Professional Engineers

Ontario

Professional Engineers
G u i d E l i n e
Reviewing Work Prepared by
Another Professional Engineer

Contributors: Vincent Chu, P.Eng. / Arup Mukherjee, P.Eng. / Ted Olechna, P.Eng. /
Scott Peaker, P.Eng. / Randy Pickle, P.Eng. / Brian Ross, P.Eng. (Chair) /
Philip Sarvinis, P.Eng.

Reviewers: Andy Bowers, P.Eng. / Bruce Matthews, P.Eng. / Rick Patterson, P.Eng.

Notice:The Professional Standards Committee has a policy of reviewing guidelines every five years to deter-

mine if the guideline is still viable and adequate. However, practice bulletins may be issued from time to time

to clarify statements made herein or to add information useful to those professional engineers engaged in

this area of practice. Users of this guideline who have questions, comments or suggestions for future amend-

ments and revisions are invited to submit these to PEO using the form provided in Appendix 1.

October 2011
Contents
1. PEO Mandate and Criteria for Guidelines.. ....................................................................................... 3
2. Preface............................................................................................................................................. 3
3. Purpose and Scope of Guideline . . ..................................................................................................... 4
4. Introduction. . ................................................................................................................................... 4
5. Definitions....................................................................................................................................... 5
6. Reviewing Professional Engineering Work....................................................................................... 6
6.1 Purpose of Review...............................................................................................................................................6
6.1.1 Technical reviews.....................................................................................................................................7
6.1.2 Regulatory reviews...................................................................................................................................7
6.1.3 Professional engineers providing reviews inside organizations...................................................................8
6.1.4 Pre-construction and similar reviews.........................................................................................................8
6.2 Review Procedures...............................................................................................................................................9
6.2.1 General principles ....................................................................................................................................9
6.2.2 Scope of work..........................................................................................................................................9
6.2.3 Basis for review......................................................................................................................................10
6.2.4 Communications between reviewer and other parties............................................................................11
6.2.5 Reporting...............................................................................................................................................12
6.3 Dealing with Reviewer’s Recommendations........................................................................................................13
6.4 Qualifications of Reviewer..................................................................................................................................14
6.5 Ethical Obligations.............................................................................................................................................14
6.5.1 Obligations of reviewing engineers.........................................................................................................14
6.5.2 Obligations of an authoring engineer.....................................................................................................18
7. Questions and Answers.................................................................................................................. 18
Appendix 1: Amendment and Revisions Submission Form.................................................................... 20
Appendix 2: PEO Professional Practice Guidelines and Standards.. ....................................................... 21

2 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P rof essi o n a l E n g i n e e r

 engineering, or replace a practitioner’s professional judg-
1. P
 EO Mandate and Criteria ment when providing professional engineering services.
for Guidelines Subject to provisions in the guideline that incorporate
professional conduct requirements or legal requirements, a
Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO) produces guidelines
decision by a practitioner not to follow the guideline will
to educate licensees and the public about standards of
not, in and of itself, indicate that a member has failed to
practice. This is done to fulfill PEO’s legislated objectives.
maintain an acceptable standard of work. On the other
Section 2(4)2 of the Professional Engineers Act states: “For
hand, following the guideline may not ensure that a mem-
the purpose of carrying out its principal object”, PEO shall
ber has provided services conforming to an acceptable
“establish, maintain and develop standards of qualification
standard. Determining whether a practitioner’s service is
and standards of practice for the practice of professional
acceptable will depend upon the circumstances of each case.
engineering”. The association’s Professional Standards Com-
mittee is responsible for developing practice standards and See Appendix 2 for a list of PEO professional practice
preparing guidelines. guidelines.

This guideline has been developed by a task group of the Pro-

fessional Standards Committee (PSC), reviewed and approved 2. Preface
for publication by the full PSC and by PEO Council.
Though professional engineers are often asked to review
PEO produces guidelines to meet the following objectives, documents prepared by other professional engineers, PEO
which were used to develop the content of this document. does not have any policies addressing this issue. Due to the
large number of inquiries from members of the public, regu-
1. Guidelines are intended to aid engineers in performing
latory bodies and practitioners asking for policies or advice
their engineering role in accordance with the Professional
on this practice, PSC concluded a guideline for reviewing
Engineers Act, O. Reg. 941/90 and O. Reg. 260/08.
another practitioner’s work was necessary.
2. Guidelines are intended to describe the necessary pro-
cesses associated with specific professional services pro- During 2005, PSC prepared terms of reference for a sub-
vided by engineers. They do not aim to be short courses committee comprising both practitioners and representatives
in an engineering subject. from regulatory bodies who had experience as reviewers of
3. Guidelines provide criteria for expected practice by engineering documents. This group was asked to address
describing the required outcome of the process, identify- questions about the proper role and responsibility for profes-
ing the engineer’s duty to the public in the particular sional engineers conducting practice and technical reviews.
area of practice, and describing the relationships and The subcommittee was also instructed to prepare a guideline
interactions between the various stakeholders (i.e. gov- offering best practice recommendations for this activity.
ernment, architects, other engineers, clients).
The subcommittee met for the first time on December 5,
4. Guidelines add value to the professional engineer licence
2005 and submitted a completed draft in May 2007. Fol-
for licensed engineers and for the public by outlining
lowing a reader review process, public consultations and PSC
criteria for professional standards of competence.
consideration, the draft was substantially revised. The final
5. Guidelines help the public to understand what it can
draft of the document was submitted to PSC for approval on
expect of engineers in relation to a particular task within
October 18, 2011. The completed guideline was approved by
the practice of professional engineering. By demonstrat-
Council at its meeting on November 11, 2011.
ing the task requires specialized knowledge, higher stan-
dards of care, and responsibility for life and property,
guidelines help reinforce the public perception of engi-
neers as professionals.

This guideline is not intended to establish a “one method

of practice for all” approach to the practice of professional

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O nt ar i o 3
 NOTE: References in this guideline to professional engineers
3. P
 urpose and Scope of apply equally to holders of temporary licences, provisional
Guideline licences and limited licences.

This guideline offers professional engineers conducting

reviews of work prepared by other practitioners guidance on 4. Introduction
the professionally acceptable manner for carrying out such
The Professional Engineers Act and its regulations refer only
assignments. PEO considers the recommendations in this
once to the practice of reviewing work1. That reference is in
guideline to be commensurate with all professional responsi-
clause 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941, which states that a practitioner shall:
bilities of practitioners.
not accept an engagement to review the work of another
The guideline is also intended to resolve confusion about
practitioner for the same employer except with the knowl-
whether reviews of work prepared by other practitioners
edge of the other practitioner or except where the connection
should be assessments of a practitioner’s professionalism
of the other practitioner with the work is terminated.
and competence as demonstrated by the work (e.g. Is work
complete and done properly? Is the practitioner aware This is a fairly specific but limited prohibition; as shown in
of current standards, etc.?), or consideration of the work section 6.5, it contains some general principles regarding the
itself to determine whether it represents the best technical practice of reviewing another practitioner’s work. This direc-
or most economically feasible approach to an engineering tion and the conflict of interest provisions of the Professional
problem. Since practitioners can be asked to provide either Engineers Act provide a suitable framework in most cases for
type of reviews, PEO has developed recommendations for determining rules for reviewing another engineer’s work.
both activities. This guideline states the preferred practices derived from
these general principles, and addresses cases not explicitly
The guideline covers the role of professional engineers
covered by the statutory references.
who might be involved in providing these services as an
employee or to a client. It covers all reviews carried out by Professional engineers should not object to having their
professional engineers as part of their normal employment work reviewed or to reviewing work of a colleague. Review
duties, such as reviews conducted by engineers employed of a practitioner’s work by another engineer is a reason-
by authorities, the review of shop drawings, and review for able and, in the case of legislated requirements, necessary
the purpose of quality assurance of engineering work carried practice. As long as the practice is carried out objectively
out by colleagues within a business or other organization. and fairly, it is consistent with a practitioner’s ethical obli-
The guideline also deals with reviews requested by a cli- gations, the association’s responsibility to maintain high
ent seeking confirmation the originating practitioner has professional standards and the need to maintain the public’s
fulfilled terms of a contract of service with the client, or trust in the profession.
checking that the practitioner’s work complies with techni-
All practitioners should be aware of the broader implications
cal or industry standards. Reviews can also be triggered by
of offering opinions on the work of another professional
interested third parties, such as tenants, property owners or
engineer. In some cases, the fact that a practitioner’s work
taxpayers, who are concerned about the impact a project
was subjected to a review can negatively impact the engineer’s
might have on them or their community. In these cases, an
reputation. Even when the result of a review is not widely
engineer’s review might be intended to provide technical
known, an unfavourable opinion of the work can permanently
support for a third party’s civil or political actions. In other
impair the relationship between a practitioner and a client or
cases, an engineer’s review might be used by a client dissatis-
employer. To ensure reviews fulfill the legitimate goals of this
fied with the work of a professional engineer in litigation
practice in the most professional manner possible, reviewing
against the professional engineer (see PEO’s Guideline on the
Professional Engineer as an Expert Witness).

1. Other provisions that indirectly bear upon the practice of reviewing work are discussed in section 6.5.1.

4 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P rof essi o n a l E n g i n e e r

engineers need to be aware of procedures for ensuring fairness,
impartiality and completeness of the review process.
5. Definitions
The following definitions apply for the purposes of this guide-
An objective assessment might identify deficiencies or prob-
line and might not be generally applicable in other situations.
lems in the reviewed work that need to be reported. What
needs to be reported and to whom will vary from project to • Authoring engineer: the professional engineer responsible
project and should be left to the reasonable discretion of the for preparing the engineering document under review.
reviewing engineer. To properly report what is necessary, the • Good engineering practice: well-known, widely available
reviewer must be clear about the distinction between real and generally acceptable behaviour proven by long-
flaws in the work and professional differences of opinion. standing, constant and general use or acceptance. This
behaviour includes, but is not limited, to:
Practitioners undertaking a review must be aware of such
o access to and understanding of theoretical and prac-
issues and take every reasonable precaution to deal with them
tical knowledge that generally corresponds to the
in a professional manner. Appropriate measures to take into
state of the art in the professional engineer’s field at
consideration are provided in section 6 of this guideline.
that particular time;
This guideline does not address practice reviews, which are o expression of technical information through graphi-
intended to provide an opinion on whether the quality of cal representation and/or written documents in
the service provided by a practitioner in a specific situation sufficient detail to make engineering decisions by
is comparable to similar work done by peers. The reviewer others unnecessary;
will offer an assessment of whether the authoring engineer o awareness and consideration of customary design
exhibited good engineering practice in providing the ser- solutions;
vice to the client. The reviewer should provide an opinion o application of good judgment based on analytical
as to whether the engineer whose work is being reviewed skills; and
has followed appropriate industry-accepted methodologies, o adherence to current or applicable standards and
employed a logical design or analytical process, and properly codes published by recognized technical, profes-
considered all applicable regulations, standards, codes, and sional and regulatory bodies.
best practice design principles. The reviewer should verify • Practice review: a review of companies, organizations
that the authoring engineer undertook all necessary inquiries and/or departments providing professional engineering
to identify particular requirements of the project, includ- services, to assess the quality of practice in the workplace
ing, but not limited to, site visits, acquisition and review of and the manner in which files, books and records are
such relevant documents as original drawings or equipment kept or to evaluate process and procedures for producing
specifications and contacts with regulatory bodies. In gen- engineering work.
eral, a practice review assesses the methodology employed by
• Practitioner: a person holding a licence, temporary
the authoring engineer, not the quality, suitability or other
licence, limited licence or provisional licence issued by
aspect of the design, study or report produced.
Professional Engineers Ontario.
A practice review does not address whether a design, tech-
• Professional standards: the expected outcome of a profes-
nical report or other engineering work is accurate and
sional engineering service or the acceptable manner of
appropriate for the client’s needs, or is it an evaluation of
carrying out a professional engineering task as described
the economic value of the design or the service provided by
in regulations under the Professional Engineers Act or
the authoring engineer.
guidelines published by Professional Engineers Ontario,
Recommended best practices for carrying out practice or, where there are none, by generally accepted profes-
reviews are provided in a separate PEO guideline. sional engineering standards.

• Regulatory Review: a review of a document, conducted by

representatives of a governmental or quasi-governmental

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O nt ar i o 5
 body, to determine whether the content of the document different types of review: practice review and technical review.
complies with regulations, bylaws or standards adminis- The two types are distinguished by:
tered by that body.
a) the reason for the review;
• Review: an examination of the content of any type of
b) the subject matter reviewed;
engineering document prepared by or under the direct
supervision of a professional engineer. c) how the party requesting the review intends to use the
reviewer’s report;
• Reviewing engineer or reviewer: the professional engineer
reviewing the content of the engineering document. d) the procedures to be followed in performing the review;
and
• Same employer: a person or organization who ultimately
benefits from the services of both the authoring and e) the responsibilities of the authoring and reviewing
reviewing engineers. engineers.

• Second opinion: the alternative opinion provided when a In the most general terms, the essential purpose of a practice
second practitioner independently carries out an assign- review is to assess an engineer’s work or the service provided;
ment already completed by another. it evaluates how the work was carried out. This is a judgment
regarding the performance of the practitioner. Alternatively,
• Technical review: a review of a document to determine
a technical review assesses the correctness, completeness or
whether the engineering content of the work is correct,
appropriateness of the content in a document or drawing
complete or suitable for the intended application.
produced by an engineer. Technical reviews result in opinions
• Unlicensed person: a person who does not hold a licence regarding the quality of the output of the work, not how
issued by Professional Engineers Ontario to practise pro- the engineer carried out the work. In other words, a practice
fessional engineering and who is not entitled to practise review is an evaluation of the practice of a professional engi-
professional engineering except when delegated to do so neer, while a technical review is an evaluation of a design,
under the direction of a professional engineer. analysis, calculation, instruction, or opinion.

• Work: A drawing, design calculations, engineering Reviewing engineers should always clarify whether the client
report, specification or other document, containing or employer is requesting a review of a practitioner’s work
directions, opinions or judgments of an engineering or a second opinion.
nature prepared by or under the supervision of the
A second opinion is a completely independent assessment of
authoring engineer.
the situation, given to the client so the client has access to more
information when making a decision. An engineer providing a
6. R
 eviewing Professional second opinion takes a fresh look at the same situation provided
to the first engineer and, without reference to the first engineer’s
Engineering Work work, proposes a solution, designs a concept, or makes recom-
6.1 Purpose of Review mendations. For instance, a homeowner who has found some
A review of a practitioner’s work can be undertaken for vari- cracking of exterior brickwork and suspects there might be
ous reasons and in many different relationships. Reviewers structural problems with the house might hire an engineer who
can be colleagues in an organization, employees of govern- recommends costly underpinning of the foundation. Because the
ment regulatory bodies, employees of client firms or other proposed work is expensive, the homeowner might decide not to
organizations using the engineer’s work, or third-party proceed immediately but rather to get a second opinion. Clearly,
engineers retained by a client to provide an independent what would be needed here is not a review of the first engineer’s
assessment of the work. There are numerous circumstances, work, but rather a separate investigation and recommendation,
from corporate quality assurance to litigation against a prac- which can be done without any consideration of the first engi-
titioner, that can give rise to a request for a review. However, neer’s work. Then the client, with or without an independent
the developers of this guideline have identified two distinctly engineer’s assistance, would decide which opinion to rely on.

6 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P rof essi o n a l E n g i n e e r

In cases where a client is seeking a second opinion, the • validity of recommendations; and
second engineer should not review the first engineer’s
• fitness of the design or recommendations to the
work. In fact, reviewing the first engineer’s work would be
requirements.
counterproductive, since this might influence or taint the
second opinion. The reviewer may comment on the appropriateness of the
design, including opinions on its efficiency and econom-
Occasionally, a dispute can arise between client or regulator
ics, for the intended application. In the case of a technical
and authoring engineer about the suitability, applicability or
report, the reviewer should comment on whether the recom-
compliance of a proposed design, report or other product of
mendations are justified by the analysis or facts provided in
a professional engineering service. A review is not intended
the report. In addition to identifying shortcomings, misuse
to be arbitration. The reviewer should be retained only to
or lack of use of established industry standards, codes or
provide an opinion on the quality of the authoring engi-
design criteria, the review engineer may comment on the
neer’s work, not to settle a dispute or to offer opinions as to
innovative, efficient, economical and other noteworthy
which party’s position in a dispute is more credible.
aspects of the design or report.
6.1.1 Technical reviews
Normally, a technical review would not be as comprehen-
Technical reviews are undertaken to assess the suitability of
sive as an original design or analysis. In most cases, checks
a design, technical report or other output of an engineering
of random portions of the work would be performed rather
service to determine whether it meets project requirements.
than a review of each and every aspect of the authoring
Usually, these reviews are limited to performing random
engineer’s work. However, the thoroughness of review must
checks of engineering documents looking for technical
be left to the discretion of reviewers, based on what they
errors. However, depending on a client’s requirements,
believe is necessary to adequately undertake the assignment
technical reviews can be extensive investigations of the
and satisfy themselves that they have enough information to
methodology, design criteria and calculations used by the
make sound conclusions. If warranted on the basis of con-
authoring engineer, as well as the correctness, appropriate-
cerns identified in the review, the reviewing engineer may
ness, economic viability or other attributes of the design
advise the client or employer that a more comprehensive
decisions or study recommendations.
review is needed.
In addition to checking whether the appropriate meth-
6.1.2 Regulatory reviews
odology was applied correctly, the reviewer will verify the
A different type of review is that conducted by such regula-
accuracy of calculations. Technical reviewers should also
tory bodies as municipal building departments, provincial
check to see that the applied standards, codes and other
ministries and their agencies, federal government agen-
design criteria are appropriate for the project under review
cies and PEO. In these cases, employees of the regulatory
and that they were used correctly. In general, technical
body review the practitioners’ work submitted for approval
reviews are intended to make the following assessments:
purposes to confirm the work complies with prescriptive
• whether the completed work has met the objectives; regulations, such as building codes and municipal bylaws.
Except as described below, assessing regulatory compliance
• whether the objectives set out for the work were reasonable;
is a legal not an engineering matter and, therefore, does not
• whether there were other options that should have been have to be conducted by professional engineers. Individu-
considered by the authoring engineer; als conducting regulatory compliance reviews must refrain
from making engineering judgments. The compliance
• whether the evaluation of options is comprehensive,
review must only compare information in the engineering
unbiased and rigorous;
documents with standards, codes or legislated requirements.
• validity of any assumptions made by the authoring For example, an unlicensed building official can make a
engineer; judgment on whether the spacing between sprinkler heads
in a given sprinkler system design is below or above the
• validity of the conclusions or calculations;
maximum spacing allowed by NFPA standards, since the

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O nt ar i o 7
reviewer is required only to measure the design distance bility for the changes imposed by the senior practitioner, the
given on the documents and compare this to criteria pre- reviewing engineer should take responsibility for the entire
scribed in the standard. engineering document by affixing his or her seal, or indicate
and take responsibility for the changes to the document in
When conducting compliance reviews, a regulatory body
which case both practitioners will seal the document.
should report non-compliance issues only to the practitio-
ner. Decisions on how to revise the document to deal with Since both the authoring engineer and the reviewing engi-
non-compliant issues must be left to the authoring engineer. neer have the same employer, clause 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941
applies; therefore, the authoring engineer must be notified
However, occasionally regulatory bodies undertake more rig-
that a review will take place. However, for reviews inside
orous reviews for technical adequacy, to determine whether
organizations individual notifications are not always neces-
designs meet performance standards or to assess designs
sary. In organizations where all drawings and documents are
that are not subject to prescriptive standards. For example,
reviewed for quality prior to issuance or approval, a written
a building department may thoroughly analyze a proposed
corporate policy informing all practitioners that their work
structural design to verify, for the municipality’s own due
will be reviewed is sufficient notification. This practice applies
diligence purposes, that the design is safe. A review of this
only to regular reviews, including those undertaken as part of
kind must be performed by a professional engineer and
employee performance audits. In cases where the review goes
should be done according to the terms of a technical review
beyond normal quality assurance due to concerns over an
as described in this guideline.
individual’s ability to perform assigned tasks, the practitioner
Professional engineers employed by and conducting reviews must be notified before the work is reviewed.
on behalf of regulatory bodies should understand the mandate
6.1.4 Pre-construction and similar reviews
and the conditions under which the review is to be carried
It is also possible that an authoring engineer’s work will be
out. PEO recommends that regulatory bodies have written
reviewed by a professional engineer employed by a contrac-
policies that specify the purpose of the review and the rules
tor, fabricator, manufacturer or other person who will use the
governing the procedures for carrying out this work.
engineer’s design to construct or manufacture a product for
6.1.3 P
 rofessional engineers providing reviews which the reviewing engineer’s employer will then be respon-
inside organizations sible. In such cases, the person or organization using the
Professional engineers employed by engineering firms or design may be reviewing the engineering documents as part of
other organizations might be called on to review the work its due diligence appraisal. After all, a firm producing a prod-
of colleagues for various reasons. Such internal reviews uct or undertaking a project needs to be able to rely on the
can be practice reviews, to ascertain whether the authoring accuracy and completeness of the precursor engineering work,
engineer is capable of doing assigned work or for person- so has the right to check the design to ensure it is not faulty.
nel performance grading purposes, or technical reviews, for In such a case, someone other than the authoring engineer’s
quality assurance purposes. When reviews are conducted by client or employer is requesting the review and the review is
a colleague within an engineering firm, the reviewer might intended to protect the public or the user of the design rather
act like a problem-solving consultant and it is expected the than to judge the professional engineer. Since the review is
relationship between the practitioners will be very coopera- initiated by someone other than the employer or client of
tive, because the firm will ultimately be responsible for the the authoring engineer, clause 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 does not
outcome of the engineering service. For this reason, the apply. The reviewing engineer does not need to inform the
authoring engineer’s judgment may be overridden by a prac- authoring engineer a review is taking place.
titioner with more authority in the firm.2 If the authoring
These reviews, like technical reviews, should assess the suit-
engineer does not agree and is not willing to accept responsi-
ability and correctness of the design, instructions, directions,

2. A professional engineer’s judgment on a matter of engineering cannot be overridden by an authority who is not a professional engineer. A non-licensed
person can decide not to accept an professional engineer’s judgment, can ask for changes to an engineering design or report, or can provide alternative cri-
teria on which the engineer is expected to make a judgment but the judgment, opinion, or engineering decision must be made by a licence holder. See the
Guideline for Professional Engineering Practice for more information on the interactions between practitioners and non-licensed authorities.

8 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P rof essi o n a l E n g i n e e r

or other engineering output prepared by the authoring engi- At a minimum, a reviewing engineer should insist that a
neer. Therefore, these reviews should be carried out according contract clearly identify the type of review to be under-
to the guidance provided in Section 6.1.2. However, the stan- taken, the reason for the review, the documents that will be
dard of suitability or correctness in this case is not industry reviewed and the current relationship between the authoring
norms, but rather the willingness of the reviewer’s organiza- engineer and the client. In cases where notification accord-
tion to rely on the work. A practitioner reviewing documents ing to article 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941 is required, a contract
that the practitioner’s client or employer will rely on has a must obligate the client to inform the authoring engineer a
duty to protect the interest of the client or employer and the review will take place or authorize the reviewing engineer to
review should reflect this duty. make the notification.

6.2 Review Procedures Reviewing engineers should also ensure that clients are
6.2.1 General principles aware of professional responsibilities and ethical obligations
Checking of work must be as thorough as required by described in this guideline; if possible, these responsibilities
the scope and kind of review; in other words, the extent and obligations should be explicitly stated in the contract.
of checking will need to be project specific. The extent
The scope of work should also define how thorough a
of checking is always subject to the reviewer’s reasonable
review is expected to be. The level of detail examination
discretion and dependent on judgments about how best to
and analysis undertaken by reviewers conducting technical
adequately undertake the assignment. The reviewer must
reviews will depend on the nature of the work, although it
always be satisfied the conclusions, whether positive or
should be assumed that performing a technical review will
negative, regarding the quality of the documents or of the
not be as comprehensive or time consuming as performing
authoring engineer’s service are based on proper assessment
the original engineering work. A reviewer must use reason-
of the items under review.
able judgment to assess when a full review is applicable.
Thoroughness of review must be based on the principle of
A contract should clearly specify the deliverables to be sub-
fairness; that is, a review must be thorough enough to provide
mitted to a reviewer by the authoring engineer. It should
the client or employer with sufficient information to resolve
further identify whether the relevant information is to be
outstanding questions and to warrant the opinions made by
submitted directly by the authoring engineer or through the
the reviewer about the quality of the work. If a review is not
client. The information upon which a review is based needs
thorough enough, the reviewer might miss issues that should
to be clearly identified. However, for various reasons, includ-
be brought to the attention of the client or employer. In this
ing the possibility of litigation against the authoring engineer,
case, the reviewer’s service would be inadequate.
a reviewer should not always expect to obtain all available
On the other hand, a review must not be taken to the point information. Obviously, a client can ask an authoring engi-
of criticizing irrelevant, minor issues. A reviewer should neer to turn over to a reviewer all documents that the client
not report on spelling errors, poor grammar, poor drafting has a legal expectation of obtaining from the author.
or other aspects of the form of a document, unless these
However, a client generally does not have a right to all docu-
problems cause a document to be ambiguous, difficult to
ments produced by the authoring engineer during commission
understand, or create the possibility for mistaken application
of the work. In general, a reviewing engineer should expect to
by those relying on the document.
receive only those documents delivered by an authoring engi-
6.2.2 Scope of work neer as the final output of the service to a client.
Professional engineers are asked to review the work of other
In cases where a reviewing engineer is hired by a party other
practitioners for many reasons and under various employ-
than an authoring engineer’s client, the reviewer may have
ment arrangements. Before accepting any assignment,
to work with only publicly available information. Usually,
practitioners should, in consultation with their clients, pre-
this will be an authoring engineer’s final plans or reports,
pare a detailed scope of work and affix this to their contract
but occasionally these may not be available. A review of a
for services.
proposed design or report should not be based on specula-
tion about the data, client instructions or other data an

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O nt ar i o 9
authoring engineer relied upon. If information needed to might also believe they are expected to be critical and to
assess the work is not available, a reviewing engineer should find things that, though not necessarily wrong or detrimen-
refuse to provide an opinion or assessment, or limit the tal, can be cast in a negative way. Reviewers should ensure
scope of review to issues that can be properly assessed with that the manner in which they report negative assessments is
the reasonably available information. consistent with the articles in the Code of Ethics describing
practitioner’s duties to other professional engineers. These
It is important that the mandate given to a reviewer, both
duties are given in article 77.7., O. Reg, 941, which states:
orally and in writing, is worded neutrally and does not sug-
gest the desired outcome. If a client or employer states or “A practitioner shall,
implies that a practitioner should slant the review in any way,
i. act towards other practitioners with courtesy and good
the reviewing engineer should inform the client or employer
faith, …
that the reviewer is professionally obliged to remain indepen-
dent and express no bias in performing this service. iii. not maliciously injure the reputation or business of another
practitioner”.
Reviewing engineers must identify and clarify at the outset
of an assessment the end use(s) of the findings of a technical To be fair to an authoring engineer, this procedure should be
review. Reviewing engineers should inform clients of any conducted in an objective and consistently applied manner.
disclaimers or limitations that might be included in their For this reason, reviewers should adhere to the following pro-
review reports. cess for deciding what is wrong in an engineering work.

Reviewing engineers should prepare, and include in the The first step of all reviews is to ascertain what assessment
scope of work, a plan to conduct their technical reviews that criteria apply. Clearly, to be objective, both the technical and
identifies the documents to be reviewed, resources available professional aspects of a practitioner’s work must be measured
to the reviewer, methodology of the review, format of the against the normal practice for professional engineers car-
review report, protocol of communications between the rying out similar work. Professional engineers must comply
reviewer and other parties, confidentiality considerations, with all legislated standards and codes, but best practices
schedule for the review, and other relevant considerations. commonly used by practitioners familiar with a particular
Such a plan, submitted to a client prior to undertaking a industry are not always legislated. However, many of these
review, will establish the independence of the reviewing codes and unofficial standards, especially those provided by
engineer and minimize the risk of potential conflicts of technical associations such as CSA, IES, IEEE, ASHRAE and
interest or misunderstandings. ASME, are so thoroughly endorsed by practitioners working
in certain industrial sectors that failure to use these standards
As a review progresses, the plan and/or scope of work for
would be contrary to commonly accepted rules of practice. In
the review might need to be modified if additional items
such cases, all practitioners are expected to comply with these
of concern are identified. Though time allocated for review
standards. Reviewers should outline what relevant standards,
should be discussed and agreed upon at the start of the
codes, legislation and conventions of the particular industrial
assignment, the contract should provide an option for the
sector are pertinent to the work and should clearly distinguish
reviewer to request and be granted additional time and
whether adherence to these “standards” is considered obliga-
changes to the scope of work.
tory or discretionary.
6.2.3 Basis for review
The other important criterion for making judgments in a
As a normal part of the process, reviewing engineers will
review is a comparison of the work with examples of good
have to distinguish between the positive and negative aspects
engineering practice. Good engineering practice comprises
of the engineering work and point out things that are incor-
well known, widely available and generally acceptable behav-
rect, unclear, unsubstantiated or problematic in the original
iour proven by long standing, constant, and general use or
document. Reviewers will sometimes need to report nega-
acceptance by the majority of practitioners working regu-
tively on aspects of the work done by another professional
larly in that area of practice. Work that is consistent with
engineer; that is their role. However, reviewing engineers

10 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

the principle of good engineering practice can be produced to take on and carry out engineering assignments only when
only by practitioners who: they are competent to do so. This assessment of competence
is made by the authoring engineer. Reviewing engineers
• have access to and understanding of theoretical and prac-
should not be expected to evaluate the qualifications of
tical knowledge that generally corresponds to the state of
authoring engineers or provide opinions as to whether an
the art in the professional engineer’s field at that time;
authoring engineer is qualified to do the work in the docu-
• express technical information through graphical repre- ments. Reviewing engineers should contact PEO if there are
sentation and/or written documents in sufficient detail concerns about the competence of an authoring engineer
to make engineering decisions by others unnecessary; based on the quality of the work under review, but should
not report this to the client.
• show an awareness and consideration of customary
design solutions; and A reviewing engineer should not ask a client or an authoring
engineer to disclose the fee or salary paid to the authoring
• make judgments based on analytical skills.
engineer for the work under review. Practitioners must always
Based on such information, reviewers should identify what provide sufficient time and effort to undertake their work
can be reasonably considered to be the customary proce- in a manner consistent with the norms of the engineering
dures and practices for similar work to that under review profession. Standards of professionalism are not negotiable
that should have guided the authoring engineer. The sole with clients or employers and do not vary with fee or salary.
object of the review is to establish whether the work meets these Therefore, reviewers have no need to know how much an
criteria. A reviewer’s role is not to state how he or she would authoring engineer was paid for the work being reviewed; a
have handled the work. review judges the quality of the work according to profes-
sional standards not the fee received. The quality of the
It is imperative for reviewers to do research to back up their
service should always be judged against the standard of pro-
views. This research may include reviewing publications
fessional care appropriate for the task.
by standard-setting organizations (including PEO), read-
ing basic engineering textbooks and professional literature, 6.2.4 C
 ommunications between reviewer and
and consulting with other practitioners for a sense of the other parties
generally accepted view within the profession on the issue. During a review, the reviewing engineer might need to com-
In some cases, reviewers might need to make site visits to municate with various parties, but must always adhere to the
research conditions pertinent to the work under review. requirements of confidentiality (article 77.3, O. Reg. 941).
Before communicating with anyone other than a client,
Clients or regulatory bodies might ask authoring engineers
including an authoring engineer, a reviewing engineer must
to submit design calculations and other information that is
advise the client of the identity of the parties with whom
not normally considered part of the final documents. Unless
he or she proposes to communicate, and of the intended
there is a contractual or legislated obligation to do otherwise,
purpose for the communication. The reviewer must obtain
authoring engineers should not provide documents generated
approval from the client, preferably in writing, for the com-
during commission of the engineering services. However, it
munication. The reviewer should maintain a record of all
is acceptable for reviewers to request any data defining design
significant communications with the client, the authoring
or study parameters, client requirements communicated to
engineer and any other party contacted during the review.
the authoring engineer, equipment specifications or other
Significant communications should be confirmed by a letter,
information that would reasonably be expected to be needed
fax or email.
by the reviewing engineer to carry out the review. Author-
ing engineers should consider whether these documents are A client’s approval is not mandatory if during the review
necessary for conducting fair reviews, and provide them on an the engineer uncovers a situation that constitutes an immi-
as-needed or temporary basis. nent risk to public safety. If all efforts to obtain the client’s
approval to notify the authoring engineer or another party
Reviewing engineers should not ask for the qualifications of
have been exhausted, a reviewer has a professional obligation,
an authoring engineer. Licensed practitioners are required

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 11
given in article 72(2)(c) of O. Reg 941, to advise those parties authoring engineer’s design or report. A review should only
capable of mitigating the risk of the identified danger. identify problems and concerns regarding errors, omissions,
failure to meet client expectations or noncompliance with
If a reviewer is an employee of a government agency or
standards and regulations. A reviewer should deal only with
regulatory authority, the reviewer may, depending upon his
the presented design and should neither make suggestions
or her position in the organization, be able to communicate
about better designs nor report how the reviewer would
with the authoring engineer without seeking approval from
have approached the task differently.
the individual who submitted the engineering document for
regulatory review. However, direct communication with the A review report that contains statements of engineering
authoring engineer should be limited, recorded and copied judgment is an engineering document and must be sealed if
to the submitter. it is provided to someone outside an engineer’s firm. This
will be the case for technical reviews, but not for regulatory
When requested to review a design or study, reviewing
reviews. By sealing a report, a reviewing engineer is accept-
engineers should ensure they fully understand the intent
ing responsibility for the opinions in the report, not for the
and scope of the design or study to be reviewed. Reviewing
work that was reviewed.
engineers should obtain this information from their clients
and, if the client approves, from the authoring engineer In some cases, clients might ask reviewers to provide a sec-
responsible for the work. If the objectives of the client and ond opinion, in which case it is appropriate to suggest other
the authoring engineer do not agree, a reviewing engineer approaches. However, these opinions should not be pro-
should discuss the differences with both parties to obtain a vided in the context of a review; that is, the reviewer should
common understanding of the objectives of the work under not make comparisons between the original and alternative
review. If the parties cannot reach a consensus, the reviewer designs. Reviewing engineers should also be careful about
should base the review on the intent and scope provided by how these suggestions might be used. It is possible a client
the client, although the review report should record, but not might use a reviewer’s opinions as directions for making
comment on, the discrepancy between the expectations of changes to the original engineering documents, even though
the client and the understanding of the authoring engineer the reviewer did not intend them to be used that way. Any
about the original assignment. written document or oral report commenting on the find-
ings of a review should be prefaced by a statement that the
6.2.5 Reporting
opinions expressed are only for consideration and are not
Practitioner retained to review engineering documents
intended as modifications to the original documents.
by the authoring engineer’s client or a third party should
always provide a written report on completion of the Reviewing engineers must clearly distinguish among facts,
review. The review report should contain an introduction assumptions and opinions in their preparation of reports
that identifies the individual who authorized the review, and professional statements. Professional opinions should
the authoring engineer and the purpose of the review. be clearly stated and should include clear indications of the
The report should also describe the basis under which the constraints within which an opinion holds, and the relevant
review was conducted, including a brief description of the qualifying circumstances, facts and assumptions.
item under review, a summary of documentation provided
When expressing an opinion, always give reasons for it and
to the reviewer and of communications made during the
respond to the arguments that the authoring engineer and
review, and a description of the reviewer’s methodology for
others could make against the reviewer’s opinion. Acknowl-
conducting the review. The review should document the
edge that the reviewer is expressing an opinion and others
reviewer’s findings and should fully describe the information
might come to different conclusions. Do not convey the
upon which opinions are based; the reviewer should refer-
impression that there is only one right answer, the review-
ence particular legislation, codes or standards upon which
er’s, and everyone else is wrong. Never express an opinion
findings are based.
unless it is founded on adequate knowledge and an honest
The only output of a review is a report. A technical review belief the opinion is justified.
does not include making or recommending changes to the

12 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

The reviewing engineer must focus on the issues, not the of the opinion. Both the request and response should be
person. Criticism of the design, content of the report or an provided in writing and made through the client or party
authoring engineer’s methodology is entirely reasonable; requesting the review. Direct contact between authoring and
attacks on the competence or character of the authoring reviewing engineers should not be done without approval of
engineer is not. Negative comments aimed at the person clients or parties requesting a review.
rather than the facts can be construed as libel (written
If an authoring engineer responds to a review in writing
defamation of character or reputation) or slander (oral defa-
with reasoned arguments, a reviewer should carefully con-
mation) and could, in some cases, lead to lawsuits against
sider the arguments and may provide an addendum to the
the reviewer. However, such claims are unlikely to succeed
original report, if necessary. However, a single response
when a reviewer simply reports facts about the work (not
should be sufficient. Repeated objections from authoring
the person) and acts in good faith (even if the reviewer’s
engineers, especially if they are belligerent, should be consid-
opinion ends up being incorrect).
ered unprofessional conduct and reported to PEO.
Accordingly, reviewers should be careful about language in
The core principle governing the practice of professional
reports or in conversations with clients. The tone of a report
engineering is that authoring engineers must always be fully
should be professional and objectively neutral. Reviewers
responsibility for their designs, reports or other engineering
should try to avoid using negative adjectives and should not
documents; decisions to make changes to documents must
include accusatory or inflammatory language. Remember
be left entirely to authoring engineers. Professional engineers
that authoring engineers will be, and have a right to be,
should not be compelled by employers, clients, regulators,
defensive about their work and professional reputations.
or other practitioners to make changes to their work they
Reviewers should not express opinions on whether an are not willing to accept. If an authoring engineer agrees to
authoring engineer met professional standards of compe- make the changes suggested by a reviewer, this should be
tence or conduct. It is also inappropriate for reviewers to noted in writing.
comment on whether another professional engineer is prac-
In some cases, a client or employer may be persuaded by
tising in accordance with the Professional Engineers Actor
a review or second opinion that changes to the original
Code of Ethics. These assessments are made through PEO’s
document are necessary or an alternative approach is more
complaints and discipline processes.
appropriate for the client’s or employer’s needs. If an
Reviewing engineers might consider including a disclaimer lim- authoring engineer is unwilling to comply with a request to
iting the use of the report to the client for the stated purpose. make such changes, a client may decide to retain a different
practitioner to modify the existing design or prepare a new
6.3 D
 ealing with Reviewer’s
one. If a reviewer is asked by a client to provide a design
Recommendations
based on a reviewer’s recommendations, the contract with
Although practitioners subject to review might be concerned
the authoring engineer should be terminated before the
about the outcome of this process, the best approach is to
reviewer is hired to continue the work. Contracts for review
wait until a review is completed and then deal objectively
and provision of engineering services for altering documents
with the reviewer’s comments. Authoring engineers should
should be separate.
not try to communicate with reviewers during the review
process to try to influence the review or to obtain advance If a review is conducted by a regulatory authority, it might
knowledge of its outcome. result in a negative decision regarding an application, or a
request that an authoring engineer make revisions to the
After a review is completed, the authoring engineer might
design or report. In such cases, there is usually a right of
want to communicate with the reviewer to obtain clarifi-
appeal; this right should be exercised if an authoring engi-
cations of the reviewer’s opinion. Such communications
neer is satisfied with his or her work and its compliance
should not be an attempt to persuade the reviewer to change
with the applicable provisions. Practitioners should not
his or her opinion. They should be confined to supply-
allow themselves to be pressured into adopting changes to
ing missing or misunderstood facts to the reviewer and to
work they will be responsible for. However, in the absence
making requests for explanations of any confusing portions

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 13
of a successful appeal, an authoring engineer is bound by standard). Reviewers should also consider the possibility that
the ruling and must act accordingly. There are two options an authoring engineer’s practices are consistent with those
available to authoring engineers: of a legitimate minority school of thought; that is, despite
the fact that an authoring engineer’s methods and approach
1) make changes that are consistent with both the ruling
are not consistent with best practices, they are justifiable,
and the authoring engineer’s professional engineering
recognize basic engineering principles and are based on
judgment, or
sound reasoning. Best practices are always open to revision;
2) withdraw the design and the application. therefore, practitioners should not be penalized for being
innovative. In some cases, local knowledge might also be
Regulatory reviews will often result in statements that an
pertinent to a review. Local knowledge refers to methods
authoring engineer did not provide enough information or
or standards particular to a specific geographic area, such as
sufficient argument for report findings. A regulatory body may
municipal by-laws, and to ordinary practices within specific
ask for resubmission of information by the authoring engineer.
industries. Reviewers must make themselves familiar with
In many cases, a regulatory authority is legally entitled to ask
the local knowledge applicable to the work under review. To
for any information necessary for its purposes, so practitioners
carry out a fair review, reviewers must be capable of them-
must comply with such requests for resubmission.
selves carrying out work of the kind under review.
6.4 Qualifications of Reviewer
6.5 Ethical Obligations
Since making judgments and expressing opinions about the
The ethical obligations of professional engineers are pre-
quality of engineering service, technical content of engi-
scribed in section 77, O. Reg. 941, otherwise known as the
neering documents or appropriate means of dealing with
Code of Ethics for the profession. Practitioners are at all
engineering problems are acts of professional engineering,
times expected to govern their behaviour in accordance with
reviewers must be holders of a licence issued by PEO. An
all principles of the code. However, some articles have spe-
unlicensed person can review engineering documents for
cific relevance to technical reviews.
compliance with prescriptive codes and standards; however,
all technical reviews must be conducted by people licensed 6.5.1 Obligations of reviewing engineers
to practise professional engineering. • Notification. The primary ethical obligation for
reviewing another professional engineer’s work is given
Professional engineers providing such services as a technical
in article 77.7.ii, O. Reg. 941, which states that a prac-
review to a client must hold a Certificate of Authorization
titioner shall:
(C of A) or be employees of a C of A holder. Holders of
Cs of A must comply with the insurance provisions found not accept an engagement to review the work of another
in Regulation 941/90. Professional engineers providing practitioner for the same employer except with the knowledge
review services to anyone other than their employers of the other practitioner or except where the connection of
without a C of A are violating the Professional Engineers Act. the other practitioner with the work has been terminated.

Practitioners subject to a review expect that the review will If a client or employer asks a practitioner to review
be fair. To conduct a fair review and express a professional the work of another engineer who is still engaged on
opinion, a reviewer must have sufficient expertise in the area a project, either through employment contract or an
of practice to properly assess the content of the engineering agreement to provide professional services, the reviewer
document. To do this, a reviewer must have, according to should undertake the assignment only with the knowl-
article 72(2)(h) of O. Reg. 941, a thorough understand- edge of the other practitioner. This notification should
ing of the generally accepted practices appropriate for the be made by the client or employer; however, it is the
area of professional engineering relevant for the work being responsibility of the review engineer to ensure that the
reviewed. “Generally accepted practices” refers to usual client is aware of the requirement for notification and
methodologies and knowledge accepted by the majority of carries out this requirement.
practitioners in that field. It is not what a reviewer would
Article 77.7.ii explicitly states that it applies only in
personally do (which is often higher than the minimum
those cases where the same employer (including clients

14 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

for professional engineers providing services to the pub- Such reviews can occur in cases where the engineer-
lic) requests the engineer to review the work of another ing firm is still under contract [except probably in case
practitioner. Clearly, the important matter in this sec- (d)] or after the engineering firm’s contract is termi-
tion is the relationship between the practitioner and the nated because the work has finished. While the work is
employer/client. The obligation applies only during the underway (i.e. the engineering firm is under contract),
period in which that professional relationship exists. there is a professional relationship that must be pro-
The purpose of this section is to protect the author- tected; therefore, notification of the authoring engineer
ing engineer’s relationship with the client/employer by is necessary. After the contract is terminated, there is
prohibiting other professional engineers from secretly, no longer a professional relationship between the client
though usually not maliciously, interposing themselves and the engineering firm and, according to the prin-
into this relationship. The purpose of such a notifica- ciple set out in article 77.7.ii., there is no requirement
tion is to ensure transparency of intention between to notify the practitioner.
professional colleagues.
In many cases, the review is part of a regulatory require-
Practice review often occurs in organizations where ment. That is, the engineer’s work is reviewed at the
engineers are expected to have their work routinely request of someone other than the client or employer.
reviewed as part of an ongoing quality assurance For instance, professional engineers employed in regula-
program. This is usually part of a standard quality tory agencies, such as municipal building departments,
assurance program in which every document is reviewed provincial ministries, and federal government agencies,
before it is issued. If so, every professional engineer in review engineers’ work submitted for approval pur-
the organization knows that his or her work will be poses to confirm the work complies with regulations
reviewed. There is no need for the reviewing engineer and standards. Since the review is initiated by someone
to notify the design engineer if the review process is other than the employer or client, the review does not
explicitly stated as company policy. interfere with the professional relationship and article
77.7.ii. does not apply.
However, it might happen that one engineer is asked to
review the work of another, even though a review process • Confidentiality. Practitioners must consider themselves
is not part of the organization’s standard procedures. at all times to be engaged in a professional relationship
This might happen if people in the firm are concerned with their clients and employers. A professional rela-
about the work of that engineer or because the project is tionship is built on trust and requires practitioners to
a difficult one and the organization is being cautious. In comport themselves in ways that are conducive to gain-
cases like these, because the review is not a standard pro- ing and maintaining that trust. This duty is expressed
cedure, the authoring engineer must be notified. in section 77.3, O. Reg. 941:

A client who has retained a professional engineering firm A practitioner shall act in professional engineering matters
to provide engineering services might hire a second firm for each employer as a faithful agent or trustee and shall
to check the work of the first firm because the client: regard as confidential information obtained by the practitio-
ner as to the business affairs, technical methods or processes
(a) is required by law to have a practice review done (as
of an employer and avoid or disclose a conflict of interest
is the case for much environmental work);
that might influence the practitioner’s actions or judgment.
(b) wants to be assured the work is the best possible for its
needs and, therefore, is doing a form of quality assur- A reviewer should not communicate directly with
ance; an authoring engineer or any other person regarding
(c) is unsure of the quality of the practitioner’s work the review unless he or she has sought and obtained
and wants a review done to settle that question; or permission from the client or employer. Reviewers’ con-
(d) is commencing a lawsuit against the authoring engi- tractual obligations are to their clients or employers; the
neer and needs a review to obtain an expert opinion review report should be submitted only to them. In the
to support the claim. absence of serious safety concerns, there is no obligation

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 15
 for reviewers to disclose their findings to an authoring assessments of other engineers’ work only on the basis of
engineer or anyone else after the review has been com- sound assessments of their own abilities.
pleted. Disclosure of the findings should take place only
• Fairness. According to article 77.1.i, O. Reg. 941,
if allowed or requested by the client.
practitioners have a duty “to act at all times with fair-
The usual practice for regulatory reviews is to have the ness” to their associates, including other members of
reviewing engineer communicate directly with the author- the profession. Fairness is the principle that must guide
ing engineer to resolve concerns raised during the review any person who has discretion about the distribution of
process or to make recommendations regarding means to burdens and benefits among people in a group. In the
comply with regulatory standards. This is acceptable prac- case of a review, practitioners have freedom to make
tice if an authoring engineer’s client is aware beforehand opinions about the work. Those opinions may benefit
that this communication will take place. The authoring or burden the client, authoring engineer or other par-
engineer should consider notifying the client of the sub- ties in various ways, depending on the nature of the
stance of any communication. opinion and the consequences created by the opinion.

Any information received from an authoring engineer, A reviewing engineer must not make statements or
especially proprietary information such as trade secrets, allow publication of all or any part of a review report
must also be treated as confidential disclosures. To in a manner that might be considered detrimental to
avoid an allegation about plagiarizing or appropriating the reputation, professional status or financial interests
innovative ideas or private commercial information, a of an authoring engineer for malicious reasons. The
reviewer’s best protection is to be conscientious about reviewing engineer must not participate in any such
relying, even unconsciously, on the reviewed work activity at the request of the client or employer unless
in future projects undertaken by the reviewer. The publication of the report is required by freedom of
possibility for these charges can be reduced by either information or other legislation.
returning all information received from the authoring
However, the duty of fairness does not prohibit a pro-
engineer or, if a copy needs to be kept for account-
fessional engineer from reporting facts or expressing an
ability purposes, storing it in a place where it cannot
honest opinion that might have a negative consequence
be easily retrieved. If a reviewer is working on a proj-
on another practitioner or the client. Occasionally, a
ect similar or related to that to be reviewed, he or she
reviewing engineer may be called to provide testimony
should consider declining to do the review if accepting
based on the review on behalf of the client or employer
the assignment could lead to concerns that the reviewer
in a court action against the authoring engineer. When
might violate confidentiality.
called to do so, the reviewing engineer should provide
• Good faith. Article 77.7.i, O.Reg. 941, sets out an this testimony in accordance with articles 77.2.iii and
obligation for all practitioners to “act towards other 77.8 of O. Reg. 941. Any practitioner called to appear
practitioners with courtesy and good faith”. Acting in before a tribunal or court to provide an opinion on
good faith refers to being motivated by one’s convic- work carried out by another professional engineer
tion as to the truth of one’s opinions or the rightness of should consult the guideline The Professional Engineer as
one’s actions. For a practitioner providing professional an Expert Witness for guidance on the proper role and
engineering services, compliance with the Code of Eth- professional conduct in providing this service.
ics determines the rightness of an action. Assessments
All practitioners have a duty to the public and the
regarding the truth of one’s opinions are a personal mat-
profession to report to PEO situations where there is a
ter grounded in the make-up of an individual’s character.
possibility that practitioners might be acting in a man-
Every practitioner must be realistic about their own judg-
ner that is incompetent or negligent. If a reviewer finds
ments and confident that the exercise of their knowledge
the work under review is of such unprofessional qual-
and skills generally leads to reliable results while allowing
ity that the reviewer believes the authoring engineer is
for the possibility of error. Practitioners can make good
practising professional engineering in a manner that is

16 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

 not conducive to the public interest, the reviewer must obligations to avoid conflict with a client or employer’s
inform PEO. interests, in the case of review, a reviewer should also
consider, out of an abundance of caution and an obliga-
• Conflict of interest. Another problem that might arise
tion of professional fairness, any potential for conflict
when providing professional services is a relationship
with an authoring engineer’s interests. Specifically, prac-
between a practitioner and one or more parties that
titioners subject to review might have concerns about
could be perceived as a conflict of interest. The main
the neutrality of the reviewer, since he or she is selected
feature of a conflict of interest is a conflict between two
by the client or employer. An authoring engineer should
or more competing interests and a duty of the practitio-
know who has retained a reviewer and whether the rela-
ner. A conflict of interest arises when a practitioner has
tionship between the reviewer and that person can in
difficulty discharging his or her duties to another per-
any way taint the objectivity of the reviewer. A reviewer
son whose interests can be affected by the practitioner’s
should avoid any suspicion that he or she was chosen
actions. The conflict occurs when either the practitio-
because of a known and pre-existing view on an issue or
ner or a third party have interests that, to be realized,
because the reviewer hoped to gain a benefit, other than
require the practitioner to ignore or subordinate the
a fee for service, from a client. These recommendations
other person’s interests. Ignoring or subordinating that
apply only in those cases where an authoring engineer
person’s interests would be a violation of the prac-
must be notified about the review.
titioner’s duty. Generally, the duty that needs to be
protected is a duty owed by the practitioner to the cli- According to article 72(2)(i).5, O. Reg. 941, one
ent or employer; however, practitioners have duties to particular act that could be construed as a conflict of
many other people, including other practitioners, which interest is “expressing opinions or making statements
can also be threatened by conflicting interests. concerning matters within the practice of professional
engineering of public interest where the opinions or
Sections 77.2.i, 77.3 and 77.4 of O. Reg. 941 deal with
statements are inspired or paid for by other interests”.
an engineer’s responsibility to avoid situations of real
Of course, in the case of a professional engineer hired
or perceived conflict of interest. The general principle
to review another practitioner’s work, the reviewing
regarding a practitioner’s obligations in such situations
engineer provides opinions and, in return for these
is given in section 77.4:
opinions, is paid by another party. It is possible that
A practitioner must disclose immediately to the practitioner’s people, including an authoring engineer, might perceive
client any interest, direct or indirect, that might be con- a reviewer as being involved in a conflict of interest.
strued as prejudicial in any way to the professional judgment The issue boils down to whether a professional engineer
of the practitioner in rendering service to the client. is providing his or her own opinion or whether he or
she is simply providing the opinion desired by a client.
Note that according to the Professional Engineers Act,
the misconduct is a result of failing to tell all the par- An authoring engineer or others might also presume that
ties about an interest that conflicts, or may appear to a reviewer has a commercial conflict of interest if the
conflict, with a duty; this implies that the existence reviewer is retained by a client to replace the authoring
of conflicting interests is not in itself an unethical or engineer. To avoid an allegation of stealing a client, a
illegal act. For this reason, a reviewer should notify a reviewer should never do anything that might be viewed
client, before beginning the review, of any pre-existing as soliciting work during the review process. During the
relationship between the reviewer and the authoring review, the reviewer should immediately halt any conver-
engineer. These relationships will not necessarily dis- sation or other communication suggesting the reviewer
qualify the practitioner from taking on the assignment, might be retained by the client to replace the authoring
but that decision should be left with the client. engineer, unless the relationship between the client and
the authoring engineer has already been terminated. In
Though the code of ethics and misconduct provisions
most contexts, a reviewer should simply decline to accept
of O. Reg. 941 deal specifically with a practitioner’s
any work related to the work under review.

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 17
 Reviewers must recognize the potential for creating out instructions only within the mandate given to them by
appearances of conflict of interest and ensure their a client or employer. Decisions are always made by clients
behaviour is, at all times, consistent with the limited or employers, unless they have delegated decision making
purpose of providing a review of a practitioner’s work. to the practitioner. If a client decides a reviewer’s recom-
Practitioners must conduct a review in accordance with mendations make the most sense and tells the first engineer
the Code of Ethics. to revise his or her work accordingly, the first engineer can
agree (if the engineer is convinced the recommendations are
6.5.2 Obligations of an authoring engineer
valid) or refuse and terminate involvement with the project
An authoring engineer must treat a reviewer with respect
if the client insists on implementing the proposed changes.
and cooperate with all reasonable requests made by the cli-
If either engineer believes refusing to accept his or her opin-
ent or the reviewing engineer. When asked to determine
ion will result in a health and safety issue, that engineer is
whether engineering work meets a professional standard, a
required under article 72(2)(f) to “present clearly … the
reviewing engineer is performing a legitimate and necessary
consequences to be expected.” However, the decision of
service. Practice review is an important feature of a self-reg-
how to proceed still rests with the client or employer (albeit,
ulating profession as it demonstrates that the profession can
without the participation of the professional engineer if the
place the public’s interests over the interests of its members.
safety issue is not properly addressed–in which case the pro-
When asked, an authoring engineer shall provide all requested fessional engineer may have a duty to report the concern to
information to a client or a reviewer, unless there are reason- an appropriate authority).
able grounds to refuse. Reasonable grounds include requests
Q: How much responsibility does a reviewing engineer take for
for information not directly related to the documents under
the reviewed work?
review, proprietary information that can commercially ben-
efit the reviewing engineer or client, confidentiality concerns A: None if the reviewing engineer does not change the
where there are different employers and personal information work in any way, and if recommendations for changes are
such as resumes and academic transcripts. given to the authoring engineering, who is allowed to inde-
pendently make the decision to incorporate the suggested
changes in the work. However, a reviewing engineer should
7. Questions and Answers be clear that the information provided in the review is not
The following questions from professional engineers and to be used by the client or employer for any other purpose
answers from PEO are intended to demonstrate how the than an appraisal of the authoring engineer’s work.
principles outlined in this guideline can be applied to spe-
Q: If a client makes a decision on the basis of a reviewing engi-
cific situations.
neer’s opinion, how responsible is the reviewer?
Q: Who decides on the proper course of action if an author-
A: Professional engineers are responsible for every opinion
ing engineer and a reviewing engineer disagree? Does the client
they provide. For that reason, practitioners should provide
have to hire a third engineer to make that decision?
opinions only on those matters for which clients or employ-
A: Choosing which of two professional opinions to accept ers have sought advice and, then, only if the practitioner has
is not an act of professional engineering and so can be done sufficient information to make an objective opinion.
by anyone. When a person obtains opinions from two dif-
Reviewing engineers should inform their clients or employ-
ferent doctors, that person is not practising medicine when
ers that opinions given in a review of another practitioner’s
the person make the decision to follow the advice given by
work are not intended as directions to the client, employer
one of the two or to ignore both. If both professionals agree,
or other party to make changes to the report or design.
a client has the choice to proceed or not. If the profession-
als disagree, a client can choose the option that is more Q: If a reviewing engineer goes beyond reviewing the work and
acceptable for the client’s requirements. It is still the profes- carries out tasks such as site investigation and testing, does this
sional’s responsibility to carry through with the work in a affect the reviewing engineer’s liability and responsibility?
professional manner. Professionals provide advice and carry

18 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

A: When reviewing another engineer’s work, a review- If the reviewer carries out testing, site inspection or other
ing engineer should deal only with the information in an engineering work, the reviewer is likely providing a second
authoring engineer’s documents. The reviewer should not opinion or preparing a new design. Reviewing engineers are
collect new data to redo the authoring engineer’s work. responsible and liable for this original work.

P r o f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r s O n t a r i o 19
Appendix 1: Amendment and Revision Submission Plan
Guideline:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Statement of proposed amendment or revision:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Reason:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Submitted by: __________________________________________________ Date: _______________________________

Mail: Professional Engineers Ontario

101-40 Sheppard Avenue West
Toronto ON M2N 6K9

Attention: José Vera, P.Eng., Guidelines and Standards Development Coordinator

Fax: (416) 224-1579 or (800) 268-0496

Email: practice-standards@ peo.on.ca

20 R eviewing Wor k P re pa re d by Anot he r P ro f e ssi o n a l E n g i n e e r

Appendix 2. PEO Professional Practice Guidelines and Standards
1. Acoustical Engineering Services in Land-Use Planning (1998)
2. Acting as Contract Employees (2001)
3. Acting as Independent Contractors (2001)
4. Acting under the Drainage Act (1988)
5. Building Projects Using Manufacturer-Designed Systems & Components (1999)
6. Commissioning Work in Buildings (1992)
7. Communications Services (1993)
8. Engineering Services to Municipalities (1986)
9. Environmental Site Assessment, Remediation and Management (1996)
10. General Review of Construction as Required by the Ontario Building Code (2008)
11. Geotechnical Engineering Services (1993)
12. Guideline to Professional Practice (1998)
13. Human Rights in Professional Practice (2009)
14. Land Development/Redevelopment Engineering Services (1994)
15. Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Services in Buildings (1997)
16. Professional Engineer as an Expert Witness (2011)
17. Professional Engineer’s Duty to Report (1991)
18. Project Management Services (1991)
19. Reports for Pre-Start Health and Safety Reviews (2001)
20. Reports on Mineral Properties (2002)
21. Reviewing Work Prepared by Another Professional Engineer (2011)
22. Roads, Bridges and Associated Facilities (1995)
23. Selection of Engineering Services (1998)
24. Services for Demolition of Buildings and other Structures (2011)
25. Solid Waste Management (1993)
26. Structural Engineering Services in Buildings (1995)
27. Temporary Works (1993)
28. Transportation and Traffic Engineering (1994)
29. Use of Agreements between Client and Engineer for Professional Engineering
Services (including sample agreement) (2000)
30. Use of Computer Software Tools Affecting Public Safety and Welfare (1993)
31. Use of the Professional Engineer’s Seal (2008)
32. Using Software-Based Engineering Tools (2011)

Performance Standards
1. General Review of Construction of a Building (2008)
2. General Review of Demolition and Demolition Plans (2008)
Published by the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario