FACC 400 – Winter 2017

Lecture 4
Laws & Regulations Governing the Engineering Practice

1
What is governing the engineering
professional practice?

Regulations

Acts – Laws-
Statutes

Codes
A Code
ž is a foundational set of legal rules and
principles
Art. 1457, paragraph 1, of the Civil code of Quebec:
Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct
which lie upon him, according to the circumstances,
usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.

Professional Code:
23. The principle function of each order shall be to ensure the
protection of the public.
For this purpose it must in particular supervise the practice
of the profession by its members
A Law
ž is a statement of general rules and
principles on a particular subject matter

Engineers Act, section 3:

3. The practice of the engineering profession consists in
performing for another any of the following acts, when they relate
to the works mentioned in section 2:
(a) the giving of consultations and opinions;
(b) the making of measurements, of layouts, the preparation of
reports, computations, designs, drawings, plans, specifications;
(c) the inspection or supervision of the works.

LAW STATUTE ACT

A regulation
ž is a statement of rules and principles
specific to a Law
Although it is called a code, this
is a regulation providing details
for the application of the
Engineers Act (law).

Code of ethics of Engineers, section 2.1:

2.1 In all aspects of his work, the engineer must respect
his obligations towards man and take into account the
consequences of the performance of his work on the
environment and on the life, health and property of
every person.
A regulation…
Code of ethics of Engineers
Art. 3.08.04. An engineer must give his client all
the necessary explanations for the understanding
of his statement of fees and the terms and
conditions of its payment.

Art. 5.01.09. An engineer shall keep a copy of all

advertising for a period of 3 years following the
date of its last broadcast or publication. On request,
this copy shall be given to the syndic.
Example 1

REGULATIONS
– Code of ethics
of Engineers

LAW -
Engineers Act

CODE -
Professional
Code
Example 2

Regulation
respecting
building permit
Code of Ethics of engineers information

Act Respecting OTHERS are:

Land use and Charter of Montreal,
Professional Code &

Planning Charter of Quebec,

Development Watercourses Act, other
Acts as appropriate

Civil Code of
Quebec
 Different consequences of not
complying
Civil Code of Quebec
art. 1457 para 1. Every person has a
duty to abide by the rules of conduct
which lie upon him, according to the
circumstances, usage or law, so as
not to cause injury to another.
Code of ethics of engineers
(Regulation)
2.1. In all aspects of his work, the
engineer must respect his
obligations towards man and take
into account the consequences of
the performance of his work on the
environment and on the life, health
and property of every person.
• CIVIL LAW: The wrongdoer has the duty to place
the victim back in its original position (duty to
repair)
• Art. 1457, para. 2: Where he is endowed with reason and
fails in this duty, he is responsible for any injury he causes
to another person by such fault and is liable to reparation
for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in
nature.
• PROFESSIONAL DEONTOLOGY: Rules
governing a profession.
• Complaint to the Syndic (by virtue of the
Professional code) and sanctions
http://www.oiq.qc.ca/en/recourses/lodgingCom
plaint/Pages/officeSyndic.aspx
Do you think there is a difference
between the liability incurred by a
engineer v a non-engineer employee?
A. Yes 75%

B. No
C. It depends on the
situation 13% 13%

Yes No It depends
on the
situation

10
Principle of liability
Watch the online video until 2 min 34 secondes
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-vicarious-liability-definition-and-examples.html

• Vicarious liability
• Employer – employee relationship: The employer is
responsible for the actions of his employees if the action
cause injury/damage to a party to which the employer
owes duty of care and if:
– The act or action occurred while the employee was at the
workplace and within the hours of the employee’s schedule
– The employer must have employed the employee at the time
of the incident
– The injury or damage was a result of the act or actions of the
employee in the capacity the employee was hired
Edgeworth Construction v Lea & Associates.
[1993] 3 S.C.R. 206
Lea & Associates
British Columbia
L
The drawings and
specs were wrong
and Edgeworth
Construction lost
Contracted by BC to money on the job
prepare the drawings
Hired a consulting
firm to prepare Edgeworth
drawings and a Construction
contractor to build
the road

Clause in the tender document from BC for the

the construction companies
“Any representations in the tender documents
are furnished merely for the general information
of bidders and [were] not in anywise warranted Contracted by BC to
or guaranteed by or on behalf of the Minister…” build the road
Who is liable in the Edgeworth
Construction v Lea & Associates case?

A. BC
B. LEA 38%
31%
C. The Engineer 14%
13%
D. LEA and the 5%

Engineer
E. All of them

13
Positions of the parties involved
Edgeworth
Construction
• LEA prepared the information and
Edgeworth relied on that
information
• Drawings and Specifications were
wrong, the engineer posed his
seal and Edgeworth relied on that
information
• Lost money must be
compensated by Lea or the
engineer (BC not possible
because of Clause 42)
Lea & Associates Engineer
• Edgeworth has a contract with BC, • Seal only attests that a qualified
not them; engineer prepared the drawings
• Specs and drawings were
incorporated in BC’s tender
package and that converted the
representations from one made by
LEA to one made by BC
• LEA is thus not liable
 Reasoning
• Clause 42 only protects BC
• Negligent misrepresentation test
• A person makes a representation knowing that
another may rely on it
• And the plaintiff in fact relies on the representation
to its detriment
• LEA knew that bidders would rely on their
representations
• Edgeworth did rely on the representations

Holding otherwise would entail that Edgeworth would have had to redo
the engineering work for itself (duplication of effort, higher bid price)
 Reasoning #1
• Clause 42 only protects BC
• The engineer’s seal attests
that an engineer prepared
the drawings
• It does not guarantee
accuracy
Based on the negligent misrepresentation test, the engineer was not liable
Reasoning #2
• Clause 42 only protects BC
• Vicarious liability does not
absolve the engineers
• The engineers’ liability is not
triggered because
Edgeworth did not prove that
it relied on the particular
expertise of any individual
engineer
• The presence of the seal
does not indicate personal
reliance
• Edgeworth relied on LEA, not
on any particular engineer
Do you think there is a difference
between the liability incurred by a
engineer v a non-engineer employee?
A. Yes 66%

B. No
C. It depends on the 28%
situation
6%

Yes No It depends
on the
situation

17
Principles of liability
Do you think there is a difference between the
liability incurred by a engineer v a non-engineer
employee?
ž When an engineer performs non-engineering
related work, NO
ž When an engineer performs engineering
related work, YES or at least could be
depending on the facts