CRUDDI owes OILI a duty of care because it is reasonably foreseeable that OILI could be
injured as a result of CRUDDIs work. (Same thing for MESSI)
ii. Did each of CRUDDI and MESSI breach their duty of care to OILI?
We must establish a standard of care:
CRUDDI A reasonable architect would hire an engineering firm that it believed could
carry out the design.
MESSI A reasonable engineering firm would have ensured the proper size unit was
used and that the vents were properly spaced apart.
MESSI fell below the standard of care.
iii. Are OILIs injuries a direct result of each of the breaches?
It appears that OILIs injuries are directly caused by MESSIs breach of duty of care to
OILI. MESSI is liable in negligence. Therefore OILI is entitled to reasonably foreseeable
damages which include getting a larger unit and repairing damages.
$1.1 M - $400,000 = $700,000

4

GNG 4170 Lec 2
January 21, 2008

Duty to Warn (Type of Negligence)
It is a law that simply indicates that you have a responsibility to warn. Make sure the consumer is aware
of the warning on a product.

Disclaimer: Takes away liability that would otherwise be there.
Hedley Byrne Case (Advertising Agency) Disclaimer example
HB asked their Bank if Customer (C) is credit worthy or not.
HBs Bank asked Cs bank if C is credit worthy.
Cs bank sent back a letter stating:
1. C is credit worthy.
2. You cannot rely on this information (Disclaimer).
HBs bank sends HB the letter they received from Cs bank.
HB did the work but didnt receive a check from C.
HB filed for negligence against Cs bank: saying that Cs bank owed valid information.
The majority of the court decided that Cs bank did owe a duty of care to the group of HBs bank.
Ultimately, the plaintiff is relying on the engineers specialized skill, knowledge and experience.
(Hedley Byrne)
At the end of the day, the court found that Cs Bank was not liable because of the disclaimer.
Questions with Disclaimers

Thin Skull (or Eggshell) Plaintiff
Take the plaintiff as you find him or her. If injury affects the plaintiff more than it simply would as
defined. (Ex. Hand injury to a professional pianist) The defendant will have to pay the plaintiff more.
1. Look at both possibilities: with and without disclaimer.
2. Identify the tort (Negligence), the plaintiff, and the defendant(s).
3. Identify the qualifying statement as the disclaimer.
4. Then push it aside and imagine the report did not have a disclaimer. (Continue with the
negligence teststandard of carebreachetc)
5. Conclude that if the report did not contain the disclaimer that the defendant would be
found liable, (conclusion of negligence test).
6. BUT the report does contain a disclaimer, so the defendant is liable to the plaintiff
because they were warned ahead of time that they were not entitled to rely on the info.

5

The type of injury is reasonably foreseeable but the type of plaintiff is not.
Contributory Negligence
When the plaintiff is found by the court to have contributed to his/her injuries
There are two aspects to it:
1. Not taking enough care to prevent injury.
2. After injury you dont take steps to improve injury (that a reasonable person would
take).

Strict Liability

1. The court does not ask if a duty of care was owed or if it was breached.
2. It is exclusively about whether injuries are a direct result of actions.
3. It is simply a causality question.
Ex. If you keep something dangerous on your property and it escapes and harms others: Strict Liability
applies you are on the hook, you are strictly liable.

Vicarious Liability and Disclaimer Hypothetical

1. Identify: Unintentional Tort (Negligence) Compensate victim and NOT punish wrong-doer.
2. E.Inc. Defendant (Vicarious Liability)
Acquisitions Plaintiff
3. If there was no disclaimer: E.Inc. owes Acquisitions a duty of care because injuries could. AND
ultimately, Acquisitions is relying on the engineers specialized skill, knowledge and experience.
4. Standard of care: E.Inc. should have spent more time making sure E.Inc. fell below the
standard of care, therefore E.Inc. breached the duty of care.
5. If there was no disclaimer: E.Inc. is liable and Acquisitions is entitled to reasonably foreseeable
damages that include:
6. BUT the report does contain a third-party disclaimer so E.Inc IS NOT LIABLE.
6

7. Briefly explain a disclaimer: It warned Acquisitions in advance that it could not rely on the
report.
GNG 4170 Lec 3
January 28, 2008
Looking back at Contract Law
4. The court enforces the contract when faced with a contract dispute.
5. Equitable Principle (if applicable) will rule over the common law issue.

Privity of a Contract
A Contract is a private legal relationship; only parties under the contract can be sewed or can sew.

Pre-contract Stage

A breach of the Contract results from breaching one or more of the terms.

Misrepresentation (Will only need to know definitions for EXAM)
To make an argument we must show:
1. It was a significant part of the decision you made (untrue statement of fact that made you enter
into the contract)
2. Need to identify the type of misrepresentation:
Innocent The person genuinely believed what they said was true.
Fraudulent When the person knew they were lying or they were not certain of the
truth.
Innocent
Only possible remedy is RECISSION (Equitable remedy) the turning back time remedy which puts
parties in a position as if they had never entered into a contract (ONLY IF POSSIBLE).

PIGGY BACK Remedy (Related to RECISSION) is essentially compensation; financial adjustment
between parties (you do not get completely all money back: ex. A car).
7

Fraudulent
RECISSION remedy or Sew for damages for the intentional tort of deceit.

Elements of Enforceable Contract (Will only need to know list and
explanations for EXAM)
1. Intention to create a legal relationship needs to have legal relationship in mind.
2. Offer and acceptance Contracts are based on bargaining, at some point an offer has to be
made (verbal or on paper) and then it has to be accepted.
3. Exchange of something (of consideration) technically the court does not look at the value of
consideration (could be exchanging gum for a motorcycle, doesnt matter).
4. Parties are adults (of legal age)
5. Nature of contract must be legal Unlike hiring someone to kill, but he doesnt do it.

Contract does not have to be in writing to be enforceable can be verbal.
Equitable Defenses to Capacity Are of Age of Majority
1- Duress
Actual or threatened violence to you or someone close to you (entering in contract against will).
2- Economic Duress
Economic violence, inappropriate economic pressure is brought (forced to enter contract).
3- Undue Influence
Improper influence; certain types of relationships where there is a dominating party.
Gratuitous Promise and Promissory Estoppel
A gratuitous promise is normally unenforceable no consideration was given in exchange
2 exceptions:
1- A promise made under seal (the seal is sufficiently significant)
2- Promissory Estoppel someone is legally prevented from doing something. Will be a
contract based on a deadline.

If promissory estoppel applies, the other party will be stopped from using the contract as an
explanation for action.
3-part Test for Promissory Estoppel

1. There must be a pre-existing legal relationship.
2. The person was promised or reasonably led to believe that the strict terms of the contract
would not be enforced.
3. The person has to show that they relied on the promise it affected them in some way.
Therefore it would be unfair for the other party to rely on the contract; the party is
stopped from terminating the contract.

8

***** Should refer to the examples in hypotheticals *****

Case: John Burrows Decision
Specific facts for this case that are to apply (or that are relevant):

Acceleration Clause Anytime a person defaults the terms, they have to pay all owed amount (could be
debt)

John Burrows lawyers used equitable estoppel on the plaintiff to prevent them from using the
acceleration clause.

Indulgence Sitting back passively and not complaining when debtor was late (John Burrows).
Cannot be used successfully to make an argument of equitable estoppels because:
1. John Burrows was not promised anything
2. John Burrows was not lead to believe that the strict terms were not to be enforced.

Hypothetical 3 Gratuitous Promise and Equitable Estoppel
-Mining Contractor
-Land Owner

The question raises the issue of gratuitous promise and equitable estoppels (need to explain each).

Gratuitous promise the land owner said there will be an extension.
Equitable Estoppel the mining contractor has to show 3 things:
A pre-existing legal relationship (including the option)
They were promised or reasonably lead to believe that the strict terms were not to be enforced.
THEY GOT AN EXTENSION
They relied on the promise It affected their behavior; would have hired extra staff.

It would be unfair for the owner to rely on the strict terms; therefore, the owner is prevented
(stopped) from denying the exercise of the option. This is similar to Conwest Exploration.

9

GNG 4170 Lec 4
February 4, 2008
Interpreting a Contract
Rules of interpreting (Contract Law) 2 rules:
1. Rule of contra proferentum to chose/select against
6. The court will rule against the party that wrote (or verbal) the contract, when ambiguity
arises in the wording of the contract.
7. The party who wrote the contract had the opportunity to be clearer.
2. Porol (means to the side) Evidence Rule prevents introducing any evidence that would
suggest the obligations under the contract are different from what is indicated in the written
contract.
8. It only comes into play if the parties have reduced their contract to writing
9. The best evidence is the written contract (No verbal agreement) Otherwise we are lost in he
said/she said.

Boilerplate Contracts Advice: Write in the extra agreement as a term in the contract and both should
initial and then sign the contract.

Essential Difference between Porol Evidence and Equitable Estoppel
THEY NEVER OVERLAP IN TIME
Porol Evidence Rule: deals with evidence BEFORE the contract
Equitable Estoppel: concerned with statements made AFTER the contract has been entered into.

Mistaken Tendering
Someone wants a job to be done, tenders are submitted and there is a mistake in the tender of the
person that was selected.

10

RON Engineering did not overrule Belle River: Nobody can argue that the law changed, in BR we had an
Obvious mistake, in RON Engineering, and we had an Unobvious mistake.
***** ONLY an Unobvious mistakes will be on the EXAM *****

Approaching a Mistake in Tendering Hypothetical

Case: Northern Construction
In the rules for Tenders, it said that the owner had a choice of remedy (in contract A):
To keep the deposit OR
Sew for the difference between the bid and the next lowest bid.
The only difference between RON and NC is that RON had only one remedy: they keep the deposit.

Example
The moment XYZ submitted the bid, they entered into contract A.
The only thing to take into account now is if the mistake is obvious and unobvious. It is unobvious
since the owner could not have figured out the mistake on his own.
Then go through the STEPS to approach the hypothetical. Looking at our case: unobvious mistake,
therefore we apply contract A; the owner is entitled to the tendering deposit.

1. Identify the problem (Mistake in Tendering Process)
2. Briefly talk about BR because it introduces the idea of obvious mistake and how they saw
only ONE contract was formed. (How the law was looked at_, no liability on the tenders
behalf. Then briefly talk about RON Engineering and that NOW 2 contracts are seen. New
contract is about the Tendering/Selecting process itself (as soon as a tender is submitted, a
contract is entered into). In the case of RON E. there was an unobvious mistake; therefore,
the rules of contract A applied Owner got to keep the tender deposit since the bidder did
not sign into the construction contract.
3. Point out what significant terms are in contract A in the given hypothetical.
4. Then characterize the mistake as obvious or unobvious. Will always get an unobvious
mistake, therefore we go by contract A.
11

GNG 4170 Lec 5
February 11, 2008
Ways in Which a Contract Can Come to an End (4 Ways)
1- Performance
Parties performed their obligations under the contract
2- Agreement between the Parties
a. Parties can be in a contract for a certain amount of time and they both agree to end it sooner.
b. Condition subsequent (term of contract): the contract itself provides a term that defines a set of
circumstances where the contract can be brought to an end.
3- Frustration of a Contract
When the contract can no longer be performed as originally thought, and an event that occurred was
not reasonably foreseen by either party, the law says the contract has been frustrated; parties are not
obligated to follow the contract terms.
In Ontario there is the Frustrated Contract Act: provides guidance as to what is the legal answer to
some work done under a frustrated contract.
4- Operation of Law (Example: Bankruptcy)
Secured Creditor: Debt that is owing is tied to a specific asset. The creditor can go after the assets right
away.
Breach of Contract
Major Breach: Fundamental breach of contract.
Exemption Clause: Term of contract that limits liability in some way. Could be a cap (Ex. We will not pay
more than 1 M for the breach) and/or types of damages (Ex. Only responsible for certain types of
damages).
Difference:
- Disclaimer: means NOT ON HOOK AT ALL (Tort or Negligence Law)
- Exemption: means IF ON HOOK, remedies are limited (Contract Law)
Case 1: Harbutts Plasticine
The court developed the Fundamental Breach Doctrine: If a breach was fundamental, the breaching
party is not allowed to rely on the exemption clause (was followed in Canada for a while).
12

Case 2: Photo Production
Overruled the Doctrine in England and then reflected in a case in Canada.
Case 3: Hunter V. Syncrude
There are 9 justices in the Supreme Court. 9-0 is the strongest decision.
In this case: it was 5-4. The majority of the court said that we dont need the doctrine. If the
exemption clause is clearly worded and relevant to the dispute between the parties, then the exemption
clause stands and operates.
Approaching a Breach of Contract with an Exemption Clause

Remedies for Breach of Contract
Damages for the Breach of Contract (Classic)
(Amount of money to compensate for the breach) What is the distinction between direct and indirect
(consequential) damages? What is reasonably foreseeable? Ask yourself: What am I specifically
promised under the contract?
Direct damages: specifically promised under the contract.
Consequential damages: reasonably foreseeable but not specifically promised under the
contract.
Liquidated Damages
The contract itself provides for the damages in the event of certain types of breaches.
STEPS Basic evidence of what contract says and that it is legally binding.
Penalty Clause
When damages noted in a contract are all out of proportion to what is reasonably foreseeable; courts
will not enforce them.

1. Identify that we are dealing with a breach of contract and exemption clause.
2. Can you characterize the breach as fundamental? Explain what a fundamental breach is.
3. Explain generally what an exemption clause is.
4. Identify what kind (cap or damages or both).
5. Describe history: Case 1-3
6. Then apply Law to the problem (Exemption clause clearly worded? And relevant to the
dispute?)
13

Obligation in Contract Law
Mitigation
When a party breaches a contract, the innocent party has the obligation to mitigate or lessen its
damages. Example: You were fired; you have an obligation to find another job (you need to take
reasonable steps to mitigate).
Equitable Remedies to a Breach of Contract
Specific Performance: Takes the form you must do . Courts will rarely grant order.
Example: Selling/buying land (considered unique historically)Order for specific performance.
Injunction: Takes the form you must NOT do . Easily given orders.
Quantum Meruit (own special remedy): Latin phrase for amount deserved. When you
request goods or services and they are provided, if there is no agreement about prices, the law
implies a promise to pay quantum meruit what is normally charged for the goods and
services.

Hypothetical 5
- Liquidated damages
- Max of $5 M for damages (limiting liability)

Steps
1. Fundamental breach breach that goes to the root of the contract
2. We CAN characterize the breach as a fundamental one because what was provided was for less
than what was promised (only 25%).
3. Exemption Clause Explain is cap or limited damages. In this case: it is a combination.
Liquidated damages only and the max claim is $5 M.
4. History: Courts have struggled with these cases. Case 1: H. Plasticine in England where Doctrine
was followed and Canada followed it for a while. Then it was overruled in England by Case 2:
Photo Production, which was then reflected in Canada in Case 3: Hunter V. Syncrude.
Now, the type of breach does not matter (fundamental or not), exemption clauses matter.
5. Is the exemption clause clearly worded? Yes. Is it relevant? Part of it is, but part of it is not.
ONLY liquidated damages up to a max of $5 M. In this case, liquidated damages only amounted
to $4 M.
6. Therefore PulpCo only gets to claim $4 M.

14

GNG 4170 Lec 6
February 25, 2008
Labour Law
Law related to unions (idea of collective agreement; a group of people who have set agreements).

Employment Law
Each individual has a contract with the employer. The contract is specific to each individual.

Dismissal
It is for cause or without cause.
For Cause: not entitled to any notice (your job has ended)
1. Incompetence do not have the skill set to do the work effectively.
2. Bad faith extremely improper behavior.
3. Disobedience
4. Prolonged illness frustration of contract.

15

Without Cause: you have the following rights (meant to represent amount of time to find
alternative employment)
1. Notice
2. Pay in lieu of notice

Employment Standards Act (in Ontario)
Sets minimum standards, developed in Common Law Reasonable Notice (RN)
Human Rights Code
The idea is to prevent discrimination INCLUDING the workplace. The government has identified 12
characteristics and if discrimination is based on one of them, a case can be brought up under the human
rights code.
5 characteristics are:
Sex
Sexual orientation
Marital status
Age
Citizenship
Restrictive Covenant (RC) a term in the contract
A promise restricting you in some respect. Person who is selling promises that he wont do (xyz).
Provides a period of time that you are out of the employers field of work (after dismissal).
Legal reaction to restrictive covenant area of law is restraint of trade. Competition is
encouraged but this limits competition and limits opportunities as an employee.
Starting Point
Restrictive covenants are presumed void (not to apply because they limit competition)
The burden is on the employer to justify the RC:
1. It is reasonable in the circumstances
2. Does not adversely affect public interest

RCs have 3 parameters:
1- Type of activity
2- Geographic scope
3- Time component

The larger the volume, the more challenging for the employer to justify the RC. BUT DO NOT MENTION
VOLUME ON THE EXAM.

16

Hypothetical options for court when faced with RCs: (In reality, only two: enforce or refuse)
1- Enforce it
2- Refuse to enforce it
3- Could alter it

The court wont fiddle with the RC we need to think of the RC as one unit, judge as a whole.

The employer is usually looking to get an injunction (states: you the employee shall not.). It is already
in the contract, but now the state is backing it up.
If the employer does not succeed, there are no restrictions on the employee at all.
It is therefore in the Employers best interest to make the RC as minimally restrictive but still can
protect his interest; will have a high chance of justifying the RC.

Steps in Analyzing an RC Hypothetical

RC Hypothetical
Engineer working for a firm and in the contract there is a term that says (if he leaves the
company) he cannot practice engineering or hold shares in the city of Toronto.
After 3 years he decides to leave the company and sets up an engineering business in Toronto.
The Engineers former employer raises a case against him.

Steps:
1. State that we are dealing with an RC and the area of law is restrictive trade.

2. State that RCs are presumed void because they go against the public interest by limiting
competition. Therefore the owner must show that it is generally justified; it is reasonable in
the circumstances, and it doesnt adversely affect the public interest.

3. RCs have 3 aspects (parameters) list them

1. State that we are dealing with an RC term and area of Law is Restrictive Trade. State that
the RC they are promised is presumed void because Therefore the burden is on the
employer to generally justify that it is specifically reasonable and does not affect public
interest. Speak of the 3 parameters.
2. At the end of the day, the court can enforce or reject to enforce, they cannot modify it;
therefore, it must be judged as a whole.
3. Lead into your own discussion and what you believe and explain why it is justified or not
under the circumstances.
4. Conclude that it is: justified (employer will get the injunctionsame as the term but has
the power of the state now) OR rejected (no restrictions at all on the employee)
17

4. At the end of the day, the court can only enforce or reject. Therefore the RC must be judged as
a whole.

5. Give your own reasoning behind it whether it is justified (the employer gets the injunction) or
not justified (no restrictions on the employee) under the circumstances.
Explain your reasoning:
In this case, the space (city of Toronto) seems reasonable, but the type of activity (engineering in
general is not specific) and 5 years is a very long time in someones career. As a whole, for those
reasons, it is not completely justified.

6. Conclusion

Civil Procedure
Steps involved in determining a legal issue very structured process leading to the decision.
In Ontario now, there is a mandatory mediation.

ADR: Alternative Dispute Resolution (alternative to traditional court process)
Two types:
1. Mediation A neutral figure (mediator) who does not make the decision, they use their
experience and training to facilitate communication between parties, 3 hour mandatory
mediation.
3 options result from mediation session:
1- Nothing happens after mediation
2- Everything is resolved
3- Issues are focused down (lessened)
2. Arbitration A neutral arbiter makes a decision (like a private judge). The arbiter can be
experienced and time can be saved by not having to explain concepts to the judge.
Can be a binding arbitration: whatever decision is made is final.
Can be nonbinding arbitration: parties can still go to court after, but it gives them an
idea of how a neutral party went about the analysis and decision process.

Statutory Holdback (DEFINITION WILL BE ON EXAM)
Remedy under the Construction Lien Act.
Government rule comes from the construction lien act, which has many remedies but we will only
focus on the statutory holdback.

Construction Lien: says that the owner must holdback 10% of the total project cost. The owner is
personally liable for only 10% of the value of materials or services on the job site.
Ideally the owner puts the 10% in a bank account (aside to pay any claims that will be made), even
though no contract exists between the owner and the person making the claim.

18

Time X Y
General statutory holdback Finishing holdback period
period (10% of the value of the work still left to be completed)

X = Substantial Completion of the project The holdback (10% of the entire project cost) can be paid
45 days after this time stamp, provided no claim is made for a lien.

Y = Job Complete The finishing holdback can be paid 45 days later the completion of the project,
provided no claim is made for a lien.

Limitations Act, 2002
Limitation Period: Amount of time you have to bring a claim.

4 main points:
1. There is a general 2 year limitation period to bring a claim (there are some exceptions).
2. Discoverability principle: the limitations clock doesnt start ticking until a reasonable person
knows about the injury.

3. There is an ultimate objective of 15 year limitation period, discoverability principle does not
help; it only helps up to 15 years.

4. a) You cannot contract out of the Limitations Act 2002
b) Access to the Justice Act was put into play 1 year ago: parties can now state limitation
periods in the contract.

19

GNG 4170 Lec 8
March 10, 2008
Practice and Ethics Issues
We are dealing with engineering act in regulations
Practice: day-to-day administration of work that engineers do.

PEO
4 Issues concerning the PEO:
1. Primary Goal of PEO: Section 2.2 of the Act Serve and protect the public interest. (To
regulate the holders of any of the licenses the holders of certificates of authorization in
accordance with the act, the regulations, or the bylaws, to serve and protect the public interest).
ONLY NEED THE PRIMARY GOAL FOR THIS CLASS.
2. Self Regulation: The PEO is itself composed of engineers. The PEO has the responsibility to
administer (on the governments behalf).
Difficult to change General rules that are applicable

Easy to change Often are putting fine points and day-
to-day specifications to acts.
PEO has the power to draft and place regulations. The Government has given the PEO a bit of its
legislation.

3. Fees Mediation Committee: Doesnt make a decision; it is there to mediate disputes about fees.
If both parties agree, the committee will act as an arbiter and render a decision relating to the
issue.

4. Types of Licenses (PEO given)
1- License FULL license (for engineers who want to work)
There are no limits; it does not indicate what type of engineering.
Five requirements (from the act) to obtain the license:
1) Age of majority
2) Citizen/permanent resident of Canada
3) Have to have completed a recognized engineering program and have to pass the
professional practice exam.
ACT
REGULATIONS
20

4) Four years of directed engineering experience (2 sub-rules that come from the
regulations) 1 of the years has to be under a PEng. 1 of the years has to be a Canadian
year.
5) Establishing good character through references.

2- Temporary License: Working in another province temporarily. Limited to a specific employer
and specific project. Must work under a PEng. and signed and seal the work. Maximum of
12 months.

3- Provincial License: Intended for people who meet the requirements of the FULL license
except for the 1 year of Canadian experience. Can work under a provincial license for a
year and then apply for a FULL license. Have to work under supervision of a PEng. The
PEng. must additionally sign, seal and date all the work that is done (other than the
engineers own seal).

4- Limited License: Not for engineers. Designed for people who have engineering-related
experience (technology). Limited to specific services that are written on the license. If the
services are stopped, the license must be returned to the PEO IMMEDIATELY.

Use of the Engineers Seal (Each license holder has a seal)
PEng: only full and temporary license holders can be called PEng (the definition is in the ACT itself).

Applying the seal is not voluntary; the ACT says that you SHALL apply your seal has to be signed and
dated.

Why have the seal?
1- Showing that a person has experience and the license to provide.
2- Shows responsibility for the work.

Certificate of Authorization
It is like a business license. You need it to offer services; to do engineering work for the public.

Only PEngs are listed on it Before being listed on a COA, you need 5 years of experience.

Professional Indemnity Insurance
Usually if you or the firm has COA, you have to have the insurance.
2 exceptions:
1- When we are dealing with a dangerous field (ex. nuclear, aviation).
2- If you tell the potential client in writing that you dont have the insurance and they authorize
you in writing.
Consulting Engineer
Has nothing to do with the work you do on a day-to-day basis. Can have the title of Consulting Engineer.
21

4 requirements to be designated as a consulting engineer:
1- Full license holder.
2- When you apply, you have to be listed on a COA and have to have been on a COA for the past 2
years.
3- At least 9 years of engineering experience (including 4 to have gotten the license).
4- Pass or be exempted from the exams the PEO might set for you.

Complaints Committee
Composed of at least 3 members of the PEO. Its role is to receive and evaluate complaints about
engineers.
They either decide:
-The complaint has no merit (they have to explain why not) OR
-They pass the matter to the discipline committee.

Discipline
The discipline committee has at least 5 members (like a judge). A member of the PEO is bringing an
action and the engineer is defending himself.

The discipline committee only has power over FULL and Temporary license holders or those that have
a COA.

Proceedings are held in Toronto at the PEO head office.

Sanctions of the Discipline Committee (general options they can take)
1- Revoke the license or COA
2- Suspend the license or COA for up to 2 years
3- Impose a fine of up to $5000
4- Order you to provide an undertaking legal document promising limiting work
5- Impose terms or conditions on the license
6- Take away any special designation or title used (ex. Consulting Eng.)
7- Order an admonishment or reprimand

Enforcement
Enforcement A broader remedy. Proceedings are only brought into the provincial court (provincial
offenses). It applies to everybody in Ontario (enforcement proceedings are initiated by the PEO).

Enforcement will occur if you are:
1- Practicing Professional Engineering without a license
2- Offering Professional Services to the public without holding a COA
3- Using the term Engineer or Professional Engineer that fools people into thinking that they are
dealing with a licensed individual.

POSSIBLE QUESTION ON EXAM: Does the PEng. Act apply to anybody other than engineers? YES IT DOES
22

Consequences of Enforcement: generally a fine, if offense is done again the fine will increase.

Advertising
Restrictions on advertising engineering work
4 restrictions:
1- Can only be in a factual manner without exaggeration
2- In a manner that doesnt directly or indirectly criticize another license holder (any of the 4
licenses) or a COA holder
3- Can only be in a professional and dignified manner
4- DO NOT give any representation of the seal in advertising

Ethics (Handouts PEng Act 72 and 77)

72(2)(g): If you are offering services to
the public and have a provisional license and do
not have a PEng seal (or supervised by a PEng.),
then by definition you have breached the act or
regulations.
According to 72(2)(g): The code of ethics (77) is
DEPENDABLY ENFORCEABLE.
X (Unique to 72) Negligence
72(2)(f): Says that if you propose something to a non-technical client and they want a change
applied to it, you have the obligation to inform them of the technical consequences.

Y (Unique to 77)
77(2)(iv): (The ONLY part that is unique to 77) Therefore it is NOT professional misconduct if
breached.

Parts of 77 that are in Y and Z at the same time: (they depend on the degree of the breach
which will trigger 72(2)(j)
77(1)(i)
77(1)(iii)
77(3)
77(6)
77(7)(i)
77(7)(v)

Z (Overlap between 72 and 77)
Incompetence: 72(2)(h) and 77(1)(v)

Set of standards you are judged by Always stated as a positive obligation

Y
77

X Z
72
23

77(1)(iv) can also be tied with the previous issue of incompetence.

Conflict of Interest: 72(2)(i) and 77(3) & 77(4)

Relationship with Relationship with
employer clients

Moonlighting (doing work for someone else in your own time while employed):
72(2)(i) paragraph 4 and 77(5)

77(1)(ii) and 77(2)(i) are often references together.

GNG 4170 Lec 9
April 7, 2008

Definition of Professional Misconduct
72(2)(2) b,c,d are linked: the public is negatively affected in some way.

Distinctions Between b,c,d
b: Health is affected by the work done by the engineer.
c: Obligated to correct or report something that will affect the safety of others.
d: Some law or official standard being broken. A bit more limited than c.

77(2)(ii) , (iii) Both address the idea of communications:
ii- Discourages untrue, unfair, or exaggerated statements.
iii- Statements have to have: -sufficient knowledge
-honest conviction

72(2)(i) paragraph 5: Saying the statements because you were inspired by other interests (or paid for it).

Triggering 72(2)(j)
77(3): (put a comma after confidential)
77(7)(ii) Reviewing a co-workers work it cannot be a secret review; but you do not need their
permission (just need to inform them)
(iii) Malicious with evil intent
(iv) We are in a competitive society, you should not be paying or accepting something to
secure work.
(viii) Tattle-tail you have an obligation to report to the PEO if someone is defrauding
clients

24

On Exam
Have to integrate the relevant sections of 72 and 77
Dont start off your answer by giving a list of relevant sections must give your justification
first.
Dont use pinpoint references as an answer always give the reference as an afterthought,
they are like footnotes that must be included.

Important Types of Questions for PEO Exam
1. Whistle Blowing: public maybe negatively affected by engineers work or what they have found.
Obligation to public welfare is paramount; rules over confidentiality (consider 72(2) b,c,or d)
Plan of action:
-Must have meaningful communication with employer and/or client to fully articulate what is
going on. (Showing fairness to employer and/or client 77(1)(i))
-If there is an illegal action, mention that you will contact the respective authorities as part of
your action plan.

2. Conflict of Interest: can be faced with it easily in your career (unlike whistle-blowing). Approach
it thinking how it would affect your judgment in a situation or how it can be seen (by others) to
affect your judgment.
77(2)(i) : When you have an interest directly or indirectly that could be seen as affecting your
neutral judgment. (Ex. If someone that sells Ford cars is giving someone else advice on which car
to buy)
Define that it is a conflict of interest and how it applies (if employer then 77(3), if client then
77(4)).
77(2)(i) : Also says that you cannot keep it a secret (does not say that it is bad if you have a
conflict of interest). (Ex. You could say I am in fact not the right person to advise you on this
because I sell Ford cars.) The person hearing this can then make an informed decision.
There are 5 paragraphs about specific types of conflict of interest
Having one of those conflicts is NOT BAD
BUT having them without prompt, voluntary, and complete disclosure is BAD
(not informing others of conflict of interest).

3. Moonlighting: Obligations (listed in 77(5))
2 obligations to main employer:
(Failure to do so will result in breaking 72(2)(i) Professional Misconduct)
Satisfy that the additional work will not conflict with your obligations to main employers work
Inform employer of the work (do not need permission though)

1 obligation to client:
(Failure to do so will result in breaking 72(2)(i) Professional Misconduct)
Provide the client with written notification of your work and the limit of devoted time for them
(77(5)).

Always keep in mind the Certificate of Authorization (COA) in your own name and the
insurance (practice issues)
25

Hypothetical Question 4
Involves D.U.Plicitous employer comment on conflict of interest (77(3))
Professional Misconduct because D.U.Plicitous did not provide prompt, voluntary, disclosure
prior to doing the evaluation.
Also changing the bidding structure triggers j (77(1)(iii) integrity).
Also D.U.Plicitous comments about XYZ (if untrue) are trying to maliciously injure the company
(triggering j).

GNG 4170 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GNG 4170 Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

GNG 4170 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

HBRL8IGNG 4170 Lec 1

You might also like