may 2009 issue

Home > Members > Publications > The PEGG > May 2009

Professional Practice & Ethics Corner

APEGGA members with professional practice or ethics questions are welcome to mail them to Ray Chopiuk, P.Eng., Director, Professional Practice, APEGGA, 1500 Scotia One, 10060 Jasper AVE NW, Edmonton, AB T5J 4A2; fax them to 780-426-1877; or e-mail them to rchopiuk@apegga.org.

Q I have a question regarding the authentication of documents. I recently ran into a situation with a city building permit application that included a paper copy of a letter that I prepared and had sent to my client. The letter contained my seal and signature. The city refused my document as my seal was undated, even though the letter was.

I have reviewed APEGGA’s Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents and am wondering if, perhaps, I am interpreting something incorrectly. Section 3.1 is clear on how a document is to be authenticated — stamp, signature and date. I understand that part. My belief is that the section applies more to drawings and specifications than it does letters or reports.
Am I missing something here?

A The General Regulation under the Engineering, Geological and Geophysical Professions Act outlines the requirements for stamping or sealing of final documents of a professional nature. Section 54(3) of the regulations says that, “When a stamp or seal is applied, the professional member or licensee to whom it was issued shall ensure that the stamp or seal is accompanied with the person’s signature and the date on which the stamp or seal is applied.”

With respect to showing the date, section 3.1 of the Practice Standard for Authenticating Professional Documents, www.apegga.org/pdf/Guidelines/26.pdf, says, among other things, that “the date should appear below the stamp.”

The reason the Practice Standards Committee included that clarification was because a printed date that may appear elsewhere on a document is not necessarily the date on which the member actually stamped the document. In that sense, the practice standard refines the date requirement. The practice standard would apply equally to letters or other documents because the regulations themselves do not differentiate between, or limit, the various forms that documents of a professional nature might take. The city may well have been following the practice standard when it refused to accept your document.

In the case of a letter, you might argue that the letter is already dated at the top, so why should you date it again at the bottom, underneath your stamp? That argument could make sense. However, letters occasionally contain the stamps and signatures more than one professional member. It is quite possible that either, or both, of the individuals did not stamp the letter on the date that it was prepared. In such an instance, simply showing the date at the top of the letter would be non-compliant since the regulations require that the stamp be accompanied with the date “on which the stamp or seal is applied.”

Because of the different scenarios that are possible, the practice standard puts forward a single procedure: the date on which the stamp is applied should appear “below the stamp and it shall be in a format that is not ambiguous.” That covers all scenarios without being burdensome.

If you can’t persuade the city that the date of the letter is the date on which you applied the stamp, and if the city continues to refuse to accept the letter, you might need to retrieve the original and date the stamp on it or reissue the letter, applying the date next to the stamp in accordance with the practice standard.

Hindsight is 20/20, but future problems can be avoided simply by putting the date of authentication under the stamp at the time you apply your stamp to any documents.