REGULATORY
3. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall conduct themselves with integrity, honesty, fairness and objectivity in their professional activities. 5. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall uphold and enhance the honour, dignity and reputation of their professions and thus the ability of the professions to serve the public interest. Third-party reviewing can be seen as a means of fulfilling the overarching imperative to hold paramount the welfare of the public. The approach taken in a third-party review must still demonstrate fairness and objectivity, however, and be carried out in a way that enhances the honour and dignity of the professions. There is often no single way that a particular design may be implemented, and licensed professionals are expected to be innovative in producing effective, safe, and economically viable designs. This means a given problem may be solved through a variety of approaches, and individual licensed professionals may disagree on the best one or how details are implemented. In a single workplace, those disagreements are usu- ally worked out through discussion and debate, options analysis, and cost-benefit analysis, leading to an opti- mal design. In third-party review, APEGA expects that a similar process is followed, meaning that the original creators and the third-party reviewers need to com- municate with each other, particularly if the reviewer is planning on providing their client with critical comments concerning the final professional work product. APEGA has produced a guideline to assist licensed professionals in understanding how third-party reviews should be conducted. The Guideline for Ethical Practice is available on the APEGA website in the Publications area. Section 4.5.3 of the guideline provides detail on how reviewing other professionals’ work should be car- ried out. Reviews should: • only be undertaken with the knowledge of the licensed professionals who originally prepared the work products • only be undertaken after communication with the originators, to ensure the reviewer is apprised of all relevant information • feature open communication between the reviewer and the originator, continuing through the review process. This allows the reviewer to be apprised of
underlying assumptions and gives the originator a chance to respond to comments and criticisms • never call into question the competence or professionalism of another licensed professional, without the reviewer having first consulted the licensed professional to determine the facts of the case and the reasoning behind particular decisions There are exceptions. A review undertaken in a legal process (for example, a rebuttal report prepared in a forensic context, especially when litigation is expected) may be cloaked with client-solicitor privilege. Licensed professionals involved in those reviews should seek the advice of legal counsel and APEGA if there are any concerns. Other circumstances may exist involving propri- etary or trade secrets in the work product. A client’s interests may be damaged if this information becomes known, or if confidential processes are discussed in detail. This could be the case in a review of reservoir reporting, for example. Even when a third-party reviewer is unable to contact the original author of the work, APEGA expects the reviewer to act in accordance with the Code of Ethics . The report resulting from a third-party review should never include: • personal attacks on other professionals • direct or indirect suggestions that the original authors were unprofessional • direct or indirect suggestions that the original authors had limited competence It is also expected that the original author be informed by the client or through other means that a third-party review is taking place. If a third-party review uncovers work which may reflect negligent, unprofessional or unskilled practice, there is an onus on the reviewer to also make a complaint to APEGA. This is required of all licensed professionals by the first rule of the Code of Ethics , as our obligation to protect the public welfare is shared by all members of our professions. Third-party reviewers should be clear when contracted that they may be obliged to file a complaint with APEGA. If you have any questions concerning this or any other professional practice matter, please contact us at professionalpractice@apega.ca.
SPRING 2019 PEG | 45
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker