INNOVATION March-April 2014

new s

Alberta Human Rights Commission Challenges Treatment of Internationally Trained Engineers

The Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) made a landmark challenge to the engineering profession’s treatment of internationally trained applicants in February ( Mihaly v. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta, 2014 AHRC 1). Mr. Mihaly filed a complaint with the AHRC in 2008, alleging that he was discriminated against by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA) when he was denied registration as a professional engineer. Mr. Mihaly, an internationally trained engineer from Czechoslovakia, had applied to APEGA in 1999. APEGA reviewed his academic background and experience to ascertain whether the standard set of three confirmatory technical examinations plus an examination or course

The AHRC ordered APEGA to conduct a detailed review of Mr. Mihaly’s academic qualifications in consultation with the institutions from which he graduated, his refer- ences and a panel of professional engineers that includes internationally trained engineers. It also ordered APEGA to provide mentoring, networking and English language training resources to Mr. Mihaly. It further made recom- mendations that APEGA look at ways to individually assess applicants, such as interviews; consider alternative options for the Professional Practice Examination, such as pre-examination training; and look to find alternative ways for applicants to meet the requirements for one year of Canadian experience other than the one year at a pre- scribed level of experience. APEGA is appealing the AHRC

in engineering economics that would normally be assigned to an applicant with his academic qualifications could be waived based on the combination of his academic background and experience. Confirmatory examinations are normally assigned by many Canadian engineering regulators to internationally educated applicants whose degrees are not recognized as “substantially equivalent” to a Canadian accredited degree via Mutual Recognition Agreements

decision, which has engendered a range of reactions from interest to outrage in several quarters, including the media, government and the self-regulating pro- fessions in Canada, who are monitoring with interest the outcome of APEGA’s appeal of the decision. APEGBC has studied the AHRC decision with respect to the aspects that may create opportunities for APEGBC in its ongoing review of its registration requirements, evaluation tools and sup- ports offered to applicants. APEGBC is currently facilitating a national project, funded by the BC Ministry of Jobs, Tourism and Skills Training to examine the Canadian Environment

Approximately 82% of APEGBC’s 400 annual internationally trained applicants are not required to write technical

with engineering accrediting bodies, currently in 16 countries. Applicants normally may choose examinations in their area of practice strength from a list of topics in their chosen discipline. Concluding the review, Mr. Mihaly was assigned the examinations, which he did not attempt. He did attempt the Professional Practice (Law and Ethics) examination that is a requirement for all applicants, but failed it three times. APEGA had also determined that his work in Canada had been at a technician level and therefore did not satisfy the experience requirement that one year of the four required for registration be in a Canadian environment and address certain criteria. Mr. Mihaly had subsequently either been out of work or had worked in jobs that required a high school education. Among its findings, the AHRC stated that: “Mr. Mihaly… has established a prima facie case that APEGA discriminated against him in the area of services and membership in an occupational association, on the ground of place of origin.” It also found that, “The process that was used did not appropriately individually assess Mr. Mihaly’s qualifications” and “…There was no meaningful exploration of options by APEGA that may have both assisted Mr. Mihaly and met APEGA’s standards for competency and safety.” It awarded general damages of $10,000 to Mr. Mihaly.

confirmatory examinations

experience requirement. It has also recently launched a self-assessment tool (which can be found at engtechinbc. ca) so that prospective applicants can determine how their qualifications will be treated before they make an applica- tion for registration. Approximately 82% of APEGBC’s 400 annual inter- nationally trained applicants are not required to write technical confirmatory examinations, which are waived after an assessment that frequently includes an interview or expedited acceptance based on academic background coupled with references and experience. Through APEGBC’s frequent outreach to internationally trained engineers and employers, it has become clear that a P.Eng., EIT or provisional membership designation is not an automatic guarantee of engineering employment. Employers do not only look for engineering competence, but take into account interpersonal attributes, peer references and good “fit” regardless of whether an individual has a P.Eng. designation. For more information about this specific case, please visit canlii.org/en/ab/abhrc.

17

M a r ch/A p r i l 2 014

i n n o v a t i o n