VISION, MISSION & MANDATE Vision: highest levels and ... open-redu.pdf · Council Meeting of...

VISION, MISSION & MANDATE

Vision:

An Ontario in which architects are valued contributors to society, by creating a safe and healthy built environment that performs at the highest levels and elevates the human spirit.

Mission:

To serve the public interest through the regulation, support, and promotion of the profession of architecture in Ontario.

Mandate:

To regulate and govern the practice of architecture in Ontario in the service and protection of the public interest in accordance with the Architects Act, its Regulations and Bylaws; to develop and uphold standards of skill, knowledge, qualification, practice, and professional ethics among architects; and to promote the appreciation of architecture within the broader society.

May 2016

Ontario Association of Architects – Decision Making Logic Model

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Redefine the Project

TRASH

Results / Outcome

Professional Standards

Protecting the Public

Resources Inputs Areas of Intervention

Strategic Impact

Educate

Sustainable Objectives

Fair fees and process

Staffing Members / Committees

Practice Regulate

Funding/ Budget

Council Regulatory Public Safety

Assign Tasks

Execute

Evaluate Analyse

Public Outreach

Council Staff Communications Support

Time / Schedule

Outside consultants

Government Relations - Policy

Government Education Represent

Committee / volunteers

Allied organizations

Administration Promote/ Advocate

NO

Proceed / Implement

Input through Model

NO NO NO NO

Delay Project?

OAA COUNCIL MEETINGS

RULES AND PROCEDURES

Meetings of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA) are conducted in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order which is included in the Councillor Orientation Binder, unless stipulated otherwise with the by-laws or as otherwise approved by OAA Council – see below.

Rules and Procedures for Discussion/Debate/Motions within Council Meetings

1) The maximum time for a speech in debate on a motion is two minutes.

2) The Chair shall keep a speakers’ list of those wishing to speak to a motion; and

a) the speakers’ list shall be built in the order that the Chair notes a member’s intention to speak; and

b) any member having not spoken to a motion shall be given preference on the speakers’ list over any member who has already spoken to the motion.

3) An original main motion may only be introduced at a meeting if it has been added under New Business to the agenda approved for that meeting.

4) An item For Information Only which no Council member indicates will be the subject of a question or an original main motion is considered to be dispensed upon approval of the agenda for that meeting.

5) The meeting will move to a period of informal discussion immediately after a new item has been presented and any questions on the item have been put and answered, but before an original main motion on the item is introduced; and

a) a period of informal discussion is defined as the opportunity to discuss an item without there being a motion on the floor; and

b) the Chair of the meeting when the item is introduced continues as the Chair during the period of informal discussion unless he or she chooses to relinquish the Chair; and

c) in a period of informal discussion the regular rules of debate are suspended; and

d) a period of informal discussion ceases when the Chair notes that no additional members wish to speak to the item or when an incidental motion to return to the regular rules of debate passes with a majority; and

e) immediately upon leaving a period of informal discussion, the presenter of the item may move an original main motion on the item and the formal rules of debate resume; and

f) if the presenter of the item moves no motion on the item then the item is considered dispensed unless an indication to introduce additional original main motions on the item is on the agenda, in which case each of these motions is presented in turn and debated as per the rules of formal debate.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS Council Meeting of November 2, 2017 at approx. 11:00 a.m.

Meeting # 249

O P E N M E E T I N G A G E N D A

1.0 AGENDA APPROVAL 1.1 Recognition of Traditional Lands 1.2 Declaration re. Conflict of Interest 2.0 APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.1 Draft minutes of the September 14, 2017 Open Council Meeting (see attached) 3.0 BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

4.0 ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL 4.1 Election of Life Members (see attached) Vice President Cline

4.2 Recognition of Members of Long Standing (see attached) Vice President Cline

4.3 OAA Challenge Program Proposal - Budget (see attached) Vice President Fong

4.4 Sponsorship Request – 2018 Venice Biennale (see attached) Executive Director

4.5 Sponsorship Request from the Building Equality in Architecture Tomorrow (BEAT) (see attached)

SVP & Treasurer

4.6 Request for Sponsorship – The Right Angle (see attached) President

4.7 Communications Committee – Website Review Brief Budget (see attached) Vice President Fong 4.8 Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) – Sub-committee on the

Future of the Profession Budget Request (see attached) President

4.9 Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) – National Canadian

Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Standing Committee Budget Request (see attached)

President

4.10 Draft OAA Operating and Capital Budget 2018 (refer to separate document) SVP and Treasurer 5.0 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS 5.1 Report from the President

5.1.a Activities for the months of September- November (see attached) 5.1.b Report from Executive Director (see attached) 5.1.c Building Committee Report (see attached)

President

Executive Director

OAA Building Committee 5.2 Report from the Senior Vice President and Treasurer (oral) SVP and Treasurer 5.3 Report from Vice President Strategic

5.3.a Report from Vice President Strategic (see attached) 5.3.b Update re. City of Toronto Zoning By-law and Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Appeal (see attached) 5.3.c Housing Affordability (see attached)

Vice President Rich

Councillor Sharp

Councillor Sin

Open Council Agenda

5.4 Report from Vice President Communications 5.4.a Report from the Communications Committee (see attached) 5.4.b Report from the Sustainable Built Environment Committee (see attached)

Vice President Fong

Councillor Sharp

5.5 Report from Vice President Regulatory Activities 5.5.a Report from the Registrar (see attached)

Vice President Cline

5.6 Report from Vice President Practice 5.6.a Report from Vice President Practice (see attached)

Vice President Derhak

6.0 ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION

7.0 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

7.1 Update re. Meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities – October 16, 2017, Montreal, Quebec (see attached)

Executive Director

7.2 Update re. World Design Summit – October 16-24, 2017, Montreal, Quebec (see attached)

President

7.3 Society Chairs Workshop Update – September 15, 2017 (see attached) President

7.4 Ontario Association for Applied Architectural Sciences (OAAAS) Newsletter (see attached)

OAAAS Executive Director

8.0 OTHER BUSINESS 9.0 DATE OF NEXT MEETING

9.1 The next regular meeting of Council is Friday December 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at 1 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto, Ontario.

10.0 ADJOURNMENT

Ontario Association of Architects Meeting #248 Open MINUTES September 14, 2017 The two hundred and forty-eighth meeting of the Council of the Ontario Association of Architects, held under the Architects Act, took place on Thursday September 14, 2017 at the OAA Headquarters, Toronto, Ontario. Present: John Stephenson President

Kathleen Kurtin Senior Vice President & Treasurer Barry Cline Vice President Regulatory Walter Derhak Vice President Practice Toon Dreessen Immediate Past President Vanessa Fong Vice President Communications David C. Rich Vice President Strategic Mazen Alkhaddam Councillor Donald Ardiel Councillor J. Gordon Erskine Councillor Gordon Hunt Councillor Ken Jennings Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee (part attendance) Jeffrey Laberge Councillor (part attendance) Michelle Longlade Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Elaine Mintz Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Sheena Sharp Councillor (part attendance) Andre Sherman Councillor (part attendance) David Sin Councillor Robert Sirman Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee (part attendance) Magid Youssef Councillor Nedra Brown Registrar Kristi Doyle Executive Director Marcia Cooper Communications Specialist Tina Carfa Executive Assistant, Executive Services

Regrets: Wayne Medford Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee Guests: Bill Birdsell Past President (part attendance) David Craddock Past President (part attendance) Tamara King Administrator, Website & Communications (part attendance) Christie Mills Assistant, Regulatory (part attendance) Melanie Walsh Adminstrator, Finance and IT (part attendance) The President called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. The President recited the following acknowledgement that the Council meeting was being held on indigenous land:

“I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land on which we are meeting is the traditional territory of the Iroquois/Haudenosaunee, the Métis, and the Huron-Wendy peoples and most recently, the territory of the Mississaugas of the New Credit First Nation. The territory was the subject of the Dish With One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy, the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. This territory is also covered by the Upper Canada Treaties.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 2 of 13

Today, the meeting place of Toronto (form the Haudenosaunee word ‘Tkaronto’) is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in this territory. Of special interest is that Moatfield is also the location of an ossuary or gravesite near today’s Leslie Street and Highway 401 that was rediscovered in 1997 during the expansion of a soccer field. The bones of 90 people were found there and then relocated to a secret location in the general area of the original gravesite.”

DECLARATION RE CONFLICT OF INTEREST The President called for declaration of any conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest was declared with respect to discussion declared with respect to the RAIC’s update of the Canadian Handbook of Practice (CHOP). AGENDA APPROVAL 8329. The President noted that the following items would be added to the agenda: 8.2 Sponsorship of the Moriyama International Prize – Student component 8.3 Venice Biennale 2018 It was moved by Dreessen and seconded by Alkhaddam that the agenda be approved as amended. -- CARRIED APPROVAL OF MINUTES 8330. Reference Material Reviewed: Draft minutes of the June 22, 2017 Open Council meeting. The draft minutes of the June 22, 2017 Open Council meeting were reviewed. It was moved by Laberge and seconded by Cline that the minutes of the June 22, 2017 Open Council meeting be approved as circulated. -- CARRIED BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES 8331. There was no business arising from the minutes. ITEMS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL 8332. Reference Material Reviewed: 2018 draft Council Meeting Dates (APPENDIX ‘A’) A member of Council suggested that the December Council meeting in 2018 be moved to Friday December 14. A Council member requested that the tentative date of Friday September 14, 2018 be set aside for a fall Society Chairs Workshop. Council approved the 2018 Council meeting dates as amended. -- CARRIED

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 3 of 13 8333. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Chair, Awards Steering Committee and Lieutenant Governor in Council Appointee, Robert Sirman dated August 21, 2017 re. Recommendations for the OAA Awards Program and attached supporting documentation. (APPENDIX ‘B’) The Committee Chair reported on the recommendations of the Committee. Once approved there is a significant amount of communications planned around the changes starting in October. It was noted by the Committee Chair that currently there are many heritage awards and for that reason, the Landmark Award is being sunset. In addition, sunset of the sustainability award is also recommended since it will now be a foundational criteria for all design excellence awards. The Committee Chair indicated that the concepts award is to be sunset in its current form and a new Challenge Award introduced in its place. The Committee Chair noted that the Awards program will now take place in a two-year cycle with design awards and career achievement celebrated in even years and the inducement award in odd years. Annually, at the AGM, the service and leadership awards will be given. A Council member enquired as to whether the DaVinci and G. Randy Roberts Awards were to be merged. The Committee Chair responded that a decision with respect to future treatment of those awards will be deferred to a later date for consideration. A member of Council enquired as to how the minimum base with respect to measuring sustainability will be set. A Council member responded that further to the Committee discussions with the Sustainable Built Environments Committee (SBEC), it was determined that depending on the item, the metrics would be adjusted accordingly. It was suggested by a member of Council that since the importance varies depending on the project, the criteria must have some flexibility. A Council member suggested that a declaration of the building’s performance be mandatory in the submission. A member of Council enquired as to how this proposed cycle would mesh with the Conference cycle. The Chair of the Committee responded that it is possible to decide that the awards do not always need to be celebrated at the Conference. There will be a need to consider the relationship between Conference and the Awards. A Council member suggested that since the inducement or challenge award is forward-thinking and since the emerging practice is a forward-looking award, perhaps amalgamating both to the same year would be appropriate. The Chair of the Committee reported and provided background on the challenge/inducement award. The consultant that reviewed the awards program pointed out that there seemed a case where awards fall into two categories. One looks back at the achievement of something that has been done whereas the other type of award is where a sponsor induces the community to perform something. It was indicated by the Chair of the Committee that for the inducement award, an issue would be set out that the OAA wishes for the architectural community to put thought into for a period of time. For example, the topic of reconciliation; how could the architectural profession address this with an architectural solution..

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 4 of 13 Mills left the meeting at 2:00pm. It was noted by the Chair of the Committee that not all built forms would necessarily be used but that the topic would filter through an architectural lens that eventually curates stronger proposals for educational opportunity. At the Conference, there may be 3-5 proposals set aside for a plenary session. This would strengthen the notion that architects are leaders who contribute to changing consciousness and not just the built form. The challenges in this type of award were highlighted by the Chair of the Committee:

1. The language is new to the OAA and the communications of the objectives would become more active and less passive.

2. The politics of the competition require effort such as inducing schools and practices to become involved.

3. Timelines – sufficient lead-time is required for people ranging from months to a year. 4. Selection of the issue 5. Communications programming implications (conference planning, ConEd, etc.)

The Chair of the Committee indicated that the outcome would likely be the need for an advisory group to spread the buy-in to professional practices. A group would be established who would be responsible for carrying the project through. A Council member noted that the current group now includes representation from schools, a former Executive Director of RAIC, a recipient of a past Emerging Practice Award, and longtime Honours and Awards Committee members. In addition, it would be beneficial to expand the group to include an intern architect. A Council member noted that the inducement award appears to demonstrate the value of “design thinking”. It was moved by Sirman and seconded by Dreessen that the recommendations from the Awards Steering Committee for the OAA Awards Program be approved as outlined in the report dated August 29, 2017 and as discussed during the September 14, 2017 Council meeting. -- CARRIED Past Presidents Bill Birdsell and David Craddock joined the meeting at 2:00pm. 8334. Reference Material Reviewed: E-mail from Past President, Bill Birdsell dated September 5, 2017 re. Deputation to Council Request. (APPENDIX ‘C’) The President welcomed Birdsell and Craddock to the meeting. Birdsell reported that the newly formed group titled the Built Environments Open Forum met several months ago to put together a new publication called The Right Angle. The publication is set to be distributed next week to 4,000 across the country. It was indicated by Birdsell that the Forum is requesting sponsorship from the OAA in the amount of $5,000. A website is established where a digital publication may be subscribed to at www.rightanglejournal.com. A member of Council enquired as to whether the journal is intended to be a not-for-profit magazine as well as what the cost would be to subscribe. Craddock responded to confirm it was not-for-profit, adding that Naylor will be the publisher for it. The publication is free and available in soft and hard copy. It is expected to be published quarterly.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 5 of 13 A member of Council enquired as to whether any other provincial associations have been approached since the publication is nationwide. Craddock confirmed that no other associations have been approached at this point. The $5,000 request is a one-time request, however, future requests and/or contributions going forward would be welcomed.will re-evaluate how the publication is received. A member of Council enquired as to what the relationship is being proposed with regards to the OAA logo and credit for sponsorship Birdsell responded that there will be a sponsors page in the publication. The President thanked Birdsell and Craddock for the presentation. Birdsell and Craddock left the meeting at 2:35pm. 8335. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated September 1, 2017 re. Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Annual Budget and attached supporting documentation. (APPENDIX ‘D’) Doyle reported that that the final budget for 2017 is attached for Council’s information noting that it had been altered during the year as a result of the review of the funding of the CACB via the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) and the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA). It was noted by Doyle that the new funding agreement has been signed and that the draft 2018 budget reflects the details of the agreement such that funding of the CACB is shared equally between the CALA jurisdictions and the schools of architecture. . As well it may be noted that the per capita funding has decreased for the coming year. It was moved by Youssef and seconded by Alkhaddam that the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Budget for 2018 be approved as circulated. -- CARRIED 8336. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from President, John Stephenson dated September 1, 2017 re. Consortium Business Models: Resources for Small Architectural Practices in Ontario: Final Report and attached supporting information. (APPENDIX ‘E’) The President reported that the final report would be shared with the Small Practices Information Forum (SPIF) during one of their meeting in the coming month. It was suggested by a member of Council that the report does not provide an answer to SPIF’s original request. The President responded that this report is Phase 1 toward achieving their goal. The Council member suggested that the report does not present a recommendation that would support what the group had originally wanted, nor does the existing legal framework for profession and practices allow for it. The President responded that the Forum is aware and today Council is being asked to receive the report. Walsh joined the meeting at 2:45pm.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 6 of 13 It was moved by Erskine and seconded by Ardiel that the report Consortium Business Models: Resources for Small Architectural Practices in Ontario – Final Report dated July 4, 2017 be received and next steps as described in the memorandum to Council be approved.. -- CARRIED 8337. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Conference Committee dated August 31, 2017 re. OAA Conference 2018 New Proposed Schedule. (APPENDIX ‘F’) A member of Council expressed appreciation for the new schedule. It was noted by a member of Council specifically that the Celebration of Excellence dinner has been eliminated and replaced by a party-type format. The President’s reception has now being held at the end of the Annual General Meeting. It was moved by Mintz and seconded by Jennings that the proposed schedule for the 2018 Conference be approved as circulated. -- CARRIED 8338. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Communications, Vanessa Fong dated August 31, 2017 re. OAA Renew + Refresh Communications Plan. (APPENDIX ‘G’) It was reported by the Vice President Communications that the OAA wants to be seen as a leader with respect to this project and therefore the communications should reflect that. The 2018 Budget will include some of the cost of the plan and some will be drawn from the 2017 policy contingency. The Vice President Communications noted that in this phase of communications the focus in on the technical elements of the project and the collection of content followed by a determination of how to disseminate the information later. A member of Council indicated that s/he did not see the value in the budget of incorporating a time-lapse camera in the building during the renovation. A Council member responded that the filming will capture many technical (ex. solar panels) and physical (ex. desks, meeting spaces) changes that will be of educational interest to members as well as others. It was noted by a Council member that during the renovation, there will be five tours of the facilities. It was confirmed that the tours are written into the contract documents. It was moved by Youssef and seconded by Fong that the budget for the 2017/18 implementation of Phase II of the Communications Plan for the OAA Headquarters Renew & Refresh project be approved as circulated. -- CARRIED 8339. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Practice, Walter Derhak dated September 7, 2017 re. SCOBCAR Draft submission re. Changes to Ontario Building Code (OBC) and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘H’) The Vice President Practice reported that the Sub-committee on Building Codes and Regulations (SCOBCAR) reviewed the proposed changes and felt that some were too speculative or onerous as well there appeared to be inconsistencies. It was suggested by a member of Council that there needs to be more charging stations for vehicles as opposed to advocating for less. The car industry is moving toward electric vehicles and there are nations who eventually will be completely eliminating gas-powered cars.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 7 of 13 A number of members of Council expressed some concern with the recommendation of SCOBCAR as well as the original recommendation that has been included in the consultation. After some discussion, Council agreed to removed comments within the Submission under items 3 (battery charging stations), 4 (structural upgrades) thus supporting the proposed changes, and under11 (accessibility), thus not supporting the recommendation for change. It was moved by Kurtin and seconded by Sharp that the Sub-committee on Building Codes and Regulations’ (SCOBCAR’s) submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs re proposed changes to the Ontario Building Code be approved as amended in order to support proposed changes 3 and 4; and, convey that the OAA does not support 11. -- CARRIED (1 abstention) 8340. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Practice, Walter Derhak dated September 1, 2017 re. Building Code Changes Relating to Elevator Availability for Accessibility and supporting background information. (APPENDIX ‘I’) The Vice President Practice reported that it is being recommended by OAA Practice Committee hat changes to the Building Code be made such that a building must have two as opposed to a single elevator as a matter of public safety. It was noted by a Council member that the Building Code currently does not outline any requirements for elevators in specific building and therefore this needs to be made clearer that where there is an elevator required, two should be included A Council member suggested that the wording be amended to require an additional elevator dependent on the size, type, and occupancy of the building. A member of Council noted in the Building Code that for a high-rise building, one elevator must be available for emergency services. Support was expressed by a member of Council to send the issue back to Practice Committee to take the recommendation to make the Building Code requirements more specific. The Vice President Practice indicated that the intention is to move the topic at a high level forward which can be made clearer in the draft letters. A member of Council suggested that the Practice Committee reconsider and reexpress the overarching goal as opposed to the mechanics. Action: Council directed the Vice President Practice return the letters to to Practice Committee to develop a redraft of the letters, incorporating Council’s suggestions. 8341. Pro-Demnity Insurance Company – Appointments to the Board of Directors (oral) The Senior Vice President and Treasurer reported. It was moved by Jennings and seconded by Alkhaddam that Council accept the recommendation of the Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Nominations Committee to appoint Debra Krakow and Joanne McCallum to the Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Board of Directors effective September 20, 2017. -- CARRIED (3 abstentions (Sharp, Sherman))

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 8 of 13 8342. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated September 6, 2017 re. Appointment to the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) and supporting background documentation. (APPENDIX ‘J’) Doyle reported that the CACB Board is appointing a director from the Atlantic Region this year to fill the vacancy that will be left by , Therese LeBlanc. It was moved by Youssef and seconded by Cline that Council approve the appointment of Chris Young to the Canadian Architectural Certification (CACB) Board for a three-year term effective November 2017. -- CARRIED EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REPORTS 8343. Reference Material Reviewed: Activities for the Months of June-September. (APPENDIX ‘K’) The report was noted for information. 8344. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated September 7, 2017 re. Update on Activities of the Executive Director and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘L’) The report was noted for information. 8345. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the OAA Building Committee dated September 7, 2017 re. Update from the OAA Building Committee – Approach to Artwork in the renovated building. (APPENDIX ‘M’) The Chair of the Committee reported that the Committee would like to retain a consultant to investigate the cost of including architectural artifacts in the building. It would be an exploratory exercise. It was suggested be a member of Council that the consultant be encouraged to consider work architects do as well as artists whose work celebrates architecture. It may be of benefit if the OAA has access to the provincial archive managed through the Art Gallery of Ontario. A Council member expressed some concern in regards to monitoring the artifacts since the facility is not a gallery and would require a curator brought in to rotate the items on display. It was moved by Kurtin and seconded by Derhak that a consultant be retained with the mandate to make recommendations regarding whether the OAA should be establishing a collection of architectural artifacts for display in the renovated OAA headquarters, and if so how that should be accomplished at an amount not exceeding $20,000 to be drawn from the policy contingency budget. -- CARRIED (1 abstention) 8346. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Strategic, David C. Rich dated June 12, 2017 re. Update on Activities under the Vice President Strategic Portfolio and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘N’) The Vice President Strategic highlighted in the report that there were some discussions over the summer with counsel for the review of the Construction Lien Act, Bruce Reynolds, and a submission was made to the Ministry. A copy of the August submission was distributed to Council for information.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 9 of 13 The report was noted for information. 8347. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Councillors Mazan Alkhaddam and Sheena Sharp dated August 27, 2017 re. Update on Appeal of Harmonized Zoning By-Law. (APPENDIX ‘O’) The report was noted for information. 8348. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Councillors Sheena Sharp and David Sin dated August 28, 2017 re. Update on Housing Affordability Study. (APPENDIX ‘P’) The report was noted for information. 8349. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Communications, Vanessa Fong dated September 5, 2017 re. Communications Committee Update. (APPENDIX ‘Q’) The report was noted for information. 8350. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Councillor Sheena Sharp dated August 30, 2017 re. Sustainable Built Environments Committee Update. (APPENDIX ‘R’) The report was noted for information. 8351. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Regulatory, Barry Cline dated August 29, 2017 re. Activities Under the Registrar – June 8, 2017 through August 2, 2017. (APPENDIX ‘S’) The report was noted for information. 8352. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Regulatory, Barry Cline dated August 29, 2017 re. Update on changes to the Admission Course. (APPENDIX ‘T’) The report was noted for information. 8353. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Vice President Practice, Walter Derhak dated August 30, 2017 re. Practice Committee Update and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘U’) The report was noted for information. 8354. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Practice Review Committee dated August 31, 2017 re. Report on OAA Practice Consultation Survey (PCS) and meeting of the Practice Review Committee and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘V’) The report was noted for information. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 8355. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from President, John Stephenson dated September 1, 2017 re. Further consideration of the resolution as approved by the membership at the May 24, 2017 Annual General Meeting and attached background information. (APPENDIX ‘W’) The President reported. A Council member suggested that the member had requested a different course of direction than that suggested in the draft communication to members

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 10 of 13 The President responded that the legal opinion is clear and confirmed as well that a letter from the Minister of Labour confirms agreement to review the existing professionsal exemptions from the Employments Standards Act (ESA). Doyle noted that the Ministry is reviewing all professions, not just architecture. The ESA has been correctly interpreted by the OAA based on a legal opinion received. It was suggested by a Council member that the OAA expand on the letter with the Safe Workplaces working group such that more workshops be offered. . It was suggested by a member of Council that there needs to be a more descriptive approach taken as part of the next steps. The President noted that the OAA is waiting on how the government responds to changes and then at that time, will proceed accordingly. A member of Council noted that there is an established process in place for the government consultation and are awaiting the results of the government’s review. The report was noted for information. 8356. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated September 1, 2017 re. Intern Architect Fees – Background and History and attached supporting documentation. (APPENDIX ‘X’) Doyle reported that her report was prepared based on history and background with respect to the intern architect fees and changes made over time. The original report from the Intern Representative Gordon Hunt to Council from June is included for reference. Within this report, there were recommendations for changes to the intern architect fee structure as well as incentive fees. It was suggested by the intern representative that with the graduated fee structure it would make the cost more palatable to the interns. A Council member noted that there are a number of avenues to already in place to assist interns on their path to licensure and would not be in favour of the fee restructure. A member of Council suggested that supporting interns is about encouraging them to become licensed through variety of ways, some of which are more aimed at pushing them to completion. There should be focus on promoting young architects such as setting aside positions for them on committees which has been initiated as opposed to changing the fee structure A Council member expressed concern with the proposed recommendations for change to the fee structure. It is important to compare with other organizations. The value of the profession is diminished with long-term interns who choose not to become licensed and suggested that this change would only support those that never intend to become licensed. It was suggested by a member of Council that other ways in which to further encourage the path to licensure should be investigated. A Council member suggested that mentors and employers need to have better communication to help the interns gain experience hours. Additionally, better promotion of the options of leave and financial hardship may be of some benefit in certain cases. It was noted by a member of Council that the statement should not be fee-based but should rather convey that five years in in fact a reasonable time to reach licensure.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 11 of 13 Doyle recalled that when the original fees were in place the number of experience hours were higher at 5,700. Since that time the hours required have been reduced significantly to 3,720. Jennings and Sirman left the meeting at 4:45pm. A Council member suggested that circumtances have changed for interns with some finding themselves focussed on one very specific area of work in a firm. H/she suggested that it is more difficult to get registered today and the OAA should assist them financially as well. It was suggested by a member of Council that the fees should not be lowered but that there should be a more focus on promotion of the path and continue to offer the services the OAA has, as opposed to reducing revenue. A Council member indicated that with experience in auditing student syllabus, s/he noticed that there appears to be an issue with the principal or supervising architect and not the intern getting the experience they need. A Council member indicated that there is work on a national level to advocate for a change to the Internship in Architecture Program (IAP). It was suggested by a member of Council that the Interns Committee focus on the mentorship process. Doyle and Brown indicated thatit is important to keep in mind the administrative aspects since rushing an initiative can result in activites that are not properly coordinated and staff overload. Laberge left the meeting at 5:10pm. It was suggested by a member of Council that an intern architect be approached to submit an article to the new publication The Right Angle regarding mentorship. Fong left the meeting at 5:15pm. It was moved by Kurtin and seconded by Derhak that Council approve the recommendations of the Interns Committee regardingchanges to the intern architect membershipfee structure. -- DEFEATED (1 in favour) Action: It was suggested that Executive Committee further review the issues raised above and consider further action on behalf of Council. 8357. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated August 30, 2017 re. Memorandum of Agreement re. Updating of the Canadian Handbook of Practice and attached supporting documentation. (APPENDIX ‘Y’) Councillor Ardiel declared a conflict of interest. Doyle reported that the Memorandum of Agreementhas been signed. Doyle reported that a steering committee is to be established as outlined in the agreement. There has been some discussion among the CALA administrators that given the mandate of the steering committee it could be appropriately populated with some of the provincial executive directors. The editorial board is the technical committee which is to be comprised of seven architects of which three would be in professional practice, and a representative from the CCUSA.

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 12 of 13 Doyle enquired as to how Council wishes to put forward names noting that some associations are submitting their practice advisors for consideration however they are volunteers who are in practice. It was suggested by a member of Council that the steering committee should include both administrators and architects. A Council member noted that with the current structure there would be a guarantee to have a minimum of two architects on the committee. It was suggested by a Council member that There should be a call for expressions of interest to the membership for the editorial board. Doyle noted that she would consider adding her name for consideration of the Steering Committee. Action: Doyle to prepare call to the membership for the editorial board. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 8358. Meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities – draft agenda October 16, 2017 (oral) The item was deferred and to be reported on at the next meeting of Council. 8358. Reference Material Reviewed: draft Minutes from the Pro-Demnity Insurance Company Annual General Meeting dated June 21, 2017.(APPENDIX ‘Z’) The draft minutes were noted for information. 8359. Reference Material Reviewed: Agenda from the Society Chairs fall Workshop dated September 15, 2017. (APPENDIX ‘1’) The agenda was noted for information. 8360. Reference Material Reviewed: Memorandum from the Continuing Education Committee dated August 31, 2017 re. Continuing Education Course “Starting an Architectural Practice” and attached supporting documentation. (APPENDIX ‘2’) The report was noted for information. 8361. Reference Material Reviewed: Correspondence from the RAIC Director, Practice Support/Director, Syllabus, Donald Ardiel to the Canadian Association of consulting Quantity Surveyors dated May 17, 2017 re. Proposed Revisions to CCDC 2. (APPENDIX ‘3’) The letter was noted for information. 8362. Reference Material Reviewed: Correspondence from the Executive Director, Kristi Doyle to the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade dated July 11, 2017 re. JVS Toronto’s Proposal for Funding for Getting a Licence Bridge Program; Correspondence from the Executive Director, Kristi Doyle to the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade dated August 30, 2017 re. Application for Renewal Funding for IPLAN. (APPENDIX ‘4’) The letters were noted for information. 8363. Reference Material Reviewed: Ontario Association for Applied Architectural Sciences (OAAAS) Report to Council dated September 4, 2017. (APPENDIX ‘5’)

Open Council Minutes September 14, 2017 Page 13 of 13 The report was noted for information. OTHER BUSINESS 8364. Reference Material Reviewed: E-mail correspondence from RAIC Executive Director, Jody Ciufo to Executive Director, Kristi Doyle dated September 8, 2017 re. Student Sponsorship. (APPENDIX ‘6’) Doyle reported that RAIC is requesting $10,000 to support the student sponsorship award at the Moriyama International Prize Gala. It is past the deadline to be included in the programme however; the OAA would receive recognition on a stand alone communication piece handed out at the gala. It was suggested by a member of Council that the complimentary tickets that are part of the sponsorship attributes should be allocated to the interns from the Interns Committee and/or those that helped organize the MOVE party. Kurtin and Hunt to allocate those tickets accordingly. It was moved by Dreessen and seconded Kurtin that the OAA sponsor the student scholarship portion of the Moriyama RAIC International Prize in the amount of $10,000 to be drawn from the policy contingency budget -- CARRIED (1 abstention (Ardiel)) Action: Council directed that the complimentary tickets from sponsorship be given to the interns from the Interns Committee or those that helped with the MOVE party at the discretion of the Intern Representative on Council and the Senior Vice President and Treasurer. 8365. Venice Biennale 2018 (oral) Doyle reported that there will likely be a a request for the sponsorship for the Venice Biennale 2018. It was agreed by Council that further discussion be deferred to the November meeting of Council. DATE OF NEXT MEETING 8366. The next regular meeting of Council is Thursday November 2, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. at 1 Duncan Mills Road, Toronto, Ontario. ADJOURNMENT 8367. It was moved by Cline and seconded by Dreessen that the meeting be adjourned at 5:35 p.m. -- CARRIED UANIMOUSLY ______________________________________________ ____________________________ President Date

Memorandum

To: Council John Stephenson Mazen Alkhaddam

Donald Ardiel Barry Cline Walter Derhak Toon Dreessen Gordon Erskine Vanessa Fong Gordon Hunt Ken Jennings Kathleen Kurtin Jeffrey Laberge Michelle Longlade Wayne Medford Elaine Mintz David C. Rich Sheena Sharp Andre Sherman David Sin Robert Sirman Magid Youssef

From: Nedra Brown, Registrar Date: October 10, 2017 Subject: Appointment of Life Members Objective: To appoint individuals to Life Membership effective January 1, 2018 Background: A Life Member is a Retired Member who is appointed as a Life Member by Council. Action: Council is requested to consider and approve the Appointment of the following individuals as Life Members: Names of retired members: Robert I. Blache-Fraser John Shields Bowron Kenneth John Cochrane Samir (Sam) Dewairy Avelino H. Dulatas Gerald L. Heeringa A.R. Kaderali Jerome Markson Kristine L. Martin

Frank J. Pastor William Douglas Richardson M.J. Tim Tory John A.H. Vanstone Don Vetere Donald A. Voisey Christopher Wzacny Richard D. Young

Memorandum



From: Nedra Brown, Registrar Date: October 10, 2017 Subject: Recognition of Architects of Long Standing Objective: To inform Council of the individuals who are eligible for recognition as having been architects with the Ontario Association of Architects for at least fifty years. Background: 1. Council Policy approved January 9, 1997:

“Council shall recognize, on an annual basis, all individuals who have been members of the Ontario Association of Architects for at least fifty years by way of letter and presentation of a certificate at the Annual General Meeting.”

2. The following architect has reached this milestone:

James R. Evans Architect since April 28, 1967 Peter Favot Architect since April 28, 1967 Blandford G. Gates Architect since June 9, 1967 Donald J. Bielesch Architect since July 14, 1967

Action: Council is requested to consider and approve the recognition of the following member as an Architect of Long Standing: James R. Evans Peter Favot Blandford G. Gates Donald J. Bielesch

Memorandum



From: Vanessa Fong Chair, Communications Committee

Committee Members: Jean Audette Joël León Wayne Medford

Date: October 10, 2017 Subject: 2018 Budget Request for the launch of the OAA Challenge program Objective: To provide an outline of the Communications tactics and budget for the launch

of the new program and request Council approval. Background: At the September 2017 Council meeting, Council approved the changes to the OAA Awards Program as recommended by the Awards Steering Committee.

1. The Concepts Awards be expanded/re-envisioned as a new purposeful and aspirational challenge program focused on significant societal issues of relevance to architects/public.

2. Adoption of a two-year cycle such that design/achievement awards (including

Design Excellence, Lifetime Design Achievement, and Best Emerging Practice) be presented in even-numbered years and inducement “Challenge” program be presented in odd-numbered years.

The timeline for communicating the changes is effective immediately as the OAA Awards Submissions for the 2018 Program are scheduled to be announced in early October. Key information will be focused on: new deadline for submissions of December 15; and, the new 2-

Sadeq M. Sadeq David Sin

Magid Youssef

2

year cycle, with the next opportunity for OAA Design Excellence Awards in 2020. This information is important to those considering submissions for 2018. Communications Approach The launch of the NEW program will run simultaneously with the 2018 OAA Awards Program. It is imperative that the communication is clear and not confusing for those submitting to the 2018 program. The timeline and messaging is coordinated to assist with this challenge. The goal of the stakeholder relations component of the OAA’s new award program is to help manage change by involving the membership in the development of the awards, to solicit their feedback on OAA’s proposals, and to communicate the upcoming changes to the program and what it will mean for them. The goal of the media relations component of the OAA’s new award program roll out is to supplement stakeholder relations and change management efforts and to raise the profile of the new award among the broader architectural and design communities. Budget: Roll-out of the New Challenge Program launch will include the following key four Parts:

1) Member Relations (Consultant): $27,500

o Key message development – $5,000 – 7,500* o Material Design & Tactics - $15,000 o Member Outreach - $5,000

2) Media Relations (Consultant): $18,000

o Media pitch – $6,000 – 7,500 o Op-ed - $5,000 – 7,500 o Social media calendar - $2,500 – 3,000

3) New Program Identity (Consultant): $20,000*

o Visual Identity and Branding

4) In-house Communications (OAA staff): n/a o Consultant Coordination, Posting, Distribution and integration of messaging

in OAA Comms vehicles to Members and the Public Total Budget up to $65,500*

* ‘Key Message Development’ and the ‘New Program Identity’ are items that will have to roll out immediately to meet the March 2018 Program launch. As such, the Committee proposes Funds for these items (up to $27,500) be allocated from the 2017 Contingency Budget with the remainder ($38,000) allocated to the 2018 Budget. Items #1, 2, and 3 require consultants to execute the work. With the tight Schedule to the launch of the Program, we propose that the Committee be allowed to engage Consultants directly, particularly Communications consultants the OAA has had a previous or existing

3

relationship with. Consultants with previous experience, knowledge, and familiarity of OAA communications vehicles will be vital in expediting the process to meet the March 2018 Program launch

ACTION: To request Council to approve a budget of up to $65,500 for Communications launch of the new Challenge Program ($27 500 from the 2017 Contingency Budget; $38 000 from the 2018 Budget). To request Council to approve a direct engagement with Consultants with previous OAA Communications experience for Parts #1, 2, and 3.

1 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto, Ontario Canada M3B 1Z2 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416-449-5756 www.oaa.on.ca

Memorandum To: Council John Stephenson Mazen Alkhaddam


From: Kristi Doyle, Executive Director Date: October 20, 2017 Subject: Request for Sponsorship for Venice Biennale 2018 Objective:

To consider OAA Council support for Canada at the Venice Biennale in Architecture 2018. Background: I received the attached request for Council to consider sponsorship of the Canadian entry to the Venice Biennale 2018. Attached you will find a package of information which details the Canadian submission for the upcoming 2018 Biennale in Venice. Canada’s participation will take form in the official entry titled Unceded: Voices of the Land, which celebrates Indigenous architecture “that speaks to and from landscapes of resilience, overcoming unforgiving limitations and serving as a register of hope and pride for Indigenous designers across Turtle Island.” There will be a visual aspect to the entry to include dance, lectures, and demonstrations, including storytelling which is integral in the Indigenous world. OAA Council is asked to consider sponsorship of the Pavilion in the amount of $20,000 which is consistent with the amount the OAA has contributed in the past two Biennales (2014 and 2016 There are however other levels of sponsorship that could be considered. If approved, this funding would be drawn from the remaining 2017 policy contingency funds. Action: Council to consider approval of the attached request for sponsorship for the Canadian entry to the 2018 Venice Biennale.

October 20, 2017 Dear Ontario Association of Architects Council Members: By way of short introduction my name is Poet Farrell and I am the Director of Sponsorship & Fundraising for UNCEDED: Voices of the Land. I represent the driving forces behind this historical collective; Douglas Cardinal, Gerald McMaster, David Fortin and team as we head to Venice to represent Canada at the Venice Architecture Biennale 2018. Kristi Doyle has shared your consideration to be at our side in support on our trajectory to the most prestigious architectural exhibit in the world. First let me thank you, on behalf of Douglas Cardinal and our team for your interest. We would be delighted and proud to be supported by the OAA. It is with these valued relationships at our side from our architectural communities that we show a strong united front here and on the global stage. This is one of the most ambitious projects ever to represent Canada at the Biennale. The scale of the project, it's deep cultural importance and the international media attention it will be garnering, provide an unparalleled opportunity to increase the visibility of Indigenous architecture and its ingenuity on the world stage raising public awareness to celebrate its richness, diversity and excellence both here and abroad. However, we have a challenging task ahead of us to inspire the necessary funding for this project, especially with the limited time afforded to us in which to raise funds which directly affect our efforts. I would like to invite you to please offer your support to secure the success of UNCEDED in Venice and beyond. We welcome support in many ways. We are only too happy to receive monetary contributions and help with any opportunity that would arise for fundraising events, but we would also welcome air miles, any help with accommodations, sharing our news through your means and any recommendations as to who might be interested in sponsoring us and of course any introductions if possible. We are open to all suggestions. In return for your support we would present your logo as a valued Sponsor in all of our marketing materials, advertising, promotional events/materials, our web site ( linking back to your site ), our exhibition catalogues and on site signage in Venice. You would, of course, also be afforded a certain number of tickets and invitations to the Venice Vernissage press & media days and the pre exhibition VIP event. Our team is working around the clock to make this the most important year yet of Canada’s involvement in the Venice Biennale in Architecture. We see this as a perfect opportunity for Canada to further positive and timely awareness towards Indigenous architecture and its rich cultural heritage at this important global event. I would welcome further discussion at your convenience. Thank you in advance for your attention and consideration. With all Best Regards, Poet

Canadian Entry to the 16th International Venice Architecture Biennale

Douglas Cardinal

2Unceded - Canada’s entry to the 16th International Architecture Exhibition Venice Biennale

“ St. Mary’s is one of the most astounding, structurally bold works of

architecture in this country”

– Lisa Rochon, Globe & Mail

“ Douglas Cardinal, an often mistaken architectural lightening rod for the indigenous

people, is an outstanding mountain of a Canadian architect, I believe, pursuing the

spiritual soul of a great architecture for himself and all Canadians.”

– Raymond Moriyama

The Smithsonian Institute is “ forever indebted to Douglas Cardinal for his work of genius.”

– Richard West, Founding Director of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian

“ I have often thought the building has grown with the landscape, It almost seems

to have come into its own. This building is uniquely important. It might even be the

most discernible form of Canadian architecture.”

– Mark O’Neill, president and CEO of the Museum of History.

“ He is a pioneer and a role model whose passionate commitment to

architecture, environmental responsibility and First Nations rights has

been steadfast and determined.”

– Maria Cook - RAIC

Canadian Entry to the 16th International Venice Architecture Biennale 3CanadiCanCaCaCanadiCanadC an Entan Entn Entry to ry to ry to toy the 16the 16the 16the 16th Inthth Intt I ernatiernational Vonal Vnonal Vnal Veniceeniceeniceenice ArchiArchitArchitArchiArchArch ectureectureureuree BiennBiBiennBiennBiennBienniennalealealealealealeale 3333

The Venice Biennale is a 122-year-old

institution that was created in 1895 as a

celebration of the 25th wedding anniversary

of King Umberto and Queen Margherita

of Italy. At the time, the mayor of Venice,

Riccardo Selvatico, had the ambition to

create an institution of “public benefit

and good” that would always recall this

particular event.

Who could have imagined then that the

Venice Biennale would continue to be the

exhibition where every country wishes

to be, and to which the world of artists

and architects, contemporary musicians,

dancers, actors and directors continues to

look as a stage to showcase their best work?

In its 16th edition since 1980, the Venice

Architecture Biennale is the most important

and prestigious exhibition in contemporary

architecture. Two historical locations, the

Giardini and the Arsenale, will host the

international curated exhibitions. The 29

historic national pavilions in the Giardini

create an open air museum of 20th Century

architecture, having themselves been

commissioned at each nation’s entry into

the Biennale. The countries who have

joined the Biennale since 1985 will be

showing in the Arsenale and in buildings

throughout Venice. Canada’s national

pavilion in the Giardini will be celebrating

its 60th birthday with a full restoration.

Therefore, exceptionally, Canada’s 2018

participation at the Venice Biennale will

be showing in the unique and wonderful

Isolotto space in the 12th Century

Arsenale complex.

Over and above the international and

national exhibitions, there are series of

conferences and events organised by the

Biennale called Meetings in Architecture.

A meeting place for architects, artists,

designers, planners, builders, politicians,

students, teachers and cultural leaders,

the 2018 edition expects 70 countries

to participate, and more than 300,000

visitors to experience the cutting edge of

architecture and architectural discourse.

ABOUT THE VENICE ARCHITECTURE BIENNALE

Canadian Entry to the 16th International Venice Architecture Biennale 4

Douglas Cardinal’s architecture springs

from his observation of Nature and

its understanding that everything

works seamlessly together. His work

has defined contemporary Canadian,

Indigenous, and organic architecture.

Throughout his career he has been

forerunner of philosophies of sustain-

ability, green buildings and ecologically

designed community planning.

Born in 1934 in Calgary, Alberta, his

architectural studies at The University

of British Columbia took him to Austin,

Texas, where he achieved his architec-

tural degree and found a life experience

in human rights initiatives. Douglas

then became a forerunner of philoso-

phies of sustainability, green buildings

and ecologically designed community

planning. His architecture springs from

his observation of Nature and its under-

standing that everything works seam-

lessly together.

In recognition of such work, Douglas

Cardinal has received many national

and international awards including: 19

Honorary Doctorates, Gold Medals of

Architecture in Canada and Russia, and

an award from United Nations Educa-

tional Scientific and Cultural organization

(UNESCO) for best sustainable village.

He was also titled an Officer of the Order

of Canada, one of the most prestigious

awards given to a Canadian, and he

was awarded the declaration of being

“World Master of Contemporary Archi-

tecture” by the International Association

of Architects.

Douglas Cardinal is one of the visionar-

ies of a new world; a world where beau-

ty, balance and harmony thrive, where

client, architect, and stakeholder build

together with a common vision.

photography by: Josuf Karsh

AS A MASTER-BUILDER, DOUGLAS CARDINAL’S LIFE IS DEDICATED TO CREATING BEAUTIFUL, THRIVING, AND HARMONIOUSLY BUILT ENVIRONMENTS.

DOUGLAS CARDINAL


CO - CURATORS

Gerald McMaster

Curator, artist, author, and professor of

Indigenous Visual Culture and Critical

Curatorial Studies at OCAD University —

has over 30 years international work and

expertise in contemporary art, critical

theory, museology and Indigenous

aesthetics. His experience as an artist

and curator in art and ethnology museums

has given him a thorough understanding

of transnational Indigenous visual culture

and curatorial practice.

Throughout his career, his championing

of the mainstream value of Indigenous

art, among other things, has led to his

being chosen to represent Canada at

a few prestigious international events.

These include his serving as Canadian

Commissioner for the 1995 Venice

Biennale, and as artistic director of the

2012 Biennale of Sydney.

David Fortin

Raised in the Canadian prairies, David

is a Métis architect and academic with

special interests in the relationship

between design culture and Indigenous

peoples, as well as speculative

architecture, including Indigenous

and non-Indigenous science-fiction

and the projected impacts of

climate change.

Since 2005, he has taught architecture

in the UK, USA, and Canada, leading

undergraduate and graduate courses

in architectural design, history and

theory, and is currently completing a

SSHRC-funded research project exploring

prairie Métis contributions to architectural

thinking in Canada. David is a member of

the RAIC Indigenous Task Force and is

the first Indigenous architect to become

a director of a Canadian school

of architecture.


TEAM BIOS Ryan Gorrie

Ryan is an artist and registered architect

with experience in diverse architectural

typologies including healthcare, housing,

corporate office, recreation, cultural,

landscape architecture and master

planning. Ryan will aid the design team

in realizing the final installation as well

as providing research support. Ryan is

a member of the RAIC Indigenous Task

Force.

Jake Chakasim

Raised throughout Northern Ontario

(Omushkegowuk Territory, Cree), Jake

is a past recipient of the Architectural

Research Center Consortium (ARCC)

Jonathan King Medal for 2010-11, an

award that acknowledges innovation,

integrity and scholarship in architectural

and/or environmental design research.

His design work explores both traditional

and contemporary uses of wood as an

innovative and culturally sustainable

building material – an approach the not

only aims to re-contextualize Indigenous

traditions but brings into focus ‘form

determinants’ specific to Indigenous art,

architecture + identity practices.

Wanda Dalla Costa

Wanda Dalla Costa, AIA, LEED A.P.

is the Visiting Eminent Scholar at the

School of Sustainable Engineering and

the Built Environment at Arizona State

University. Dalla Costa teaches Indige-

nous Planning, Architecture and Con-

struction. She is a member of the Saddle

Lake First Nation and was the first First

Nations woman in Canada to become

a registered architect. She has spent

nearly 20 years working with Indigenous

communities. Her company, Redquill

Architecture (www.RQarc.com) is based

in Phoenix, Arizona.

Ouri Scott

Ouri Scott is a Tlicho Dene architect

originally from the Northwest Territories,

who currently lives and works in Vancouver.

Ouri is driven to resolve prevalent, yet

often un-addressed design issues that

face indigenous people. As a designer,

she looks to develop a modern de-

sign language to react and respond to

contemporary First Nations culture. She

is passionate about sustainable architec-

ture, and sees it as honoring her role as

a steward of the land. Her recent work

includes an award-winning concept for a

net-zero, mixed-use development in Se-

attle that incorporates renewable energy

strategies and intensive vertical farming.

Ouri is a member of the RAIC Indigenous

Task Force.

Patrick Stewart

Patrick Stewart, PhD is a member of

the Killerwhale House of Daaxan of

the Nisga’a Nation. His Nisga’a name,

Luugigyoo, means “calm waters”. He is

an architect with over 33 years of archi-

tectural experience having obtained his

first professional degree in 1983. Patrick

was the first architect of First Nations

ancestry to own and operate an archi-

tectural firm in B.C. (1995) and the first

person of First Nations ancestry elected

as President of the Architectural Institute

of British Columbia. Patrick is Chair of

the Provincial Aboriginal Homelessness

Committee in BC. And Chair of the RAIC

Indigenous Task Force. HIs compa-

ny, Patrick R Stewart Architect ( www.

patrickstewartarchitect.com ) is based in

Sto:lo traditional territory near Chilliwack,

BC. He participated in the Xa:ytem

Interpretive Longhouse project which is

showcased in SFU’s virtual museum “A

Journey into Time Immemorial”. He is

also currently teaching at the McEwen

School of Architecture at Laurentian Uni-

versity where he teaches a course called

Indigenous Precedents.

Andrea Walsh

Andrea Walsh, PhD (Canadian: Settler

Irish, British, Scottish, Nlaka’pamux

ancestry) is a visual anthropologist at

the University of Victoria who special-

izes in 20th century and contemporary

Indigenous visual and material culture,

curating, and museums in Canada. Her

community-based academic research

and curatorial practice is located at the

intersection of Indigenous and non-In-

digenous experiences of space and

place, histories and identities. At the Uni-

versity of Victoria she directs the annual

contemporary Salish Artist in Residence

Program. She is the Principle Investiga-

tor on a Social Sciences and Humanities

Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)

project to identify Indian Day School and

Indian Residential school art collections

across Canada. This work began in

2000 with collaborative research with the

Osoyoos Indian Band, which resulted in

a permanent exhibition of Nk’Mip Day

School Art at the Nk’Mip Desert Heritage

Centre, and a Virtual Museum of Canada

website exhibition. A recent focus for

Walsh’s research includes the repatria-

tion of paintings done by children at the

Alberni residential school to Survivors

and their families and has extended

to other communities across Canada.

In 2016 she received a BC Museums

Association Award of Merit for her col-

laborative curatorial work with Survivors

and former students on day school and

residential school art collections.


Harriet’s expertise comes for select

experience dealing with culturally

diverse groups and a broad range of

building types. She has been involved in

the design of both small and moderate

size health facilities as well as major

additions and renovations to existing

facilities. Harriet is the first female Métis

architect with Inuit/Montagnis heritage.

Smoke Architecture

KaaSheGaaBaaWeak (Eladia Smoke)

is Anishinaabekwe from Obishikokaang

(Lac Seul First Nation), with family roots

in Alderville First Nation, Winnipeg, and

Toronto. Practicing architecture since

2002, she founded Smoke Architecture

in 2014, and is a Master Lecturer at Lau-

rentian’s McEwen School of Architecture.

Her career includes principal architect

with Architecture 49’s Thunder Bay of-

fice, and architect with Prairie Architects

Inc. Eladia is on the RAIC Indigenous

Task Force 2015-present. She was a

board member at Urban Shaman Gallery

of Contemporary Aboriginal Art from

2010-2014, and a committee and council

member with the Manitoba Association

of Architects 2011-2014.

Alfred Waugh

Alfred Waugh is a member of the Fond

Du Lac (Denesuline) Nation of northern

Saskatchewan Canada, Treaty 8. Form-

line Architecture is an award-winning

architecture firm located in West Vancou-

ver with clients throughout the Northwest

Pacific Region, founded by Waugh. The

studio specializes in working on environ-

mentally responsible and culturally sen-

sitive projects that reflect and reinforce

the values and visions of the client.

The local cultural landscape and

surrounding natural landscape act as

fundamental determinants of the design

solution – we pride ourselves on work-

ing collaboratively and openly with our

clients to ensure that both the process

and product are of the highest quality

for budgetary and time requirements.

Many of our projects entail working with

traditional artists of the region to embed

cultural symbolism within the design.

We constantly strive to balance cultural

sensitivity and environmental respon-

sibility through the use of sustainable

technologies and renewable resources

where possible.

Ray Gosselin Architect

Ray Gosselin is an Indigenous archi-

tect of Métis, First Nation (Dakota), and

German descent. Ray is a member of

Muscowpetung Saulteaux Nation and

Métis Nation of Saskatchewan. Ray

received a Masters of Architecture

degree from the Technical University of

Nova Scotia in 1988. Ray has 30 years

of architectural experience including 10

years of post-secondary facility man-

agement experience with Saskatchewan

Indian Federated College (now First

Nations University of Canada), University

of Regina and University of Alberta. Ray

is currently president and principal of

Ray Gosselin Architect Limited, a young

emerging firm soon to be renamed

Red Cloud Architecture in recognition

of his Dakota heritage. For the past 5

years Ray has served on Council for the

Saskatchewan Association of Architects

(SAA) and was the SAA’s first Indigenous

President. Ray is an active member of

the Royal Architectural Institute’s Indige-

nous Task Force.

Two Row Architecture

Brian Porter of the Oneida Nation hails

from Six Nations of the Grand River. He

has been a business leader for many

years, designing and overseeing the

construction of projects for First Nation

communities across Canada and the

United States. He has demonstrated

success in designing culturally appropri-

ate projects for these communities and

has worked to maximize the participation

of First Nation skills and trades. His firm,

Two Row Architect, promotes mesh-

ing traditional ideologies and symbols

into current building technology while

actively promoting the creative and en-

vironmentally conscious use of building

materials.

Harriet Burdett-Moulton

A senior architect, originally from Cart-

wright Labrador, with Stantec, Harriet

has a lifetime of experience living and

working in some of Canada’s most re-

mote northern communities, as well as a

broad range of professional experience

as an architect. She began her archi-

tectural career in 1976 upon graduating

from TUNS. During the 1980s and early

1990s Harriet lived in Iqaluit where she

worked for the GNWT as well as princi-

pal architect with her firm, Burdett-Moul-

ton Architects and Engineers. In 2004

after a break from the north she returned

to Iqaluit to continue with her passion for

northern and cold climate. This work has

taken her to every NWT, Nunavut and

Labrador community.


Tamarah Begay

Tamarah Begay is a member of the Navajo

Nation, and was raised near Gallup,

New Mexico. She received her Master’s

Degree in Architecture from the Universi-

ty of New Mexico in December of 2004.

Upon graduation she also completed the

National Council of Architectural Regis-

tration Board (NCARB) requirements for

the Intern Development Program (IDP) in

order to begin her seven part Architec-

tural Registration Exams (ARE).

Tamarah has over 10 years of expe-

rience working with Native American

Tribes on schools, housing, office

buildings, cultural centers and multi-pur-

pose buildings. Her experience in-

cludes project management, marketing,

proposal writing, specification writing,

programming, master planning, design

(all phases), interior design, construction

documents and construction adminis-

tration. Tamarah is one of the founding

members of the UNM Student Chapter of

the American Indian Council of Archi-

tects and Engineers (SC-AICAE). As a

professional member of the AICAE, she

also is a board member.

Tamarah is also an associate member

of the American Institute of Architects

(AIA), a certified construction document

technician (CDT), and a LEED Accredit-

ed Professional.

Daniel Glenn

Daniel J. Glenn, AIA, NCARB, is a

nationally recognized expert in culturally

responsive architecture and in green

affordable housing with a focus on work

for diverse cultures. Mr. Glenn’s work

reflects his Crow tribal heritage. He has

been featured in the film, Indigenous

Architecture / Living Architecture , and

four of his tribal projects have been fea-

tured in the book, Design Re-Imagined:

New Architecture on Indigenous Lands

published in 2013 by the University of

Minnesota Press. He was selected to be

on a national technical advisory team

on greening Indian housing for the HUD

Sustainable Construction in Indian Coun-

try program and is a regularly invited

speaker at conferences and universities.

His projects include the University of

Montana Payne Family Native American

Center, a LEED Platinum project and the

Place of Hidden Waters for the Puyallup

Tribe, the 2012 LEED for Homes Project

of the Year.

David Thomas

David G. Thomas has a Master of Archi-

tecture degree and a Bachelor of Envi-

ronmental Design degree from the Uni-

versity of Manitoba. He worked at Prairie

Architects for seven years before joining

the architecture department at Aysh-

kum Engineering Inc. David has been

involved in creative projects throughout

Manitoba including being part of the

design team for Migizi Agamik Student

Centre at the University of Manitoba with

Prairie Architects. He has designed and

completed installations at Canadian

Museum for Human Rights and Manito-

ba Hydro building in downtown Winni-

peg. David is a member of Peguis First

Nation and has spent much of his time

mentoring and speaking to First Nation

youth about design and the self-expres-

sion through the arts. David’s personal

interests include exploring indigenous

resurgence and identity through design

and filmmaking.

Tammy Eagle Bull

The first female Native American architect

in American history, Ms. Eagle Bull is a

member of the Oglala Lakota Nation

and has nearly 30 years of architectural

design and project management

experience. She has successfully led

large, diverse, multi-disciplined design

teams through all project phases. Tammy

believes strongly in the direct relationship

between human behavior and the

environment. She strives to create

environments in which the users will not

only function but also thrive.

Chris Cornelius

Chris Cornelius focuses his research and

practice on the architectural translation

of culture; in particular, Native American

culture. He is the founding principal of

studio:indigenous, a design and consult-

ing practice serving Indigenous clients.

He was a cultural consultant and design

collaborator with Antoine Predock on the

Indian Community School of Milwaukee

(ICS). ICS won the AIA Design Excel-

lence award from the Committee on

Architecture for Education. Cornelius has

received numerous awards and honors

including the inaugural J. Irwin and Xe-

nia S. Miller Prize; an Artist in Residence

Fellowship from the National Museum of

the American Indian; and multiple wins

in the KRob Architectural Delineation

Competition.


0

B

C

This exhibition will showcase 18 Indigenous

architects from Turtle Island (Canada

and the USA) to represent the nation at

the Venice Architecture Biennale, the

most prestigious architectural exhib-

it in the world and together they will

showcase their innovative design talent

through an immersive and breathtaking

installation.

UNCEDED: Voices of the Land is a

celebration of Indigenous architecture

that speaks to and from landscapes

of resilience, overcoming unforgiving

limitations and serving as a register of

hope and pride for Indigenous designers

across Turtle Island.

Unceded will be an experience bringing

together the past, present and future of

indigenous experience as seen through

the eyes and minds of indigenous

architects on Turtle Island. We envisage

the Turtle Island Pavilion to be used as

surfaces for telling the story through

thematic metaphors – indigeneity,

resilience, sovereignty, and colonization.

These are spatialized as “territories”

as nodes through which narratives are

presented through design. For example,

the “Territory of Resilience” is the hope

of the future expressed in the ideas

based on indigenous teachings. It is

intended to rely on the ideas indigenous

architects express in their work and in

this project, such as showcasing work

informed by the indigenous spirituality,

respect for people, and that communities

and all life-givers as being one in the

“dance of life.”

UNCEDED: Voices of the Land will

show the world that indigenous cultures

inscribed within the laws, customs, and

traditions of our peoples, have a great

contribution to make to the world, as

seen through the work of the indigenous

architects.

We envisage an opportunity to bring to

Venice ceremony, dance, lectures, and

demonstrations to be present at particular

times throughout the Biennale. Making

this exhibit a multi-medial presentation

will allow for many different voices to be

heard, telling the story of an indigenous

expressionism across Turtle Island.

Indigenous peoples are storytellers and

indigenous architects draw upon this gift

to enhance their work. Storytelling is a

staple in the indigenous world.

UNCEDED: Voices of the Land will be a

storytelling experience, availing itself of

the talents of the indigenous architects

bringing vision into reality.

The people and communities served

by these architects will be the subject

matter and the backdrop to the past,

present, and future.

The world needs a vision of hope.

UNCEDED: Voices of the Land will tell

the story of peaceful co-existence, to

disruption, to healing, and finally leading

to the expression of the strength of the

culture. The beauty and the creativity

as expressed in building and natural

space, that indigenous architects work

with, will inspire a new world view. The

world will be better for it.

Canada Council for the Arts has selected world famous architect Douglas Cardinal to

represent Canada at the Venice Architecture Biennale 2018. Douglas Cardinal, the driving

force behind this historical initiative is best known for his designs of the Canadian Museum

of History and the National Museum of the American Indian in Washington D.C.

UNCEDED: VOICES OF THE LAND


Promotion and Sponsorship

Opportunities include:

- Access to the coveted Venice

Biennale brand

- Exclusivity in industry

- A charitable tax receipt can be provid-

ed by the Royal Architecture Institute of

Canada Foundation.

- Prominent logo or name recognition in

an extensive media campaign with Ca-

nadian newspaper, magazine, TV, radio

and new media partners, international

press releses, on site signage at the

Canada Pavillion, exhibition invitations,

VIP Venice Formal Evening Reception

invitations, VIP Vernissage Press Days

invitations, Exhibition Catalogues, proj-

ect web site.

- Exclusive VIP hosting opportunities at

the Venice Biennale Vernissage for you

and your guests

- Press Conference hosting privileges to

announce your participation

- Tickets to the exclusive VIP Venice

Formal Evening Reception

- Exclusive personal presentations with

DCA and co-curators

- Limited Edition Hard Bound Exhibition

Catalogues signed and numbered by

Douglas Cardinal.

We would be happy to tailor a sponsorship

package to suit your needs

Join us in Venice. Take advantage of

the most prestigious international

architecture event in the world.

Capture the attention and imagination

of the most powerful creative minds in

the industry. Promote a new product

or service, and bring your corporate

image to the forefront. Your organiza-

tion can be assured of strong, sus-

tained media exposure.

DIAMOND SPONSORSHIP

$500,000 + CAD

It would be our pleasure to customize a

diamond exclusive industry sponsorship

package for you.

PLATINUM SPONSORSHIP

$250,000 + CAD

Will offer you:

1. Privileged Acknowledgment as:

“UNCEDED Venice Architecture

Biennale Exhibition, 2018 Platinum

Sponsor”.

2. Privileged logo placement on all

publicity materials ( e.g. invitations,

catalogue, email marketing, web

site, advertisements, press materials,

SOCIAL MEDIA and prominent on site

signage ).

3. Name recognition and opportunity to

speak at the Vernissage Press

Conference in Venice.

4. Platinum Sponsor announcement in

international press releases.

5. - 12 tickets for the VIP Vernissage/

Preview in Venice.

- 12 Invitations for the VIP Venice

Formal Evening Reception.

- 12 Invitations for a private VIP Cham-

pagne Tour of UNCEDED in Venice

with Douglas Cardinal.

6. 12 Limited Edition hard bound exhibi-

tion catalogues signed and numbered

by Douglas Cardinal.

7. Full page preface statement within

exhibition catalogue.

GOLD SPONSORSHIP

$100,000 + CAD

Will offer you:

1. Acknowledgment as:

“UNCEDED Venice Architecture

Biennale Exhibition, 2018 Gold Sponsor”.

2. Privileged logo placement on all

publicity materials ( e.g. invitations,

catalogue, email marketing, web site,

advertisements, press materials,

SOCIAL MEDIA and prominent on

site signage ).

3. Name recognition and at the Vernis-

sage Press Conference in Venice.

4. Gold Sponsor announcement in

international press releases.


Preview in Venice.






6. 10 Limited Edition Hard Bound Exhibi-

tion Catalogues signed and numbered


7. Name recognition in preface statement

within exhibition catalogue.

THE OPPORTUNITIES


SILVER SPONSORSHIP

$50,000 + CAD

Will offer you:


“UNCEDED Venice Architecture Bien-

nale Exhibition, 2018 Silver Sponsor”.

2. Name recognition on all publicity

materials ( e.g. invitations, catalogue,

email marketing, web site, advertise-

ments, press materials, SOCIAL ME-

DIA and prominent on site signage ).

3. Silver Sponsor announcement in inter-

national press releases.


Preview in Venice.






5. 5 Limited Edition Hard Bound Exhibi-

tion Catalogues signed and numbered


BRONZE SPONSORSHIP

$20,000 + CAD

Will offer you:


“ UNCEDED Venice Architecture Bien-

nale Exhibition, 2018 Bronze Sponsor”.

2. Name recognition on all publicity

materials ( e.g. invitations, catalogue,

email marketing, web site, advertisements,

press materials, SOCIAL MEDIA and

prominent on site signage ).


Preview in Venice.



- 2 Limited Edition Hard Bound

Exhibition Catalogues signed and

numbered by Douglas Cardinal.

SUPPORTER

$5,000 + CAD

Name recognition in catalogues, web

site, and on site posers & signage as

well as 2 Exhibition Catalogues and

charitable tax receipt.

FRIEND

$1,000 + CAD

Name recognition in catalogues, web

site, and on site signage as well as an

Exhibition Catalogue.

To become a key supporter of

UNCEDED – VOICES OF THE LAND

the Canadian entry to the 16th

International Venice Architecture

Biennale, please contact:

Poet Farrell

Fundraising and Sponsorship

[email protected]

416-821-2707

We welcome suggestions for alternative

forms of sponsorship such as donating

travel points, transportation, and

accommodation in Venice.

Join us as a key supporter of the Canadian

entry to the 16th International Venice

Architecture Biennale.


Join us as a key supporter of the

Canadian entry to the 16th International

Venice Architecture Biennale

www.unceded.ca

Official Canadian participation at the Venice Architecture

Biennale is coordinated and generously supported by

the Canada Council for the Arts.

VIP Vernissage: May 24, 25, 2018

VIP Formal Evening Reception: May 23, 2018

VIP Press Preview: May 24, 25, 2018

Exhibition: May 26 - November 25, 2018

DOUGLAS CARDINAL ARCHITECT Inc.

14 lodge road, Ottawa ON K2C 3H1

T: 613.440.2262 F: 613.440.2187

[email protected]

Entry to the 16th International Architecture Exhibition Venice Biennale

Douglas Cardinal


Memorandum



From: Kathleen Kurtin, Senior Vice President and Treasurer Date: October 19, 2017 Subject: Building Equality in Architecture Tomorrow (BEAT) Funding Request Objective: Council is asked to consider funding for BEAT’s 2018 annual Leadership Seminar in Toronto. Background: Council contributed to funding of BEAT last year during the OAA Conference in Toronto. This year’s seminar focuses on mentorship and demonstrate to graduates the various ways by which to practice architecture. Information on the seminar is attached for reference. It is anticipated that due to the popularity of last year’s event that the attendance will increase substantially as well as the associated costs for the event. The request for sponsorship of $8,000 was forwarded to the OAA’s Communications Committee for consideration in accordance with the usual and agreed to process for dealing with requests for sponsorship. The Committee has indicated however that the remaining funding that exists within the 2017 budget for sponsorship opportunities has been expended. As a result, the funding request is being brought forward to Council for consideration. If sponsorship of the event is approved, funds would need to be drawn from the policy contingency. Action:

Council to consider approval for funding of the 2018 BEAT Leadership Seminar in the amount of $8,000 to be drawn from policy contingency.

WILLIAMSONWILLIAMSON

Williamson Williamson Inc. 400-235 Carlaw Avenue, Toronto, ON Canada M4M 2S1 | (416) 703-9271 | [email protected] | www.wwinc.ca

September 27, 2017

Dear Katie,

I am writing on behalf of BEAT, Building Equality in Architecture Toronto, to ask for the OAA’s sponsorship of this year's annual Leadership Seminar. Recent surveys have noted the drop in the percentage of women who study architecture versus those who are in practice, a number that goes down even further when firm partners and principals are considered. While it is difficult to pinpoint why this is happening, one thing we know for sure is that we can help the cause by providing mentorship to the young people currently transitioning into the profession from graduate school. For the past three years, this event has targeted recent graduates to expose them to the multifaceted ways that one can practice architecture, introduce the importance of mentorship, and provide a forum for engagement with women who have excelled in this field. As we have done in the past, we will be sending out early invitations to the schools of architecture and will be holding a block of seats for students. We are already achieving fulsome participation from U of T, OCAD, Ryerson and Waterloo and hope that the guaranteed seats will encourage more students from Laurentian and Carlton to attend the event. (This event is inclusive and has had male attendees at each seminar. It is important to our organization that the conversation includes men so that the discussions about equity become universal.) Last year all 120 seats were reserved in under 48 hours and a waiting list was maintained of over 60. This year, the venue will seat up to 300 people. BEAT does not charge to attend this event. Last year this program was delivered on budget for $5000. This included venue rental, speaker expenses, advertising and marketing, audio/visual expenses, and a networking lunch for all the attendees The projected increase in attendance this year will increase our expenses. The projected cost is $8000 which includes the same operating costs as previously noted, scaled to reflect the larger number of attendees. It also includes an allowance to fly a speaker from Sudbury to Toronto. This year's seminar is scheduled for January 20, 2018, and will follow a similar format as last year (see attached) and again showcase speakers from large to small firms, academics and related professions. This year, we have invited the following speakers: Anne McIlroy, Partner, Brook McIlroy Lisa Bate, Regional Managing Principal, North America, Principal, B+H Jodi Batay, Partner Batay-Csorba Architects Tammy Gaber, assistant professor at the School of Architecture at Laurentian University in Ontario (pending sponsorship for her flight and hotel) Nina-Marie Lister, Ryerson University A special presentation by Amy Norris, ERA Architects and OAA Representative who will speak about the internship process. I would like to request the full $8000 from the OAA. Because of the early 2018 date, the expenses will be incurred in 2017. If this request can be considered as part of the 2017 budget it would help immensely. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely,

Thank you again for accepting our invitation to speak or give a special presentation at BEAT's annual Leadership Seminar - March 4th, Gladstone Hotel.

We have started to promote this event on our website (http://www.beatoronto.com/seminars/) and with the attached print material.

We just wanted to follow up on the schedule, presentation deliverables, and break-out session/tour details:

Audience Registration9:30am – 10:00am

Speakers to Arrive9:45am

This will allow everyone to have coffee/tea and review the final format for the day.

Part 1: Seminar10:00 AM – 12:30 PM

Presentation Format: Please provide us with your slide-show presentation in PDF format by February 22;Timing: Please limit the presentations to 10 minutes / 20 slides - pecha kucha style;Project ratio: This is 4:3 so please provide us with an 8.5'' x 11'' pdf, landscape format;You can email directly with this. If the file is too large to send via email please send a downloadable link;Content: Presentations can touch upon your background, office, and work;Q & A Period: Presentations will be followed by questions from the audience that will be moderated by Betsy

Williamson.

Lunch and Networking12:30 pm - 1:30 pm

This will allow the audience to approach speakers in a more casual setting and will encourage them to meet other women at a similar stage in their studies and careers;

Lunch will be provided by BEAT.

Part 2: Tour / Break out session2:00pm - 5:00pm

Please provide us with the details of your tour or break-out session if you haven't already;The general breakdown of this section is as follows:

oEach speaker will take a group of approximately 20 (or fewer) students and recent graduates through their office and/or to tour a project;

o In the past we have discussed how the practice is run and at the project site, the challenges and accomplishments found in the built work;

Please let us know if your tour requires attendees to have hard hats and boots, and mud/rain gear;

Note that tours will not have rain dates;o In the case that touring built work is not an option you are welcome to host a break-out session, at

a location of your choice, where attendees can ask general questions about the profession and your work;

Registration will be organized by BEAT and an executive member will coordinate directly with you in order to make this as seamless as possible.


Memorandum



From: John Stephenson, President Date: October 20, 2017 Subject: Request for Sponsorship – The Right Angle Objective: Council is asked to consider sponsorship for The Right Angle publication as proposed by the group, the Built Environments Open Forum (BOEF). Background: At the September 14 meeting of Council, a deputation was made by Past Presidents, Bill Birdsell and David Craddock, requesting the OAA’s financial assistance in the launch of the BEOF’s publication The Right Angle. A one-time ask of $5,000 was put forth for Council’s consideration. Attached is the information circulated to Council in September. The request was forwarded to the OAA’s Communications Committee for consideration in accordance with the usual process for dealing with sponsorship requests. The Vice President, Communications will speak further to the Committee’s discussion on the issue at the Council meeting on November 2. Action:

Council to consider approval for sponsorship of the publication The Right Angle in the amount of $5,000 as a one-time request to be drawn from policy contingency.

Memorandum To: Council John Stephenson Kathleen Kurtin

Mazen Alkhaddam Don Ardiel Barry Cline Walter Derhak Toon Dreessen Gordon Erskine Vanessa Fong Gordon Hunt Ken Jennings Jeffrey Laberge Michelle Longlade Wayne Medford Elaine Mintz David C. Rich Sheena Sharp Andre Sherman David Sin Robert Sirman Magid Youssef


Committee Members: Jean Audette Joël León Wayne Medford

Date: October 19, 2017 Subject: Website Review Brief Objective: To request budget for 2018 to implement the changes to the Website as proposed

through the Website Review priority exercise in 2017.

The Communications Committee met on September 22 and October 13 to discuss the goals of the Website Review. The Website is the Association’s main Communications vehicle. The current vision for the site is approaching 10 years and the program and services areas of the OAA are keen to update their information and improve access as well. At the same time, Accessibility Standards for the Website need to be addressed. As a continuous improvement measure, a new Search Engine was a key project in 2015/16, but it does not fully address how information is structured on the site for a better user-experience. In addition, the membership has almost doubled since the 2010 design. The public awareness initiative was launched in 2011 and this priority needs to be integrated into the Website. In 2018 an RFP is to be issued to include the audit of the site, leading towards a new framework for the design. For budget purposes, the Communications Committee is requesting additional funds at this time. The OAA’s current Developer (The Brand Factory) will be a key consultant for this project. It is also anticipated an RFP for a Designer and a new design guideline for the site will be required. Work is estimated to take place from 2018 - 2019.

Sadeq M. Sadeq David Sin

Magid Youssef

2

Main Priorities for the Redesign The following are the key priorities and goals to be addressed in the Website Redesign Project:

Accessibility Standards Update the Website to ensure Accessibility Standards are met by 2020/21 (this timeframe being in-line with AODA’s Communication Guidelines for websites to be all accessible by 2021). Work will begin as development rolls out using the Graphic Standards from the Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario together with the designer and developer for the site.

Content Management System Update the system to increase efficiency and align with design standards. The CMS currently used is 10 years old; it has limitations and is cumbersome for updating the current site.

Public vs. Member Information Structure Restructure the site to better meet the objectives of member support and public awareness; to create a clear organization between public and member content. The Microsite will also be part of this discussion as to how it fits into the overall web strategy.

Content Audit + Technology Review Audit to create a framework for the modifications to the site and in anticipation of future technologies, platforms and social media (e.g. apps, links, platforms [Smart phone]) to best inform the specification for the redesign.

Design Audit and modifications necessary to implement the changes required and ensure the accessibility standards are built in to the design.

Bilingual Content Assess the design of a bilingual Website. Budget The proposed Capital Budget for 2018 already includes funding for the ongoing and new development of the OAA Website. In addition, the Committee wants to hire a Web Designer/Consultant to complete Phase 1 of the project. Website Designer/Consultant up to $20,000 Phase 1 Research and Development Phase:

Audit Graphic/Accessibility Standards Review Concept Design/Framework

3

Projected Project Timeline

ACTION: Council to approve the continuation of the Website Review project into 2018 to proceed with Phase 1 of the redesign of the Website, up to $20,000. This could be allocated from the contingency budget.

Memorandum



From: John Stephenson, President Date: October 23, 2017 Subject: Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities – Sub-committee on the Future of the Profession Budget Request Objective: Council to consider the attached report of the Sub-committee on the Future of the Profession which was presented at the October 16 meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA). Council to consider the request for funding to further the work of the Sub-committee on behalf of CALA. Background: The attached reported was presented by the Sub-committee on the Future of the Profession at the October 16 CALA meeting in Montreal. Myself and OAA Immediate Past President are members of this Sub-Committee which had been established by CALA to consider recommendations resulting from the National Validation Conference. In particular, the Sub-committee would like to move forward with the development of a national architectural policy. The background to the work and the details of the project are contained in the attached report. Council is being asked to fund the OAA’s portion of the requested $42,500 that is being sought based on the national per capita funding formula. This would be an upset amount of $12,764 which could be funded from the 2018 Policy Contingency Budget. ($3.30 X 3868 members). It is noted that this amount could in fact be lower pending reconciliation of the expenses incurred by the Sub-committee for the work done to date.

2

Action: Council to consider the request for funding as noted above and approval to further the work of the Sub-committee on the Future of the Profession.

Future of Architecture Sub-Committee Report 1

Report from the Future of Architecture Sub-Committee

Track 1 – The Development of a National Architectural Policy. To: All Presidents and Executive Directors From: Sub-Committee on the Future of the Profession of Architecture Date: October 16th 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At its meeting in Ottawa on 27 May 2017, CALA authorized the continuing work of the Future of the Profession sub-committee with a request for an update report at its next meeting. The initiative was divided into two tracks with the second track being developed by the CACB Standing Committee, who will be reporting separately. This report outlines the work of the committee on Track 1 – The Development of a National Architectural Policy, since its last report and recommends next steps to ensure that its mandate is fulfilled. After its deliberations the sub-committee decided that a three phase approach should be utilized for the future work. The three phases are:

1. Development of a briefing position on the future of the profession 2. Validation of phase 1 paper (consultation phase) 3. Development of National Architecture Policy documents for adoption

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that each regulator approve continuing with the effort of developing a National Architecture Policy and authorize Phase One of this process to commence work immediately. The phase one budget would be set at $42,500 (approximately $27,000 in new funding) for this stage of the work and the Committee would report back to CALA at its meeting in June 2018 with a draft policy document as well as recommendations on phase two. Submitted Respectfully by:

Darryl Condon AIBC Past-President Nathalie Dion OAQ President Toon Dressen OAA Past-President David Edwards SAA Past-President Celeste Mackay NWTAA President Therese LeBlanc NSAA Past-President Gordon Richards AIBC Registrar, Past-President John Stephenson OAA President

Agenda Item 6.0


Background The work of this committee started in July 2016 when an ad-hoc committee met to develop a proposal to CALA for support of the need to develop a process to engage the profession, and the public, in a discussion on the future of the architectural profession in Canada (see attached Appendix A). At the October 2016 meeting of CALA the recommendations were adopted and this committee was struck with the mandate to develop a process and report back to CALA at its spring meeting. At that time, the mandate approved by CALA was:

Action/Agreement: There was agreement that the formation of the proposed Sub-committee and its mandate is an appropriate means to define the next step In the process of addressing the Report and Recommendations of the 2014 National Validation Conference, and that a budget of approximately $30,000 be agreed to which would allow the sub-committee to complete Its work in time for the May 2018 CALA meeting. This would represent a maximum levy amount of $3 per registered member for each jurisdiction.

Accordingly, a committee was struck consisting of Toon Dressen, Past-President OAA; Darryl Condon, Past-President AIBC; Celeste MacKay, President NWTAA; Nathalie Dion, President OAQ; John Stephenson, President OAA; Gordon Richards, Registrar/Past-President AIBC; Therese LeBlanc, Past-President NSAA and Dave Edwards, Past-President SAA. Furthermore it was decided to invite two members of CCUSA (paid for by CCUSA). At the various meetings CCUSA attendees included Lola Sheppard (Waterloo), John Bass (UBC), Lisa Landrum (U of M) and Martin Bressani (McGill). In addition, Mark Vernon participated at the request of AIBC. At the May 2017 CALA meeting the committee presented its recommendation for next steps which was subsequently endorsed by CALA. The recommendations suggested by the sub-committee proposed that the process be divided into two tracks, with each track running concurrently with the other as the work progressed:

Track 1 – The Development of a National Architectural Policy. This work would involve the public, stakeholders, the profession and all those involved in the built environment. It would include identifying the role that architects play in society and how society views the role of architects in the development of the built environment.

Track 2 – Strengthening the Development of Architects This is a direct result of the development of the minimum competency matrix for entry into the profession and establishing which areas of the process need to be taught in schools and which should be addressed as part of a revised intern program to increase the enrollment in the profession.


Since that time, the Track 1 sub-committee has met as a complete group twice and a smaller sub-group met an additional time. The RAIC has been represented in the process by CEO Jody Ciofu and 1st Vice President Michael Cox while the CCUSA has been represented by Lisa Landrum (twice) and John Bass and Jason Johnson (once each). As well Scott Kemp, former AIBC President, participated in the latest meeting. It is important to recall that the OAQ has been working with its constituents and the public to develop a national architectural policy for Quebec. The work of the OAQ provides a helpful example of the potential approach to addressing this issue. (See attached Appendix B.) The OAQ has confirmed that it is prepared to share the development information with the other regulators in the country. Since they have already conducted a series of meetings and discussions within Quebec, their role for the broader initiative will not include additional stakeholder meetings but rather work to align, coordinate and support the processes. After its deliberations the sub-committee decided that a three phase approach should be utilized for the future work and so that the regulators have continuous involvement at each phase. The phases should be struck to coincide with upcoming CALA meetings. The three phases are: Phase 1 – Development of a briefing position on the future of the profession (six months) The objective is to produce a document that puts forward a position on the future of the profession for subsequent feedback and consultation. In developing this work, the Committee would review existing documents and various national architecture policies including a survey on architecture practice (European publication), Danish architecture policy, RAIC architecture policy, Quebec policy and research and others. Tasks during this phase

Funding – explore the opportunities for external funding to support the future work Develop a list of “Champions” – Those institutions (all 3 levels of government) that industry, clients and architects come into contact with to engage them in promoting this work. Create process for Phase 2 that would allow for different consultation approaches in the regions by regulators, schools and chapters Develop a context statement that would be used to promote the urban environment Develop a budget for Phase 2

It is intended that the development of the position paper will be conducted by a smaller working group, consisting of Toon Dressen, Darryl Condon, John Stephenson and Lisa Landrum,


with the full committee providing support and feedback to the position document while developing other components of Phase 1 work. Phase 2 – Validation of Phase 1 paper (six months) During this phase it is anticipated that CALA would engage a consultant to help organize and track the results of the consultation process with the profession, selected clients and public and government. It is anticipated that each regulator, school and advocacy body that chooses to participate will have the ability to contribute to a set of common questions utilizing a flexible methodology that allows for a variety of information gathering techniques. Tasks during this phase may include:

Engage a consultant capable of undertaking the work Apply and receive funds from external sources, where applicable Develop a list of appropriate personnel as contacts in each region. (Allow the regulators to select their approach to this work.) Correlate responses and develop a position paper. Hold a symposium with the profession.

Phase 3 – Development of National Architecture Policy document for adoption by government During this phase, feedback gathered during Phase 2 will be incorporated into a final document that will subsequently be promoted and distributed. It is anticipated that the policy document will have broad implications on the education of architects and engagement with government, and will become a living document that evolves as practice continues to adapt to new changes. It could form the basis of a national architecture policy with provincial adoption. Tasks during this phase may include:

Finalize policy document, potentially with the assistance of professional writing assistance. Publish position paper Develop the graphics, message and communication plan. Meet and lobby with all levels of government and major clients.


Proposed Outline Schedule 16 October 2017 CALA meeting October 2017 to April 2018 Phase One work and submission of report to the regulators for

consideration in advance of the May 2018 CALA meeting. May 2018 CALA meeting, with discussion of Phase One recommendations

and request for authorization to proceed to Phase Two. June 2018 to April 209 Phase Two work (anticipated) Spring 2019 CALA meeting, with discussion of Phase One recommendations

and request for authorization to proceed to Phase Three. 2019-2020 Phase three work Proposed Budget If we assume much of this work can be done aligned with other meetings, that are independently funded, then it will be possible to minimize costs associated with this process. Phase One Writing Group Meetings (3@$4500) $13,500 Phase One – Sub-Committee meetings (full group) Meetings (2@$12,000) $24,000 General Expenses (room rental, etc…) $5,000 Total proposed budget for Phase One $42,500 Note: approximately $15,500 remains from the previously approved budget thus it is anticipated that this can be deducted from the new funds required to support phase one. Thus the request at this time is for $27,000 of new funds. Costs for CCUSA and RAIC representatives would be paid by those organizations. Recommendation It is recommended that each regulator approve continuing with the effort of developing a National Architecture Policy and authorize Phase One of this process to commence work immediately. The phase one budget would be set at $42,500 (approximately $27,000 in new funding) for this stage of the work and the Committee would report back to CALA at its meeting in June 2018 with a draft policy document as well as recommendations on phase two.


Appendix A Text prepared by sub-committee, 27 May 2017 CONTEXT STATEMENT ON THE FUTURE OF THE PROFESSION Is Architecture evolving or broken? The profession of Architecture, in Canada, is subject to increasing challenges and is experiencing a greater rate of change than perhaps at any time in its history. Understanding the threats and designing systems for more rapid adaptability are key components of ensuring our ongoing relevance as a profession. While we enjoy long standing traditions and our work has been central to so many of the great physical achievements of humanity, our role and future relevance is being eroded by a variety of factors including:

Technological changes Increasing specialization Increasing globalization Changing project delivery methodologies Scope creep by other professions, and the creation of new specialists Perceived lack of value A lack of political and social engagement by architects Shifting scales of practice with the reduction of local mid-sized firms. Demographic challenges Environmental challenges The relatively small size of the profession The trend towards consolidation of professions Increasing complexity of systems and codes Automation of the building process A wave of retiring architects paired with the low rate of incoming registered architects

These challenges are not necessarily unique either to our profession or to the Canadian context. Others, such as graphic designers, are experiencing even more acute problems resulting from the wide-spread access to powerful and inexpensive computer software, in many cases, eliminating the need for much of their traditionally unique and specialized knowledge. While we have not, yet, seen the same degree of impact on our profession there is much to suggest that our profession is also under potentially significant threat. Given the increasing global practice of architecture, this situation is not unique to Canada. The evidence of our collective challenge is reflected in a variety of commonly held perceptions about the current state of the profession

Marginalization in the building process Low fees and associated wages Feelings of lack of respect Demographic imbalances within the profession


Stereotypical view of Architect’s priorities and desire to self-aggrandize What is increasingly clear that it is necessary to undertake a comprehensive re-examination of the architect’s role and to develop a more powerful vision of the future of the profession. With this in mind, an ad-hoc group of architects and educators from across Canada gathered to discuss this situation and established the following problem statement:

Given today's rapidly changing conditions of architectural practice, the profession needs to take a holistic view of the education, training and ongoing learning of architects. In order to ensure continuing relevance, and building upon the discussions started at the St-Sauveur conference in 2014, the profession needs to respond quickly. The profession will benefit from a national voice with representation from regulators, architects, and educators to discuss and galvanize actions to address these challenges.

Subsequently both CALA and CCUSA endorsed a process to consider this challenge in greater detail and to provide recommendations on the nature of the discussions and consultations that could propose a renewed and compelling vision for the future of the profession. This report contains the recommendations from the Sub-Committee on the Future of Architecture on a path forward. This report is intended to develop recommendations for a process, including how best to conduct the conversations, and who should be involved, to address the following questions:

1. What does society perceive as the value of architecture, i.e., the built environment? Why and how does architecture matter?

2. What does society perceive to be the positive contributions of architects to this value proposition?

3. What does society perceive to be the weaknesses of the profession in delivering this value?

4. What will society need, and value, from us as architects in the future? 5. How do we as architects face those changes in a positive way and what does this mean

for our skills? (both now and in the future) 6. How should an architect best obtain the necessary skills?

a. prior to entering a school of architecture b. while in a school of architecture c. in transition through Internship d. after registration

7. How can the schools, the regulators and the profession work together to achieve the type of outcomes that are needed?

8. How can we ensure that our systems, such as education, internship and accreditation, are more adaptable in the face of ongoing change?

Through this process, it is our belief that we will better position the profession of architecture, as well as its methods of teaching and training, and sustaining members’ competencies, to ensure that the public benefits from the work of a strong profession today and into the future.


Appendix B Text prepared by Nathalie Dion, April 2 2017 INFORMATION ABOUT THE PUBLIC CONVERSATION PROCESS IN QUEBEC The Public Conversation OAQ is about to begin is more or less a public consultation which is defined by Wikipedia as following: It is a process by which the public's input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goals are in improving the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in large-scale projects or laws and policies. It usually involves notification (to publicise the matter to be consulted on), consultation (a two-way flow of information and opinion exchange) as well as participation (involving interest groups in the drafting of policy or legislation). This public consultation is part of the process OAQ started three years ago to seek the adoption of a National Architecture Policy by the Quebec government. To convince our elected representatives, we want to the public awareness about the built environment. Thirteen cities will be visited around Quebec. The consultation is going to be about what the public wants for the future of architecture. By meeting the public, we want to seek their comments about their environment and how they think it could be improved. The objectives of the conversation are to:

Raise public awareness on how the built environment can influence the quality of life; Understand the public concerns about the built environment; Provide the Government of Québec with a memorandum setting out these concerns and demonstrate the need for a National Architecture Policy for Quebec.

The discussion is open to all citizens interested in contributing to the debate. Conducted in the form of a World café, it is an opportunity for exchange and dialogue among the participants, in a friendly atmosphere and on the basis of questions proposed by OAQ. The participants are given a guide with the questions they should answer, working in groups of 5 to 8 persons. The answers are then shared with the rest of the assembly. They are also compiled in a document which will be presented in a public Forum. All the information gathered will be used to write a memorandum for the government to ascertain the importance of a built environment of high quality and the need to take actions to achieve this quality in every project. INFORMATION ABOUT A NATIONAL POLICY OF ARCHITECTURE A National Architecture Policy, as is the case in some countries, is a document that sets out the direction of a government with respect to planning, design, construction, maintenance and renovation of buildings, infrastructure and public spaces. Based on the assumption that architecture influence the quality of life of all citizens, such a policy is used to harmonize laws and regulations as well as the actions of the various ministries and agencies involved in the built environment. Beyond a regulatory framework, it is a basis for dialogue established on


principles clearly set out, and aiming at common objectives, to build support or even to change mentalities. So formulated as to adapt to time, technological advances and changes of governments, this common vision of architecture must reflect the general aspiration of society in a sustainable way. NATIONAL POLICIES OF ARCHITECTURE IN EUROPE INSPIRING MODELS Some 20 countries or regions of Europe have adopted a policy of Architecture. France, with its Architectural Law of 1977, was the first to do it. The Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Denmark and Sweden adopted one in the 1990s. Then, in the 2000s, the European Union issued guidelines which prompted other Member States and regions to act the same way. The principles set forth in these guidelines are essentially as follows:

Architecture, in the broadest sense of the built environment, is an element of culture. By its ubiquity, Architecture affects the quality of life of citizens. Citizens have the right to live in a quality environment. Consequently, every State must ensure that certain standards are respected, in accordance with the needs of its population.

In return, Architecture, as an economic activity and a cultural product, contributes to the attractiveness and prosperity of the State.

Memorandum



From: John Stephenson, President Date: October 23, 2017 Subject: Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) – National Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) Standing Committee Report

and Budget Request Objective: Council to consider the attached report of the National CACB Standing Committee, which was presented at the October 16 meeting of CALA. Council to consider the request for funding to further the work on the CACB Standing Committee. Background: The attached Report was presented by the national CACB Standing Committee at the October 16 CALA meeting in Montreal. The Report outlines the work that the Committee has been undertaking over the past year, which includes a proposal to consider further specific recommendations arising from the National Validation Conference, specifically those that are related to the internship in architecture process. I will suggest that the Report is self-explanatory which was presented in detail at the CALA meeting. OAA Executive Director, Kristi Doyle and myself represented the OAA at the meeting. The Report includes a budget request from the Committee, which is needed to further the work as noted. Attachment 1 to the Report represents the proposed 2018 Budget and also explains the use of monies that have been obtained via an EDSC funding grant. Notwithstanding the receipt of grant monies, not all activities for the Committee can be covered out of that funding.

2

Council is being asked to fund the OAA’s portion of the requested $48,000 that is being sought based on the national per capita funding formula. This OAA’s contribution would be $14,079, which could be funded from the 2018 Policy Contingency Budget. Council’s comments on other items included in the Report are welcomed. Action: Council to consider the request for funding as noted above and approval to further the work of the National CACB Standing Committee.

Agenda Item 7.2

Agenda Item 7.2Attachment 1

CACB Procedures for AccreditationFor Professional Degree Programs in Architecture

2017 Edition Draft 2.4 The French Version may be obtained from www.cacb-ccca.caVersion: July 23, 2017

This document should be read in conjunction with the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation document. In case of inconsistencies between the two documents, the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditations shall govern.

The Canadian Architectural Certification Board 1 Nicholas Street - Suite 710

Ottawa ON Canada K1N 7B7 Voice: (613) 241-8399

Fax: (613) 241-5750 E-mail: [email protected]

Web Site: www.cacb-ccca.ca

Agenda Item 7.2Attachment 3A

2017 Procedures for Accreditation - Draft 2.4 July 23, 2017

Page 2 of 30

Table of Contents Acronyms 4 Definitions 5 The Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). An Overview 6 The CACB Accreditation Program 7 Part A: The Accreditation Review Process 81. The Initial Accreditation Process 8

1.1 Eligibility ........................................................................................................................................................... 81.1.1 Eligibility Consultation .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Candidacy ........................................................................................................................................................ 81.2.1 Candidacy Term .................................................................................................................................. 91.2.2 Maintaining Candidacy Status ............................................................................................................. 9

1.3 Initial Accreditation ........................................................................................................................................... 91.3.1 Initial Accreditation Process ................................................................................................................ 91.3.2 Term of Initial Accreditation ................................................................................................................. 91.3.3 Failure to Achieve Initial Accreditation ............................................................................................... 10

2. The Cyclical Accreditation Review Process 102.1 General Requirements ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Visiting Team ................................................................................ 102.1.2 Conflicts of Interest ............................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Pre-visit Activities ........................................................................................................................................... 122.2.1 Initiation of Process ........................................................................................................................... 122.2.2 Selection of Visiting Team Chair ....................................................................................................... 122.2.3 Preparing and Submitting the Architecture Program Report (APR) ................................................... 122.2.4 Review and Acceptance of the Architecture Program Report (APR) ................................................. 132.2.5 Selection of the Visiting Team ........................................................................................................... 132.2.6 Setting the Site Visit Schedule and Agenda ...................................................................................... 15

2.3 Site Visit ......................................................................................................................................................... 152.3.1 Site Visit Agenda ............................................................................................................................... 152.3.2 The Team Room................................................................................................................................ 182.3.3 The Team Work Area ........................................................................................................................ 192.3.4 Faculty Exhibit ................................................................................................................................... 192.3.5 Visiting Team Travel Arrangements .................................................................................................. 19

2.4 Post-visit Activities ......................................................................................................................................... 192.4.1 Writing the Final Draft Visiting Team Report (VTR) ........................................................................... 202.4.2 Writing the Final Visiting Team Report (VTR) .................................................................................... 212.4.3 The Program Head’s Evaluation of the Accreditation Sequence ....................................................... 21


Page 3 of 30

2.4.4 Cyclical Accreditation Review Cost Report ........................................................................................ 212.4.5 Expense Reimbursement for Visiting Team Members ...................................................................... 21

Part B: Policies and Decision 233. Decisions and Reporting 23

3.1 Accreditation Decisions .................................................................................................................................. 233.2 Maintaining Accreditation through Reporting to CACB .................................................................................. 23

3.2.1 Annual Reports (AR) ......................................................................................................................... 233.2.2 Automatic Certification ....................................................................................................................... 243.2.3 Focused Evaluation Reporting .......................................................................................................... 24

3.3 Revocation or Lapse in Accreditation ............................................................................................................. 254 Rules of Communication 26

4.1 Correspondence from Programs and Visiting Teams to the CACB Office ..................................................... 264.2 Maintaining Confidentiality ............................................................................................................................. 264.3 Public Disclosure of Accreditation Outcomes ................................................................................................ 26

5 Petitioning Procedures 275.1 Reconsideration and Appeals of Accreditation Decisions .............................................................................. 275.2 Reconsideration Process ............................................................................................................................... 275.3 Reconsideration Procedures .......................................................................................................................... 275.4 Appeal Process .............................................................................................................................................. 285.5 Appeal Procedures ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Part C: Appendices 30


Page 4 of 30

Acronyms APR Architecture Program Report AR Annual Report CACB Canadian Architectural Certification Board CASA Canadian Architecture Students Association CALA Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities CCUSA Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture CES Canadian Education Standard FER Focused Evaluation Report FETR Focused Evaluation Team Report MRA Mutual Recognition Agreements NAAB National Architectural Accrediting Board (United States) PPC Program Performance Criteria SPC Student Performance Criteria VTR Visiting Team Report


Page 5 of 30

Definitions Ability: proficiency in using specific information to accomplish a task, correctly selecting the appropriate information, and accurately applying it to the solution of a specific architectural problem. Accreditation: the public recognition accorded to a professional program that meets established professional qualifications and educational standards through initial and periodic evaluations.

Certification: the confirmation that an individual’s academic qualifications comply with the standards for entry to the profession

Elective Studies: courses, offered within or outside the Program, which provide opportunities for students to develop particular areas of expertise or to study topics of personal interest within the discipline of architecture. General Studies: courses, offered within or outside the Program, which provide opportunities for students to develop a broad understanding of human knowledge in the arts and sciences, outside of the specific discipline of architecture. Pre-Professional Degree: a University degree that is intended by the institution to form a necessary part of a professional program in architecture but that is not in itself sufficient for CACB certification. Such degrees are evaluated by the CACB as part of the accreditation process and will contribute to satisfying the Student Performance Criteria. The CACB maintains a list of Pre-Professional Degrees offered in Canada.

Program Performance Criteria: measures, against which the Program in its entirety is evaluated for accreditation.

Program(s): the particular curriculum, human resources, governance, and physical and administrative infrastructure being put forward by an institution seeking accreditation.

Student Performance Criteria: measures, against which student outcomes are evaluated, that identify the skills and knowledge that the Program’s graduates must have attained for accreditation.

Understanding: the capacity to analyse, classify, compare, summarise, explain, and/or interpret information.


Page 6 of 30

The Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). An OverviewThe CACB is a national independent non-profit corporation. The directors are elected from individuals nominated by the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA), the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA), and the Canadian Architecture Students’ Association (CASA). The CACB is a decision-making and policy-generating body. It is the sole organization recognized by the architectural profession in Canada to assess the educational qualifications of architecture graduates (Certification Program)1 and to accredit professional degree programs in architecture that are offered by Canadian universities (Accreditation Program).2 The CACB head office is in Ottawa, Ontario. It adheres to the principles of fairness, transparency, clarity, and ethical business practices in all of its activities. Mission and Mandate

Mission: To bridge design education and the practice of architecture through the pursuit of excellence in certification andaccreditation.

The CACB is committed to fostering excellence in architectural education. The CACB holds a broad view of society and the architectural profession and strives to foster an academic environment to facilitate the training of architects who possess modern professional and technical skills. The CACB is also committed to continuing cooperation with its members, the architectural profession at large, and accrediting agencies in Canada and internationally.

MandateThe CACB receives its mandate from the CALA and the CCUSA to:

1. Certify educational qualifications of individual architectural graduates (Certification Program); 2. Accredit professional architecture programs at Canadian universities (Accreditation Program); 3. Certify professional qualifications of broadly experienced foreign architects (BEFA Program);3 and 4. Collaborate and conduct research, nationally and internationally, as it relates to architectural accreditation

and academic certification.

1 The Certification Program is based on legal requirements entrenched in the provincial/territorial architects Acts, and the agreement of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) as to the mandatory characteristics of this certification. Certification of the educational qualifications of applicants holding a degree or diploma in architecture is carried out in accordance with the conditions and criteria contained in the Canadian Education Standard (CES), established and acclaimed by the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities. The CACB, as the sole administrator, ensures that the CES stays current. In the fulfilment of its certification mandate, the Board maintains an assessment committee to review the academic credentials of all applicants.

2 By agreement of the Licensing Authorities (the councils of nine provincial institutes and associations), the CACB was established in 1976 to assess and certify the academic qualifications of individuals holding a professional degree or diploma in architecture who intended to apply for registration. In 1991, the CACB mandate to certify degree credentials was reaffirmed, and its membership was revised to reflect its additional responsibility for accrediting professional degree programs in Canadian university Schools of Architecture. L’Ordre des Architectes du Québec joined the CACB in 1991 and the North West Territories Association of Architects joined in 2001. 3 The agreement signed in Winnipeg, MB, on February 25, 2012, by the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) and the Canadian Council of University Schools of Architecture (CCUSA), extended the CACB’s mandate to accommodate the administration of the broadly experienced foreign architects (BEFA) program.


Page 7 of 30

The CACB Accreditation Program Graduation from a CACB-accredited program is the first of three steps (education, experience, and examination) on the path to licensure. The CACB only accredits Programs that are intended by their institution to be professional degrees in architecture that lead to licensure. Professional accreditation of a Program means that it has been evaluated by the CACB and substantially meets the educational standards that comprise, as a whole, an appropriate education for an architect. The accreditation process requires a self-assessment by the institution or Program, an evaluation of the self-assessment by the CACB, and a site visit and review conducted by a team representing the CACB. The curriculum of a CACB-accredited Program includes general studies, professional studies, and elective studies, ensuring that graduates will be technically competent critical thinkers capable of navigating multiple career paths within a changing societal context. Specifically, the CACB requires an accredited Program to produce graduates who are competent in a range of intellectual, spatial, technical, and interpersonal skills; who understand the historical, socio-cultural, and environmental context of architecture; who are able to solve architectural design problems (including the integration of technical systems and regulatory requirements); and who comprehend the roles and responsibilities of an architect in society. The CACB looks at the accreditation of architectural education within a broad frame and with an atmosphere of cooperation and mutual respect. The CACB strives to:

- create and maintain conditions that will encourage the development of architectural educational practices suited to the institutional history, mission, culture, and condition particular to the Program; and

- assist Programs in fulfilling the broad requirements of the profession of architecture. The CACB administers the accreditation of the Canadian architecture programs in accordance with established criteria and procedures by:

establishing, maintaining, and publishing policies under which it accredits university programs in architecture; establishing, maintaining, and publishing criteria to be used in the process of evaluating university programs for accreditation (CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation) and procedures for evaluating programs and making accreditation decisions (CACB Procedures for Accreditation); conducting periodic reviews of its conditions and procedures and introducing amendments, if necessary, into existing conditions and procedures; conducting program evaluations in accordance with the applicable conditions and procedures for accreditation (accreditation decisions rest solely with the CACB Board of Directors); maintaining a public register of accredited architecture programs and the terms and conditions of the accreditation, the APR, and the VTR; and establishing and publishing an appeal procedure concerning accreditation decisions.

Accreditation Documentation CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation These are the guiding documents for the accreditation of Programs offering professional degrees in architecture. They outline the requirements that the accredited Programs must meet and the procedures to follow to ensure a uniform, fair, and equitable accreditation process that will uphold the minimum standards in architectural accreditation. The CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and the CACB Procedures for Accreditation are companion documents that should be read together. In both documents, words including “must,” and other grammatically imperative terms set forth a requirement, while “may” indicates a suggestion.


Page 8 of 30

Part A: The Accreditation Review Process

1. The Initial Accreditation ProcessThe initial accreditation process has 3 phases: eligibility, candidacy, and accreditation. Institutions intending to establish a professional degree program are encouraged to seek guidance from educational and professional consultants, advisory groups, and the CCUSA.

1.1 EligibilityEligibility may be granted once the Program has been approved by its institution and a plan for its development has been formulated. Applications can be made at any time during the year in hard copy to the CACB and must include:

a) A letter from the Institution's Chief Academic Officer (Provost or equivalent) stating the intention to seek accreditation for a professional degree program in architecture;

b) Payment of the fee identified in the fee schedule; c) Evidence that the applicant is recognized as an institution of higher learning within its province or

territory, including reference to applicable legislation; d) Evidence that the program seeking initial accreditation has completed all approvals necessary in

its jurisdiction; and e) A document entitled The Plan for Achieving Initial Accreditation, which:

- Is an analysis of the current status of the program that identifies long-term objectives for establishing and implementing the new degree program;

- Is an analysis of the extent to which the new program already complies with the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation with special emphasis on program identity, resources, the curricular framework, SPC Matrix; and

- Proposes a course of action for meeting the conditions of initial accreditation.

1.1.1 Eligibility Consultation A Review Panel consisting of the CACB Executive Director, President, and one additional Director will review the application in detail and determine whether to accept the application; request additional information; or reject the application. At least one member of the Review Panel must be an educator.

If the application is accepted by the Review Panel, an Eligibility Consultation will be scheduled. The Eligibility Consultation typically lasts 3 days (see Appendix A-1).and has three purposes: 1. To review the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and the CACB Procedures for

Accreditation with the proposed Program’s administrators, faculty, staff, and students; 2. To confirm the institutional commitment to the implementation of The Plan for Achieving Initial

Accreditation; and 3. To review the resources committed to the Program.

After the Eligibility Consultation, the CACB Board will make a decision regarding the Program’s eligibility to apply for Candidacy, based on the report of the Eligibility Review Panel. Eligibility is confirmed if the Board considers that the Program can achieve accreditation according to its plan for initial accreditation.

1.2 CandidacyAn eligible program can apply for Candidacy once students have been admitted and classes have commenced. Applications must be received in hard copy and, if received no later than September 15, will be processed by the CACB by July 1 of the following year. The application must include:

a) A letter from the Institution's Chief Academic Officer (Provost or equivalent) applying for candidacy for initial accreditation;

b) Payment of the fee identified in the fee schedule; c) Evidence that students have been admitted and classes have begun; and


Page 9 of 30

d) An Architecture Program Report (APR)

The receipt by the CACB of the application initiates a Candidacy review, which is the same as a Cyclical Accreditation Review described in Section 2 - The Cyclical Accreditation Review Process, with the following exceptions:

the Candidacy Visiting Team consists of 3 voting members: an educator, a practitioner, and the CACB Executive Director; the Candidacy Visit is 4 days in duration (see Appendix A-2).; exhibition of student work is not required; and expenses for the Candidacy Visiting Team are paid for by the Program.

The Board then reviews the APR, the Candidacy VTR, the viability of the Program's plans for complying with the requirements of the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and additional relevant information. Candidacy status is granted if the Board considers that the Program is implementing its development plan and can achieve accreditation according to that plan no later than 2 years after the planned graduation of the first student cohort.

1.2.1 Candidacy Term Candidacy status expires 2 years after the planned graduation of the first student cohort, or on initial accreditation, whichever comes first.

1.2.2 Maintaining Candidacy Status Once granted, the Program must maintain its candidacy status through subsequent biennial site visits that are initiated by submitting an APR. The duration of candidacy status is limited to a term no longer than 2 years after the planned graduation of the first student cohort. The Program pays for all direct expenses for these visits.

1.3 Initial Accreditation Candidate programs that have met the following eligibility requirements may apply for Initial Accreditation:

a) Completion of a minimum of 2 years of continuous candidacy status; and b) Completion of the professional degree program, for which accreditation is sought, by one

graduating class. This cohort must have graduated not more than 2 years prior to the year in which the Initial Accreditation is granted (e.g. for visits in 2020, the first cohort must have graduated in 2018 or 2019).

Applications must be received in hard copy and, if received no later than April 30, will be processed by the CACB by July 1 of the following year. The application must include a letter from the Program head applying for initial accreditation and stating that by the end of January of the following year, at least one cohort of students will have completed the professional program for which accreditation is being sought.

1.3.1 Initial Accreditation Process With the exception of the application referenced above, the process for Initial Accreditation is identical to Cyclical Accreditation. An Initial Accreditation Site Visit cannot take place until after the completion of the professional degree program, for which accreditation is sought, by one graduating class.

1.3.2 Term of Initial AccreditationPrograms that achieve Initial Accreditation will be granted an initial three-year term, indicating that all major program components and resources are in place. Some additional program development may be necessary and/or deficiencies corrected. To be eligible for CACB certification, students must have graduated from the Program not more than 2 years prior to its Initial Accreditation.

The Accreditation Review following the initial three-year term will be a regular maintenance Accreditation Review, where the terms of Continuing Accreditation will apply.


Page 10 of 30

1.3.3 Failure to Achieve Initial Accreditation If the Program fails to achieve Initial Accreditation in its first attempt, the Program can re-apply for Initial Accreditation in the following year. An institution that has had a program that failed to achieve Initial Accreditation after its second attempt, may apply for eligibility with a new proposal.

2. The Cyclical Accreditation Review ProcessAccreditation is reviewed on a regular cycle determined by the previous term of Accreditation. The process is undertaken by three parties: the Program, represented by the Program Head; the Visiting Team, represented by the Team Chair; and the CACB Board, represented by the Executive Director. Each of these parties has duties and responsibilities in each phase of the process. The CACB recognizes that the areas of focus and levels of excellence will vary among architecture programs, as will the approaches to meeting the conditions and reporting requirements. Considered together, the APR, the exhibition of work at each School, and the ensuing site visit are intended to assure full consideration of the accredited Program’s unique potential for contributing to the needs of students, the institution, the community, the profession and society. The review process has three phases. The first, Pre-visit Activities, is made up largely of self-assessment and preparation for the site visit. The second, the Site Visit, refers to the period of time that the Visiting Team spends at the Program site. The last phase, Post-visit Activities, is comprised of the completion of the VTR and the decision by the CACB Board. Sections 1.0 to 3.0 2.2 to 2.4 outline each of these phases in chronological sequence.

2.1 General Requirements2.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities of the Visiting Team

2.1.1.1 Visiting Team Chair and Visiting Team Members Review Section 2.1.2 Conflicts of Interest and verify to the CACB office that no conflict of interest exists; Prior to the Site Visit, review the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation, the Program's APR, the format for the VTR, the team members’ resumes, and Appendix A-3 Typical Initial and Maintenance Site Visit Agenda; Examine documentation in the Team Room as assigned by the Team Chair; Participate in all aspects of the Site Visit and carry out all tasks assigned by the Team Chair Participate in writing the VTR, which should reflect the team's consensus on all matters of substance by the final night of the visit; Maintain strict confidentiality and sign the CACB confidentiality agreement, as specified under Section 4.2 Maintaining Confidentiality; and Adhere to the timeline and schedules set out in this document.

2.1.1.2 Visiting Team Chair The Visiting Team Chair is fully in charge throughout the site visit and its preparation, and: Prior to the Site Visit

Reviews the APR and completes the APR Review Form; Recommends the acceptance or rejection of the APR to the CACB Board; Informs team members of their roles and responsibilities; Works with the Program to develop a site visit schedule (including all meetings) and offers advice on the content and organization of the Team Room; and Works with the CACB office to schedule a conference call meeting with the Visiting Team to discuss visit responsibilities, and emphasize the preparation required.

During the Site Visit


Page 11 of 30

Conducts an orientation meeting and documentation review for all Visiting Team participants on Day 1 of the visit as described in Section 2.3.1.2 Team Orientation, and requests any additional documentation the Visiting Team may need from the Program; Leads the Visiting Team in all activities, introduces the team to all involved, and speaks on behalf of the team at meetings and events; and Complies with the requirements of CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation.

After the Site Visit Coordinates the production of the VTR with Visiting Team members, ensuring that timelines and schedules set out in this document are adhered to;

Sends the confidential recommendation, with signature pages to the CACB office; Sends the Final Draft VTR to the Program for corrections of fact; Consults with the CACB on any corrections or clarifications requested by the Program; Submits the Final VTR to the CACB; and Reviews the first full narrative Annual Report (AR) following the accreditation visit.

2.1.1.3 Visiting Team Members Prior to the Site Visit

Receive and study the APR submitted by the Program and identify questions and issues prior to arrival on site; Read and understand the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and the CACB Procedures for Accreditation; Participate in introductory conference call(s) scheduled by the Visiting Team Chair; and Coordinate travel and arrival details.

During Site Visit Comply with the requirements of CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation; and Complete assignments as directed by the Team Chair.

After the visit

Participate in the production of the draft VTR as directed by the Team Chair; and Sign required pages of the final VTR.

2.1.2 Conflicts of Interest 2.1.2.1 The CACB seeks to avoid any conflict of interest related to its procedures, deliberations, and accreditation decisions. Every effort is made to ensure that individual CACB Directors and Visiting Team members will be able to examine and evaluate Programs objectively. To guard against a conflict of interest, or the appearance thereof, CACB Directors who are, or have been, associated with a particular Program are prohibited from participating in the accreditation decision concerning that Program or in the deliberations leading to that decision.

2.1.2.2 The CACB will not assign any individual to serve on a Visiting Team if it appears that the individual has a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, that would raise a question as to that individual’s unbiased performance during the evaluation. The CACB reviews academic affiliations of the Visiting Team when accreditation assignments are being made.

2.1.2.3 CACB Directors and potential Visiting Team members are responsible for determining and reporting if they have a conflict of interest, or an appearance of a conflict of interest, with regard to a particular accreditation matter or a particular program, and should request removal


Page 12 of 30

of candidacy from the particular Visiting Team, or from the Board’s deliberations. Such conflicts of interest may include:

Direct Relationship: Is an alumni or former student of the Program being evaluated; or, is or was ever employed by the Program being evaluated. Such conflicts disqualify individuals from participating in the accreditation Visiting Team and in accreditation deliberations regarding that Program.

Indirect Relationship: While prominent educators and practitioners often have a wide circle of acquaintances in a variety of Programs, an indirect relationship that is likely to impact an individual's judgment, will constitute a conflict of interest. Any individual Board or Visiting Team member who has been in any substantive relationship with the Program, must declare such potential conflict of interest, and may, at the discretion of the CACB Board, be disqualified from participation.

Preconceived Opinion: If any individual CACB Director or Visiting Team member has demonstrably formed a strong impression of a Program that would prevent that individual from reviewing the evidence at hand objectively, that person may, at the discretion of the CACB Board, be disqualified from participation.

2.2 Pre-visit Activities

2.2.1 Initiation of Process The CACB sends electronic letters of reminder to the Program Head eighteen and nine months prior to the deadline for submission of the APR, which is due on September 15th.

2.2.2 Selection of Visiting Team Chair

2.2.2.1 Visiting Team Chairs are selected by the CACB Board at the CACB spring Board Meeting. 2.2.2.2 Based on a review of résumés of former Visiting Team Chairs and experienced Visiting Team members, the CACB Executive Director makes recommendations to the Board; however, the selections must be approved by the Board by vote. 2.2.2.3 The Visiting Team Chair is always an experienced educator, or an experienced practitioner who has knowledge of University contexts. 2.2.2.4 A Visiting Team Chair must have been a member (voting or non-voting) of at least three Visiting Teams. At the discretion of the Board, an individual who has been a member of fewer Visiting Teams but has served as Program Head during a visit may be selected as a Visiting Team Chair. 2.2.2.5 The Visiting Team Chair carries significant responsibility prior to, during, and after the site visit. 2.2.2.6 The Program must review and accept (or reject) the nomination of a Team Chair in writing. Grounds for rejection of a proposed Visiting Team Chair are limited to Conflicts of Interest as set out in Section 2.1.2.

2.2.3 Preparing and Submitting the Architecture Program Report (APR)

2.2.3.1 The Program prepares and writes the Architecture Program Report (APR). For a detailed description of the contents of the APR, refer to ’Writing the Architecture Program Report (APR)’ in the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation.


Page 13 of 30

2.2.3.2 Preparation of the APR should serve as a catalyst for a School’s planning and self-assessment process, as well as provide a view of the professional degree Program that cannot be derived solely from the presentation of written material. The APR should reflect the pedagogical aims of a particular school and its professional Program(s). 2.2.3.3 One electronic and two hard copies of the APR, addressing each of the subsections described in the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation, must be received by the CACB office no later than September 15th of the year before the term of accreditation is up for renewal. 2.2.3.4 Should the Program become aware that the APR will be late for any reason, the Program will notify the CACB office in writing immediately, and with reasons outlined. Such notification must be forwarded no later than September 1 of the given year. The CACB Board will determine whether an extension to the APR submission will be granted. 2.2.3.5 Failure to submit an APR by the deadline determined by the CACB will lead to an automatic two-year probationary term, which begins on September 16. 2.2.3.6 After the APR has been accepted, and the Program has made formal acceptance of the Visiting Team, the Program is required to forward a hard copy of the APR directly to the mailing address of each Visiting Team member (including all non-voting members) at least 6 weeks prior to the Site Visit.

2.2.4 Review and Acceptance of the Architecture Program Report (APR) 2.2.4.1 The Visiting Team Chair must review the APR and complete the APR Review Form within 2 weeks of receipt. The primary purpose of this review is not to assess the quality of the Program but rather to determine the completeness and clarity of the APR, and to discern the complexity of the Program's structure. Issues that can affect the size of the team or length of the site visit, such as the existence of multiple or satellite Programs should be taken into account in setting up the visit.

A copy of the completed APR Review Form is forwarded to the Program. The Program has 3weeks to provide any additional information as identified in the APR Review Form.

2.2.4.2 Within 2 weeks of receipt of any additional information, the Visiting Team Chair forwards a recommendation to the CACB Board for action, which leads to one of the following decisions:

Accept the APR and schedule the site visit; Accept the APR contingent on the receipt for Board review, within 7 weeks, of specified additional information. The site visit dates will be determined once this information is accepted; or Reject the APR and grant a 2 year probationary term.

2.2.5 Selection of the Visiting Team 2.2.5.1 Pending acceptance of the APR, a Visiting Team is proposed to visit the Program. All Visiting Team members are representatives of the CACB. 2.2.5.2 After the APR has been accepted by the Board, the Executive Director recommends to the board, the Visiting Team composition, based on a review of the résumés of nominees. Visiting Team selections are then approved at the fall Board meeting. 2.2.5.3 In addition to avoiding conflicts of interest, the CACB makes every effort to ensure that selected Visiting Team members (voting and non-voting) collectively represent:

a balance and diversity of viewpoints about architecture and education; and demographic and geographic diversity.


Page 14 of 30

2.2.5.4 The core Visiting Team is comprised of five voting members (including the Team Chair). It is comprised of two members representing the CCUSA, who are experienced architectural educators; two members representing the CALA, who are broadly experienced practicing architects; and a student representative or an intern. 2.2.5.5 Current CACB directors are not appointed to the core Visiting Team. 2.2.5.6 The core Visiting Team is selected so that no member, with the possible exception of the intern or student member, is on his/her first accreditation visit. At the discretion of the Board, team members who have not previously been on a CACB Visiting Team, but who have been on Visiting Teams for similar systems, may be included in the core Visiting Team. 2.2.5.7 No member of the core Visiting Team may reside in the Province or Territory in which the Program is located. 2.2.5.8 With the exception of the situation described in 2.2.5.9, no individual will be assigned to serve as a member of a Visiting Team for the same Program on two consecutive visits. 2.2.5.9 If a Program received a reduced term of accreditation during its last accreditation cycle, then at least one member of the last core Visiting Team will be assigned to the subsequent Visiting Team. 2.2.5.10 In addition to the core Visiting Team, the Visiting Team may include as many as two non-voting members. One of these may be appointed by the Program, while the second may be appointed by the CACB for training purposes. With the agreement of the Program, additional non-voting members may be appointed by the CACB. 2.2.5.11 The team should respect that non-voting members are in training, but participate fully in the site visit and in the preparation of the draft VTR but do not participate in the vote. Non-voting members must leave the Team Room before voting occurs. 2.2.5.12 Non-voting members appointed by the CACB may include prospective visiting team members or CACB Directors. 2.2.5.13 The non-voting member recommended by the Program cannot be a current faculty member (including adjunct or sessional instructors) of the Program. The Program recommends to the CACB its non-voting member. The non-voting member recommended by the Program must not be an advocate for the Program, but may facilitate an understanding of the Program. 2.2.5.14 At the discretion of the CACB, one or more observers may also be present during a visit, for either the full visit or a portion of it. Observers may be, but are not limited to: foreign visitors, CACB staff or consultants, or representatives of affiliated accrediting and regulatory agencies. The Program and the CACB must agree upon the number of observers attending. Observers do not participate in the visit but are there to observe the process. Observers must leave the Team Room before voting occurs. 2.2.5.15 All Visiting Team members (including the Team Chair) must meet CACB training requirements. 2.2.5.16 All Visiting Team members should be fluent in the language of the Program being visited. 2.2.5.17 The CACB notifies the Program of the Visiting Team composition. If the Program challenges a member of the Visiting Team on the grounds included in Section 2.1.2 Conflict of Interest, the Executive Director suggests other nominees to the Board, who vote on these members. The new composition of the Visiting Team is then presented to the Program. 2.2.5.18 Once the Program is informed of, and has agreed to, the Visiting Team composition, the CACB office invites the Visiting Team members (voting and non-voting) to serve on the visiting team, and confirms their role and responsibilities. The CACB will forward all Team Members’ resumes to the Program for distribution to faculty, staff, and students.


Page 15 of 30

2.2.6 Setting the Site Visit Schedule and Agenda 2.2.6.1 Site visits are typically scheduled during the months of February or March following the submission of the APR. Site visits are scheduled while studio classes are in session. The visit schedule will be arranged by asking the Visiting Team members to indicate their availability on three possible dates proposed by the Program. 2.2.6.2 The Program will work with the Team Chair to develop a site visit agenda (see Appendix A-3). The agenda should accommodate the particular circumstances of the Program and the Visiting Team Chair. Time must be allocated for reviewing exhibited work, conducting interviews, and drafting the VTR. 2.2.6.3 At least 6 weeks prior to the site visit, the schedule and agenda must be finalized by the Program, and accepted by the Team Chair and distributed to Visiting Team members (and Observers if applicable) prior to the Visiting Team conference call. 2.2.6.4 Visiting Team Conference Call(s) No later than 1 week prior to the Site Visit, Visiting Team Members participate in a conference call, organized by the Team Chair, to identify issues and concerns in the APR and to discuss visit responsibilities.

2.3 Site Visit During a typical visit, the following activities take place:

The Program

Introduces the Visiting Team to the Team Room and the Exhibition of student work; and Provides additional material/evidence or other support as requested by the Visiting Team.

Visiting Team Chair Conducts Visiting Team orientation; Participates in and coordinates all Visiting Team activities; and Conducts daily debriefing sessions.

Visiting Team Engages in the APR review; Meets with the Program Head; Tours the facilities;

- Meets with the school or college administrators, Chief Academic Officer(s) of the Institution, faculty and students;

- Engages in review of student and faculty exhibits; - Engages in review of general studies, electives and related programs; - Engages in observation of studios, lectures and seminars; - Meets with student representatives; - Meets with alumni and local practitioners; - Participates in daily debriefing sessions; - Deliberates on accreditation Conditions and drafts the VTR; and - Attends exit meetings with the Program Head (Director/Chair), with the school or college

administrators, Chief Academic Officer(s) of the Institution, faculty and students.

2.3.1 Site Visit Agenda The site visit, in conjunction with the APR, allows the Visiting Team to evaluate the Program in relation to the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation.


Page 16 of 30

During the site visit the Visiting Team reviews documentation of the Program's institutional context, examines student and faculty exhibits, conducts open-ended meetings and interviews, and tours the facilities to identify strengths and concerns that may not have been evident in the APR.

Although the items listed below may be combined in different ways, a typical site visit agenda must include the following:

2.3.1.1 Site Visit duration Visiting Team members must arrive on Saturday and remain through mid-day on Wednesday, as specified in the agenda.

2.3.1.2 Visiting Team orientation and document review (Visiting Team only): This is a mandatory component, in which:

CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation are reviewed; interview protocols for various meetings and generally establishes how the team will work together are discussed; the APR and any issues and causes for concern are reviewed and identified; the questions that need to be addressed during the site visit are identified and prioritized; and team assignments are outlined with the potential for agenda details to be revised.

2.3.1.3 Tours of the facilities (Visiting Team, Program representative, and others): Usually led by the Program Head or designate, this includes:

a tour and explanation of how the Team Room is organized; a tour of the facilities used by the Program (within the school building, institution, and community); meetings with the personnel of media centres, workshops, and laboratories as available; and a tour of the library, which includes a meeting with the architecture and visual resources librarians to discuss the self-assessment(s) included in the APR.

2.3.1.4 Presentation of the curriculum Faculty or administrators discuss the structure of the curriculum, its various components and interrelations, its pedagogical goals and the relationships of individual projects and assignments to those goals. The discussion must also include general studies, electives, minors or concentrations that students may pursue, and any programs or groups that have a significant relationship with the accredited degree Program in architecture.

2.3.1.5 Meetings with Program Head (Visiting Team) These include discussions of issues such as:

the Visiting Team's questions arising out of the APR review; the Program's strategic plan and self-assessment; progress made since the previous site visit; any changes required to the visit agenda; and any additional materials needed by the Visiting Team.

2.3.1.6 Entrance meetings


Page 17 of 30

These are distinct meetings that include the specific group and the Visiting Team, to discuss the Program's strengths and causes for concern, issues raised by the APR, and interrelationships between the Program and other units in the school, faculty, and institution with:

University President and Provost; Dean(s) or Faculty Head(s); Head of Program and Associate Head(s) of Program; Faculty; Staff; and The Student body.

Meetings with administrators should explore the institutional plans for supporting the Program. Meetings with faculty must be open to all ranks from the various curricular areas, including those providing support to the Program from other disciplines. The meeting with the student body should be arranged so that all students can attend, without faculty or staff present. All of these meetings are informal discussions, not formal presentations.

2.3.1.7 Review of student work and faculty exhibits Visiting Team members assume individual and joint responsibility for assessing work presented in the Team Room and elsewhere, as assigned by the Team Chair. Preferably early in the visit, the Team Chair requests supplemental student work, as necessary.

2.3.1.8 Review of transfer credit policy The Visiting Team should assess how the Program evaluates transfer students coming into their Program from other universities. This includes how the Program Performance Criteria (PPC) and Student Performance Criteria (SPC) and/or curricular equivalencies are satisfied.

2.3.1.9 Observation of studios, lectures, and seminars The Visiting Team may attend scheduled classes, and drop in on studios. 2.3.1.10 Meeting with student association representatives This is an informal gathering of a small group of students with the Visiting Team and without the presence of administrators or faculty. Student association representatives may include officers in student organizations or those elected to attend by their peers. 2.3.1.11 Reception with alumni and local practitioners This is an event attended by the Visiting Team, faculty, and provincial association members and administration. This exchange is intended to provide insight into how the Program has changed over time as well as the role of its graduates in the professional community. This event may be hosted by a local architecture firm or other sponsor(s). This event must not be held in the Team Room. 2.3.1.12 Debriefing sessions Each evening, the Visiting Team meets to evaluate its progress, adjust assignments, and assess the need for additional information. During these sessions, material for the preparation of the VTR should be summarized. 2.3.1.13 Accreditation deliberations and drafting of the VTRThe last evening of the site visit is devoted to developing consensus on the Program's performance in relation to each of the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation, drafting the VTR, and agreeing on the confidential recommendation to the CACB Board on the term of accreditation. By the end of the evening, the VTR should be in draft form and ready for editing by the Team Chair.


Page 18 of 30

2.3.1.14 Exit meetings These are distinct meetings that include the specific group and the Visiting Team, during which the Team Chair reads the Team’s General Comments, Program Strengths, and Causes of Concern from the draft VTR. No information regarding the Conditions or SPCs met and not met, or regarding the confidential recommendation, may be divulged in any form. These meetings provide the opportunity for discussion and clarifications, and are held in the following order:

Program Head; Dean(s) or equivalent; and University President and Provost.

Absolutely no information regarding the confidential Visiting Team recommendation should be communicated. This remains the role of the CACB Board, following its final decision.

2.3.2 The Team Room The Team Room is a secure and private space set up in the Program’s facilities so that the Visiting Team can evaluate the Program and carry out their work in privacy. The Team Room includes the presentation of student work in either digital and/or physical formats. Faculty member photos in the room or elsewhere in the building are also helpful for the Visiting Team. The Team Room must contain student studio work, student course work and have a Team ‘work area.’ Prior to the site visit, the Program Head usually discusses the content and organization of the Team Room with the Team Chair. Such consultations notwithstanding, the character, organization, and content of the Team Room is the responsibility of the Program Head, and his/her faculty. At the discretion of the Program under review, material in the Team Room may be presented digitally or in physical form, or in some combination thereof. In arranging the Team Room, it is important to keep in mind that the Visiting Team will need to gain an overview of the curriculum and the integration of studio and course work during each part of the Program.

2.3.2.1 The Team Room must contain clearly identified and easily accessible presentations of student work, in either digital and/or physical formats. Exhibits must include examples of both minimum pass and high achievement, be of sufficient quantity to ensure that all graduates are meeting the performance criteria, have been executed since the previous site visit, and span no less than a single academic year.

2.3.2.2 The presentation of course work must contain a syllabus showing weekly activities and assignments; bibliography; quizzes, tests, and examinations where applicable; and corresponding samples of student work. 2.3.2.3 Although electives, including both studio or course work, are not evaluated for accreditation purposes, there should be a clear strategy for showing how ‘mandatory’ or ‘integral’ elective courses relate to the Program. 2.3.2.4 Evaluation of the PPC may include, but is not restricted to, supporting materials presented in the team room. 2.3.2.5 The means of presenting studio work is at the Program's discretion, but each project must be cross-referenced to the Student Performance Criteria (SPC) matrix and criteria it addresses, contain the date, and indicate its assessment from minimum pass to high achievement. The presentation of studio work must represent the full range of approaches taken and assignments made by various studio critics, and must include project assignments,


Page 19 of 30

handouts, bibliographies, and corresponding samples of student drawings and models, in either digital and/or physical formats. In addition to final projects, in-progress work and student journals may also be included. The progress of one cohort over time may also be illustrated. 2.3.2.6 Whether in digital and/or physical formats, all material outlined in 2.3.1 to 2.3.4 should be clearly labelled and able to be viewed and revisited at the Visiting Team’s pace. 2.3.2.7 Exhibits in spaces outside the Team Room may complement, but not substitute for, the presentation of student work in the Team Room; they should be identified in a manner that is consistent with that used in the Team Room.

2.3.2.8 If more than one professional Program is being reviewed, student work from each Program must be clearly distinguishable.

2.3.3 The Team Work Area The Team work area should be in or very near the Team Room where the presentation of student work related to the Program is held. In preparing the Team work area, the Program Head should discuss what requirements are necessary with the Visiting Team Chair well in advance of the visit. The Team work area should have daylight and must contain a conference table, with seating that is large enough to accommodate the entire Visiting Team. The Team work area must contain a shredder, computer equipment with Internet access as requested by the Team Chair, a printer, a digital projector(s), a screen and sufficient electrical outlets. These requirements may vary (i.e. range of media) depending on how the Program chooses to present its material to the Visiting Team. University personnel also need to be aware of the Visiting Team’s arrival as Visiting Team members may need to provide personal computer information for systems access while on-site, as well as personal information for university security clearance.

2.3.4 Faculty Exhibit An exhibition of faculty work, in digital and/or physical formats, is helpful in assessing the academic context. The exhibition of faculty work should not be in the Team Room. Faculty work may illustrate the range of research, scholarship, and creative activity carried out by all faculty since the previous site visit. It is helpful to furnish an abstract or short summary of the projects and, if applicable, to indicate the faculty member's contribution. The Faculty Exhibit may contain the work of tenured and tenure stream faculty. It may also contain the work of non-tenure stream faculty, including adjuncts and sessionals, clearly indicating each person’s affiliation with the Program.

2.3.5 Visiting Team Travel Arrangements The Program, in consultation with the CACB and the Visiting Team Chair, is responsible for travel and travel arrangements in accordance with the current CACB expense policy. Hotel accommodations must include a suitable private room for team meetings. The Visiting Team should expect to be informed of their accommodations at least 4 weeks prior to the visit.

2.4 Post-visit Activities After the site visit, all parties continue to participate in ongoing activities, which include:

The Visiting Team - Writes and finalizes the draft Visiting Team Report (VTR); submit it to the Program Head for

clarification and factual accuracy; and then submit the signed, final VTR to the CACB Board; - Completes the Team Member evaluation forms (Refer to Appendix A-5 and A-6); and - Applies for expense reimbursement to the Program for payment within thirty calendar days of

submitting the Expense Claim.

The Program


Page 20 of 30

- Reviews the draft VTR for correction of fact and makes appropriate revisions and/or responses; - Receives the final, signed VTR; - Completes the Program Head’s Evaluation of the Accreditation Sequence form (refer to

Appendix A-4) and forwards it to the CACB; - Completes the CACB Cyclical Accreditation Review Cost Report included in Appendix A-7)

Maintains accreditation status through Annual Reports (AR); andSubmits a Focused Evaluation Report, if applicable, according to the procedures in this document (Section 3.2.3).

The CACB Responds to questions from the Programs concerning the preparation of responses to the VTR; Answers ongoing questions from the Programs regarding accreditation issues; Makes accreditation decisions at its Board meetings; Notifies each Program of the CACB Board decision regarding its term of accreditation; Reviews the Visiting Team’s evaluations of its members; Reviews the Program Head’s evaluation of the process; Notifies each Program of the due date of the Annual Reports (AR), and accepts them; While the first full Annual Report following the accreditation visit is reviewed by the Visiting Team Chair, in subsequent years the CACB office reviews the ARs and provides written responses to the Programs; and

- Updates the CACB website to keep its information regarding accreditation current, including the accreditation status for each professional Program in architecture within Canada.

2.4.1 Writing the Final Draft Visiting Team Report (VTR) The VTR conveys the Visiting Team's assessment of the Program, as measured by the students' performance and the overall learning environment. It establishes the degree to which the Program is as described in the APR, and includes documentation of: - The Program's noteworthy qualities with respect to the CACB Conditions; - The Program's deficiencies with respect to the CACB Conditions; - Concerns about the Program's future performance; and - Comments that may be helpful in preparing for future accreditation visits.

The VTR serves multiple purposes. It is essential to the CACB in making its accreditation decision; it may also serve to strengthen the Program and its position within its Institution, and it may inform current and prospective students about the nature and quality of the Program. The VTR must be concise and presented in a consistent manner.

An Initial Draft of the VTR is to be completed by the end of the visit. This draft is signed by all team members, and forms the basis for further versions.

At the completion of the visit, the Visiting Team Chair sends the confidential recommendation on the term of accreditation directly to the CACB, along with signatures of voting team members.

A team-approved final draft of the VTR, excluding the confidential recommendation on the term of accreditation, must be delivered to the Program within 5 weeks of the end of the site visit. The Team Chair is encouraged to have Visiting Team members draft sections of the report prior to the end of the site visit. The milestones are:


Page 21 of 30

No later than 2 weeks after the visit, the Team Chair circulates a more refined second draft to the Visiting Team and the CACB; No later than 1 week after receiving the second draft, Individual team members return their suggested revisions to the Team Chair The Team Chair then completes the Final Draft, incorporating the necessary revisions and sends it to all Team Members and the CACB.

The Final Draft is signed only by the Team Chair, whose signature certifies that the Team has been consulted. A Team Member who feels unable to support the Final Draft must provide written reasons for this position to the CACB no later than 1 week after receiving the Final Draft VTR.

2.4.2 Writing the Final Visiting Team Report (VTR) When the Team Chair sends the Final Draft VTR, excluding the confidential recommendation on the term of accreditation, to the Program Head for corrections of fact, the CACB must be copied. The next 4 weeks are for review and revision.

2.4.2.1 The Program is given 2 weeks in which to make a response to the Final Draft VTR. The Program sends its comments to the Visiting Team Chair with a copy to the CACB. Should the Program suggest amendments to the report that are other than corrections of fact, the Visiting Team Chair copies the response to the Visiting Team members.

2.4.2.2 Within 2 weeks after receipt of the Program’s comments to the VTR by the CACB, the Team Chair and the CACB Executive Director review the Program’s response, make revisions as applicable, and send the Final VTR to the Program and to all the Visiting Team members, with a copy to the CACB. 2.4.2.3 The Final VTR is signed only by the Team Chair, whose signature certifies that the Team has been consulted. A Team Member who feels unable to support the Final VTR must provide written reasons for this position to the CACB no later than 1 week after receiving the Final VTR. Any such communications will be appended to the Final VTR.

2.4.2.4 The Program may provide a response for the Board to review in making their accreditation decision. Any such response forms a permanent attachment to the VTR, and should be sent directly to the CACB.

2.4.2.5 Any other correspondence related to the VTR will not be considered.

2.4.3 The Program Head’s Evaluation of the Accreditation Sequence Within 1 month after the completion of the visit, the Program Head is required to provide an evaluation of the accreditation procedure in order to assist the CACB in improving the performance of its Visiting Teams and the overall accreditation process. Refer to Appendix A-4.

2.4.4 Cyclical Accreditation Review Cost Report Within 1 month after the completion of the visit, the Program is required to provide a completed Cyclical Accreditation Review Cost Report. Refer to Appendix A-7.

2.4.5 Expense Reimbursement for Visiting Team Members Following the site visit, Visiting Team members should must make arrangements for reimbursement.The Program reimburses all related costs for the Core Visiting Team during the site visit, and for the Non-Voting Team Member appointed by the Program (if applicable). The CACB reimburses all related costs for the Non-Voting member and any Observers appointed by the CACB. The CACB reimburses all related costs for any Observers appointed by CACB.


Page 22 of 30

Visiting Teams are subject to individual University reimbursement policies, which will be outlined by the Program prior to the site visit.


Page 23 of 30

Part B: Policies and Decision

3. Decisions and Reporting

3.1 Accreditation DecisionsThe accreditation decision is made by the CACB Board based on the Program’s APR, the Visiting Team Report (VTR) regarding compliance with the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation, and the confidential recommendation submitted by the Visiting Team to the CACB. The CACB Board also takes into account an assessment of the accreditation history of the Program. The Program is notified of the accreditation decision no later than July 1.

3.2 Maintaining Accreditation through Reporting to CACB 3.2.1 Annual Reports (AR) The Annual Report (AR) is part of the ongoing accreditation process. Notwithstanding each Program’s term of accreditation, all Programs must submit ARs every year to maintain their accreditation status.

3.2.1.1 ARs are due at the CACB office on June 30 of each year, and must include the following: a) A response, in the order listed, to each CACB Condition identified as “not met” and to each

cause of concern listed in the Team Findings section of the VTR. The AR narrative may also address any new changes or areas of specific expertise;

b) If applicable, demonstration of compliance with revised or new CACB Conditions and Procedures, or a plan and schedule for achieving compliance;

c) Clearly written documentation of any major curriculum or structural changes to any part of the architectural program or programs. The AR narrative should describe how these changes directly affect the Program’s compliance with the CACB conditions so that the CACB is kept aware of evolving curricula;

d) A Human Resources Statistics Report (refer to Appendix A-8); e) A program academic calendar for the current year; and f) Any other additional information specifically requested by the CACB.

3.2.1.2 Annual reports are due in the following sequence: On June 30 of the final year of an accreditation term, statistical report only (a Site Visit has just been completed) On June 30 of the next to final year of an accreditation term, statistical report only (APR due in September following) On June 30 of all other years, a full AR including narrative report and statistical report.

3.2.1.3 Should the AR not be received by the June 30 due date, the CACB will send a letter to the Program Head, with a copy to the appropriate senior University administration, emphasizing the importance of the report for continuing accreditation. Daily fines will be imposed for the late submission of the AR, as identified in the fee schedule on the CACB website. also be accrued for the late submission of the AR (refer to fee schedule).

3.2.1.4 Each Program’s AR will be reviewed by the CACB Board, which will take one of the following actions: a) Accept the AR;


Page 24 of 30

b) Reject the AR, provide the reasons supporting the decision, and require a revised report to be submitted for the Board’s review by September 15; or

c) Reject the revised AR and consider taking action to advance the schedule for the next accreditation sequence. In such cases, the Program Head, as well as the Chief Academic Officer of the Institution, is notified of the decision and the reasons that support it.

3.2.1.5 Responses to the AR will be sent to each Program within 30 calendar days following the CACB Fall Board meeting.

3.2.1.6 A fine of $500.00 per business day will be incurred for the late submission of the Annual Report, accruing daily after the June 30 deadline.

3.2.2 Automatic Certification Programs must submit a list of graduated students, along with their year of graduation and contact information, to the CACB for certification purposes within 3 months of graduation.

3.2.3 Focused Evaluation Reporting When requiring a Program to undergo a Focused Evaluation, the CACB will clearly specify which Conditions are found to be deficient, including Program Performance Criteria and Student Performance Criteria ‘not met,’ are required to be reported on. The Program is required to prepare a Focused Evaluation Report (FER), as outlined in the letter the Program receives from the CACB regarding the Board’s accreditation decision. The FER is to be submitted to the CACB by April 30 of the year in which the evaluation is scheduled. The steps in the Focused Evaluation process are as follows:

3.2.3.1 The FER identifies the changes made or planned by the Program to remove each Condition found deficient (‘not met’), as addressed in the VTR and according to the CACB decision letter. The report should include course descriptions, course assignments, and samples of work (digital or hard copy) for particular SPC, and or PPC not met, along with a written description of how the Program is addressing each Condition targeted for Focused Evaluation.

3.2.3.2 The CACB reviews the FER submitted by the Program. The Board appoints a Focused Evaluation Team composed of two members of the Visiting Team that last visited the Program plus a CACB Board Member. The Focused Evaluation Team considers the FER, along with the Architecture Program Report (APR), the Visiting Team Report (VTR), the Program response to the VTR and any other pertinent documents upon which the CACB based its finding of deficiency during the accreditation process.

3.2.3.3 Based on the evidence presented, the Focused Evaluation Team writes a Focused Evaluation Team Report (FETR) outlining its findings, which it will submit along with a confidential recommendation to the CACB. If the Focused Evaluation Team determines that all deficiencies in the Conditions ‘not met’ have been addressed, and the Board approves its findings, the Program will be notified that no visit is required and no further action with respect to the Focused Evaluation will be required by the Program.

3.2.3.4 If the Focused Evaluation Team recommends that additional evaluation is required to ensure that all deficiencies have been addressed, the Focused Evaluation Team will then conduct a Focused Evaluation Visit. The Program Head will be advised of the visit 3 months in advance in order to prepare the material on-site for the Focused Evaluation Visit.

3.2.3.5 The Focused Evaluation Team makes a special on-site visit to review the Conditions ‘not met’ in the VTR and according to the CACB decision letter. This team then prepares its FETR, confined to an analysis of the Conditions identified in the Focused Evaluation decision,


Page 25 of 30

and submits its recommendation to the Board. The CACB will forward the final FETR to the Program. The Program may provide a written response to the final report, forwarding a copy of the response to the CACB that forms part of the permanent record.

3.2.3.6 Once the CACB receives the FETR with the team’s confidential recommendation and the Program’s response, the Board will make a decision regarding the Focused Evaluation based on one of the following outcomes: a) Allow the schedule for the next accreditation visit to stand unchanged; or b) Advance the time for the next accreditation visit, while allowing adequate time for the

Program to prepare for such a visit. 3.2.3.7 Decisions of the Board concerning a Focused Evaluation are final and not subject to appeal.

3.3 Revocation or Lapse in Accreditation In the event that a Program’s accreditation status is revoked, the Institution’s Chief Academic Officer must make a request for reinstatement. The procedures for reinstatement are the same as those described in "Candidacy Application" under Section 1.2. The maximum period of candidacy in this case will be 4 years.

If a Program’s accreditation has lapsed, the procedures for reinstatement are the same as those described for Initial Accreditation under Section1.3. The period of candidacy for Programs whose accreditation has lapsed will be for one year. There is also a fine associated with a lapse in accreditation status as identified in the fee schedule.


Page 26 of 30

4 Rules of Communication

4.1 Correspondence from Programs and Visiting Teams to the CACB Office All correspondence, regarding the accreditation review process, between the Visiting Team Chair and the Program Head must be copied to the CACB. All correspondence, regarding the accreditation review process, between the CACB and the Program Head must be copied to the Visiting Team Chair. All correspondence, regarding the accreditation review process, between the Visiting Team Chair and the Program Head ends once the final VTR is submitted.

4.2 Maintaining Confidentiality

4.2.1 The Visiting Team, including non-voting members, must maintain strict confidentiality in perpetuity with respect to materials reviewed, interviews conducted, and team deliberations, including the Visiting Team's confidential recommendation to the CACB Board on a term of accreditation.

4.2.2 The Visiting Team bases its assessment of the Program, in part, on interviews with various constituencies of the Program. All individual or group interviews are confidential, and the information obtained from them is for the exclusive use of the Visiting Team in preparing its VTR and confidential recommendation.

4.2.3 Prior to the CACB accreditation decision, both the CACB and the Program are prohibited from making the VTR available to the collateral organizations or the public. The VTR must not be made available in any form to persons or groups outside the Institution until the Program has received its term of accreditation notification from the CACB.

4.3 Public Disclosure of Accreditation Outcomes

4.3.1 After receipt of the CACB accreditation decision, the Program is required to make available on its website and stored together in the architecture library and be freely accessible to all:

the APR; and

the final VTR and all attachments, including reference to the CACB Conditions and Terms for Accreditation and CACB Procedures for Accreditation on the CACB website.

4.3.2 Unless written permission otherwise is obtained from the CACB, the Program may disseminate only complete copies of the Visiting Team Report (VTR). 4.3.3 The CACB will make the APRs and the VTRs of all accredited and candidate Programs available at its office and on its website. 4.3.4 Each year, the CACB will publish its accreditation decisions on the CACB website. 4.3.5 If a decision is made to place a Program on probation or revoke accreditation, the CACB will notify the member organizations of the decision within 1 month. In the case of a revocation of accreditation, it is the responsibility of the Program to notify its students.


Page 27 of 30

5 Petitioning Procedures

5.1 Reconsideration and Appeals of Accreditation Decisions Accreditation decisions may be reconsidered at the request of an institution. This process has 2 stages: an informal reconsideration process by the CACB board, and a formal appeal process by an independent appeal panel. These 2 stages may be completed sequentially, or an institution may choose to go directly to the appeal process without the informal stage. These stages are detailed below.

5.2 Reconsideration Process Reconsideration is an informal hearing process that allows a Program to request that the Board revisit its accreditation decision. A reconsideration hearing is conducted by the Board at its fall meeting, with representatives from the Institution present. Requests for reconsideration must be received at the CACB office by September 1, in the year of the CACB accreditation decision. The Program must provide evidence that:

a) The Board’s accreditation decision is not supported by factual evidence cited in the VTR and/or other official material, and/or;

b) The CACB and/or Visiting Team failed to comply substantially with established accreditation procedures and any such departure significantly affected the decision.

Requests for reconsideration on other grounds will not be considered.

5.2.1 All correspondence concerning a reconsideration hearing must be addressed to the CACB. 5.2.2 The Institution will bear all expenses that are directly associated with the hearing, such as those for travel, meals, and lodging of attendees representing the Institution, as well as for witnesses appearing at its request.

5.2.3 The outcome of a reconsideration hearing is subject to appeal by the Institution.

5.3 Reconsideration Procedures To initiate reconsideration, the Chief Academic Officer of the Institution must send a written request to the CACB President. The request must specify the grounds for reconsideration and include relevant supporting evidence. A request for reconsideration sets in motion the following sequence of events:

5.3.1 The reconsideration hearing is placed on the agenda for the next board meeting. 5.3.2 At least 2 weeks prior to the Board Meeting, the Chief Academic Officer of the Institution informs the CACB Executive Director of the persons who will be attending the hearing. 5.3.3 Attendees at the hearing include the CACB’s Directors and Executive Director, and representatives of the Institution as determined by the Institution. 5.3.4 The Board opens the hearing by introducing the participants and their respective roles, and by explaining the procedures to be followed. 5.3.5 A representative(s) of the Institution makes a presentation, confined to the specific matters of the accreditation decision under reconsideration.5.3.6 The Board may seek clarification by means of questions addressed to the Institution's representatives, the Visiting Team Chair, or the CACB Executive Director. 5.3.7 The Institution's representative makes a closing statement, which will conclude the hearing.


Page 28 of 30

5.3.8 The CACB Directors review the evidence presented during the hearing and render a reconsideration decision. No member of the visiting team may be present during the process. The Board records the decision and the reasons supporting it. 5.3.9 Within 2 weeks of the hearing, the CACB President informs the Institution of the reconsideration decision and provides supporting reasons in writing.

5.4 Appeal Process An appeal is a formal hearing process available to Institutions to contest the CACB accreditation decision. Requests for an appeal, including payment of the fee identified in the fee schedule, must be received at the CACB office within 2 weeks after receiving the CACB accreditation or reconsideration decision. The fee is refundable in the case of a successful appeal. Each party is responsible for their respective costs. The Program must provide evidence that:

a) The Board’s accreditation decision is not supported by factual evidence cited in the VTR and/or other official material, and/or;

b) The CACB and/or Visiting Team failed to comply substantially with established accreditation procedures and any such departure significantly affected the decision.

Requests for appeals on other grounds will not be considered.

5.5 Appeal Procedures

5.5.1 To initiate an appeal hearing, the Chief Academic Officer (CAO) must send a written request to the CACB President within 2 weeks after receiving official notification of the CACB's decision regarding accreditation. The request must specify the grounds for appeal and include relevant supporting evidence. 5.5.2 Upon receipt of the request by the CACB, an appeal panel is then formed as follows:a) Each CACB Member organization (CALA & CCUSA) is informed of the appeal hearing and

asked to submit a list of persons who can represent the Member organizations, who are willing to serve on the Appeal Panel; and who are not, and have not been, involved with either the Institution or the accreditation action under appeal.

b) This list must be submitted to the CACB President, who reviews the list of names provided by

the Member organizations in order to appoint an Appeal Panel composed of four persons, with two from each Member organization.

c) The Appeal Panel appoints one of its members to serve as Panel Chair with voting privileges. d) Within 2 weeks of receiving a request for an appeal hearing, the CACB Executive Director

forwards the proposed membership of the Appeal Panel to the Chief Academic Officer of the Institution for approval.

e) Within 1 week of receiving the list, the Chief Academic Officer of the Institution may notify notifies the CACB Executive Director of any potential conflicts of interest. the acceptability of the proposed Appeal Panel. The Institution may challenge proposed panel members for potential conflict of interest.

5.5.3 The Appeal Panel receives and reviews the Program's APR, VTR, responses to the VTR, the board accreditation decision / reconsideration decision letter, the appeal request, and any other relevant documents.


Page 29 of 30

5.5.4 The Appeal Panel Chair, in consultation with the Chief Academic Officer, determines a time and place to convene for the appeal hearing. 5.5.5 Legal counsels for the Institution and for the CACB may attend upon request of their respective organizations. 5.5.6 The Appeal Panel Chair opens the hearing by introducing the participants and their respective roles, and by explaining the procedures to be followed. 5.5.7 The Institution makes a presentation, confined to the specific matters of the accreditation decision under appeal. 5.5.8 The CACB may respond to the institution’s presentation. 5.5.9 The Appeal Panel Chair may seek clarification by means of questions addressed to the Institution or CACB participants.

5.5.10 The Appeal Panel Chair calls a brief recess so that the Appeal Panel may consider whether it needs to request and/or receive additional information prior to its deliberations. 5.5.11 The Institution's representative makes a closing statement, which concludes the hearing. 5.5.12 Deliberations are held in camera. If necessary, appeal hearing deliberations may occur via a conference call or by any other acceptable and secure electronic means of communication in order to finalize the decision. The Appeal Panel Chair prepares an Appeal Panel Report containing the appeal panel decision along with the reasons supporting that decision. 5.5.13 The Appeal Panel Chair delivers the Appeal Panel Report to the CACB office within 2 weeks of the hearing.

5.5.14 Within 1 week of receipt of the report, the CACB President forwards the report to the Chief Academic Officer of the institution. 5.5.15 Decisions of the Appeal Panel are final and binding on both the Institution and the CACB.


Page 30 of 30

Part C: Appendices A-1 Typical Eligibility Consultation Agenda A-2 Typical Candidacy Site Visit Agenda A-3 Typical Initial and Maintenance Accreditation Site Visit Agenda A-4 Program Head’s Evaluation of the Accreditation Sequence A-5 Team Chair Evaluation Form A-6 Visiting Team Evaluation Form A-7 The Cyclical Accreditation Review Cost Report A-8 Human Resources Statistics Report

Agenda Item 7.2Attachment 3B

2017 Procedures for Accreditation-Draft 2.4, July 24, 2017

A-1 Typical Eligibility Consultation Agenda The order and timing of these items may vary depending on meeting availability, etc. This template provides a framework for ordering the site visit in a timely manner.

Day 1 PM

� Visiting Team arrival and check-in at the hotel � Visiting Team Debriefing and orientation � Short meeting with Program Head � Team only dinner

Day 2 AM

� Review of the Plan for Achieving Initial Accreditation with Program Head � Tour of the facilities (if appropriate)

PM

� Meeting with faculty (if appropriate) � Meeting with Students (if appropriate) � Meeting with the Chief Academic Officer(s) of the Institution � Meeting with faculty administration � Team only dinner � Debriefing session � Accreditation deliberations and drafting of the Eligibility Visit Report

Day 3 AM

� Hotel check-out � Team breakfast with the Program Head � Team member departures


A-2 Typical Candidacy Site Visit Agenda The order of these items may vary depending on meeting availability, etc.; however this template gives a framework for ordering the site visit in a timely manner.

Day 1 PM

� Visiting Team arrival and check-in at the hotel � Visiting Team introductions and orientation � APR review and assembly of issues and questions � Short meeting with Program Head before dinner � Team only dinner

Day 2 AM

� Team only working breakfast � Entrance meeting with Program Head � Continued review of APR � Tour of the facilities � Team lunch with Program administrators

PM

� Entrance meeting with faculty � Entrance meeting with the Chief Academic Officer(s) of the Institution � Entrance meeting with the school or college administrator(s) � Reception with faculty, administrators, and local practitioners � Team only dinner � Debriefing session

Day 3 AM

� Team working breakfast with the Program Head � School-wide meeting with students � Deliberations and development of the draft CVTR

PM � Lunch with selected faculty � Deliberations and development of the draft CVTR � Team only dinner

Day 4 AM

� Check-out from hotel � Team breakfast and exit meeting with the Program Head � Exit meeting with the school or college administrator(s) � Exit meeting with the Chief Academic Officer(s) of the institution

PM � Lunch and Visiting Team member departures


Page 1 of 2

A-3 Typical Initial and Maintennace Accreditation Site Visit Agenda The order of these items may vary depending on meeting availability, etc.; however this template gives a framework for ordering the site visit in a timely manner.

Saturday PM

� Visiting Team arrival and check-in at the hotel � Visiting Team introductions and orientation � APR review and assembly of issues and questions � Short meeting with Program Head before dinner � Team only dinner

SundayAM

� Team only working breakfast � Overview of the team room by the Program Head � Initial review of exhibits and records � Team lunch with Program administrators

PM

� Tour of the facilities � Entrance meeting with faculty � Continued review of exhibits and records � Team only dinner � Debriefing session

MondayAM

� Team working breakfast with the Program Head � Entrance meeting with the Chief Academic Officer(s) of the Institution � Entrance meeting with the school or college administrator(s) � Continued review of exhibits and records � Lunch with selected faculty

PM

� Observation of studios � Continued review of exhibits and records � School-wide entrance meeting with students � Reception with faculty, administrators, alumni, and local practitioners � Team only dinner � Continued review of exhibits and records � Debriefing session


Page 2 of 2

Tuesday AM

� Team working breakfast with the Program Head � Review of general studies, electives, and related programs � Observation of lectures and seminars � Continued review of exhibits and records � Team lunch with student representatives

PM

� Meeting with faculty � Completion of review of exhibits and records � Team only dinner � Accreditation deliberations and development of the draft VTR

Wednesday AM

� Check-out from hotel � Team breakfast and exit meeting with the Program Head � Exit meeting with the school or college administrator(s) � Exit meeting with the Chief Academic Officer(s) of the institution

PM

� Lunch and Visiting Team member departures


Page 1 of 2

A-4 Program Head’s Evaluation of the Accreditation Sequence To assist CACB in maintaining the highest standards throughout the accreditation sequence, kindly complete this evaluation form and return it, within 1 month after the completion of the visit, to the CACB. Responses will be held in confidence and used only as an internal advising tool. Date: ....... Program name: .......... Person Completing the Evaluation : Name : ...........................

Title: ....................................

1. Please provide evaluation of the Visiting Team Chair.Consider communication and organizational skills, accessibility, leadership, preparedness, and knowledge, as you understand it from your interactions with the Chair. Would you recommend that this person be asked to Chair future visits?

2. Please provide evaluation(s) of the Visiting Team Members.Consider team composition, its individual members, their interaction with members of the program. Would you recommend any Team Members for future visits?


Page 2 of 2

3. Please provide evaluation of the procedures for preparing for an Accreditation Visit. Consider interaction with the CACB office, preparation of the APR, and setting up of the team room and other exhibits.

4. Please provide evaluation of the Accreditation Visit. Consider the site visit agenda, visit logistics, communications during the visit, quality of meetings, clarity of the process. Consider any recommendations you would like to make to improve the structure of accreditation visits.

5. Please provide any other comments.

Email to CACB


Page 1 of 3

A5-Team Chair Evaluation FormTo assist in maintaining consistency and quality throughout the accreditation sequence, CACB would like to receive your comments on the Accreditation Process and on the performance of the Team Members. Please note that your responses will remain confidential and will be used for CACB purposes only. Team Chair: ………………………………. Visit location: …………………………………………….. Visit dates: … … … … … 1- PREPAREDNESS BEFORE THE VISIT

1. In my opinion ……………………… had …………………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.

2. In my opinion …………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and

identifying issues of concern.

3. In my opinion ……………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.

4. In my opinion ……………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and


5. In my opinion …………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.


identifying issues of concern Comments

Select a Team Member select a response

Select a Team Member




select a response

select a response


select a response

select a response

select a response




Page 2 of 3

2- INTERACTION

7. In my opinion ………………………………… …………………….. an active participant in meetings with the faculty, students, and administration as well as those of the team






Comments: 3- LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION

13. In my opinion ……………………………… ……………………………… to the team’s assembly of information and in team deliberation.






Comments:






Team Member 1

select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response







select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response

select a response









Page 3 of 3

4- NEXT ACCREDITATION VISIT Who would you recommend to serve on another accreditation visit?

19. I would recommend ……………………………… to serve on another accreditation visit.


21. I would recommend …………………………….. to serve on another accreditation visit.




25. Would you recommend any team member to serve as chair on a future visit? If so, who would you recommend?

…………………………….. 5- OVERALL COMMENTS Please provide with overall comments of the visit and with any suggestions that will enhance quality and consistency.

THANK YOU!








Email the form to CACB






Page 1 of 3

A6-Visiting Team Evaluation Form To assist in maintaining consistency and quality throughout the accreditation sequence, CACB would like to receive your comments on the Accreditation Process and on the performance of your fellow Team Members. Please note that your responses will remain confidential and will be used for CACB purposes only. Visiting Team Member: ………………………………. Visit location: …………………………………………….. Visit dates: … … … … … … . 1- PREPAREDNESS BEFORE THE VISIT

1. In my opinion ……………………… had …………………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.

2 In my opinion …………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and


3. In my opinion ……………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.

4. In my opinion ……………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and


5. In my opinion …………………… had ……………… for the visit ahead of time by reading the APR and identifying issues of concern.


identifying issues of concern Comments

select a response







select a response

select a response

of 3

2- INTERACTION







Comments: 3- LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION







Comments:






Team Member 1 select a response







of 3

4- NEXT ACCREDITATION VISIT Who would you recommend to serve on another accreditation visit?



21. I would recommend …………………………….. to serve on another accreditation visit.




25. Would you recommend any team member to serve as chair on a future visit? If so, who would you recommend?

……………………………

5- TEAM CHAIR’S ROLE

26. Please comment of the team chair’s work for the visit: Before, during, and after the visit.

27. Would you recommend ………………………………… to chair another accreditation visit? Please comment below

Comment:

THANK YOU!








Email the form to CACB

Conditions and Proceduresfor the

Certification of Educational Qualifications

Required for Admission (Registration or Licensing) toThe Architectural Licensing Authorities In Canada


Conditions and Proceduresfor the

Certification of Educational Qualifications Required for Admission (Registration or Licensing) to

The Architectural Licensing Authorities in Canada

This document is endorsed by the following regulatory authorities(Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities).

Architectural Institute of British ColumbiaAlberta Association of ArchitectsNorthwest Territories Association of ArchitectsSaskatchewan Association of ArchitectsManitoba Association of ArchitectsOntario Association of ArchitectsOrdre des architectes du QuébecArchitects’ Association of New Brunswick/Association des architectes du Nouveau- BrunswickNova Scotia Association of ArchitectsArchitects Association of Prince Edward IslandNewfoundland and Labrador Association of Architects

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

A. PRINCIPLES OF THE CANADIAN EDUCATION STANDARD…………………..4 CACB Certification……………………………………………………………………4-5 Canadian Standards & Procedures………… ………………………………………..5

B. CONDITIONS and PROCEDURES for CERTIFICATION…………………………5 Conditions………………………………………………………………………………..5

1. Accredited Professional Degree…………………………………………..5 2. Degree or Diploma Not Accredited by the CACB……………………..5-6

Graduate Diploma from the RAIC Syllabus of Studies…………….6 3. Architects Registered Prior to Adoption of the Certification Process….6

Procedures…………………………………………………………………………….…6 1. Accredited Professional Degree…………………………………………..6 2a.Degree or Diploma Not Accredited by the CACB……………………..6-7 2b.Graduate Diploma from the RAIC Syllabus of Studies………………….7 3. Architects Registered Prior to Adoption of the Certification Process…..74. Removing Education Deficiencies………………………………………7-8 5. Review and Appeals……………………………………………………,…..8

C. PROCEDURES and STANDARDS for ASSESSMENT of NON-ACCREDITED DEGREES or DIPLOMAS...........................................................................................,.....9

1. Assessment Procedures…………………………………………………………….9 2. Curriculum Standards………………………………………………………………10

The Six Subject Areas…………………………………………………………….11General Education and Elective Requirements……………………… .11-12Professional Education Requirements………………………………… 12-15

3. Performance Standards………………………………………………………..15-17

D. CONDITIONS and PROCEDURES for ACCREDITATION of PROFESSIONAL DEGREE PROGRAMMES in ARCHITECTURE

Appendix A

Conditions & Procedures for the November 3, 2009Certification of Educational Qualifications

Page 4 of 17

PART A PRINCIPLES OF A CANADIAN EDUCATION STANDARD

Provincial and Territorial legislation has given each professional governing body both the authority and the responsibility to establish standards of competence for candidates seeking to practise architecture in their jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction has chosen to have this professional competence normally obtained and demonstrated through a combination of formal education, supervised experience and examination.Each jurisdiction may also, under extraordinary circumstances, exempt a candidate from some of these normal requirements if competency can be demonstrated by other reliable means.

The Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) was established in 1976 by an agreement of the Councils of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (Regulators), who grant it the authority to act on their behalf in assessing the educational qualifications of individuals holding a professional degree or diploma in architecture. The assessments are made in accordance with standards and procedures established by the Regulators. L'Ordre des architectes du Québec joined the CACB in 1992, and the Northwest Territories Association of Architects in 2002.

The CACB is governed by a Board of Directors (the Board), which establishes the policies of the CACB. The Board appoints a Registrar who is empowered to issue a Certificate of Educational Qualifications to persons so qualified, and Assessment Committees who act on behalf of the Board and recommend to the Registrar.

The CACB procedures for Certification, and the education standards against which qualifications are measured, have been developed in accordance with both the core principles of the UNESCO/UIA Charter for Architectural Education and the relevant sections of the UIA Accord on Recommended International Standards on Professionalism in Architectural Practice. The CACB, acting on behalf of the Regulators, is part of working agreements with the National Architectural Accrediting Board (USA) and the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (USA), and is a signatory to the Canberra Accord on Architectural Education, which was ratified in 2008 for implementation in 2010.

CACB Certification

Normally, applicants must have their academic qualifications certified as having met the educational requirement for entry to the profession by the CACB prior to, or as a part of, the application process for registration or licensure with any of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities. The assessment of credentials for certification is conducted in accordance with Parts B and C of this document. Following certificationby the CACB that their academic qualifications meet the standard established by the Regulators, applicants are required to complete the remaining requirements for the province or territory in which they wish to be registered or licensed. These requirements vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and may be affected from time to time by new


Page 5 of 17

legislation or changes in bylaws. Current information concerning requirements for registration or licensure should be obtained from the Regulator concerned.

Canadian Standards & Procedures Those current competency standards that are expected, by a consensus of the

Regulators, to be achieved and demonstrated through formal education have been applied to the development of standards and procedures for the assessment of both professional degrees accredited by the CACB or NAAB, and professional degrees or diplomas not accredited by the CACB or NAAB. These standards and procedures have been chosen to assure that the assessments are equitable in each case, while accommodating the varied backgrounds and circumstances of the applicants. This results in standards for each category of applicant that are equivalent but not identical.

PART B CONDITIONS and PROCEDURES for CERTIFICATION

Conditions

1. Accredited Professional Degree

Applicants may be granted CACB certification that their education meets the standards for entry to the profession following graduation from a professional program of architectural education that has been accredited by the CACB, by the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB), or by any other body recognized by the Regulators. While this document outlines the procedures for the Certification of an individual applicant’s accredited degree, the detailed procedures and standards for the evaluation of architecture programs seeking or maintaining accreditation are described in the document CACB Conditions and Procedures for Accreditation of Professional Degree Programs in Architecture (Appendix A). These Conditions and Procedures aremeant to be applied to university professional programs in architecture during a periodic accreditation process, and not to the credentials of individual graduates. An accredited professional degree may be granted at either the Bachelor's, the Master's or the Doctor’s level. Pre-professional degrees in architectural studies by themselves, and post-professional degrees in related fields do not satisfy the requirements in this section.

2 Degree or Diploma Not Accredited by the CACB

Applicants with a valid degree or diploma in architecture that is a first professional degree or diploma and is accepted as a requirement for registration or licensure in its country of origin, but is not accredited by the CACB or the NAAB, may apply for CACB certification to determine whether their education, or the degree program, meets the curriculum standards of Part C-2 and in the judgment of the CACB, the candidate’s work meets the performance standards of Part C-3 of this document.This includes a graduate from a currently accredited Canadian school of architecture whose degree was granted prior to the school being accredited by the CACB.


Page 6 of 17

The process involves a detailed evaluation of the individual's academic record.The requirements for this evaluation are described in Part C, Procedures and Standardsfor Assessment of Non-accredited Degrees or Diplomas.

Applicants who have received a Graduate Diploma in Architecture from the RAIC Syllabus of Studies, may be granted CACB Certification following a review of the requisite courses and guided studies, against the performance standards described in Part C of this document.

3. Architects Registered Prior to Adoption of the Certification Process

The Regulators have agreed that Architects who were registered or licensed prior to July 1, 1976 by a provincial association, or by the Ordre des architectes du Québec prior to 1992, or whose education was certified by the Universities Coordinating Council in Alberta prior to 1992, are accepted as having equivalent education to satisfy the Canadian Education Standard, and may be granted CACB Certification upon application.

Procedures

Following is a summary of the Procedures followed for Certification in each of the categories identified noted above:

1. Accredited Degrees/Programs

Application Forms and detailed instructions for Certification under this category are available online at < www.cacb-ccca.ca >.

Upon receipt of an Application for Certification of Academic Qualifications, all required supporting documentation and any required fee, CACB staff will verify eligibility under this category and the Registrar will issue a Certificate.

2a Non-accredited Degrees or Diplomas

Application Forms and detailed instructions for Certification under this category are available online at <www.cacb-ccca.ca >. Note that a separate application form and submission requirement are available for graduates from a currently accredited Canadian school of architecture whose degree was granted prior to the school being accredited by the CACB. The CACB will assess the content of the degree program in accordance with the procedures detailed in Part C below.

Upon receipt of an Application for Assessment of Academic Qualifications, all requested supporting documentation and any required fee, CACB staff will first verify the applicant’s eligibility under this category. Eligible applications will be sent to an Assessment Committee that will assess the applicant’s submission, against the curriculum and performance standards of Part C, and will recommend to the Registrar. Upon approval by the Assessment Committee, the Registrar will issue a Certificate.


Page 7 of 17

2b Graduate Diploma from the RAIC Syllabus of Studies


Upon receipt of an Application for Assessment of Academic Qualifications, all required supporting documentation and any required fee, CACB staff will verify eligibility under this category, the Assessment Committee will assess the applicant’s submission against the Performance Standards of Part C, with special consideration for the nature of work/study programs, and will recommend to the Registrar. Upon approval by the Assessment Committee, the Registrar will issue a Certificate.

3. Architects Registered or Licensed Prior to Adoption of the Certification Process


Upon receipt of an Application for Certification of Academic Qualification “Under the Grandfathering Right Clause” and all required supporting documentation CACB staff will verify eligibility under this category and the Registrar will issue a Certificate.

4. Removing Education Deficiencies

If an assessment identifies deficiencies in an applicant's professional degree/diploma program when compared with the Curriculum and Performance Standards below, one or more of the following options may be selected to remove the deficiencies:

4.1 If the deficiency is in the general education and elective subject area, relevant courses may be taken at any university, including the RAIC Syllabus of Studies, or at a community college that has been approved by the CACB prior to enrolment in the courses.

4.2 If the deficiency is in history, human behavior, environment, technical systems or professional practice subject areas, relevant courses may be taken at any school of architecture whose professional degree program is accredited by the CACB or through the RAIC Syllabus of Studies. Courses taken at institutions without a CACB accredited program may be accepted if approved by the CACB prior to enrolment in the courses. If an academic institution grants credit in relevant subjects on the basis of equivalency examinations administered by the institution, and if that credit is listed on an official transcript issued by that institution, then that credit may be used to remove deficiencies in these subject areas.

4.3 If the deficiency is in the design subject area, on-campus or off-campus


Page 8 of 17

design studios may be taken at or through an institution with a CACB accredited program, or through the RAIC Syllabus of Studies Program. Such studios must be administered or monitored by the design faculty and must be taken for academic credit.

When deficiencies have been removed, official transcripts and/or equivalency examination score reports must be sent to the CACB directly by the academic institution(s) and/or examination authority involved. If the applicant has been previously issued a Conditional Certificate, the CACB will verify that the conditions have been met and, following approval by the Registrar, a regular Certificate will be issued.

5. Review and Appeals

5.1 If an applicant for certification should disagree either with the conclusion that their credentials are not eligible for assessment under a category, or with aruling of an Assessment Committee, an appeal may be made in writing to the CACB.

The CACB offers to the applicant, without extra cost, the possibility to first ask for a review of his or her application before moving forward for an appeal. Upon receipt of a written request for review, including the applicant’s reasons for the review and any documented information that may affect the review, the applicant’s file is sent back to the Assessment Committee for reassessment.

If the application was considered not eligible for assessment because the applicant is unable to submit the required documentation due to extraordinary personal circumstances, the Assessment Committee may, at their discretion, require alternate evidence of educational achievement, including an oral examination and/or properly documented post graduate professional work.

The applicant will be notified of the results of the review in writing. 5.2 If an applicant for certification has received a written response from the CACB to a request for reconsideration of an eligibility or assessment decision and believes the evaluation is still in error, an appeal may be made in writing to the CACB Board of Directors. The Letter of Appeal should include the applicant’s reasons for the appeal and any documented information that may support the appeal.

5.3 The Board of the CACB will review the applicant’s letter of appeal, the Assessment Committee report, and the educational credentials at its next scheduled meeting. The Board may seek clarification from the staff of CACB, the Assessment Committee or the applicant. If the Board agrees with the applicant, it may direct the Registrar to issue a Certificate or a Conditional Certificate. The applicant will be notified of the decision of the Board in writing. No further appeal to the Board is possible.


Page 9 of 17

PART C. PROCEDURES and STANDARDS for ASSESSMENT of NON-ACCREDITED DEGREES or DIPLOMAS

1 Assessment Procedures

In assessing non-accredited degrees or diplomas for Certification, the following Course Equivalents and Performance Standards contained in Part C are used. This ensures consistency of application and fairness of assessments across the diverse types of programs available.

The CACB will determine whether the degree is a recognized first professional degree or diploma. The Curriculum Standards are then applied to the degree or diploma for a preliminary evaluation, which relates an individual record to a CACB-accredited degree equivalent. Eligibility is determined on the basis of the length, structure and general content of the courses being evaluated and their substantial conformance with the Curriculum Standards. In determining eligibility, the evaluators assign the applicant's academic work to the six required subject areas, in accordance with semester hour equivalents as detailed below.

During this stage of the assessment, CACB staff may request further information in order to complete the applicant’s file. If the file is determined to be in substantial compliance with the quantitative requirements of the Curriculum Standards, the application is forwarded to the CACB Assessment Committee for final assessment. If the degree or diploma is considered not eligible under this category, the applicant is notified in writing, and a portion of the application fee may be refunded.

The CACB Assessment Committee meets regularly to assess applications. The Assessment Committee considers the detailed course content as documented in the applicant’s file to confirm that the Performance Standards outlined in Part C/Section 3have been met.

The outcome of the assessment may be:that the applicant's academic qualifications fulfill the educational component of the registration/licensure requirements in Canada and a Certificate is issued by the Registrar; orthat the Assessment Committee determines the applicant's academic qualifications to be deficient in particular subject areas and the applicant is required to remove those deficiencies by successfully completing the appropriate courses of study approved by the CACB. In this case, and on a recommendation from the Assessment Committee, the Registrar may issue a Conditional Certificate; orthat the applicant's academic qualifications do not fulfill the educational component of the registration/licensure requirements in Canada.

Applicants are notified of the result of an assessment or of a Registrar’s decision in writing, and the assessment process normally takes from 3 to 6 months from the time that the application, including all required documentation, is complete. If the Registrar


Page 10 of 17

does not grant Certification, an applicant may undertake additional studies, and then reapply for Certification.

2 Curriculum Standards

The CACB evaluation accommodates recognized types of professional degree programs, the most common being:

Bachelor of Architecture Program - requiring a minimum of five years of study (or 4 years following CEGEP in Quebec), or

Master of Architecture Program - requiring a minimum of three years of study following an unrelated bachelor's degree, or two years following a four-year, related pre-professional degree; and does not preclude variations approved by the CACB.

The CACB degree equivalent requires 160 semester hours of academic credit,grouped into six subject areas:

general education and electives; history and human behavior; environment; design and graphic communication; technical systems; knowledge of the profession, which also includes the legal and administrative context of architectural practice.

In determining course equivalency, the evaluators assign the applicant's academic work to the subject areas in accordance with semester hour equivalents. A semester hour is equivalent to 1 hour of CACB approved lecture or 2 hours of CACB approved laboratory/studio instruction per week for the duration of the semester or term. For programs that operate on a quarter system, 1.5 quarter hours are equivalent to 1 semester hour. A course may consist of instruction in more that one subject area, so may be apportioned between subject areas as appropriate.

If the degree or diploma is determined to meet the CACB equivalent degree in length and general content, the academic record is evaluated against the Performance Standards required for the subject areas detailed below. This two-part assessment is the basis for the Assessment Committee’s recommendation to the Registrar. ThePerformance Standards are consistent with, but not identical to, the Student Performance Criteria found in the CACB’s Conditions and Procedures for Accreditation, which are used in the evaluation of university professional programs in architecture.


Page 11 of 17

THE SIX SUBJECT AREAS

GENERAL EDUCATION AND ELECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

A professional degree program must provide a foundation of general education, including studies with other than architectural content that imparts general knowledge and develops the students’ intellectual capacity to undertake professional studies. Thisenables them to see their professional studies in the broader context of the natural, cultural and social world.

A professional degree program must also allow students to pursue their special interests. The curriculum must be flexible enough to allow students to complete minors or develop areas of concentration that are outside of architectural studies, either as general studies or as electives with other than architectural content.

Course Equivalents

At least 32 semester hours of credit in:English or French CompositionHumanitiesSocial SciencesMathematicsNatural Sciences

A minimum of 2 semester hours of English or French composition, or an acceptable language proficiency test demonstrating adequate compositional skills, 6 semester hours in the Humanities or Social Sciences and 6 semester hours in Mathematics or the Natural Sciences are required. The remaining 18 semester hours may be taken in any of the five subject areas. These courses may be included either as an admission requirement or as part of the professional degree curriculum.

English or French Composition is defined as written communication that explains, interprets, analyses or presents and supports a point of view, utilizing the principles and conventions of standard language. Courses in English or French literature are not acceptable in this subject, but are acceptable in the subject of Humanities.Courses in English or French as a foreign language are not acceptable.

Humanities are defined as the academic disciplines that study the human condition through the recognition, comprehension, analysis and interpretation of various forms of art and literature.

Studio and performing art courses are not acceptable in this subject, but may be acceptable as electives.

Social Sciences are defined as the study of the social life of human groups and individuals through the analysis of economic, historical, political, psychological and sociological aspects of society.


Page 12 of 17

Mathematics is defined as the logical study of quantities, magnitudes, arrangement and change, and of the methods for using rigorously defined self-consistent symbols to make their properties and exact relationships known, either in the abstract or in their practical applications.

Natural Science is defined as the study of the physical universe, and is dividedinto two general areas: biological science and physical science.

ELECTIVE SUBJECTS

Course Equivalents

Studies to total the Board approved equivalent of 160 semester hours of credit are required. The 24 semester hours required beyond the minimums listed may be taken in any one or more of the six subject areas and/or specialized elective subjects outside of the professional program.

PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE AND HUMAN BEHAVIOUR

Course Equivalents

At least 18 semester hours of credit in:History of Architecture – at least 12 semester hoursHuman Behavior – at least 6 semester hours

History of Architecture is defined as the study of construction by which human needs have been satisfied and human aspirations have been met.

Human Behavior is defined as the study of characteristics and behavior of individuals and groups, including those with varying physical abilities, that relate to the physical environments in which they function, and to the process of environmental modification and change.

ENVIRONMENT

Course Equivalents

At least 3 semester hours of credit in:Environment

Environment is defined as the basic principles of ecology as well as the actions with respect to environmental and resource conservation in architecture and urban design for which the architect is responsible. It includes the constructed


Page 13 of 17

artifacts and service infrastructure as well as the climatic, geographic and other natural characteristics of the site that influence the setting for architecture.

DESIGN and GRAPHIC COMMUNICATION REQUIREMENT

Course Equivalents

At least 50 semester hours of credit, including a Level IV design studio sequence.

Design is defined as analysis, synthesis, judgment and communication which architects use to understand, bring together, assess and express ideas which lead to a built project.

Design studies are divided into four levels, not necessarily corresponding to the year of instruction. These levels are:

Level I Individual learning experiences within a non-building spatial context; familiarity with spatial analysis, design process; design literacy; research skills.

Level II Simple projects with emphasis on the natural environment, user space studies and further skill development; introduction ofqualitative technical material; the use of precedents in architecture and urban design; a minimum proficiency in the design and communication of simple buildings with a basic understanding of construction and structural systems; data analysis, programming, site analysis and design.

Level III Simple and complex building studies with qualitative technical input; total building synthesis developed; a general proficiency in the complete design of simple buildings and design for accessibility; development of collaborative skill; a minimum ability to deal with complex buildings and multi-building complexes; site analysis and design.

Level IV General proficiency in the total synthesis of complex buildings and related systems; integration of technical information; social and environmental ramifications of planning and architecture; project emphasis on advanced building design, planning and urban design. Level IV work must indicate a mastery of data collection, research and analysis, programming, planning, design, graphic communication, structures, building systems, landscape and site design and other related knowledge.

Basic Design studies, courses in graphic communication, computer assisted design and photography may be used to fulfill Level I requirements. Levels II-IV must be satisfied by the completion of studio courses. Completion of a comprehensive studio in Level III or Level IV is required.


Page 14 of 17

TECHNICAL SYSTEMS REQUIREMENT

Course Equivalents

At least 24 semester hours credit in:Structural Systems - at least 6 semester hoursEnvironmental Control Systems - at least 6 semester hours Construction Materials and Assemblies - at least 6 semester hours

The remaining 6 semester hours must be taken in at least two of the three areas, or in studies of Building Systems Integration.

Structural Systems are defined as the basic structural elements of a building, their interaction as a support system, the forces that act on or in buildings and the principles and theory upon which an understanding of these systems isbased. An acceptable sequence of study should include the theory of structures, (including statics, principles of equilibrium and stability, resolution of forces, shear and bending moments, strength and mechanics of materials, analysis of structural elements, and sizing of structural members.) and the design of structures, (including the selection and design of structural systems in wood, steel and concrete appropriate to a variety of building types and span conditions.)

Environmental Control Systems are defined as building elements that pertain to the modification of the microclimate for the purpose of human use and comfort.An acceptable sequence of study will include theory and applications in the areas of heating, air conditioning, lighting (natural and artificial), plumbing, waste and fire control systems, building core systems and acoustics. Studies will also develop an understanding of related issues such as energy efficiency and alternative energy systems and strategies, health and safety codes and requirements, and environmental quality.

Construction Materials and Assemblies are defined as the characteristics of building materials and how they are made and applied in a building project. An acceptable sequence of study will include properties and behavior of materials, performance of materials and assemblies under use, material selection and detailing, the building industry, codes and standards affecting the design andconstruction of buildings, construction sequences and procedures, and relativeeconomies of material and component choices.


Page 15 of 17

KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROFESSION REQUIREMENT

Course Equivalents

At least 6 semester hours credit in Knowledge of the Profession

Knowledge of the Profession is defined as the study of the technical, business, legal and ethical environment in which the practice of architecture occurs, including the range of activities involved in a typical architectural project as it moves from inception through completion of construction; the concepts, ethics and procedures for organizing an architectural practice; the financial aspects of building, including the economics of development and the legal context and rules of professional conduct, that affect architectural practice.

Practical experience in this subject area is acceptable only if it was accumulated in fulfillment of a supervised academic program requirement that has been evaluated and appears on the transcript of student grades.

3 Performance Standards

An applicant must demonstrate that they possess the knowledge and skills defined by the standards set out below. These knowledge and skills are the minimum for meeting the demands of an internship leading to registration for practise.

The Assessment Committee will assess the performance standards on the basisof transcripts and detailed course descriptions, as described in the CACB instructions accompanying the Application Form.

The performance standards encompass two levels of accomplishment:• Understanding—means the assimilation and comprehension of information without necessarily being able to see its full implication.• Ability—means the skill in using specific information to accomplish a task, incorrectly selecting the appropriate information, and in applying it to the solution of a specific problem.

The Assessment Committee will review the application, including the program description and detailed course outlines to determine if the applicant has met the CACB standards as follow:

History & Human Behavior Studies3.1 Understanding of the architectural canons and traditions in architecture, landscape and urban design, including the vernacular traditions, as well as the climatic, technological, socioeconomic, and other cultural factors that have shaped and sustained them. 3,2 Understanding of the theories and methods of inquiry that seek to clarify the relationship between human behavior and the physical environment.


Page 16 of 17

3.3 Understanding of the diverse needs, values, behavioral norms, physical ability, and social and spatial patterns that characterize different cultures and individuals and the implication of this diversity for the social roles and responsibilities of architects.

Environment Studies3.4 Understanding of the principles of ecology and sustainability both in making architecture and urban design decisions that conserve natural and built resources, including culturally important buildings and sites, and in the creation of healthful buildings and communities3.5 Understanding of the ethical issues regarding the ecology of the natural and built environments as a fundamental responsibility of professional stewardship of the environment.

Design & Communication Studies3.6 Understanding of the fundamentals of visual perception and the principles and systems of order that inform two- and three-dimensional design, architectural composition, and urban design.3.7 Ability to use appropriate representational media, including freehand drawing and computer technology, to convey essential information at each stage of the pre-design and design process. 3.8 Ability to make technically precise drawings and develop an outline specification for a proposed design3.9 Ability to apply fundamental architectural principles in the design of buildings, interior spaces and sites, and to respond to natural and built sitecharacteristics in the development of a program and the design of a project.3.10 Ability to prepare a comprehensive program for an architectural project that accounts for client and user needs, appropriate precedents, space and equipment requirements, the relevant laws and standards, and site selection and design assessment criteria.3.11 Ability to produce and document a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and a site, and that includes the development of forms and spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, building assemblies and life-safety provisions, and of the principles of sustainability and environmental stewardship.

Technical Studies3.12 Understanding of principles of structural behavior in withstanding gravity and lateral forces and the evolution, range, and appropriate application of contemporary structural systems3.13 Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of environmental systems, including acoustical, lighting, climate modification systems and energy use.3.14 Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, communication, security, and fire protection systems


Page 17 of 17

3.15 Understanding of the basic building science principles and the appropriate application of building envelope materials and assemblies in the Canadian environment 3.16 Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of various construction materials, products, components, and assemblies common to the Canadian construction industry, including their environmental impact and reuse3.17 Ability to integrate appropriate technical systems into a complex building and to use appropriate representational media, including freehand drawing and computer technology, to convey essential technical elements at each stage of the design development process

Knowledge of the Profession3.18 Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to seek out,understand, and resolve the needs of the client, owner and user.3.19 Understanding of obtaining commissions and negotiating contracts,managing clients, selecting consultants and recommending project delivery methods and forms of service contracts.3.20 Understanding of the fundamentals of building cost, life-cycle cost, and construction estimating.3.21 Understanding the workings of the Canadian construction industry and the role of the architect in the construction process.3.22 Understanding of the basic principles and legal aspects of practice organization, including business planning, office and personnel management, financial management, project management, risk mitigation and dispute resolution, as well as an understanding of trends that will affect practice.3.23 Understanding of the architect’s responsibility under the laws, codes, regulations and contracts common to the practice of architecture in Canada.3.24 Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment in architectural design and practice.3.25 Understanding of the role of internship in obtaining licensure and registration and the mutual rights and responsibilities of interns and employers.

END

President's Log

Date Event/Meeting Location Attendees TimeSeptember 15 Society Chairs Fall Workshop Toronto w/Society Chairs, Council, staff 9am-4pmSeptember 15 MOVE Installation/Party Toronto members, Council, staff 7pm-midnightSeptember 16 Thunder Bay Medical Society Presidents Gala Thunder Bay 6pmSeptember 19 ARIDO/OAA Joint Task Force Toronto w/Task Force Members 10am-noonSeptember 19 PACT Toronto w/committee members 1-4:30pmSeptember 19 Moriyama International Prize Gala Toronto 6-10pmSeptember 20 Pro-Demnity Board Meeting Toronto w/Board members 10am-1pmSeptember 21 Northwestern Ontario Society Visit Thunder Bay w/Society members, K. Doyle 11:30am-2pmSeptember 22 Meeting with Scotia Bank re OAA Headquarters via phone Scotia Bank, K.Kurtin, M.McInnes 9:30-10:30September 27 Northern Ontario Society Visit Sudbury w/Society members,J.Laberge,K.Doyle 12-2pmSeptember 27 North Bay Society Visit North Bay w/Society members,J.Laberge,K.Doyle 5:30-8pmSeptember 29 Meeting with Prodem re IO VOR via phone B.Treves, J.Hackett, K. Doyle, N.Brown 9:30-11:30October 2 World Archtiecture Day @ Queen's Park Toronto w/members, staff, MPPs 10am-2pmOctober 4 OBOA Annual Meeting & Dinner Huntsville 3-11pmOctober 5 Northumberland-Durham/Trent Societies Visit Peterborough w/Society members, K. Doyle 5:30-8pmOctober 11 London Society Visit London w/Society members,W.Derhak, K.Doyle 12-3pmOct 16-19 World Design Summit MontrealOctober 16 CALA Regulators Meeting Montreal w/CALA, K. Doyle 9am-4pmOctober 18 Building Committee via phone w/committee members 1-3pmOctober 18 Executive Committee Meeting via phone Committee members 3-4 pm

October 25 Windsor Society Visit Windsor w/Society members,W.Derhak, K.Doyle 11:30am-2pm

October 26 Building Committee Meeting via phone w/committee members 9-10amOctober 26 PACT Toronto w/committee members 12:30-4:30pmOctober 26 NOW Lecture Toronto members, Council, staff 6:30-10:30pmOctober 27 OAA/ARIDO Joint Task Force via phone Task Force members 2-4:30pmOctober 30 Brownie Awards jury deliberations via phone 4:30-6:00pmNovember 1 Building Committee Toronto Committee members 1-3pmNovember 1 Ontario Wood WORKS! Awards Toronto 5:30-10pmNovember 2 Council Meeting Toronto Council, staff 9:30am-4pm

Memorandum

To: Council John Stephenson Kathleen Kurtin


From: Kristi Doyle, Executive Director Date: October 24, 2017 Subject: Report from Executive Director Objective: To provide Council with an update on activities of the Executive Director not

covered elsewhere in the Council agenda. Background: This report outlines specific activities that have occurred which have not been reported elsewhere in the Council package since the September meeting. Internal and Administration Staff continue to settle into our temporary location since our September meeting. The transition has been relatively smooth. There have been a number of details however that needed to be sorted out to make the transition complete, including minor renovations in the temporary space which created additional disruption. The Registrar and I attended a meeting over at ProDem’s new location last month to discuss mutual concerns re. Infrastructure Ontario. Interviews for a Manager, Communications were conducted in late September, however a successful candidate was not identified. Additional interviews will take place early November. There will be a departure in the Office of the Registrar with the Administrative Assistant, Admissions leaving to pursue further studies. The search for a replacement will commence shortly. The Online CERB experience reporting tool is nearing completion and will be ready for soft launch in December. There is much excitement around this project coming to fruition. A

2

demonstration session was held at the OAA in October to which interns, practitioners as well as members of the Interns Committee were invited. Over 25 members attended. OAA Activities/Policy and Industry Relations The meeting with the Ontario Bar Association has been scheduled for November 22 to further the discussions around developing a common understanding of reasonable contract language and clauses. OAA President Stephenson will also attend that meeting. Additional communication to members will ramp up this month regarding implementation of fines for non-compliance with the OAA’s Continuing Education program as approved by Council earlier this year. This Cycle ends on June 30, 2018. As I noted in my June and September reports to Council, I have been considering ways in which the OAA and OAAAS can celebrate the 15th anniversary of the launch of the OAAAS in 2018. OAAAS Executive Director, Garry Neil and I would like to confirm with our respective boards that following the January Council meeting, which includes the annual update and report from the President and Executive Director of the OAAAS, that we host a reception following that meeting and invite OAAAS and OAA members. A venue will be determined shortly. The President and I have completed over half of the annual society visits to date. Feedback has been positive and sessions well attended. National Initiatives Along with President Stephenson, I attended the semi-annual meeting of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) in Montreal on October 15 and 16. Details of the meetings are contained elsewhere in the package. As a result of the CALA meeting in Montreal, I will be serving on the Steering Committee for the renewal of CHOP along with some of the other Executive Directors. The key focus of the Steering Committee is administration i.e. financial and scheduling, all in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between CALA and RAIC. I will be attending a meeting of the NCARB/CALA Mutual Recognition Agreement Monitoring Committee on November 17 in Washington. These periodic meetings are required under the MRA and discussion will include sharing of information relative to NAFTA discussions. I will also be attending a meeting of the Canada/US/Mexico Tri-National Agreement monitoring committee on January 27 and 28 in San Diego. Action: No action required.


Memorandum



Date: October 25, 2017 From: OAA Building Committee Sheena Sharp, Chair Toon Dreessen, Immediate Past President John Stephenson, President Subject: Update from the OAA Building Committee Objective: To provide Council with an update regarding the OAA Building Renew & Refresh. Background: Further to Council’s approval in August of the pre-tender cost estimate for the renovation project and direction to proceed to tender, the tender documents were issued to the pre-qualified firms shortly thereafter. The tender closed on October 5, 2017. The OAA’s architect along with the members of the Building Committee conducted the review and evaluation process. The tender submissions are valid for 60 days. If, after review and discussion/negotiation the low bidder is higher than the construction budget approved by Council, additional direction from Council will be sought. A geotechnical firm was engaged to proceed with a test-bore hole this week in order to confirm the ground conditions which will further inform the extent of the additional bore-holes for the geothermal design solution. An onsite meeting with two furniture suppliers is scheduled for November 9 for the purpose of narrowing down the new furniture selection and setting up test workstations for staff to provide feedback on.


2

Once the general contractor has been chosen and the construction contract awarded, a Building update to members will be issued highlighting various aspects of the project. Action: For information only.

Memorandum



From: David C. Rich, Vice President Strategic Date: October 25, 2017 Subject: Update on Activities under the Vice President Strategic Portfolio Objective: To provide Council with an update on activities under the Vice President Strategic Portfolio. Background: As we had expected back in August, it was a very busy return for the Government (and the OAA as a result). Various legislative files picked up immediately out of the gate which, combined with the World Architecture Day reception, took up most of staff and the Committee’s attention. PACT PACT met previously on September 15, and information from the prior meeting is contained here along with some additional updates. Of note, Immediate Past President Dreessen and Adam Tracey (Manager, Policy & Government Relations) attended a workshop jointly organized by PWGSC, OAA, and ACEC. The OAA arranged to have QBS expert Cal Harrison present to the group. The meeting was well-received, particularly by senior officials within government. PWGSC is currently reviewing its pipeline to identify a project that would be suitable for a pilot. Mr. Tracey also accompanied Charles Greenberg (Practice Advisor) to a meeting of the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials (LMCBO). Information on this meeting is contained elsewhere in the VP Practice’s report. On the legislative front, Queen’s Park returned from their summer break on September 11th and started right away by debating Bill 139 (which contains the changes to the Ontario Municipal Board). On the 12th, they debated Bill 148 (which deals with changes to the Employment Standards Act). On the 13th they continued debate on Bill 148 in the morning and debated Bill

2

142 (regarding the Construction Lien Act) in the afternoon. All of this is to say that staff and the Committee have been kept very busy right from the outset. Regarding the status of the Bills before the legislature which are notable to the OAA:

Bill 122 (Registered Professional Planners Act): While the Bill has been referred to Standing Committee, no hearings have been scheduled and the OAA has not heard any further information. Staff will continue to monitor for developments.

Bill 139 (changes to the OMB): Standing Committee hearings have been scheduled. The OAA has submitted a written deputation.

Bill 142 (changes to the CLA): Standing Committee hearings have been scheduled. The OAA has requested a speaking slot and will also enter a written deputation.

Bill 148 (changes to the ESA): The OAA has previously entered submissions to the consultation which informed this Bill but is otherwise not directly engaging the Bill. Under pre-existing authorities in the legislation, the Ministry of Labour has commenced a review of professional exemptions related to architecture. More on this below.

The Housing Affordability roundtable was chaired by Councillors Sin and Sharp on October 12. Information is contained elsewhere in the Council package. PACT will meet again on October 26th. Any further developments arising out of October meeting can be discussed orally at the Council meeting. Professional Exemptions With regarding to Bill 148, you may recall that the OAA wrote a letter the Minister of Labour on March 20, 2017, recommending that the Ministry “remove professional exemptions that apply to architecture and other related professions.” In a similar vein, President Stephenson wrote a letter to the membership on September 20, 2017 advocating for the fair and equitable treatment of all (professional) employees within architectural practices. The OAA is collaborating with the Ministry on this review of professional exemptions related to architecture. The Ministry selected the OAA and Ontario College of Pharmacists to begin the review, assigning both a level of autonomy in the process on account of our “unique position and role in serving the public”, strong reputation in Government, and recommendations to date. While the Ministry has asked for the OAA to consult with its membership, the Ministry has been made aware that the OAA may or may not proceed with a consultation given it has already determined its policy recommendation back in March, 2017. Council, guided by PACT, should decide which approach the OAA will take. Be advised that the special exemptions are already posted for comment by the general public (which could include our membership) via Ontario’s Regulatory Registry: http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view.do?postingId=25168&language=en. World Architecture Day While this initiative is housed under PACT, the scale of the event warrants being broken out. The event was successfully held on Monday October 2 at Queen’s Park and commenced with

3

the launch of two pre-recorded statements from the OAA President and the Attorney General, Yasir Naqvi. As with 2016, 8 “QP Picks” (Queen’s Park Picks) were selected from 35 building nominations from 31 MPPs. The nominations spanned most of the Province’s geography, OAA local societies, political parties, and building types. Narrowing the final list proved to be a remarkably difficult challenge. The building profiles were researched and mounted in an exhibit which formed the core of the event. Most boards were again paired with an architect involved in the design and a representative from the Society where the building is located. Two exhibits this year also had representatives who represented the building as an end user. Over 125 people participated in the event, including 24 MPPs along with staff representatives for a number of other MPPs. All three parties were represented. The OAA President and the Attorney General both gave remarks to participants. The afternoon was filled with MPP meetings spanning the three parties. In each meeting, an OAA VP was typically paired with a representative from the MPP’s local society and an OAA staff member. The discussions focused on reforming Site Plan Approval and with fairness in procurement. MPPs in each of the meetings were given an informational package including the 2013 report on Site Plan Approval. Following one meeting, MPP Percy Hatfield made a statement on the floor of the legislature stressing the need to deal with Site Plan Approval delays. He noted: “I certainly agree with them [architects]. If it’s a problem, we should be dealing somehow with it.” General remarks around World Architecture Day were also made on the floor by the Attorney General, who welcomed the OAA to Queen’s Park. While profiled at the event, the eight “QP Picks” were subsequently released over the following two weeks through the OAA’s social media and garnered a significant number of engagements. There was local media coverage on a number of the QP Picks, including stories from Inside Toronto and Bay Today (North Bay). The researcher, Joel Leon, has arranged for the physical exhibit to be hosted at the Daniels Faculty of Architecture (the date is yet to be determined). A few related items have also spooled from the meeting including the OAA being invited to a building tour for one of the QP Picks and the WRSA securing MPP Percy Hatfield’s attendance (and probable participation) at an upcoming film festival. Given the success in 2016 and 2017 (along with the significant growth year-over-year), there is strong interest in running the event again in 2018. CDAO In recent news, the Chair of CDAO has left their parent organization leaving the Chair’s seat empty. A new Chair will be elected at the next meeting of the CDAO. In the meantime, the Annual General Meeting has been postponed. It is currently being rescheduled with the intent of holding it in November.

4

Liaison with Infrastructure Ontario (IO) – Real Estate Roundtable and AFP There have been no further developments related to either the Real Estate or AFP Roundtables hosted by IO, though I have attached letters exchanged between IO President Toni Rossi and the OAA regarding IO’s Supplemental Conditions and Vendor of Record program. Action: Council to discuss or confirm PACT’s proposed approach for dealing with professional exemptions. Attachments:

- Ontario Newsroom Release (re: MOL) - Ministry of Labour Notice of Public Consultation - Posting on Ontario’s Regulation Registry (re: MOL) - OAA Letter to Toni Rossi (October 13, 2017) - IO/Toni Rossi Letter (August 23, 2017) - Inside Toronto: Ontario architects honour BAPS Hindu mandir at Queen’s Park - Bay Today: Local hospital design honoured at Queen’s Park

News Release

Ontario Seeking Input on Employment and Labour LawRulesProvince Reviewing Exemptions and Exclusions Under the EmploymentStandards Act

October 18, 2017 2:00 P.M. Ministry of Labour

Ontario is seeking public input to help make workplaces fairer for workers in industries that currently haveexemptions, special rules or exclusions.

Starting today, people across the province can have their say on important decisions related to employmentstandards such as wages, hours of work and public holidays. The rst phase of consultations focuses on eightoccupations currently exempt from minimum employment standards:

Architects

Domestic Workers

Homemakers

IT Professionals

Managerial and Supervisory Employees

Pharmacists

Residential Building Superintendents, Janitors and Caretakers

Residential Care Workers

Ontario is also reviewing rights under the Labour Relations Act for domestic workers.

This public consultation forms part of the Ministry of Labour's broader review of Employment Standards Act (ESA)special rules and exemptions, as well as Labour Relations Act (LRA) exclusions. It is part of Ontario's plan for FairWorkplaces and Better Jobs, which includes raising the minimum wage, ensuring part-time workers are paid thesame hourly wage as full-time workers, introducing paid sick days for every worker and stepping up enforcement ofemployment laws

To share your ideas on how to make workplaces fairer, go online by December 1, 2017.

Quick Facts

Currently, there are approximately 85 special rules and exemptions under the Employment StandardsAct, a provincial law that provides minimum standards for wages, hours of work and other workingconditions in employment.

“This review is part of our overall commitment to address the realities of the modernworkplace and create a fair society. Fairness and decency must be the values thatde ne our workplaces. This consultation will help ensure this remains a reality inOntario.”

Kevin FlynnMinister of Labour

Janet DelineCommunications BranchFor media inquiries only: [email protected]

Michael SpeersMinister’s O ce416-325-6955

Today’s announcement responds to the nal report of the Changing Workplaces Review, conducted bySpecial Advisors C. Michael Mitchell and John C. Murray, over the course of two years. It is the rst-everindependent review of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and Labour Relations Act, 1995.

In May 2017 the Special Advisors released a 419-page Final Report, which proposed a review of ESAexemptions and contained comments on exclusions under the LRA.

Additional Resources

Employment Standards Act

Labour Relations Act

Quotes

Media Contacts

News Release

Ontario Seeking Input on Employment and Labour LawRulesProvince Reviewing Exemptions and Exclusions Under the EmploymentStandards Act

October 18, 2017 2:00 P.M. Ministry of Labour

Ontario is seeking public input to help make workplaces fairer for workers in industries that currently haveexemptions, special rules or exclusions.

Starting today, people across the province can have their say on important decisions related to employmentstandards such as wages, hours of work and public holidays. The rst phase of consultations focuses on eightoccupations currently exempt from minimum employment standards:

Architects

Domestic Workers

Homemakers

IT Professionals

Managerial and Supervisory Employees

Pharmacists

Residential Building Superintendents, Janitors and Caretakers

Residential Care Workers

Ontario is also reviewing rights under the Labour Relations Act for domestic workers.

This public consultation forms part of the Ministry of Labour's broader review of Employment Standards Act (ESA)special rules and exemptions, as well as Labour Relations Act (LRA) exclusions. It is part of Ontario's plan for FairWorkplaces and Better Jobs, which includes raising the minimum wage, ensuring part-time workers are paid thesame hourly wage as full-time workers, introducing paid sick days for every worker and stepping up enforcement ofemployment laws

To share your ideas on how to make workplaces fairer, go online by December 1, 2017.

Quick Facts

Currently, there are approximately 85 special rules and exemptions under the Employment StandardsAct, a provincial law that provides minimum standards for wages, hours of work and other workingconditions in employment.

“This review is part of our overall commitment to address the realities of the modernworkplace and create a fair society. Fairness and decency must be the values thatde ne our workplaces. This consultation will help ensure this remains a reality inOntario.”

Kevin FlynnMinister of Labour

Janet DelineCommunications BranchFor media inquiries only: [email protected]

Michael SpeersMinister’s O ce416-325-6955

Today’s announcement responds to the nal report of the Changing Workplaces Review, conducted bySpecial Advisors C. Michael Mitchell and John C. Murray, over the course of two years. It is the rst-everindependent review of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and Labour Relations Act, 1995.

In May 2017 the Special Advisors released a 419-page Final Report, which proposed a review of ESAexemptions and contained comments on exclusions under the LRA.

Additional Resources

Employment Standards Act

Labour Relations Act

Quotes

Media Contacts

about Ontario accessibility news privacy terms of use © Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2012-17

Regulation Number(s): 285/01

Bill or Act: Employment Standards Act, 2000

Summary of Proposal: This document contains background information about the special rules and/orexemptions applicable to architects under the Employment Standards Act,2000. It also contains information about how you can request furtherinformation about architects and participate in the Ministry of Labour'sconsultation process by providing feedback on the impact of the exemptions.

Further Information: Review of Special Rules and Exemptions under the Employment StandardsAct, 2000: Architects (Download Adobe Reader)

Proposal Number: 17-MOL012

Posting Date: October 18, 2017

Comments Due Date: December 1, 2017

Contact Address: Ministry of Labour, 400 University Ave., Suite 1502, Toronto, ON, M5G 1S7

Review of Special Rules and Exemptions under the Employment Standards Act, 2000:Architects

|

Information

111 Moatfield Drive, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3B 3L6 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416.449.5756 www.oaa.on.ca

July 27, 2017

Letter to the OAA Membership

Dear Members,

The OAA has distributed a number of information bulletins about RFPs. Most recently, you will have received an information bulletin regarding the current Infrastructure Ontario (IO) Vendor of Record RFP. The RFPs and the associated contract language contain many provisions that represent business risks that may be challenging to manage. I draw your attention in particular to the information about the clauses that raise professional liability concerns and may place the availability of professional liability insurance in question.

Ontario’s Architects Act makes errors and omissions insurance mandatory as a matter of public interest. Because of this the OAA has taken the position that “Knowingly responding to an RFP, or entering into a contract without the insurance protection or personal financial capability to meet the contractual obligations could not only result in serious legal consequences, but also a finding of professional misconduct against the architect or architectural practice.”

My practice is in Northwestern Ontario and we depend on the kind of work that the IO VOR would present, however my partners and I have concluded that participating in the IO RFP under the present terms and conditions could put our practice or licences at risk. I encourage all my colleagues to consider this RFP and others about which an information bulletin is issued carefully and decide for yourself if you should be responding.

I look forward to having a discussion with the profession about how we move forward with IO and other similar client groups and invite members to send their comments to me at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

John K. Stephenson, Architect OAA, MRAIC President

Ontario architects honour BAPS Hindu mandir atQueen’s Park

News Oct 03, 2017

by Tamara Shephard (/toronto-author/tamara-shephard/764af565-3334-407e-9db4-3b491d2b77a5/) (mailto:[email protected]) Etobicoke Guardian

A Hindu temple that is an architectural marvel of marble, limestone and sandstone in Etobicoke has been chosen by the OntarioAssociation of Architects as the Toronto building in its eight-project exhibit this year.

The BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir carved entirely of white marble and limestone cuts an impressive figure in an otherwise flatlandscape of homes and industrial buildings just off Hwy. 427 and Finch Avenue West.

It is the first of its kind in Canada.

, BAPS president, expressed gratitude for the recognition.Chandrakant Sachdev

Story continues below

"We are so pleased to be recognized at the Ontario Association of Architects' exhibit this year at Queen's Park," Sachdev said in astatement.

"The creation of the BAPS Swaminarayan Mandir in Etobicoke is a testament to Canada's values of multiculturalism and pluralism. Itwas created with the support of over 400 volunteers who donated more than a million hours of their time and talents in a spirit ofdevotion to God and guru."

Today, the OAA is celebrating World Architecture Day with its second-annual visit to Queen’s Park to recognize “how architecture isresponsible, innovative and enriching communities,” the association said Tuesday in a statement.

The OAA invited MPPs across the province to nominate a favourite building in his or her riding. Etobicoke North MPP Shafiq Qaadrinominated the BAPS mandir.

This year, 31 MPPs made 35 nominations:

Three other Toronto buildings were nominated:

Story continues below

· Morley Cottage, nominated by York South-Weston MPP Laura Albanese

· Bank of Nova Scotia, 1885 Weston Rd., nominated by York South-Weston MPP Laura Albanese

· Toronto Pan Am Sports Centre, nominated by Pickering-Scarborough East MPP Tracy MacCharles

“Each nomination represents a unique way that architecture creates a sense of place in communities across Ontario and tells the story ofhow individual buildings impact each of our lives,” OAA president John Stephenson said in a statement.

The OAA selected eight projects for this year’s exhibit “to highlight the diversity of architecture across the province,” including:

· Canadian Club Brand Heritage Centre, Windsor

· Cobalt Train Station, Cobalt

· Museum of Nature, Ottawa

· North Bay Regional Health Care, North Bay

· Templar Flats, Hamilton

· Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health, Ottawa (Vanier)

· Woodstock Public Library, Woodstock

Recently, BAPS devotees celebrated the mandir’s 10 anniversary.th

An architectural marvel, construction of the temple is based on Vedic engineering principles, without use of steel or nails. It is atechnique passed down from generation to generation of Indian craftsmen and builders.

Tonnes of Turkish limestone, Italian marble, Burmese teakwood and Indian sandstone have been used in the temple’s construction. Inall, there are 35,000 stone pieces. Each piece was cut and sculpted in India in a tradition passed down from generation to generation,before being shipped to Canada.

Here, the stone met the skilled hands of 101 artisans who were flown in from India. Away from their families for two years, they havelived in construction trailers on-site the Claireville Drive temple.

The men, all volunteers, answered a spiritual call, and worked tirelessly on the temple — for no wage.

“It’s a labour of love and devotion to Indian art, intense craftsmanship, graceful beauty and timeless wisdom,” said a video on theconstruction of a similar temple that opened in New Delhi, India in 2005 attended by 20,000 people with millions watching ontelevision.

The structure is a testament “to the spirit of voluntarism,” the video said, calling its construction “scientifically stunning”.

“It stirs the soul from within with its sounds, insights and timeless dedication to one swami’s (Pramukh Swami Maharaj, BAPS spiritualleader) life and work.”

BAPS is a socio-spiritual Hindu organization which promotes a better way of life through the humanitarian values of service, purity,discipline, love, tolerance and harmony.

Editor's Note: This article has been updated to include a comment by the Toronto BAPS president.

by Tamara Shephard (/toronto-author/Tamara-Shephard/764af565-3334-407e-9db4-

3b491d2b77a5/)

Tamara Shephard is a news reporter with The Etobicoke Guardian. Reach her at . Follow her on and

the Guardian on

[email protected](mailto:[email protected]) Twitter (https://www.twitter.com/TamaraShephard)

Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/EtobicokeGuardian/)

Email:

[email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) Facebook(https://www.facebook.com/EtobicokeGuardian/) Twitter (https://www.twitter.com/TamaraShephard)

Local hospital design honoured at Queen's Parkaa day ago by: BayToday Sta

The North Bay Regional Health Centre and architect Brian Bertrand were acknowledged in a Queen’sPark ceremony today after being nominated for the recognition by Nipissing MPP Vic Fedeli.

The hospital was one of eight projects selected to be showcased at the Legislature by the OntarioAssociation of Architects (OAA), which is celebrating World Architecture Day.

Earlier this summer, the OAA invited MPPs to nominate a favourite building within their riding tohighlight the diversity of architecture across the province. In total, 35 projects were submitted forconsideration this year.

“It was my pleasure to be able to advocate for the Regional Health Centre’s nomination, and it’s thrillingthey were recognized here today. I o er them my heartfelt congratulations,” said Fedeli.

Comments

The North Bay Regional Health Centre was the rst hospital in Ontario to be built under a public-private constructionmodel.

Memorandum



From: Sheena Sharp, Councillor Mazen Alkhaddam, Councillor Date: October 20, 2017 Subject: Update on Appeal of Harmonized Zoning By-Law Objective: To provide Council with an update on the Harmonized Zoning-By-Law-Task Group. Background: Harmonized Zoning By-Law As was previously reported, the OAA continues to await a decision from the OMB following the conclusion of hearings in the first week of July. Action: No action required.

Memorandum



From: David Sin, Chair, Councillor Sheena Sharp, Councillor Date: November 2, 2017 Subject: Update on Housing Affordability Study Objective: To provide Council with an update on the Housing Affordability Study and general file. Background: The OAA hosted a member roundtable on October 12 with the goal of identifying some topics for targeted design insight two-pagers on the architectural elements of the housing affordability equation. Attended by seven members, the Roundtable evolved as a discussion about potential solutions to the challenge of housing affordability as well as the creation of a framework of solutions and methods to implement these. Key topics that participants discussed included:

Existing housing stock and the capacity of it to house more people. The cost of housing and some possible cost-effective solutions to provide more

housing. Some regulatory barriers that impact the housing affordability challenge in Ontario and

alternatives to these barriers Next Steps: The participants finished off the Roundtable enthusiastic to continue their involvement with the OAA on this issue. They agreed that the ultimate goal is to produce a paper that explores universal regulatory fixes to address the issue of housing affordability, the types of sites that

2

can/should be rezoned as-of-right, and that includes a study of building types and changes to built form. This subcommittee would like Council to consider their proposal to form a Task Group of the OAA. This proposed Task Group will require a budget of $25,000, which will cover the cost of task group funding and program funding for a writer. All roundtable participants will be members and a regular expense package of $5,000 will be needed to support their meetings throughout the year. They plan to start work in January 2018 with a sunset date of one year. Action: Council to consider proposal for the creation of a Task Group on Housing Affordability. Attachments:

- Draft Housing Affordability Discussion Summary

Housing Affordability Discussion Summary DRAFT FOR INTERNAL DISCUSSION ONLY

October 24, 2017

Housing Affordability Roundtable October 12, 2017 2:00 – 5:00 p.m.

OAA Headquarters (1 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto) Moderated by David Sin and Sheena Sharp

Roundtable Discussion Summary

Attendees: Drew Adams, Naama Blonder (delayed arrival), Astra Burka, Dina Drabinia, Rachel Kelebay, Sheila Penney, Peter Turners, Sheena Sharp (Moderator), David Sin (Moderator), Pearl Chan (OAA Staff), Adam Tracey (OAA Staff), Sara Trotta (OAA Staff) Regrets: Nolan Bentley, Roopali Jain Executive Summary: The Ontario Association of Architects partnered with RESCON and RCCAO to jointly fund a broad‐based study of housing affordability in Ontario. The study, carried out by the Canadian Centre of Economic Analysis (CANCEA), used big data to analyze and explore possible factors that are impacting housing affordability. Out of the study, the OAA proposed a series of design insight papers that would be reviewed and workshopped at the Roundtable. Attended by 7 members, the Roundtable was ultimately a discussion about potential solutions to the challenge of housing affordability as well as the creation of a framework of solutions and methods to implement these. Roundtable Objectives: With the completion of the housing affordability study, the OAA was interested in exploring the creation of design insight papers as part of a broader initiative to create housing that addresses this issue. The original purpose of this roundtable was to workshop the proposed insight paper topics. Despite that, the Roundtable discussion focused on the what participants identified as key design and planning elements to address housing affordability. Current Status: Participants discussed some of the measures currently being undertaken by Government noting that the current proposals will neither deliver the volume of housing that would be required, nor at the price that would be required. Some participants contested that with changes to the system and delivery model, housing affordability can be achieved by private developers and at a profit. Existing Building Stock: Roundtable participants had an extensive conversation about existing building stock, especially in the Toronto context. In particular, they discussed the capacity of existing housing stock to house more people. One participant suggested that two possible models could be implemented to achieve greater density in existing buildings. The first model considers the creation of adaptable housing that can change with life cycle changes, support aging in place and encourage rightsizing. The second model considers the potential of main streets to develop mid‐rise housing on. This can be achieved through existing BIM and data on Toronto zoning to create a 3D model of Toronto at its current density potential based on existing by‐law data. The Cost of Housing: Regardless of the model that is applied, participants all agreed that it is most important to understand the cost. They discussed the possibility of creating a program that can generate

Housing Affordability Discussion Summary DRAFT FOR INTERNAL DISCUSSION ONLY

October 24, 2017

proformas about the capacity of a housing, including a business plan and community benefits analysis based on maximum performance of the house. There was also some discussion about social housing and how the quality of it can be enhanced. One participant described Toronto’s social housing as “isolated slums” and said that mechanisms have to be put in place to “knit these back into the fabric of [broader] communities”. John Van Nostrand’s concept of taking the horizontal plane and delivering it vertically was explored in the context of affordable housing. Van Nostrand’s concept is rooted in the original development of Toronto when families built their own homes as they acquired income. In his modern version, he envisions building “cells” within an apartment building that people can own or rent and complete the construction on their own. Participants agreed that they would like to learn more about this approach and are interested in having a presentation from Van Nostrand about it. Regulatory Barriers: Participants acknowledged that in order to achieve the sorts of solutions that they discussed, zoning and building code issues have to be addressed. For example, participants discussed the possibility of installing high‐grade fire monitoring systems instead of the costly fire‐safety modifications, including two means of egress, that are currently required when turning a single family home into two units. One participant went so far as to suggest that the building code is outdated. In their discussion of potential solutions, some regulatory barriers that they agreed should be addressed in order to sufficiently address the issue of housing affordability include:

Creating an expedited approval process Increasing as‐of‐right changes that a property owner can make Lessening parking requirements (as they believe that many of the people caught in this housing

affordability problem do not own cars) HST rebates for increasing the capacity of your home to house more people Income tax exemptions for income from secondary suites

Next Steps: The participants finished off the Roundtable enthusiastic to continue their involvement with the OAA on this issue. They agreed that the ultimate goal is to produce a paper that explores universal regulatory fixes to address the issue of housing affordability, the types of sites that can/should be rezoned as‐of‐right, and that includes a study of building types and changes to built form. Furthermore, participants want to design‐test the solutions that they have identified to determine the degree of impact that they may have. They discussed doing this by running the numbers on estimated cost reductions and applicability. The idea behind this being that if all proposals are evaluated and considered in the context of the land available based on type, yield and cost, they can determine the potential benefit of these proposals.

Participants would like to formalize their work on this through the creation of a housing affordability committee. Councillor David Sin has agreed to proposed this to Council at the November 2017 meeting.

Memorandum To: Council John Stephenson Kathleen Kurtin



Committee Members: Jean Audette Joël León Wayne Medford Sadeq M. Sadeq David Sin Magid Youssef

Date: October 19, 2017 Subject: Communications Committee Update Objective: To provide an update on current and ongoing Communication activities. The Communications Committee met on September 22 and October 13 to discuss current Communication initiatives.

1. 2016/17 Priority Projects:

MICROSITE Project

PUBLIC AWARENESS Media Relations Efforts

OAA AWARDS Program Review

The celebration of Canada’s 150th

Anniversary continues. Promotion is ongoing and targeting Doors Open fall events. The gallery continues to grow with more than 180 postings as of October 19. In early October, we launched enhancements to the Microsite which included the addition of an interactive map which plots the projects featured in the campaign by city. The new map will be promoted via social media to encourage more participation.

Environics priorities include World Arch. Day, Housing Affordability – CANCEA report, and the OAA Renew + Refresh HQ Project and the 2018 Awards. Environics presented an Annual Report to Comm. Comm. at the September meeting which highlighted successes and key learnings. A staff planning session (Comms + GR) was held October 11 to discuss planning and opportunities for the next quarter.

The Awards Steering Committee met October 5 to discuss the Inducement prize (Challenge Program) and the communications pertinent to the launch of the 2018 OAA Awards Program. Key changes will be communicated prior to the call for submissions (Nov. 6) to inform and encourage submissions to the 2018 Program.

2

Additional Priorities: CONTENT REVIEW

COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY integration

The Communications Content Review Committee met June 13 for a working/ brainstorming session to familiarize themselves with the current OAA Communication vehicles and content. This knowledge will be used to create a foundation to devise a plan and schedule for the Committee to complete its mandate.

Planning for the 2017 year continues focusing on priority initiatives, integration, and scheduling. Nineteen Communication Plans are currently active, with several multi-year plans; this is the highest capacity of Communications planning over the past two decades. Content calendars for all vehicles (Microsite, BlOAAg, OAA News, etc.) and overall project management calendars will be integrated with the new Communications Manager position to be in place later this fall.

EVENT World Arch Day – Queens Park

Communications staff has been working with Gov’t Relations/Policy to increase the awareness and participation at Queen’s Park World Architecture Day event on October 2. Media Relations support, social media, news coverage, exhibit staging, speeches, print and event support.

WEBSITE REVIEW

Work has continued on the OAA Website with continued development of the Management of the Project/PARC pages. The Practice Committee is still in the process of developing content for this section of the site. The Committee met on September 22 and October 13 to discuss the goals of the Website Review project. After 10 years, there is a need for an update of the organizational structure, technology and design of the site. See the Website Review Report which highlights the key priorities for the Website project and the budget required for Phase 1.

3

2. OAA Communications (September – December):

COMMUNICATION PLANS KEY PROJECTS KEY ACTIVITIES OAA Building Renew/Refresh The move – 1 Duncan Mill Communications Plan 2017

ConEd Fines Starting a Practice Online CERB Online Admission Course OAA Elections

QP / World Arch Day event NOW lecture 2018

Inducement Prize/Challenge Program

Society Visits – President’s tour

PLANNING With Policy/GR: Queen’s Park, World Arch Day Housing Affordability Symposium OMB Appeal Hearing Climate Change/ 2030 MOL Employment Standards Architectural Policy

OAA HQ Renew + Refresh Conference 2018 planning Microsite campaign Cda 150 Awards Program Review Practice Web Library Website Review Intern Resources Annual Report President’s Seasonal Greetings Event: Queen’s Park World

Arch Day Event: NOW Lecture

Plan/Strategy Consultation Media Relations Media Monitoring Writing/Editing/Proofing Content Development:

BlOAAg/Twitter/Instagram/OAA News

Design and Production Enquiries Website Develop./Maint. Committee support

3. Web Updates (September - December)

UPDATES DEVELOPMENT UPCOMING PRIORITIES: In progress

2018 Conference Updates/Sponsorship page

Intern Resources OAAAS Updates, Lic. Tech. OAA ConEd Updates/Refinements PARC updates Safe Work Places Guide

Development of new Management of Practice/PARC section

Public vs. Member design Website Redesign Project review

CMS Refinement Adding Tags to pages/documents (ongoing) Website Review Project Graphic Standard Review Accessibility Standards Training

4

POP CAN CRIT Toronto Carleton University’s Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism $2,500 Building 22 Ottawa Carleton University’s Azreli School of Architecture and Urbanism $1,500 325 Magazine Toronto Ryerson University $400

4. Sponsorship Update:

Current 2017 Budget (as of October 16, 2017): $0 Budget Spent (as of October 16, 2017): $85,000 (total budget: $85,000)

2017 Brownie Awards CUI Toronto $5,000 World Design Summit and Toronto Design Forum DIAC $5,000 Zero-Emission Building Design PUB NIGHT Toronto 2030 District Toronto $2,500 Heritage Mississauga Heritage Mississauga $1,600 Indigenous Housing Canada Architects without Borders Canada $2,000

2017 Winter Stations Design Competition Feb 20 - March 24, 2017 Toronto Raw Design, Curio, Ferris +Assoc $15,000 2017 Yonge Street Tours April 2017 - October 2017 Toronto Heritage Toronto $3,500 Kosmic Prism March 2017 Ottawa Carleton University’s Azrieli School of Architecture and Urbanism $1,000 2017 Grow Op Toronto Gladstone Hotel $1,000 Green Building Breakfast Toronto Canada Green Building Council $3,000 Canstruction Toronto Canstruction Toronto $1,000 2017 Laneway Crawl Series Toronto The Laneway Project $10,000 Toronto Pavilion Series Toronto Ilana Altman $25,000 Toronto Pavilion Series Toronto Ilana Altman $25,000 Mississauga Housing Forum Mississauga Mississauga, CUI, ULI $5,000

5

5. Social Media Update

6

INSTAGRAM TWITTER FACEBOOK

Followers: 1596 (+151) Followers: 5898 (+118) Likes: 782 (+48) Our posts during mid-August to mid-September are //MOVE party installations as prepared by the Interns’ Committee. Other posts included a greeting for World Architecture Day and announcement for 2018 Council Nominations.

Our tweets focused on bringing Instagram posts to #150bldgsON to Twitter. Other posts included World Architecture Day with a special focus on the 8 Queen’s Park Picks using #architecturematters and tweets with MPPs.

Our Facebook followers and likes continue to grow. Our posts promoted the Eventbrite page for the NOW Lecture and 2018 Council Nominations. There is a continued effort to promote Ontario Architecture using #150bldgsON and the Microsite gallery.

6. blOAAg Update Our fall blOAAg will have a special focus on renovation and relocation projects to coincide with the Renew + Refresh project and the OAA’s move. Architects and their firms are invited to share their stories on renovation projects they have done in the past. 7. 2018 Awards program Current Priorities: 2018 Call for Entries and Inducement “Challenge Program” The Awards Steering Committee met on October 5 to review the Jury Selection process for 2018 and the process/plan to implement the Inducement “Challenge Program”. The Inducement Task Group led by Toon Dreessen will work over the next several months to determine what the application process will look like and what the first issue/topic will be for the 2019 program.

Memorandum



From: Sheena Sharp, Councillor Ted Wilson, Chair, Sustainable Built Environments Committee

Committee members: Cheryl Atkinson Paul Dowsett Martin Gauthier (Vice-Chair) Gordon Erskine (Councillor)

Mariana Esponda Dan Harvey Sheena Sharp (Councillor) Noushy Tavassoli Andy Thomson Richard Williams Ted Wilson (Chair)

Date: November 2, 2017 Subject: Sustainable Built Environments Committee (SBEC) Update Objective: To provide Council with an update on the Committee’s activities Background: SBEC The Committee last met on October 17, 2017. The next meeting has to be rescheduled due to changes in Committee members’ schedules and will take place in late November. This will be the last meeting of 2017 for this Committee. Below is an update of the Committee’s recent activities that would not have been already covered at the last Council meeting.

Toronto Green Standard Version 3 Letter SBEC reviewed the Toronto Green Standard Version 3 and decided to write a letter to Toronto City Council to support the new Standard. The letter recommends that the Standard can be strengthened by increasing the energy performance standards that it lays out and eliminating the compliance path that allows a project proponent to use the reference/proposed building method. The letter highlights the work that the OAA has been doing to support the development of an energy benchmarking tool that can currently check an energy model to confirm whether it meets the Toronto Green Standard. The tool is also

2

poised to have the new standard built into it so that it remains current. The letter was signed by the President and submitted to the City Clerk on October 10, 2017. Toronto Green Standard Version 3 Deputation Councillor Sheena Sharp attended the October 12, 2017 Toronto Planning and Growth Management Committee meeting where the Toronto Green Standard was discussed. She attended to express SBEC’s recommendations laid out in the letter and to show support for the Standard overall. As a result of the hearing, the Standard has been amended to increase the energy performance standards by removing the Tier 1 standards and effectively replacing them Tier 2 (higher) standards. Ontario Building Code Consultation on Electric Vehicles SBEC Member, Andy Thomson, attended the in-person technical briefing Ontario Building Code consultation session on Electric Vehicles. Thomson reported that the consultation was well attended by industry representatives and that there was a general mood of unanimity. Despite that, he cautioned that there was also agreement that the technical details of the amendment have to be carefully fleshed out.

Action: No action required.

Attachment:

- Letter to Toronto City Council re: Toronto Green Standard

1 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3B 1Z2 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416.449.5756 www.oaa.on.ca

Mayor John Tory and Toronto Councilors100 Queen Street West Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2

October 10, 2017

Dear Mayor Tory and Toronto City Councilors,

On behalf of the Ontario Association of Architects (OAA), I am writing to express our support for version 3 of the Toronto Green Standard. I urge Toronto Council to adopt this report and to continue to utilize the Green Standard as a guide for sustainable site and building design.

As you may be aware, the OAA is a signatory to and promotes the 2030 targets which strives to have all new buildings, developments and major renovations as carbon-neutral by 2030. Version 3 of the Toronto Green Standard will help to achieve this goal.

However, we are writing to make two additional recommendations for your consideration:

1. Toronto Green Standard should increase the energy performance standard for Tier One. The energy provisions of Tier 1 are too low and will not advance us quickly enough to Toronto’s goals. Tier 1 targets represent a 25% reduction over the average energy use in 2006. The OAA currently recommends a 70% reduction over the building average in 2006, which equates to Tier 4. We believe that the industry has shown that it can readily hit deeper reductions, and will do so if it is mandated.

2. Irrespective of the target, Toronto Green Standard should eliminate the compliance path that allows you to use the reference/proposed building method. This method is inherently flawed and allows some buildings to meet the standard without actually improving performance over existing buildings. The OAA established energy targets for 40 different building types, making the EUI method available to almost all buildings.

With respect to the capacity of our industry to meet this challenge, the Ontario Association of Architects has identified the need to strengthen energy literacy and capacity in the design, regulatory and incentive sectors. As such, we have been supporting the development of an energy benchmarking tool, funded by IESO, and led by RWDI and the Toronto 2030 District, that will enable any architect, engineer or building official to check an energy model to see if it meets the current Toronto Green Standards, and can be used interactively to assist with design. Beta testing of

1 Duncan Mill Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3B 1Z2 Telephone 416.449.6898 Fax 416.449.5756 www.oaa.on.ca

the tool will commence with designers, municipalities and a contractor in February 2018, and the tool will be available for use by all in Spring 2018. If passed, Toronto 2030 is poised to build the new standards into the tool so that it remains current.

The OAA is the self-regulating body for the profession of Architecture, dedicated to promoting and increasing the knowledge, skill and proficiency of its members, and to governing the practice of architecture and administering the Architects Act in order that the public interest may be served and protected. We have long been committed to working with government and other stakeholders to protect and improve environmental quality for all Ontarians.

We look forward to continued collaboration with the City of Toronto.

Sincerely,

John Stephenson, ArchitectOAA, MRAICPresident


Memorandum

To: Council

John Stephenson Mazen Alkhaddam Donald Ardiel Barry Cline Walter Derhak Toon Dreessen Gordon Erskine Vanessa Fong Gordon Hunt Ken Jennings Kathleen Kurtin Jeffrey Laberge Michelle Longlade Wayne Medford Elaine Mintz David C. Rich Sheena Sharp Andre Sherman David Sin Robert Sirman Magid Youssef

From: Barry Cline, Vice President, Statutory Activities

Date: October 18, 2017

Subject: Activities under the Registrar

August 3, 2017 through October 10, 2017

1. Membership as of October 10, 2017

Membership Growth Summary

TOTAL 4153

Licence Applications Rec’vd – 45 Total Licences Approved – 50 First Time Applicants (FTA) – 30

o FTA ITP – 9 BEFA - 0 Licensed Technologist OAA – 0 Reciprocal – 9 Mutual Recognition Agreement – 10 Reapplications – 1 Reinstatements – 0 Non-Practising Architect – 0

Total

Licences Approved -

45

Members October 10,

2017 4153

Members Dec 31, 2016

3942

*overall increased by

211


2

2. Certificate of Practice as of October 10, 2017

Certificate of Practice Growth Summary

3. Temporary Licence Growth Summary

Limited Certificate of Practice Growth Summary

Increased by 3

since December 31 2016

TOTAL C of P 1850

25 Lic. Tech OAA

REC’D – 32 Approvals – 37

New ON – 19 New USA – 3 New Other Provinces – 3 New Lic. Tech. OAA – 0 Changes to existing practices – 11 Reinstatements – 0 Reapplications – 1

C of P Dec 31, 2016

1770 C of P

October 10, 2017

1850


80

TOTAL Temporary

Licence Dec 31, 2016

31

Limited C of P Dec 31, 2016

31

TOTAL Temporary

Licence October 10, 2017

34

Limited C of P

October 10, 2017 34

Increased 3 since December 31, 2016


3

4. Interns as of October 10, 2017

Intern Growth Summary

5. Students as of October 10, 2017

Student Growth Summary

TOTAL Interns 1550

Applications Rec’d by

October 10, 2017 69

Interns Dec 31, 2016

1531

TOTAL Students

588 Applications

Rec’d October 10, 2017

28

Students Dec 31, 2016

573

Students October 10,

2017 588


15

Interns October 10,

2017 1550


19


4

OAAAS

Technologist OAAAS

Associate OAAAS

Exemption Requests to Council To date there have been 7 requests for information and assistance with process and/or applications for Exemption Requests to Council.

Experience Requirements Committee (ERC) There were no ERC meetings held during this period. There is a meeting scheduled in October for 2 applicants, both with international experience.

Complaints Committee 4 Complaints are currently before the Complaints Committee. Public Interest Review Committee (PIRC) No meetings were held in 2017.

TOTAL Technologist

OAAAS 110

Associate OAAAS

93


5 Discipline Committee There have been no new Discipline Hearings since the last report to Council.

Act Enforcement 19 matters were reported to the Registrar for investigation by members related to misuse of the term “Architect” or “Architecture” or otherwise holding out.

Injunction There are two other investigations that are ongoing related to holding out and unauthorized practice.

Memorandum



From: Walter Derhak, Vice President Practice Chair, Practice Committee Date: October 25, 2017 Subject: Practice Committee (PC) and Practice Advisory Services (PAS) Update Objective: To update Council on activities of the PC and PAS Background: The items below were discussed at the PC meeting on September 12, 2017, or subsequently dealt with by PAS. PRACTICE TIPS Practice Tip PT.36.2 – OBC SB-10, Energy Efficiency Requirements – Prescriptive Compliance (Version 3.0) dated January 1, 2018 Issuing Version 3 is on hold pending resolution of which compliance paths are allowed. The PC is in the process of contacting the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA) with regard to the Building Code amendments. Guideline to Durability The PC is continuing to develop a Practice Tip. Coordination with the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) is underway. Regulatory Regularity – applicable law The Committee has identified inconsistent accessibility requirements as an area to focus on. BULLETINS OAA Insurance Bulletin – Dealing with Substitutions to Your Design A draft bulletin is nearing completion and is currently subject to legal review. The final should be ready for posting shortly.


2

Cyber Update re: Protection against Cyber-Intrusion Pro-Demnity has new insurance coverage to protect architects when claims arise due to cyber intrusion, but it does not reimburse the architect’s costs in recovering from an attack. PC is preparing a practice bulletin for basic tips on protecting a practice from cyber-intrusion risks. The Chair suggested creating a compact bulletin on storage security, as method storage is an inherent part of security. A news update on insurance coverage is essential and the Chair will follow up with Pro-Demnity regarding timing. UPDATES Site Safety – Ministry of Labour Form 1000 - Registration of Constructors and Employers Engaged in Construction Some general contractors have refused site entry to architects who do not sign Form 1000 re. site safety. The OAA has previously received an opinion that architects are not employers engaged in construction. The OAA has previously been in contact with the Ministry with regard to the mis-use of this form, but unfortunately at that time the Ministry was not prepared to make any changes as they felt that there was no liability to architects signing the form. Prior to OAA advising members on how to amend the form, PAS is trying to contact the Ministry again in order to amend the form or to explicitly exclude architects. This is likely a difficult matter however due to the fact that the form is a schedule to a Regulation which needs government approval to amend. Large Municipality Chief Building Officials (LMCBO) Group At the LMCBO September 8, 2017 meeting, the OAA offered to participate with LMCBO in a working group regarding the proliferation of consultant commitment forms. The LMCBO also want to address planners’ involvement with the permit process. Building officials are frustrated with some planners that are allegedly overstepping their responsibilities by prescribing architectural design. LMCBO is considering pursuing this concern not only with the OAA, but with the PEO. The LMCBO / OAA’s position with regard to the proliferation of forms will be taken to the Engineers Architects Building Officials (EABO) in the near future. The OAA Registrar is aware of the concern relative to planners who may in fact be practicing architecture and the OAA is prepared to pursue enforcement. Update re: Issues Regarding Number of Elevators (attachment) The three letters have been redrafted incorporating Council’s suggestions from its September 14, 2017 meeting, and will be sent unless there is further concern. Draft Code compliance directive for Federal Government projects (attachment) The draft Code compliance directive on federal properties, mandated by the federal government is aimed at ensuring that licensed professionals are engaged for federal projects. PC’s


3

comments were sent on September 18, 2017 to the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) who are assembling input on this directive from the provincial associations. Sub-Committee on Building Codes and Regulations (SCOBCAR) Council’s September 14, 2017 recommended changes were incorporated in the submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Update re Commissioning and Best Practice The OAA President and a member of PAS had a preliminary meeting with representatives of the Building Commissioning Association on September 19, 2017. Further discussion will take place with regard to the possible future cooperation between the two organizations. There is an MOU that already exists that sets out cooperation on communication of information between the two organizations’ memberships. Update re CCA Document - A Guide to Project Management Service Delivery This is now with RAIC. The Chair will follow-up with Don Ardiel. Update re: City of Markham Site Plan Application Drawing Template PAS has completed its review of the template and is ready to meet with the City of Markham. Report from Engineer Architects Building Officials (EABO) The VP Practice will provide an oral report of the October 26, 2017 meeting. PEO/OAA Coordinating Licensed Professional Joint Sub-Committee The VP Practice will provide an oral report of the September 27, 2017 meeting. Update on Requests For Proposals (RFPs) (attachment) Updated October 18, 2017. CSA subscription The PC will recommend which standards to include before the OAA renews the CSA subscription for 2018. Conway suggested keeping the following 5 standards.

A371 2014 Masonry construction for buildings A440.4 2007 Window, Door, and Skylight Installation AAMA/WDMA/CSA 101/I.S.2/A440 2011 NAFS - North American fenestration

standard/Specification for windows, doors, and skylights

S478 1995 Guideline on Durability in Buildings B651 2012 Accessible design for the built

environment Interns Committee Practice Tips The suggested communication in the form of a practice tip as proposed by the Interns Committee illustrates the need for a renewed approach to supporting interns and mentors. Councillor Hunt who is on the Practice Committee stated that the Interns Committee is trying to


4

address mentorship as a whole. The Interns Committee is also interested in communicating with those out of school who are not yet Interns. It was stated that communication is essential to members regarding mentorship, and if any member or retired members are eligible to be mentors. There may be concern if the firm’s involvement in verifying signing the experience record becomes too onerous. Practices/firms need to understand the value of overseeing Interns. As the Intern program is administered through the Office of the Registrar with oversight and responsibility falling to the Registrar, as such it should be the Registrar’s responsibility to issue any communication. The Chair will meet with the Registrar as PC does not want to infringe on the Registrar’s responsibilities, and will coordinate efforts where it can be of assistance to the Registrar. Action: None required. For information only.

OBC Letter

October 25, 2017

Mr. Chris D. Thompson,Manager, Building Code OperationsBuilding and Development Branch

Ministry of Municipal Affairs777 Bay Street, 2nd FloorToronto, Ontario M5G 2E5

Dear Sir,

RE: Proposed Elevator Service Provisions to the OBC to Ensure Accessibility and Firefighting Provisions are Maintained at All times The OAA Practice Committee has discussed a significant concern which hasbeen raised by some of our members, and we wish to bring our thoughts to yourCommittee for consideration.

The provision of continuous elevator service for people with disabilities or theelderly should be a fundamental requirement of our building codes, based on theprinciples embodied in the Access for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), theaccessibility provisions of the Ontario Building Code (OBC), and t h e O n t a r i o Human Rights Code. While elevators are not to be used for emergency exiting,people with disabilities have the right to have access to all building levels normallyserved by an elevator at all times, as should firefighters and other first respondersdealing with medical and other situations that don't involve responding to a fire.The current version of the Ontario Building Code dictates in fact, that forpeople with disabilities including those who use wheeled mobility devices,access be required to virtually all habitable levels of multi-storey buildingswhether for residential or commercial/retail/academic or other uses.

The issue is: if a building today has only one elevator to provide accessibility andfor the first responders, and that elevator is out of service, (due to a failure orscheduled maintenance) how can the required accessibility be maintained? This isof particular concern for care occupancies where food or medication needs to bedistributed to groups of people. It is also a concern where accessible residentialsuites occur throughout high-rise buildings and in office buildings.

We respectfully recommend that the Code be revised to require a minimum of two elevators be provided in buildings which require elevators and are required by government regulations to be designed by an architect and engineer, and that more than one elevator be provided with emergency power.

We understand that cost is an issue. However, adequate access must beprovided for workers, visitors, residents or other users with disabilities to spacesthat are required to be barrier-free. The incremental cost of providing more thanone elevator with emergency power in buildings already requiring two or more

elevators, to enable operation of one elevator at all times, would be minimal. Thecost of providing a second elevator where only one is current ly required is moreof an issue.

Recognizing that this proposal is preliminary and requires further review to relatedclauses in the building and other codes, we thank you for considering thisproposal.

Yours very truly,

John K. Stephenson, ArchitectOAA, MRAICPresident

cc: Hannah Evans, Director, Building and Development Branch, Municipal Affairs,College Park 16th Floor, 777 Bay St, Toronto, ON M5G 2E5

NBC Letter

October 25, 2017

Ms. Anne GribbonSecretaryCanadian Commission on Building and Fire CodesCodes CanadaNational Research Council of Canada1200 Montreal Road, Building M-58Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0R6

Dear Madam,








Yours very truly,


MPP Letter

October 25, 2017

Mr. Han Dong, MPPTrinity – Spadina (Legislative Assembly of Ontario)226 Bathurst St, Unit AToronto, Ontario M5T 2R9

Dear Sir,








Yours very truly,


From: Walter Derhak [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 18, 2017 10:04 AM To: 'Donald Ardiel <[email protected]> ([email protected])' <[email protected]> Cc: Kristi Doyle <[email protected]> Subject: Code Compliance Directive for Crown Owned Properties, OAA PC Comments Hello Don, OAA Practice Committee (OAA PC) has reviewed the draft Code Compliance Directive for Crown Owned Properties, and offers the following comments.

1. OAA PC supports in principle the Objectives and Expected Results as stated in the Directive.

2. OAA PC recommends that the Directive be clear that the Licensed Professional must hold professional liability insurance, as legislated in the province in which the building is located.

3. OAA PC notes that a Licensed Technologist OAA (Lic. Tech. OAA) is an individual who is granted a licence by the OAA to practise a limited scope of the practice of architecture with very specific Terms, Conditions and Limitations (TCL). An Lic. Tech. OAA must be the holder of a Certificate of Practice with the OAA in order to offer and/ or provide architectural services with limitations to the public. We recommend identifying Lic. Tech. OAA and the requirement for Certificate of Practice in the definition of Licensed Professional, and in Appendix B in reference to Technologist.

4. OAA PC notes that a Licensed Interior Designer as referenced in Appendix B is not a Licensed Professional as defined above. We recommend identifying the limitations of practice of a Licensed Interior Designer.

5. OAA PC notes the discrepancies between Federal and Provincial jurisdictions regarding building description and the requirement for design and general review by a Licensed Professional. We recommend that the Directive be clear that the legislated requirements for professional design as set out in the province in which the building is located must be adhered to.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Directive and we welcome any request for further consultation on the matter. Sincerely Walter Derhak OAA Vice President Practice

Walter DerhakPrincipal, OAA MRAIC519-673-1190 ext.123C 226-268-9810wderhak@nicholsonsheffield.canicholsonsheffield.ca358 Talbot Street, London, Ontario N6A 2R6

SUMMARY OF RFP's - 2017

Page 1 of 2

Issued Oct 16/17

Ottawa Police Services RFP CPM Under Review

Close Oct 19/17BGIS and 150 Tunney's Pasture Dr, Ottawa RFP

ANHReview and comments sent to Member

Oct 10/17 Sick Kids, Supplementary Conditions CPMReview/comments sent to Member & Sick Kids (P Sawras)

Oct 5/17University of TorontoSupplementary Conditions CG

Reviews and comment issued to 2 Members

CloseOct 16/17

University of Ontario Institute of Technology RFP

ANHReview and comments sent to 2 Members

Close May 17/17

Apr 6/17-Apr 20/17 Feb 23/17-Mar23/17

RFP Issued June 19/17

Infrastructure Ontario, Standard Consultant Contract

CG Information Bulletin July 24/17

LCBO ANH RFP alert July 17/17

Ryerson Universiy, Supplementary Conditions

CGOn going discussions OAA/Ryerson

Southcare Homes, LTC Owen Sound, RFPJan 16/17-Jan 31/17

Closed May 18/17 No alert required - no major issues

ANH

CPM/ANH

Architect requested comments - refer to T Kolasenko above

Bank of Nova Scotia, Architect's Services Agreement

17-AprDino Dutra has responded to bank

CG

CG

Dates Issued/Closed

Client/Owner/ Procurement Authority

RFP alert Jan 19/17 supplementry conditions under discussion with

Supplementry conditions under discussion with City

RFP update alert Mar 22/17

RFP alert April 3/17

RFPQ Alert Jan 5/17

RFP alert Mar 20/17

No alert issued - lack of time

RFP alert May 12/17

RFP alert May 8/17

Dec 12/16-Jan 12/17Mar 28/17-Apr 12/17Mar 9/17-Mar 30/17

Close July 14/17

Kings College, UWO, Space & Facility Renewal Project RFP

CPM Sent comments to Jeff Major, King's College & Member

Close July 19/17

City of Toronto, Mount Dennis, Child Care Centre RFP

Talked w/Joanne Kehoe at City and sent comments Jul 27/19

Closing May 10/17

City of Mississauga, Bus Wash & Repair Facility, RFPCity of Kingston, East Community Health Centre, RFPRyerson University, Supplementary ConditionsUniversity of Toronto, Art Centre , Main Entrance

University Health Network, Clinic at TGH

Colliers, Fort Francis CDSB, RFP Brant Haldiman, Addition to St Francis Cabrini SchoolCity of Burlington, New Pavillion at City View Park, RFP

City of Ottawa, Supplementary Conditions

Brookfield, Place Du Portage, RFPQ

City of Thunder Bay, Large Sign, RFPComments sent to Kim McKee - Form Architects - McKee reviewing with City

Conference call with Ottawa Arch's & City Mar 29/17 re suppl cond to OAA 600

Apr 23/17 sent by S Comisso-Lynch Commiso Arch Comments from H Kembel & R Froom. May 17/17 - no resonse from Client

Meeting with Univ Apr/17Comments from C Pearson Apr 13/17-using OAA 2008 - referred to Registrar

May 19 - no response from Client

5/19/2017 - no response from Client. Successful Arch requested OAA's comment.

Close July 31/17

University Health Network, ClinicToronto Rehab Institute at TWH

Issue w/ suppl cond-have not changed since previous RFP

Jul 13/17-Aug 22/17

Reissue City of Burlington, New Pavillion at City View Park, RFP

RFP alert Aug 16/17 Previously issued Mar 9/17 - RFP has been revised - contract conditions not changed

July 20/17 Bank of Nova Scotia, Architect's Services Agree't for new & exist proj

Tom Kolbasenko, Architect to respond directly to Bank Sent OAA comments to TK on Jul 20/17

Close Sept 13/17

Place Des Arts, Sudbury RFP Discussions initiated with Colliers & RFP revised

Jul 13/17-Aug 24/17

Plexsus RFP for North York General Hopspital and Lakeridge Health

RFP alert Aug 22/17

Close Aug 30/17

Municipality of Chatham-Kent, Animal Shelter

RFP alert Aug 22/17 Letter issued by Registrar re free architectural services

CG

Close Sept 29/17

Ryerson University - Request for Supplier Qualifications

RFP alert Sept 28/17

Close Sept 21/17

Architectural Service for a Renovation of Public School, Rivere-Rideau

RFP alert Sept 14/17 On going discussions with School Board

Close Sept 20/17

Cornwall Water Purification Plant RFP alert

CG

ANH

ANH

Review Status Actions/Comments

CPM

ANH

CPM

ANH

CPM

CPM

ANH

CPM

CG/ANH

CG/ANH

ANH

ANH

CG/ANH

CPM/ANH

ANH/CG

SUMMARY OF RFP's - 2017

Page 2 of 2

CG/BA

15-Jan

Lake of Bays, Expansion of Municipal Offices, RFP

Close Sept 26/16

Nortrax Canada Inc, Sales & Services Centre, Mississauga, Suppl Cond

CG/ANH

ANH

CG

Grand Erie District School Board, New School at Fairview Ave, RFPClose Jan 19/17

Toronto Catholic District School Board- Arch Serv for St Raymond School, RFP

Mar 2/17-Mar 16/17

CG

Canadian Partnership against Cancer, Offices, Toronto, RFP

Close Feb 9/17 CG/ANH

CG/BA

CG

York Region, Renovations of Brayfield Manors & Keswick Gardens

Jan18/17-Feb 2/17

Mohawk College, Various Projects Under $2.5m, RFPQClose Oct 27/16

RFP Alert Oct 11/16University of Guelph, Draft of Architect Agreement

Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities

Regulators Meeting Agenda| Montreal, QC | October 2017

Date Monday, October 16, 2017

Time 8:30 AM – 1:30 PM

Location Salle Ramezay, Le Westin, Montréal, QC

Chair Nathalie Dion, Présidente, OAQ

Attendees

Guests

Staff

CALA/ ROAC

Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities Regroupement des ordres d’architectes du Canada

Architectural Institute of British Columbia

Alberta Association of Architects

Northwest Territories Association of Architects


Manitoba Association of Architects

Ontario Association of Architects

Ordre des architectes du Québec

Architects’ Association of New Brunswick/Association des architectes du Nouveau- Brunswick

Nova Scotia Association of Architects

Architects’ Association of Prince Edward Island

Architects Licensing Board ofNewfoundland and Labrador

AAA

AANB

AIBC

AAPEI

ALBNL

MAA

Keesa Hutchinson, Councillor Barbara Bruce, Executive Director Karen Chantler, Executive Director Malcolm Boyd, Registrar Danica Djurkovic, President Darryl Condon, Past-President Mark Vernon, CEO Jenelyn Torres, Director of Registration & Licensing (interim)

Lorin Brehaut, Vice-President Scott Stewart, Executive Director

Jeremy Bryant, President, NLAA Lynda Hayward, Administrative Director Greg Snow, Registrar Marty Kuilman, President Verne Reimer, Past-President Judy Pestrak, Executive Director

NSAA

NWTAA

OAA

OAQ

SAA

Gregory MacNeil, President Margo Dauphinee, Executive Director Celeste MacKay, President Ben Russo, Executive Director Melani Korver, Registrar John Stephenson, President Kristi Doyle, Executive Director Nathalie Dion, Présidente Jean-Pierre Dumont, DG Elena Harizomenov, Adjointe du Directeur générale Sébastien-Paul Desparois, Dir. Pratique Professionnelle Jeanna South, President James Youck, Vice-President Whitney Robson, Executive Director

CACB

CExAC

Thérèse LeBlanc, President Mourad Mohand-Said, ED Dave Edwards, Chair

Don Sterritt, Chair

IRC

RAIC

Peter Streith, Chair Jill McCaw, Liaison

Michael Cox, President AJ Colbourne, Director of Marketing Donald Ardiel, MRAIC Director of Practice Support

CALA Jaidin Wale, Administrative Coordinator

Page | 2 C A L A / R O A C | R e g u l a t o r s M e e t i n g A g e n d a | 1 6 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 7P u b l i s h i n g D a t e | 1 2 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 7

Agenda Item Agenda Topic Presenter

8:30 AM –8:45 AM

Continental Breakfast Service

1.0 8:45 AM Welcome and Introductions Nathalie Dion, OAQ

2.0 8:50 AM –8:55 AM

Adoption of Agenda Nathalie Dion, OAQ

3.0 8:55 AM –9:00 AM

Review of Previous Meeting Notes & Business |Regulators meeting (May 2017)

Nathalie Dion, OAQ

4.0 9:00 AM –9:20 AM

9:20 AM –9:30 AM

International Relations Committee (IRC)

4.1 IRC Report to CALA

4.2 Final Report to CALA on ESDC Funding

4.3 Monitoring Committee Designation

Peter Streith, ChairJill McCaw, Liaison

Mark Vernon, AIBC

5.0 9:30 AM –10:00 AM

Committee for the Examination of Architects (CExAC)

Don Sterritt, Chair

6.0 10:00 AM –10:30 AM

Future of the Profession Update Daryl Condon, AIBC

10 :30 AM –10 :45 AM

Morning Coffee Service

7.0

10:45 AM –11:00 AM

11:00 AM –11:30 AM

11:30 AM –11:45 AM

CACB Standing Committee

7.1 CACB Bi-Annual Report

7.2 CACB Standing Committee Report

7.3 Fair Registration Practices Compliance

Thérèse LeBlanc, CACBMourad Mohandsaid, CACB

Dave Edwards, Chair

Margo Dauphinee, NSAA

8.0 11:45 AM –12:00 PM

Trademark on “Architect” Proposal | Update Margo Dauphinee, NSAA

12:00 PM –12:15 PM

Buffet Lunch Service (working lunch)

9.0 12:15 PM –1:15 PM

Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC)

9.1 Canadian Handbook of Practice (CHOP)

Michael Cox, President

Page | 3 C A L A / R O A C | R e g u l a t o r s M e e t i n g A g e n d a | 1 6 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 7P u b l i s h i n g D a t e | 1 2 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 7

Cont’d. 9.2 ESDC Grant Collaboration

9.3 Member Survey and Strategic Plan

9.4 RAIC Executive Director search

9.5 Festival 2018 and Joint Meeting

10.0 1:15 PM New/Other Business

10.1

11.0 1:30 PM Adjournment Nathalie Dion, OAQ

Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities

Regulators Meeting Notes, for approval

Date: May 27, 2017

Time: 9:00 am – 2:42 pm

Location: Montreal, Quebec

Presiding: John Stephenson, President, OAA

Attendees:

Guests:

CALA/ ROAC

Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities Regroupement des ordres d’architectes du Canada

Architectural Institute of British Columbia

Alberta Association of Architects

Northwest Territories Association of Architects


Manitoba Association of Architects

Ontario Association of Architects

Ordre des architectes du Québec

Architects’ Association of New Brunswick/Association des architectes du Nouveau- Brunswick

Nova Scotia Association of Architects

Architects’ Association of Prince Edward Island

Architects Licensing Board ofNewfoundland and Labrador

AAA AANB

Elizabeth Songer, President Barbara Bruce, Executive Director Don Sterritt, Vice-President Malcolm Boyd, Registrar

NWTAA Celeste MacKay, President Tim Turner-Davis, Councillor Ben Russo, Executive Director

AIBC

Danica Djurkovic, President Darryl Condon, Past-President Mark Vernon, CEO

OAA John Stephenson, President Kathleen Kurtin, Vice-President Kristi Doyle, Executive Director Nedra Brown, Registrar

AAPEI ALBNL

Silva Stojak, President Scott Stewart, ED Greg Snow, President Lynda Hayward, Administrator

OAQ Nathalie Dion, Présidente Jean-Pierre Dumont, DG Sébastien-Paul Desparois, Dir. Pratique Professionnelle

MAA NSAA

Verne Reimer, President Martin Kuilman, Vice-President Judy Pestrak, Executive Director Gregory MacNeil, President Spyro Trifos, Vice-President Margo Dauphinee, Executive Director

SAA Jeanna South, President James Youck, Vice-President Whitney Robson, ED (Acting)

NLAA CACB

Jeremy Bryant, President Thérèse LeBlanc, President Mourad Mohand-Said, ED

RAIC Ewa Bieniecka, President Jody Ciufo, Executive Director A.J. Colbourne, Director of Marketing

Agenda Item 3.0

For approval

Page | 2 C A L A / R O A C | R e g u l a t o r s M e e t i n g M i n u t e s | 2 7 M o n t h 2 0 1 7

1.0 Welcome and IntroductionsJohn Stephenson (OAA), Chair, welcomed participants to Ottawa, to the joint RAIC Festival and OAA Conference, and to the meeting. All participants introduced themselves. On behalf of participants, the Chair delivered birthday wishes to Silva Stojak, AAPEI.

2.0 Adoption of AgendaThe Chair suggested two additions: (1) a brief discussion on RAIC business prior to RAIC joining the table, and (2) a debrief of the May 26 meeting with CALA, CACB and CCUSA, facilitated by RAIC. The agenda was adopted as amended.

3.0 Business Arising from Previous Meeting NotesThe notes from the Regulators Meeting on October 14, 2016, were circulated. No changes were requested, and no business arose.

4.0 CACB Standing Committee4.1 CALA/CCUSA Funding Agreement

As the new funding agreement, which was developed as part of the Funding Review Task Force report and adopted by both the CACB and CALA, remained unsigned by CCUSA, the CACB Standing Committee is now attempting to renegotiate an interim solution. Judy Pestrak noted that although CALA appears to be paying a higher percentage rate in the draft interim agreement that has been put forward, the expenses outlined in the various streams of the CACB budgets have been adjusted, as part of a trade-off with CCUSA’s ‘offer’. The actual cost difference for CALA from this change is minimal, at approximately $5,000 total for the coming year. CALA approved the CACB funding increase, and recognized that the minimal change does not require approval by CALA’s Councils.

All regulators have approved the revised Terms & Conditions for Accreditation, and the Committee is now working on revising the Procedures document. The Terms will be delivered to schools for September 2018, and it is expected that schools follow the Terms starting in September 2019.

4.2 “Future of Architects” Report/Subcommittee

The “Future of Architecture” subcommittee members include Toon Dreessen, Darryl Condon, Nathalie Dion, Gord Richards and Thérèse LeBlanc. The subcommittee addressed two items:

(1) architecture in the community; and

(2) the profession and the licensure process.

For item 1, the Committee has recommended that CALA fund a steering committee – $20,000 total – to provide a more detailed report, or implementation strategy, at CALA’s fall meeting. For item 2, federal funding is available and will be managed by the Committee.

For approval


Discussion

There have been interesting discussions with CCUSA. Some discussion has revolved around Quebec’s move for a national architecture policy. AIBC and others have been reviewing and aligning internal processes for the NAP. Several jurisdictions supported a move towards a national policy. Of the $30,000 previously approved/budgeted, $22,600 has been spent. The subcommittee therefore only requires an additional $13,000 for its $20,000 projection.

CALA approved moving forward with the steering committee, pending outstanding approvals by member councils.

ACTION: MAA will invoice CALA members for a total of $43,000.

ACTION: Pending approval for the creation of the steering committee, the fall meeting will include a detailed report and implementation strategy from said committee.

4.3 Broadly Experienced Foreign Architects (BEFA) Program Update

The Committee has recommended that BEFA application/processing fees increase from $4,500 to $6,000 per applicant, and that the Committee explore advertising and promotional opportunities in partnership with CALA members. The program has received more applications this year, and the anticipated deficit for 2016 is just under $10 K. The CACB refund, that resulted from the reported overage of CALA payments in the Funding Review Task Force report from last year, will continue to assist with BEFA’s deficit management. The program is still expected to be self-sustaining, and additional federal funding is expected to facilitate marketing, surveys and promotion of the program.

Discussion

BEFA funding, budgeting and staffing is annual, and not tied to each applicant’s process.

CACB and the Committee will utilize federal funding to assess where and why applicants are delayed in the BEFA process. Contrary to available statistics, applicants are progressing. CACB monitors and follows up with applicants throughout the program.

The Committee believes the current funding revisions will enable BEFA to achieve the goal of being self-sustaining. The Committee will continue monitoring, and believes promotion will greatly assist. It was noted that Gordon Richards may be a key promotor of the program across the country.

The group discussed the fairness of the program. The $6,000 BEFA fee may appear unreasonable and an impediment to the profession (i.e., Quebec fairness commissioner). One must consider the applicant, and that costs are often more than just program fees. The onus may be on the profession to maintain the program. However, if the Internship program is available to foreigners, BEFA is not an issue of fairness. BEFA is also arguably consistent with costs borne by Interns.

CALA expressed support for the current arrangement.

4.4 Auto-Certification

The Committee has resolved the issue of auto-certification of graduates by schools. The University of Toronto has verbally agreed, and the Committee is awaiting written confirmation.

For approval


4.5 CACB Board & Accreditation Visits

The Committee is seeking nominations for a CALA appointee and a joint CALA/CCUSA appointee to the CACB Board. Nominees should include a note on why they wish to sit on the Board. Nominations will be accepted until the end of August; the Committee will report on nominations prior to CALA’s fall meeting. CACB is also seeking appointees/volunteers to join school accreditation teams. Volunteers will require training by the CACB to participate.

5.0 CACB Bi-Annual ReportThe CACB Bi-Annual Report was circulated prior to the meeting. Mourad Mohand-Said provided a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of CACB operations and organization, including academic certification, accreditation and BEFA certification. Laurentian University was visited in May to assess eligibility; if the visit outcome is positive, the new program can be accredited in 2021. It is also anticipated that University of Saskatchewan will soon submit its candidacy. CACB’s recent activities include a strategic plan for 2017-2022, a review of the Terms & Conditions for Accreditation, a review of the Procedures for Accreditation, accreditation training, developing a handbook for academic certification, a revamped website and a newsletter. Discussion

In situations where students are not, or have not been, automatically certified via school submission (i.e., McGill graduates), students may contact CACB directly for certification.

Graduates in Quebec are not required to be certified for licensure within Quebec; certification is required for licensure outside of Quebec.

Regarding BEFA applicants, there is no promotional program by CACB for more receptive countries, such as Egypt and Iran. It is suspected the higher applicant statistics are a result of internal networking and momentum in each respective country.

6.0 Meeting with the RAIC, CCUSA, CACB and CALAKristi Doyle (OAA) provided a briefing on the May 26 meeting facilitated by RAIC, who invited CCUSA, CALA and CACB to discuss each organization’s role regarding advocacy for the profession. The meeting quickly moved to a discussion on the internship process. Suggestions included an integrated internship process, even to the point of registration upon graduation. RAIC indicated a desire to host similar meetings in the future.

Discussion

CALA should consider appointing someone to carry the relevant discussions and relationships through these types of meetings.

CALA Administrators should review the logistics and practical implementation of the suggestions discussed.

ACTION: This item will be added to the agenda for CALA’s fall meeting.

For approval


7.0 Committees for the Examination of Architects (CExAC)A report was circulated prior to the meeting. Don Sterritt (AANB), CExAC Chair, provided highlights:

Of the 613 Interns sitting at ExAC 2016, 443 passed all sections: a 72.3% passing rate. The overall success rate was 86.4% ExAC 2017 will mark the 10th year of the exam.

The Committee is completing its review of its Specific Objectives in time for ExAC 2018. A focus group has provided valuable input on Section 2: The Code. It has found that some interns are not exposed to the Code at all, that the code section is too lengthy, and that there is a language barrier specific to Code comprehension. It appears that Interns from Canadian schools perform better on this section. The Committee is now looking to reduce the section by 10 questions. The Committee is reviewing the experience hours requirement for exam eligibility, and is considering types of experience hours required for the exam. It is also considering an adaptation of the course being developed by the IRC for its agreement with the Architects Council of Europe (ACE). The Committee continues its review of online administration of ExAC, including computer-based exams similar to NCARB; however, cost is a primary concern. NBC 2015 will be used for ExAC 2017. The Committee is also encouraged that a CHOP update is underway. Discussion

NSAA has discussed the importance of the Intern experience and the duties of the supervisor and mentor to facilitate this experience. Outcomes include possible training for supervisors and mentors, and a possible ethical obligation to provide reasonable resources for Interns to successfully complete the IAP and ExAC.

Any computer-based exam will adhere to current exam dates; it will not be a take-at-leisure exam.

Any courses endorsed by the Committee should only supplement, and not abridge, actual IAP experience.

OAA Admission Course is not considered as ExAC preparation, and does not include a NBC component. This is noted as the OAA Admission Course will be available online via the University of Toronto School of Continuing Education as of 2018.

The Committee and CALA may share focus group findings, but cautions about sensitivity regarding Section 2.

A formalized mentorship protocol could facilitate consistent competency. Promoting the importance of this role in IAP/ExAC preparation materials may help. This would be for consideration by CALA, not by CExAC.

8.0 Trademark on “Architect” Proposal: UpdateA table analysis on types of trademarks was circulated prior to the meeting. Nedra Brown (OAA) advised that there is a 40-page legal opinion on the matter. Notably, CALA may need to establish itself as a legal entity to register at a national level. Even then, registering the word “architect” may not be possible. ACTION: CALA will review the supplied report and the 40-page opinion (to be circulated) for discussion at CALA’s fall meeting.

ACTION: OAQ will join OAA and NSAA as a task force on this matter.

For approval


9.0 CALA Administrative Support PositionThe proposed revisions to the Terms of Reference for Cooperation Among CALA, a draft Memorandum of Understanding, and a Responsibilities and Operations Checklist were circulated prior to the meeting. Russo (NWTAA) advised that the revised Terms have been reviewed and are ready for signing by CALA members. The Terms now include provisions for a paid support position, as well as centralized filing and financial management, if and when CALA desires to use these devices.

CALA SIGNED THE REVISED Terms of Reference.

Dauphinee (NSAA) advised that AIBC has committed one of its staff for the position, and that OAQ is committed to providing translation services as required.

ACTION: The Memorandum is ready to be signed by CALA, and the AIBC will distribute invoices in line with budget requests from October 2016. ACTION: Mark Vernon (AIBC) will introduce Jaidin Wale to the administrators in the near future, and at CALA’s fall meeting.

10.0 RAIC’s CHOP ProposalThe Chair recalled that, in October 2016, RAIC, as owner of the Canadian Handbook of Practice (CHOP), presented a Memorandum of Understanding to proceed with a 3rd edition. At that time, CALA had appointed Toon Dreessen (OAA) and Sébastien-Paul Desparois (OAQ) to further negotiate the Memorandum according to comments provided by CALA members. The Memorandum and subsequent comments have since proven to be overwhelming for all parties.

At their May 25 meeting, CALA Administrators discussed the matter with Jody Ciufo, RAIC Executive Director, and are prepared to manage the Memorandum at the administrative level. A simplified Memorandum will focus on key principles for facilitating the creation of a 3rd edition, and will omit future considerations such as online/mobile enhancements and marketing opportunities. The focus and importance for CALA is a necessary and substantive update to the current CHOP. Future enhancements can be negotiated separately.

Discussion

RAIC has proposed a timeline of 18 months for completion of the CHOP content.

ACTION: It is important to sign a Memorandum as soon as possible to allow RAIC to begin work.

Regarding accountability, the CALA Administrators are committed to following through on this initiative, and an editorial board will exist to push the project.

Discussion about “Phase II” future enhancements and considerations should be paused temporarily to allow the current Memorandum to proceed, and should resume at CALA’s fall meeting.

11.0 Royal Architectural Institute of CanadaEwa Bieniecka, Jody Ciufo, and A.J. Colbourne joined the table.

It was reported that RAIC has new programs and new staff, and is turning its attention to building its programming. Its new work and volunteer force includes an Indigenous Task Force, an Age-Friendly Task Force, a Committee on Regenerative Environments, and the Emerging Practitioners who are currently providing courses at the RAIC Festival. RAIC thanked CALA for attending the May 26 dialogue with CCUSA and CACB, and for forwarding its membership survey to CALA’s members. RAIC also thanked OAA for its partnership on the Festival.

For approval


11.1 Contract Documents Doc 6 was published in March, with related seminars scheduled for the Fall. Revisions are starting on Doc 9 and on the Fees Guide. RAIC is considering discontinuing its Doc 7 in light of the recent changes to Doc 6. CALA recommended that RAIC consider retaining Doc 7 as a valuable asset for Architects and their clients. Discussion

RAIC is working with federal agencies and national firms, as well as its own outlets, to promote Doc 6 and other Docs.

There is currently no plan to promote Doc 6 at a provincial/territorial level. It was assumed that regulators could speak at this level in their respective jurisdictions; however, promotion at the municipal and provincial/territorial levels can be considered.

11.2 Canadian Handbook of Practice

The Chair advised that CALA is willing to proceed with a 3rd edition of CHOP. Jody reiterated that she is happy to manage negotiations at the administrative level in order to push this initiative forward. (“CHOP CHOP!”)

11.3 Dialogue with CCUSA/CACB/CALA

The Chair thanked RAIC for facilitating the May 26 meeting with CCUSA, CACB, and CALA, and noted enthusiasm to continue such conversations.

11.4 Membership Survey

Prior to the survey, RAIC listened to its members and discontinued attempts to modify its current membership designations. It will now need to further understand the survey results in order to move forward on a number of membership items. The survey was member-centric, focused on member and non-member understanding of RAIC. RAIC intends to also look outward regarding the protection of the public and general public perception. It is open to sharing the survey results and subsequent direction, with a September target. Discussion

CACB Standing Committee intends to invite RAIC to discuss “Future of Architecture” outcomes and public consultation.

12.0 International Relations CommitteeA report was circulated prior to the meeting.

Peter Streith and Jill McCaw joined the table. Peter noted that the Committee’s proposed Terms of Reference are nearly approved by CALA, pending a few outstanding council approvals. 12.1 Federal Funding

The federal government has provided $1.2 million to the Committee, which has been divided as follows:

$371,000 to RAIC for accounting and support services, and for Syllabus programming, $185,000 to CACB for BEFA programming, $372,000 to IRC for ongoing and future initiatives, and $285,000 for travel (IRC/BEFA), including two CALA workshops.

The Committee will propose workshops over the next 20 months.

For approval


12.2 Architects Council of Europe (ACE) An updated Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with comments was provided. The new agreement includes provisions for domain-specific assessments in Canada in the form of a 10-hour online course. Development of the course is proceeding well, with next steps focusing on the content. The course may be ready for presentation at CALA’s fall meeting. A similar course in Europe is difficult due to language, and an alternative post-licensure course has been considered. It is also proposed that ACE consider a standardized application process that directs candidates to their desired country/state with a timeline for approval. A final draft will be circulated to CALA for approval following ACE’s review. It is the Committee’s wish to sign the agreement at the World Design Summit in Montreal in October, with ratification in May 2018 and implementation within the year. The final draft agreement should be available in June.

Discussion

A standardized form would be simplified, and would only require the home regulator to provide a letter of good standing.

ACE members have reviewed the document and, unlike the US/Canada agreement, all member states will be required to sign the agreement. Any post-licensure course will be stipulated in the agreement; there will be no further requirements for Canadian applicants.

The Committee cannot negotiate with the United Kingdom until their split from the European Union is finalized. The UK may remain with ACE. If not, a separate agreement with the UK should be relatively easy to sign.

The agreement is completely separate from any visa/immigration requirements of any country.

The Danish representative noted that the agreement has been well received so far.

Germany is considering a domain-specific course.

12.3 NCARB/Tri-National

Not all US states are signatories on the Tri-National agreement. Mexico currently has six architects wanting to register in the US. If the US government does not impose a tax for services, Canada will be disadvantaged and may need to consider terminating the Tri-National agreement. Kristi Doyle (OAA) met with the federal government regarding changes to the Free Trade Agreement: if the US reconsiders the Tri-National agreement, Canada may propose the BEFA process as an alternative.

12.4 APEC

Australia and New Zealand have signed an agreement with NCARB similar to CALA’s agreement. The Committee recommends maintaining the current agreement until the agreement with ACE is signed. A new agreement with Australia & New Zealand, similar to ACE, could then be considered. The federal government has pushed for engagement with Korea; however, the Korean government has not expressed an interest. The Committee will not proceed until both governments have opened this gate. Hong Kong is not able to negotiate an agreement because of the government residency requirements.

For approval


Singapore currently has an agreement with Australia and New Zealand, but neither Australia nor New Zealand is able to enter the country. The Committee is not pursuing an agreement with Singapore. Japan is interested in an agreement, but is awaiting progress on the Trans Pacific Partnership and the US. The Committee is seeking direction from CALA on this matter.

CALA supports the IRC’s pursuit of an agreement with Japan.

Discussion

Regarding costs for pursing agreements: The federal government has been pushing for agreements, so the Committee has responded with funding demands. As well, once established, the programs pay for themselves with incidental benefits. There are, however, costs for ongoing monitoring and internal meetings.

12.5 International Union of Architects (UIA)

Further to the report, RAIC has since removed itself from UIA.

13.0 New/Other Business13.1 Public Client Procurement Issues: RFPs and Contracts

The Chair inquired about consensus on a national approach regarding rogue RFPs, or contract situations that contradict the profession’s ethical obligations or the protection of the public. OAA will alert its members of such RFPs, wherein it discusses issues regarding public interest (i.e., insurability) and advises that participation could result in a charge of professional misconduct. Members advising prospective clients of their intent not to pursue have seen diverse reactions from clients pulling back the RFP to clients threatening court action. Overall, the alerts are considered a success. The Ontario Bar Association has also approached OAA to seek a resolution among its own members.

Discussion

SAA has used OAA’s bulletins in the past, and is looking at “pushing risk” in Design-Bid-Build, Design-Build, P3, and other procurement models.

NSAA has also adopted OAA’s actions, and has used Architecture Week as a tool to solicit politicians and to change attitudes re contracts. Nova Scotia has since deemed architecture as an investment, which has resulted in successes at the municipal and provincial level. The Act also allows NSAA to audit members and projects. The government is proposing RAIC standard rates, yet members still bid at 50-90% of the proposed rate. There is also concern that engineers are operating as project managers with architects as sub-consultants.

ALBNL is also seeing a similar problem regarding engineers, and has been actively lobbying governments in this regard.

AAA has issued a practice advisory to encourage members to review RFPs with insurance concerns in mind. Alberta’s Minister has been receptive to AAA’s concerns, but procurement rates remain very low.

Champions within government may be able to deliver the concerns internally, as some departments and individuals may not understand risk management.

For approval


MAA is developing ConEd opportunities for its members, and intends to invite major clients and insurers to these events.

At the very least, members should be adhering to CHOP regarding review times.

Atlantic Canada is providing joint sessions to strengthen it case as the Atlantic Provinces are attempting to harmonize their processes.

13.2 Practicing Retired Architects

A report was circulated prior to the meeting. Margo Dauphinee (NSAA) reported that there is confusion among members and the public about the practicing status of a “Retired Architect”, noting that some are practicing on the side. A similar concern exists for retired architects from other jurisdictions practicing in Nova Scotia. NSAA is requesting that a national task force investigate the situation. Discussion

This may be an issue of member enforcement and education; a shared jurisdiction issue, not necessarily a national concern. MAA will discipline any member or non-member for the misuse of “Architect” and its inherit scope of services. AANB is proactive in advising Retired Architects of the limits of their membership.

13.3 Next Meeting

The next CALA Regulators meeting will be held on October 16, 2017 in Montreal, QC in conjunction with the World Design Summit. The Administrators meeting will take place October 15. A promotional code will be sent for CALA delegates to take advantage of the World Design Summit events and programming. In Spring 2018, CALA Regulators and Administrators will be meeting in Saint John, NB, in conjunction with the RAIC Festival of Architecture.

14.0 AdjournmentWith no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:42pm.

Notes taken by Ben Russo (NWTAA), and prepared by Jaidin Wale (CALA Admin).

1

IRC REPORT TO CALA October 2017 ACE MRA Since the May report to CALA, the members of the IRC have been working to finalize the MRA with the Architects Council of Europe (ACE). We appreciate the approval to proceed and the input received from all jurisdictions. The suggested changes to the language in the MRA text were shared with ACE. The Committee had hoped to be in a position to sign the MRA at the World Design Summit; however, ACE has yet to provide the necessary transparency around any domain specific requirements a Canadian architect may encounter, as well as ACE’s proposed application process. The IRC had requested information on what competency areas would be included in a course and the assurance that a Canadian would only have to take a course in one European (EU) state and subsequently have the same mobility rights as a licenced EU architect. A final report on the IRC funding was submitted by RAIC to the government in July and no outstanding issues have been identified. A copy of the narrative portion of that report is attached. A new funding Agreement with ESDC began in July 2017 and extends to February 2019. This funding focuses on the development and implementation of the on-line course for EU architects applying for registration/licensure in a Canadian jurisdiction. The work on the courseware is proceeding as planned. A subcommittee composed of Peter Streith, David Edwards and Scott Kemp, undertook a thorough review of the course content over the summer and worked with the OAQ to finalize the document. The IRC appreciates the excellent work coordinated by the OAQ staff, Sébastien Desparois and Virginie Harvey. The next step, later this month is to issue a RFP for the platform development and video presentation of the course. NCARB As previously reported NCARB is requesting a meeting to discuss the issues that may arise out of renegotiation of NAFTA now underway and the potential imposition of a tariff on services. Such a tariff would

Agenda Item 4.1

2

abrogate our current MRA with the US. A face-to-face meeting with NCARB has been scheduled for November 18th, 2017, in Washington and IRC will advise CALA on the deliberations and provide recommendations as necessary. IRC members Peter Streith and David Edwards have had the opportunity to participate in teleconferenced updates on the NAFTA negotiations organized by Global Affairs Canada. To date, nothing relevant to the profession has been raised. TRI NATIONAL MRA As previously reported FCARM has requested a Monitoring Committee meeting which NCARB will host, this has been tentatively schedule for January 2108. The FCARM President also indicated that there are currently 6 Mexican Architects interested in applying for registration in the States / Canada under the Tri-National Agreement. NCARB is still in the process of canvassing their respective regulators about remaining as signatories to the Tri-National. APEC The IRC recently heard from Japanese regulators and it is mutually agreed to delay serious discussions about a MRA until CALA has concluded an agreement with ACE. The Australian APEC Architect authorities recently advised the AIBC that to be recognized as the Canadian body responsible for approving the designation of Canadian APEC Architect, the AIBC needs to be formally designated as the Canadian APEC Architect Monitoring Committee. Mark Vernon will seek CALA’s approval.

1

Final Report to CALA on ESDC funding for IRC Initiatives

Introduction Under the funding agreement signed in 2014, the International Relations

Committee (IRC) of the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA)

aimed to achieve consensus on the development of international MRAs with

the APEC licensing authorities under the APEC Architect Project and the

Architects’ Council of Europe (ACE). The IRC represents CALA at international

meetings, develops and monitors agreements on CALA’s behalf. CALA also

intends to continue development of the Tri-National Agreement between

Canada, the United States and Mexico.

Through the MRA process, CALA wishes to effectively streamline the process

of evaluating foreign trained architects to ensure they meet the Canadian

Competency standard prior to licensure in Canada. CALA is pleased to

support trade agreements with services provisions that expand the flow of

professionals across borders while maintaining regulatory responsibility for

the management of the profession.

CALA has adopted the Canadian Standards of Practice as the Pan-Canadian

standards of competency for the practice of architecture in Canada. These

Standards apply to all architects, be they newly registered/licensed architects

in Canada or foreign architects seeking licensure/registration in Canada.

(Appendix 1)

Canada- United States MRA The new Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) between Canada and the

United States (US) took effect on January 1, 2014, updating the long-

standing relationship related to reciprocal licensure between Canada and the

Agenda Item 4.2

2

US. This new MRA supersedes the previous Canada/US Inter-Recognition

Agreement.

Currently all 11 of the Architectural Regulators in Canada, have become

signatories to the new MRA along with 41 of the US Member Boards of the

National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) through

completion of their individual Letters of Undertaking. The MRA provides for

the reciprocal registration of architects who are practicing in a jurisdiction

that has signed a Letter of Undertaking as noted above. Architects holding an

NCARB Certificate who are registered in and have their principal place of

practice in a jurisdiction that has signed the Letter of Undertaking may

transmit their NCARB Certificate Record to a jurisdiction/province provided

that that jurisdiction has also signed the Letter of Undertaking.

The Monitoring Committee, with equal membership from both countries,

meets annually to review and resolve issues that may have arisen and to

discuss ongoing operational matters. The Ontario Association of Architects

(OAA) monitors all activities on this MRA on behalf of CALA.

Tri-National MRA

This MRA is between The Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA)

the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) in the

United States and the Federacion de Colegios de Arquitectos de la Republica

Mexicana (FCARM). This MRA mutually recognizes the architectural

credentials in the three countries and thereby making it possible for

architects to work across North American borders.

The path to the Tri-National Agreement has its origins in the passage of

NAFTA in 1994.The initial agreement, signed in 2005 by the leaders of the

profession in all three countries, marked what many considered to be one of

the first professional services recognition programs under NAFTA.

3

After a period of negotiations and a successful pilot program, the Council for

the Tri-National Practice of Architecture met, in Vancouver, in May 2014, to

review the pilot and finalize an Agreement. The Mexican and American

representatives also took the opportunity to watch a BEFA interview, as the

interview process under the Tri-National will follow similar protocols and

process. In December, the three countries signed the MRA. (Appendix 2)

A joint Canada-USA panel of registered architects interviews Mexican

architects seeking entry either to the USA and/ or Canada. There are

currently 5 Mexicans awaiting interviews. Last year a senior American

architect came to Canada via this MRA.

“The accessibility to the MRA process allowed me to expand my management

and design responsibilities with regard to our Canadian operations. As part of

our continued commitment to Canada, becoming a registered architect

through the tri-national application process was important to Gensler as well

as to me personally. The process was well managed and rigorous, but

prepared me for the responsibilities required of a registered architect in

Ontario. It is an honor.” – J. Brancato

The APEC Architect Project –Australia/ Canada /New Zealand MRA

Canada is one of the fourteen member economies in the APEC Architect

Project that assists with the facilitation of registration arrangements for

members in good standing in their jurisdiction. Within participating

economies, senior architects apply to be recognized as APEC Architects in

their ‘home’ economies.

In October 2014, Canada hosted the APEC Architect Project Council meeting,

hosted every two years by a different economy member. It served as an

excellent opportunity for Canada to hold a series of bilateral meetings with

4

Japan, Singapore, Hong Kong and the Peoples’ Republic of China to explore

potential MRAs. In particular, it was the chance to re-energize negotiations

with Australia and New Zealand, as Canada had agreed in October 2012 to a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding negotiation of a MRA under

the APEC Architect Project.

CALA undertook to thoroughly research the education, training and

regulatory framework of Australia’s and New Zealand’s Architectural

practices. Like Canada, their profession stemmed from the British model so

other than domain-specific competencies that are specific to each country,

CALA saw no impediments to concluding a MRA. Both Australia and New

Zealand insisted that the MRA include an interview in the application process.

Subsequently in February 2015, in New Zealand, Canada, Australia and New

Zealand signed a mutual recognition arrangement (MRA) that allows for fast-

track cross-border registrations of senior architects between the three

economies. All three economies maintain an APEC Architect Register of senior

architects who have met a number of criteria including having at least seven

years’ senior experience. (Appendix 3)

As a result of this MRA, an APEC Architect in Australia or New Zealand is

entitled to registration in Canada as of right, apart from being assessed

about any aspects of the architectural process in Canada that is specific to

Canada. The same applies for a Canadian APEC Architect applying for

registration in Australia or New Zealand.

While in the region in 2015, the IRC held exploratory meetings in Japan to

explore the potential for a MRA. Based on the experiences of Australia and

New Zealand, CALA has proceeded slowly. Japan, unlike most other ASEAN

economies, does not require local collaboration. Canadian regulators’

registration/licensure requirements were forward to the Japanese. It is

projected that the IRC may begin more formal discussions with Japan in

5

2018. In addition, initial research was done on Singapore; however, their

residency requirements would prevent any MRA.

At the behest of Global Affairs, the IRC also contacted counterparts in South

Korea and the People’s Republic of China. Despite the Free Trade Agreement

(FTA) with South Korea, South Korea, like most ASEAN countries, only allows

Canadian architects to practise through local collaboration with a Korean

architect/firm. IRC noted that it would not pursue a MRA unless advised by

Global Affairs that the local collaboration under the FTA is nullified. China, as

with the majority of ASEAN countries, presents the same challenges

regarding the local collaboration requirement.

The Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC), with the agreement of

all the other 10 regulators, will be the agency for processing any applications

for Canadian registration/licensure from APEC Architects from Australia and

New Zealand and review applications from Canadian architects seeking an

APEC Architect designation. As well, the AIBC will coordinate any Monitoring

Committee activities.

In April 2016, two representatives of the IRC appeared before the House of

Commons Standing Committee on International Trade, in Vancouver, to

discuss the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). As the TPP had referenced the

APEC Architecture framework, CALA wanted to share its experience in

developing successful MRAs in that region.

CALA-ACE MRA

CALA has long had an interest in developing a MRA with the Architects’

Council of Europe (ACE) that would give Canadian architects access to the 28

member European Union (EU). The negotiation of the now-signed Canada-

6

European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)

provided new impetus for CALA and ACE to pursue an agreement. With

funding from ESDC, CALA’s representatives were now able to travel to

Europe for face-to-face negotiations.

In October 2015 and September 2016, members of the IRC met with ACE

representatives in Brussels. Although invited for a CALA meeting in May

2015, ACE representatives were unable to attend, citing budget constraints.

As well, because of the bombings in Brussels, there was a delay in

negotiations until travel to Brussels returned to normal.

By meeting in Brussels, CALA also had an opportunity to meet with Canadian

officials attached to Global Affairs (GAC) and EU officials working on the CETA

Agreement. These meetings provided members with additional insight on

CETA implementation, in particular the creation of a Monitoring Committee.

In Canada, Global Affairs contributed commentary on the MRA drafts,

clarified issues surrounding the authority of the Monitoring Committee and

shared information on restrictive practises in specific member states. GAC

provided a document “CETA Sectorial Snapshot – Architectural Services” that

highlighted the potential issues in a CALA-ACE MRA, in particular, unimpeded

access. The IRC shared this document with ACE officials.

Aside from face-to-face negotiations, there were also conference calls and

correspondence, where necessary, to clarify specific aspects of a draft MRA.

To date the MRA has been fine-tuned a number of times between the two

organizations. On each occasion, CALA has reviewed the progress of the MRA

and has been asked to give an approval to proceed via their respective

Councils. For CALA, the key outstanding issue is ACE’s transparency around

any domain specific courses that may be required of Canadian architects

upon application to an EU state. As of June 2017, ACE is considering the

7

IRC’s proposals on this issue. The final draft MRA will not go forward for

signatory until the necessary clarification is received. (Appendix 4)

During the ongoing discussions, CALA conducted research by carefully

studying the architectural education, internship and regulation in the 28 EU

member states. Initially, CALA’s scrutiny included a country–by-country

overview of all states’ architectural practises. There was an in depth

examination of education and training requirements across Europe, covered

under EU Directive, Section 8, Article 46 (training of an architect). As well,

detailed research was undertaken of Germany and France as well as the

Scandinavian countries and Switzerland where regulation of the profession is

structured differently. In addition, CALA requested ACE to provide

information on the scope of service in each of the member states and

mobility of architects across the Union.

The IRC Committee did a comparative analysis of the EU Directive and the

Canadian competencies standard to confirm what education and training was

covered in both jurisdictions and to identify competencies that are specific

only to a Canadian context. This study identified domain specific issues and

knowledge that European architects would need of prior to licensure

/registration in any of the eleven Canadian jurisdictions. These findings were

shared with both CALA and ACE and subsequently formed the basis of the

development of a Canadian online course outline that EU architects would

complete prior to an application for licensure /registration in Canada.

Initially it had been CALA’s intention to use the interview model developed

under the Australia-Canada-New Zealand MRA to address the competency

gap. ACE accepted the IRC analysis of the deficiencies; however, because

ACE expressed concern about legal certainty, it was agreed that Canada

would explore alternative models of meeting the Canadian competencies

standard.

8

Since ACE had suggested an MRA similar to the Québec –France Accord, the

IRC carefully looked at this option that allows a French architect immediate

licensure with the proviso to fulfill within one year, specific professional

development courses. It was rejected as a feasible option by the IRC

memberships as it placed an administrative burden on the smaller regulators.

The IRC decided to focus on the option of a 10-hour online course with video

instruction to ensure that EU architects understand specific Canadian domain

specific issues prior to registration/licensure in Canada. After obtaining

CALA’s approval to proceed with this option, the IRC then received ACE’s

agreement to this format.

With the assistance of the Ordre des architectes du Québec (OAQ), a

preliminary outline of an online course was developed, based on the

document agreed to by ACE and CALA- CALA Proposal to the Architects’

Council of Europe (ACE)-Domain-Specific Assessment. The online courseware

concept centred on a video instruction supported by the relevant

documentation and followed by a series of questions. The OAQ sought

proposals from three firms that develop this format for a variety of

professions.

Over the next nine months, a detailed 293-page outline of the different

components of the course was undertaken. The course and testing

breakdown is as follows: introduction and outline of resource documents,

building regulations, construction documents, contract administration and

professional practise. The architect members of the IRC broke into sub

groups to review and draft changes to the outline. Each subcommittee’s

revisions were discussed, approved and incorporated into a final course

outline document that was reviewed by the IRC at the end of June. This

document, Practicing Architecture in Canada will serve as the basis for the

“storyboarding “ of the video instruction and series of follow-up questions for

the EU applicant. (Appendix 5)

9

Business case

The IRC, under the auspices of RAIC, submitted a Request for Proposals to

develop options and recommendations for a business case that outlines the

potential fee structure for APEC and potential ACE applicants requesting an

APEC/ACE architect designation in Canada and secondly the fee assigned to

Canadian architects seeking designation as an APEC architect. As directed by

CALA, an IRC Monitoring Committee must operate the system on a cost-

neutral basis.

The business case addressed the following deliverables:

• Projected operating/administration costs to run programs;

• Projected processing fees for applicants;

• Projected costs for the evaluation interview and

• Recommended fee structure for both processes

Using the information elicited from the business case, the IRC was able to

determine a fee structure for APEC architects applying from New Zealand and

Australia. Because the negotiations on an ACE MRA moved away from

delivering a process modeled on APEC interview protocols to an online

course, the proposed fee structure for ACE was no longer relevant.

Website

The IRC has created a bilingual CALA website that supports all information

and documentation required for all international and national agreements of

CALA. As well, it provides general information about CALA and links to other

architecture websites responsible for advocacy and certification in Canada.

The agreements cited on the website include: the Canadian Reciprocity

Agreement, the Canada-USA MRA, the Tri-National MRA and the Australia-

Canada- New Zealand MRA. For the latter MRA, Canada is required to list

architects who have met the requirements and hold an APEC Architect

10

designation. Should CALA successfully conclude a MRA with ACE, all

necessary information will be added to the site.

The website also covers Internship in Architecture and the Examination for

architects in Canada (ExAC). It is hosted on the Ordre des architectes (OAQ)

website and is updated by the IRC as changes in agreements occur. The

website can be found at: http://cala-roac.ca/

Meetings and Consultations

Over the course of the project the IRC met seventeen times to review

progress on all the files. Four workshops, organized by the IRC were held

with CALA representatives: April 2014 and September 2014 and May 2015

and November 2015. In April 2014, the purpose was to present the research

undertaken, competency comparisons and to outline the basis for proceeding

with negotiations with Australia and New Zealand and with ACE. As well, the

eleven regulator Councils were formally asked for approval to proceed.

The September workshop focussed on reviewing the draft MRA with Australia

and New Zealand. THE IRC also provided flow charts on the proposed

processes to designate a Canadian APEC architect and the application process

for licensure/registration in all three countries. Councils were asked to

formally approve and as a result, a MRA was signed in February 2015 in New

Zealand.

The workshops in 2015 were devoted to the draft MRA with ACE. The IRC

had hoped to include ACE officials in the May workshop; however, officials

had to cancel as indicated earlier. The workshop, focused on the EU Directive

and the competency comparison with the Canadian Standards of Practice. It

was an opportunity for regulators to identify areas of concern and emphasis.

The last workshop held in November highlighted the recent negotiations with

11

ACE and a proposal to ascertain Canadian domain specific competencies via

and on-line course. Each Council was asked to comment on the current draft

MRA and outline any concerns or need for clarification. The IRC also

requested permission to finalize the MRA. CALA provided the approval to

proceed with the proviso that ACE provide the necessary transparency

around their process for assessing that Canadians can meet their domain

specific requirements. Discussions with ACE are ongoing.

IRC Membership

Peter Streith, Chair, Architect, Alberta Association of Architects (AAA)

David Edwards, Architect, Saskatchewan Association of Architects (SAA)

Charles Henley, Architect, Newfoundland & Labrador Association of Architects

(NLAA)

Nathalie Dion, Architect, Président, Ordre des architectes du Québec (OAQ)

Scott Kemp, Architect, Architectural Institute of British Columbia (AIBC)

Toon Dreesson, Architect, Ontario Association of Architects (OAA)

Jean-Pierre Dumont, Directeur général, OAQ

Mark Vernon, CEO, AIBC

Former members:

Pierre Gallant, Architect, AIBC

William Birdsell, Architect, OAA

Kristi Doyle, Executive Director, OAA

Dianne Johnstone, former Executive Director, AAA

12

APPENDICES

1. Canadian Standards of Practice (Matrix)

2. Tri-National MRA

3. Australia-Canada-New Zealand MRA

4. Draft CALA-ACE MRA (June 2017)

5. Practicing Architecture in Canada*

* Word document without details–the complete document is on Google Drive

of 1

CALA Decision Briefing Note

Prepared For: Council Presidents Prepared By: Vernon, for the IRC Date: October 16, 2017 Agenda Item:

Subject: APEC Monitoring Committee

Purpose: To request designation of the AIBC as the “APEC Monitoring Committee”

Following the signing of the Mutual Recognition Agreement with Australia and New Zealand under the APEC Architect Project, the council of each jurisdiction authorized the AIBC to process all applications for incoming and outgoing architects (see attached). Unfortunately, specific terminology was not included as part of that process: the AIBC also needs to be named as the “Canadian APEC Monitoring Committee”. A Canadian architect has recently undergone the process to be designated an APEC Architect, and when preparing the certificate the AIBC discovered that it can only be signed by the Canadian APEC Monitoring Committee.

The responsibilities of Monitoring Committees per the APEC Architect Project are attached, and they are consistent with the role assigned to the AIBC. Given that no change in responsibility nor authority is being requested, a simple vote at the Regulators’ Meeting assigning the name is all that is requested.

Suggested Motion: That CALA designate the AIBC as the Canadian APEC Architect Monitoring Committee. Respectfully submitted, Mark Vernon

Attachments:

A. CALA – APEC Architect Registration Process B. Monitoring Committees (extract from the APEC Architect Operations Manual)

Agenda Item 4.3

CALA Decision Briefing Note

Prepared For: CALA International Relations Committee

Title: APEC Architect Registration Process

Purpose: To propose a formalized process for registering APEC architects

PART ONE: Incoming APEC Architects (from MRA countries) Discussion: The AIBC has agreed to act as a “Secretariat” for the processing of APEC Architects (both incoming and outgoing). While the process for incoming APEC Architects to be registered in BC by the AIBC is relatively straightforward, there is a challenge in having the AIBC assess eligibility for registration/licensing on behalf of other provinces as it does not currently have the authority to do so. We have a central authorized body, the CACB, which could do this but simply does not have the capacity. While the IRC has negotiated the MRA on behalf of CALA, it has no authority to register architects. A relatively simple solution would be to grant authority to the AIBC by having each jurisdiction's Council pass a motion to authorize the AIBC to process applications on their behalf. The flowchart of the proposed process below illustrates how the "home" jurisdiction would be involved in any registration/licensing that relates to them. Note that the Oral Interviews assessing the required competencies would be performed by BEFA trained assessors, which the CACB has agreed to provide. We suggest that one of the interviewers be from the jurisdiction in which the APEC architect desires to be registered.

APEC Architect (from MRA Countries) Proposed Application & Registration Process

AIBC receives request from APEC Architect

AIBC performs initial review

AIBC will work with applicants to ensure completeness of application

Agenda Item 4.3Attachment A

AIBC requests Oral Interviewers from

CACB (informs other jurisdiction and IRC)

One interviewer should be from the jurisdiction in which the applicant seeks to register

Interview organized and conducted @

AIBC, Fees collected

Interview Chair recommends Pass or

Fail to AIBC

PASS FAIL

AIBC informs other jurisdiction of applicant's eligibility for the normal

registration/licensing process

AIBC informs applicant (and host jurisdiction)

Informs IRC, forwards any notes from Interview

Committee

Informs IRC, forwards any notes from Interview

Committee

Notes: 1/ Only APEC Architects from countries that have an MRA with Canada are eligible 2/ The interview may be performed anywhere in Canada

3/ The records will reside at AIBC. 4/The IRC will provide oversight (as required by the APEC Architect project for a Monitoring Committee to exist for each MRA) by reviewing the results and the notes from Interview Committee, and provide an annual report to CALA.

5/ The APEC Architect designation assessment process is only for architects applying from a country with which the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities have entered into a Mutual Recognition Agreement. Under the APEC Architect designation, these incoming architects have successfully completed the assessment as conducted by AIBC (agreed to and on behalf of all CALA jurisdictions) but are still required to make an application directly to the jurisdiction in which they wish to become licensed/registered as an Architect. These architects will be required to complete the necessary application forms, pay the application and licensing fees as well as comply with all additional requirements for licensure within any Canadian jurisdiction as would a domestic applicant. 6/ Fees prescribed under the APEC Architect Registration Process will be paid directly to AIBC to cover the cost and administration of the registration process.

RECOMMENDATION

That each jurisdiction authorize the AIBC to assess eligibility of APEC Architects applying for registration under an APEC MRA.

PART TWO: Outgoing APEC Architects

This process is much simpler, in that the AIBC can provide designation of a Canadian Architect as an APEC Architect through a review of the applicant’s CV and receipt of a letter of good standing from his/her provincial regulator.

Similar to Part One, each jurisdiction would be required to authorize the AIBC to perform this process on their behalf.

RECOMMENDATION

That each jurisdiction authorizes the AIBC to assess eligibility of Canadian Architects applying for the APEC Architect designation.

Prepared By: Mark Vernon Date: December 7th, 2015

4. MONITORING COMMITTEES

The policies of the Central Council are put into effect by independent Monitoring Committees established in each participating economy for this purpose and authorised by the Central Council to act on its behalf. Their primary responsibility is to manage the section of the APEC Architect Register in that economy, in accordance with Central Council policy and rules of procedure. A. COMPOSITION Whilst the composition of Monitoring Committees is a matter for each economy to decide, the size and balance of its membership will be dictated by the functions it must perform, particularly with regard to evaluation of the qualifications and professional experience of candidates applying for admission to the section of the APEC Architect Register it maintains. Monitoring Committees should be recognised as competent by the authorities responsible for the professional recognition of architects within the economy. Their members are also required to speak authoritatively on the issues of concern to the Central Council and would normally represent appropriate bodies such as the regulatory authority, professional associations and educational institutions in the sponsoring economy. B. FUNCTIONS Monitoring Committees, when authorised, carry out the following functions and manage the section of the APEC Architect Register, with delegated authority of the Central Council, for which they are responsible, in accordance with Central Council policy, guidelines and rules of procedure. Constituent Bodies of the Central Council Monitoring Committees that have been authorised to maintain a section of the APEC Architect Register are the constituent bodies of the Central Council. Each Monitoring Committee must nominate at least one representative to the APEC Architect Central Council, although there is no restriction on the number of members they appoint. However, it is expected that representatives will be able to speak on behalf of the regulatory authority in their economy. Each authorised Monitoring Committee is entitled to one vote on the Central Council. APEC Architect Register The central duty of an authorised Monitoring Committee is to establish and maintain a section of the APEC Architect Register for the enrolment of APEC Architects registered/licensed in that economy. It is responsible for the enrolment and periodic renewal of the names of architects on the Register who satisfy APEC Architect criteria, and the removal of the names of those who no longer comply. Each Monitoring Committee must establish, monitor and regularly update the database of the section of the Register for that economy and publish a list of APEC Architects enrolled on that section. Monitoring Committees issue Certificates of APEC Architect Registration and APEC Architect Identification Cards, and provide advice on registered particulars of APEC Architects, on request. Assessment of Candidates for Registration Monitoring Committees must authenticate the architectural education and practical experience of each

Agenda Item 4.3Attachment B

candidate and certify it as satisfying APEC Architect criteria. They are also required to evaluate the subsequent seven-year period of professional experience as a registered/licensed practitioner for compliance with APEC Architect requirements in accordance with Central Council guidelines on the information required, to ensure uniformity between economies. Assessments are conducted at least annually and applications dealt with in a timely manner. Opportunities are provided for individuals to request a review of an adverse judgment. Maintaining Standards Monitoring Committees must equally ensure that the required standards continue to be maintained by the architects enrolled on their sections of the APEC Architect Register. To provide assurance that the professional competence of APEC Architects remains at an acceptable level, the Central Council requires confirmation that renewal of registration in the home economy is subject to compliance with professional development requirements or similar tests of continued competence. Similarly, Monitoring Committees have a duty to monitor the continued compliance of the systems employed for accreditation/recognition of architectural education and the professional recognition of architects in their economies with the standards originally authorised by the Central Council. The procedures adopted by Monitoring Committees for this purpose are subject to periodic review by the Central Council. Monitoring Committees must immediately notify the Council of any changes to professional recognition requirements that might conflict with APEC Architect criteria and policy. Information and Communication To ensure transparency of process in facilitating the mobility of architects throughout the APEC region, each Monitoring Committee publishes on its website any requirements that its economy places on APEC Architects from other economies. At 12 month intervals Monitoring Committees are required to complete a Council Report on their APEC Architect registration activities and any other significant developments during the period, for circulation to all participating economies. The Secretariat also posts updates of its activities and other relevant information on the Central Council website every three months. Another important function of Monitoring Committees is to promote the benefits of registration as an APEC Architect to members of the profession, both nationally and internationally, and to regulatory authorities and other relevant organisations. The APEC Architect Secretariat maintains regular dialogue with the APEC Secretariat. Central Council Obligations As the constituent bodies of the Central Council, Monitoring Committees act as the point of contact and centre of information for the APEC Architect project in each economy. They have responsibility for promotion of the project, and for the publication and distribution of relevant documents and the provision of advice on all APEC Architect matters to architects, government authorities and other external agencies. Monitoring Committees, or their representatives, also contribute to the administrative and review functions of the Central Council as required. From time to time participating economies are called upon to act as Secretariat, on a rotating basis, and to provide administrative services for the Central Council for a limited period.

C. AUTHORISATION OF MONITORING COMMITTEES An APEC economy seeking to operate a section of the APEC Architect Register must first constitute a Monitoring Committee to submit an application to the APEC Architect Central Council, through the Secretariat, for authorisation to do so. (Note: In economies with multiple domestic jurisdictions, where applicable, the professional standards and criteria established by national organisations acting as councils of individual regulatory authorities are those to be evaluated for the authorisation of Monitoring Committees.) Application for Authorisation To promote consistency and transparency of process, the Central Council has prepared guidelines on the information to be provided by Monitoring Committees in support of their applications for authorisation to show conformance with APEC Architect criteria. It will require advice on:

Education and practical experience/training requirements for registration/licensure as an architect in that economy, The accreditation/ recognition procedures employed to assess them, and Procedures adopted to assess compliance with the required professional practice experience as a registered/licensed architect.

Additional information required by the Central Council will include the composition of Monitoring Committees, the procedures they will employ for management of the section of the APEC Architect Register for which they will be responsible, and the resources available for undertaking these responsibilities. In reaching its decision, the Council will assess the professional recognition criteria and assessment systems in place in the economy applying for authorisation to determine their compliance with APEC Architect criteria. It will also take into account quality assurance provisions adopted by the economy to monitor continued conformance with required standards of competence and of professional conduct. Economies, authorised to do so, may establish a section of the APEC Architect Register. Economies not authorised to operate a section of the Register will receive guidance on rectifying deficiencies and have the right to reapply. Continued Authorisation Authorised Monitoring Committees, and the procedures they adopt, are subject to periodic review by the Central Council to ensure that they continue to comply with agreed standards. They must immediately notify the Central Council of any material changes in education provision, accreditation/recognition systems and registration/licensure requirements to those which were approved for initial authorisation, or of any other significant developments concerning the professional recognition of architects in their economies that might conflict with Council policy. A Monitoring Committee whose authorisation has been suspended by the Central Council because it no longer conforms with the APEC Architect criteria may, with reason, request an independent review of the decision. Termination of Authorisation A Monitoring Committee may surrender its authorisation to maintain a section of the APEC Architect Register after giving due notice to the Central Council.

CACB-CCCA Biannual Report Prepared for the Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities meeting October 16, 2017, Montréal, Qc.

Mourad Mohand-Said B.Arch, M.Sc.A, Hon. MRAIC October 4, 2017

Agenda Item 7.1

CACB-CCCA Biannual Report to CALAMontréal QC, October 16, 2017

2

Table of Contents

1. OPERATIONS OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 ACCREDITATION PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. 3 1.1.1 CACB-CCCA Accredited Professional Programs in Architecture ..................................... 3 1.1.1 Accreditation Visits ..................................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Accreditation Training Program ................................................................................... 4 1.1.3 Review of the Conditions and the Procedures for Accreditation ...................................... 4

1.2 ACADEMIC CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 4 1.2.1 Applications Received ................................................................................................ 4 1.2.2 Certification/ Provisional Certification ........................................................................... 4 1.2.3 Country of Origin of Foreign Graduate Applicants (including Canberra Accord Graduates) 5 1.2.4 Automatic Domestic Certification ................................................................................. 5

1.3 BEFA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Applications received ................................................................................................. 5 1.3.2 Country of Origin of BEFA Applicants .......................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Candidates Certified ................................................................................................... 6 1.3.4 Interview Sessions ..................................................................................................... 6

2. INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 THE CANBERRA ACCORD .................................................................................................................. 7 2.1.1 The Canberra Accord General Meeting ........................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Canberra Accord Implementation ................................................................................ 7 2.1.3RAIA Suspension of Membership of the Canberra Accord ..................................... 7 2.1.4 Periodic Review ......................................................................................................... 7


3

1. OPERATIONS OVERVIEW

1.1 ACCREDITATION PROGRAM

1.1.1 CACB-CCCA Accredited Professional Programs in ArchitectureUniversity of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Carleton University, Ottawa, ON Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Université Laval, Québec, QC University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB McGill University, Montréal, QC Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC Ryerson University, Toronto, ON University of Toronto, Toronto, ON University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON

Accreditation Terms, documents (APR, VTR), and history are posted on our website here.

1.1.1 Accreditation Visits Visits are generally held between February and March and the decisions are rendered at the spring meeting of the Board.

2017 Cycle:

Program/School Visit Type Date Accreditation Decision

M. Arch / Carleton University, Ottawa, ON Maintenance 03/18-22,/2017 Six-Year Term

M. Arch / University of Calgary, Calgary, AB Maintenance 03/18-22/ 2017 Six-Year Term

M. Arch / University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON Maintenance 02/11-15/ 2017 Six-Year Term

M. Arch/ Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON Eligibility 05/18-19/ 2017 Application for Candidacy accepted

2018 Cycle:

Program/School Visit Type Date Accreditation Decision

M. Arch / University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Maintenance TBD NA

M. Arch / University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB Maintenance TBD NA

M. Arch / McGill University, Montréal, QC Maintenance TBD NA

M. Arch/ Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON Candidacy TBD NA


4

1.1.2 Accreditation Training ProgramNext Training Session will be held in Saint-John, New Brunswick, in conjunction with the 2018 annual Festival of Architecture prepared in partnership between the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, the Architects’ Association of New Brunswick and the host location, the City of Saint John. The Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities are open to consider the CACB-CCCA Training Session on Accreditation eligible for Continuing Education requirements.

1.1.3 Review of the Conditions and the Procedures for AccreditationThe 2017 Conditions and Terms for Accreditation have been approved by the CACB-CCCA and its Members and they will be effective in 2019. They have been already distributed to the Programs to allow them to adjust their curriculum accordingly. The 2017 Procedures for Accreditation have reached the last round of review and they will be presented for approval to the Board at its upcoming meeting in Vancouver, on November 17-18, 2017.

1.2 ACADEMIC CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Statistic Highlights

1.2.1 Applications ReceivedThe total of applications received as of September 30, 2017 (9 months) is very close to the total for the whole year of 2016. This is mainly due to the noticeable increase in the Canadian Accredited Category of applicants, who have been processed through Automatic Certification Initiative.

As per the September 30, 2017 figures, it is reasonable to predict that by the end of the year, similar number of applicants as in 2016 will be received for the rest of the categories, with the exception of Canberra Accord applicants.

Total Canberra Accord applicants by the end of 2017 won’t be higher than 7, according to the projections.

1.2.2 Certification/ Provisional CertificationProvisional Certification is granted for a period of 18 months to international graduates who have deficiencies in Area 6 of the Canadian Education Standard (Knowledge of the Profession). During this period, they are allowed to start their Internship process while they fulfil the deficiencies.

Accreditation Type/ Application received /Year 2016 2017 as of

Sep.30

Canadian - Accredited 366 406

Canadian - Grandfathered 0 0

Canadian - Not Accredited 0 0

International - Accredited - US 37 27

International - Not Accredited 227 175

Inter- Not Accr-Canberra Accord 12 5

RAIC Syllabus of Studies 3 2

Grand Total 645 615

Candidate 2015 20162017As of

Sep.30Full

Certification 120 159 152

Provisional Certification 50 54 45


5

Applications Received

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 as of Sep.30

154 173 179 239 180Top three countries of origin

Iran: 34 India: 11 Egypt: 8

Iran: 45 The Philippines: 12 India: 10

Iran: 36 Egypt: 16 India: 10

Iran: 55 Egypt: 18 India: 17


1.2.3 Country of Origin of Foreign Graduate Applicants (including Canberra Accord Graduates)The top three countries of origin of applications received:

1.2.4 Automatic Domestic CertificationAs of September 30, 2017, 3072 automatic certifications have been granted since 2009. All Programs have participated in 2017 in the initiative.

1.3 BEFA CERTIFICATION PROGRAM Statistic Highlights

1.3.1 Applications receivedA total of 227 BEFA applications, including the Pilot Phase, have been received at our office as of April 30, 2017. 141 are still active, 49 have been certified, and 37 have been closed due to different reasons that vary from not meeting the deadlines (timelines) as well as the requirements to self-withdrawal due to lack of employment opportunities and/or financial constraints.

Total Applications Received

Status/Year Pilot Phase 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Grand

Received 25 20 44 40 28 44 26 227Certified 17 7 16 7 2 49Closed 3 0 8 11 5 8 2 37

Still Active 5 13 20 22 21 36 24 141

273

380 445

404 357

326 334

253

349

0

100

200

300

400

500

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 as ofSEP 30


6

1.3.2 Country of Origin of BEFA ApplicantsThe top countries of origin of applications received between 2011 and 2015:

Applications Received

2012Sep-Dec

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 as of Sep.30

155 20 44 40 28 44 26

Top three countries of origin

Brazil: 2 India: 2 Iraq: 2 Egypt: 2

India: 5 Egypt: 4 Iran: 4 Lebanon: 4

Egypt: 4 The Philippines: 4 United Kingdom: 3

Iran: 6 India: 3 Mexico: 3

Egypt: 17 India: 15 Iran: 14


1.3.3 Candidates Certified 49 candidates have been granted BEFA Certification as of September 30, 2017:

- Alberta 30.61% - Ontario 22.44% - British Columbia 18.36%

1.3.4 Interview SessionsIn 2017, 4 interview sessions have been scheduled: 2 in Montréal, QC, on February 4th, and November 25th, and 2 in Vancouver, BC, on April 8th and December 2nd, for a total of 24 interviews.

25 20

44 40

28

44

26

17

7

16

7 2 3

0

8 11

5 8

2 05

101520253035404550

Pilot Phase 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Received Certified Closed

BEFA CERTIFICATION

Jurisdiction GrandTotal

Alberta 15British Columbia 9Manitoba 2Northwest Territories 1Nova Scotia 3Ontario 11Québec 6Saskatchewan 2

Total 49


7

2. INTERNATIONAL INVOLVEMENT

2.1 THE CANBERRA ACCORD Signed in April 2008, The Canberra Accord (www.canberraaccord.org) is intended to facilitate the portability of educational credentials between the countries whose accreditation/validation agencies signed the Accord. It does not address matters related to professional registration or licensure. The Canberra Accord recognizes the substantial equivalency of accreditation/ validation systems in architectural education of the signing agencies or organizations.

2.1.1 The Canberra Accord General MeetingThe CACB-CCCA attended the 6th Canberra Accord General meeting held in Colombo, Sri Lanka on May 5-7, 2017.

2.1.2 Canberra Accord ImplementationThe CACB-CCCA is following with high interest the level of implementation of the Accord by the Signatories in regard to the Students and Graduates Portability as well as to the Credential Assessment. The CACB-CCCA has developed its own Canberra Accord Graduates Procedures since 2012, and since then, a total of 31 applications have been processed with the following distribution:

2.1.3 RAIA Suspension of Membership of the Canberra AccordThe CACB-CCCA is also interested in the RAIA current membership status as it was noted at the 6th General meeting that Royal Australian Institute of Architecture has suspended its membership with the Accord. The CACB-CCCA will adjust its credential Assessment Procedure accordingly.

2.1.4 Periodic ReviewThe CACB-CCCA will be hosting in 2018 the Canberra Accord Periodic Review. Last visit was in 2012 and the CACB-CCCA was accepted by the other signatory systems, for a period of six years, as leading to outcomes substantially equivalent to those from the other systems.

Canberra Accord Candidates

Signatories 2012 2013 2014 2015 20162017as of

Sep.30

GrandTotal

CAA (Commonwealth Association of Architects) 0 1 0 2 5 2 10

ANPADEH (Mexico) 0 0 0 1 2 3

KAAB (Korea Architectural Accrediting Board) 0 1 2 0 1 1 5

NBAA (National Architecture Accrediting Board-China) 0 0 0 1 1 1 3

RAIA (Royal Australian Institute of Architecture) 4 1 0 1 3 1 10

Total 4 3 2 5 12 5 31

Agenda Item 7.3

NOVA SCOTIA ASSOCIATION OF ARCHITECTS (NSAA)

Fair Registration Practices Act (FRPA) Review [DATE]

Province of Nova Scotia

Agenda Item 7.3Attachment A

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Context of the Profession in Nova Scotia ............................................................................................................... 4

Occupational Profile ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Organizational Description ................................................................................................................................. 4

Active Membership Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 4

Registration Requirements ................................................................................................................................. 4

AIT Transfer ......................................................................................................................................................... 4

International Applicant ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Organizational Structure and Staffing ................................................................................................................ 4

Types of Licenses/Certificates Issued (including Registration Data for 2016) ................................................... 4

Overview of Registration Process ........................................................................................................................... 4

Registration Information ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Registration Process ............................................................................................................................................ 4

2016 Registration Data ........................................................................................................................................... 5

Exemplary Practices ................................................................................................................................................ 9

Fair-access Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 10

FRPA Review Questionnaire and Assessment ...................................................................................................... 10

FRPA Action Plan ................................................................................................................................................... 28

Disclaimer .............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................................ 32

Fair-access Guidelines .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Nova Scotia Association of Architects – FRPA Review Report Page 2

EExecutive Summary To be completed by FRPA Review Officer


IIntroduction The purpose of the Fair Registration Practices Act (FRPA) Review is to share the Review Officer’s understanding of progress made by the Nova Scotia Association of Architects (NSAA) regarding the fair consideration of individuals applying for registration from outside of the province.1 During the FRPA Review Process, a regulatory body’s registration practices are measured against both the specific and general duties outlined in the Fair Registration Practices Code—all of which encompass the overarching principles of transparency, objectivity, impartiality and procedural fairness.2

The analysis is based on the FRPA Review Officer’s review work with the Nova Scotia Association of Architects to date. The Nova Scotia Association of Architects (NSAA) 2017 Review captures the results of the FRPA Review Process and includes an inventory of exemplary licensing practices and an Action Plan that holds NSAA accountable for continuous improvement within two years of the review.

Through the 2017 FRPA Review, the FRPA Review Officer aims to build on the progress made by NSAA to date and identify opportunities to further improve and evolve registration practices.

1 For more information on the FRPA Review Process, see the Guide to Fair Registration Practices Act: http://novascotia.ca/lae/RplLabourMobility/documents/FRPA_GuidetoReviewProcess_WEB.pdf 2 The Fair Registration Practices Code is delineated in Sections 6-12 of the Fair Registration Practices Act. Government of Nova Scotia. Ch. 38 of the Acts of 20018, as amended by 2014, c. 14.


CContext of the Profession in Nova Scotia Occupational Profile To be completed by NSAA

Organizational Description To be completed by NSAA

Active Membership Requirements To be completed by NSAA Registration Requirements To be completed by NSAA AIT Transfer To be completed by NSAA International Applicant To be completed by NSAA

Organizational Structure and Staffing To be completed by NSAA

Types of Licenses/Certificates Issued (including Registration Data for 2016) To be completed by NSAA

Overview of Registration Process Registration Information Describe means by which registration information can be accessed by applicants. To be completed by NSAA

Registration Process To be completed by NSAA

Cost of Registration (including payment methods) To be completed by NSAA —please use table format and document every stage of the application process


22016 Registration Data The following is a copy of the information provided to the FRPA Review Office through the Annual Assessment Questionnaire.

# Question Response 1 Total number of individuals with practicing licenses/certifications.

Do not report on any licenses or certificates you issue to a business, school or group.

353

2 Number of registrations for the reporting year, from applicants who received their qualifications as indicated below:

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) In NS, new applicant.

8

Received qualifications In Canada, new applicant - n/a for trades - issue a Certification of Qualification.

0

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) Internationally, new applicant.

0

AIT Transfers, applicants already registered in another Canadian jurisdiction.

54

Total number of applicants. 62

3 Types of practicing licenses/certificates you issue and total number of individuals for each type identified for the reporting year.

Licensed Architect: 353 Intern Architect: 53

4 Number of completed applications submitted by applicants who received their qualifications as indicated below.

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) in NS, new applicant:

o Accepted: 8

o Rejected: 0

o Still in process: 1

o Withdrawn: 0

o File inactive or closed: 0


Received qualifications In Canada, new applicant:

o Accepted: 0

o Rejected: 0


o Withdrawn: 0


Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) internationally, new applicant:

o Accepted: 0

o Rejected: 0


o Withdrawn: 0


AIT transfers, applicants already registered in another Canadian jurisdiction:

o Accepted: 54

o Rejected: 0


o Withdrawn: 0


5 For those new Canadian applicants (not NS), list the provinces in Canada (and associated numbers) where the level of education to qualify the applicant for licensure (training or work experience for trades) was obtained.

Province/Territory Total:0

6 For new international applicants, list the source countries (and associated numbers) where the applicant received the level of education to qualify them for licensure (training or work experience for trades).


Country Total: 0

7 Average length of time (in days) between receipt of a completed application and response to the applicant, for those who received their qualifications as indicated below. Response to the applicant to include whether they meet the requirements, partially meet and need to fill gaps, or there is no match and other pathways might be a consideration.

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) In NS, new applicant:

3

Received qualifications In Canada, new applicant: 0

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) Internationally, new applicant:

0


3

8 Average registration process time (or application approval) for those who received their qualifications as indicated below.


40

Received qualifications In Canada, new applicant - n/a for trades - issue a Certification of Qualification

0

Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) Internationally, new applicant

0

AIT transfers, applicants already registered in another Canadian jurisdiction

40

9 Total costs (to the applicant) associated with registration (certification) for applicants who received their qualifications as indicated below. Separate costs that the regulatory body themselves imposes on the applicant from other necessary costs incurred related to registration.


o Regulatory body costs: o Other:

$1207

Received qualifications In Canada, new applicant: o Regulatory body costs: o Other:

$1207


Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) internationally, new applicant


$1207



$1207

10 Number of appeals, internal reviews or challenges related to a registration decision from applicants who received their qualifications as indicated below:


0



0

Total number of appeals, internal reviews or challenges related to a registration decision:

0

11 Length of time the appeals or internal review process took for applicants who received their qualifications as indicated below:


0


Received qualifications (training/work experience for trades) Internationally, new applicant:

0


0

12 What does registration with your organization authorize? Scope of Practice Rights and Rights to use and Occupational Title


EExemplary Practices As part of its continuous improvement strategy, the FRPA Review Office identifies the commendable practices of regulated professions in Nova Scotia.

The Nova Scotia Association of Architects is committed to ensuring that applicants have access to registration practices that are transparent, objective, impartial and procedurally fair. During the FRPA Review Process, the progressive steps that NSAA has taken to improve registration practices were brought to light, including:

To be completed by NSAA Include any pertinent information from the Multi-Stakeholder Working Group Consultant/ISANS Include participation in FRPA learning and development activities Include Mutual Recognition Agreements


FFair-access Analysis Overall, the Nova Scotia College of NSAA’s registration practices comply with the Fair Registration Practices Code as outlined in Sections 6 to 12 of the Act (FRPA).

Per Section 16 of the Act, the registration practices of a regulating body must be reviewed and a public report produced. The FRPA Office works with regulatory bodies to assess their registration practices against the Fair-access Guidelines listed below, and develop an Action Plan to help each body improve their practices and comply with the act.

The NSAA’s responses to the FRPA Review Survey are detailed below, along with the Review Findings determined by the Review Officer in accordance with the Act.

FRPA Review Questionnaire and Assessment Question Respondent Answer Compliance

GGuideline Review FFinding

FRPA RReference

1a How (what methods) do you use to provide information to potential applicants on your registration practices? (i.e. internet, individual counselling, hard copies)?

Internet, Email, Telephone, and Other We do not keep hard copies of applications at our physical office. We print out applications and information from the internet to those who come in to the office seeking information on the process. For those who contact via email, we send them the links and provide answers to any questions they may have. For those who call, we answer their questions and either walk them through the process to find the information on the website or give them our email address so that they can email us directly and we can then provide the links and answer questions. For any individual, no matter how they contact us, we provide as much information and guidance on the options that are available for them to access based on their individual circumstances (i.e. licensure in other jurisdictions, eligibility for Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program, Mutual Recognition Agreements, Internship, etc) We also provide any contact information regarding other jurisdictions, the Canadian Architectural Certification Board, ISANS, etc. All applications for membership can be found here: http://www.nsaa.ns.ca/about/join/

Level 1 Paper forms and information made available to applicants via regular post, Telephone

Level 2 E-mail forms and information, telephone.

Forms and information can be downloaded from website to be emailed/faxed/mailed in after completion

Level 3 Automated on-line form on website and information is

Level 2

16(3)(g)


easily accessible on a website

Process in place for applicants to track application status

1b Can applicant begin the process outside of Canada?

Yes For those who are eligible to apply through a Mutual Recognition Agreement (US, Tri-National with US and Mexico, APEC Architect), information and application can begin outside Canada. For those who require to become licensed through the Internship pathway, they can contact the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB), who handle the verification of academic credentials, from outside Canada. For those who are accessing licensure through the Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program (BEFA), the academic verification credentials, as well as the self-assessment process (also handled through CACB) can be started outside Canada. The complete process for someone in this situation can be found here: http://www.nsaa.ns.ca/about/join/become-la/int-trained-applicant/ Information on CACB can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/home/ Information on BEFA can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/welcome/ Information on the Mutual Recognition Agreements can be found here: http://cala-roac.ca/international-agreements/?lang=en

LLevel 11 No

LLevel 2 Yes

Level 2


2 Please provide a link to your website.

http://www.nsaa.ns.ca/

LLevel 11 No website

LLevel 2 Website is not up to date

Website is not in plain language

Website does not have links for international applicants

Website does not contain all forms and/or guidelines

Level 3 Website content is reviewed for accuracy and updated annually

Website is in plain language

Website is easy to navigate (e.g. international applicants)

Website contains all forms and/or guidelines

Information on pathway to licensure

Level 2

16(3)(g)

2a I believe that information on our website is: clear and understandable, written in plain language?

Neither Agree nor Disagree

2b On what basis do you make changes to your website?

Feedback from Applicants, Policy Change, News Postings, Other

2c When was the section of the website pertaining to registration last updated?

On-going Though our website has all the needed information, we recognize that navigability and plain language requires improvement. For this reason, and others, we are developing a new website (expected completion for late Winter or early Spring of 2017). It is our mandate that these issues be addressed first and foremost. b/c) As changes are made to NSAA policies/processes, or changes are made to fees/applications, the website is updated immediately with the newest information. New members are added to the directory upon approval, and any shareable news/events are posted upon receipt as well. The new website will continue this as well.

3a Are your requirements

Legislation & Regulation

Level 1 Level 3 7(a), 7(c), 7(f),


(e.g. education, work experience, examination and fees) for registration specified by legislation, regulation and/or policy?

Policy describing the registration process does not exist or is not documented

Documents only available upon specific request

LLevel 2 Policy exists to describe certain aspect of registration process

Available to the applicant

Level 3 Policy exist to describe all aspects of the registration practices

Available to the applicant

16(3)(a), 16(3)(d)

3b Specify the appropriate section(s)

Part 1, Sections 3 through 17, of the Regulations deal specifically with the requirements of membership/licensing, as well as the processes for appealing decision

3c Is this information made available to applicants

Yes Our Act and Regulations (as well as any other governing documents) are on our website's Resources section. Our membership applications include a link to these documents as well, with a signed declaration that the applicant has read and understood these documents. Through our mutual recognition agreement with all Canadian architectural licensing authorities, the wording of these membership applications have been agreed to by all provinces and cannot be altered without unanimous consent from all jurisdictions.

4 Are you waiting for legislation to be passed?

No

N/A

N/A

5a Is the criteria for meeting the requirements of registration documented?

No

Level 1 Criteria is made available to applicants verbally but no supplemental documentation

Level 2 Criteria is documented

Level

7(d), 16(3)(b)

5b Do you provide applicants with the description of the criteria used to assess whether the

No The NSAA does not assess these types of criteria. Through a nationally signed agreement, validation of academic credentials is handled by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB). Information


requirements have been met (i.e. the number of years of schooling needed to be considered equivalent to a degree)?

on CACB can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/welcome/

and made available to applicants

Limited information about the standard you will be assessed against

LLevel 3 Criteria is documented and made available to applicants

Criteria clearly outlines all assessment methods to be used and what competencies are being assessed by each method

Applicants know the required standards that they will be assessed to

6 If you require translation of specific documents how is the applicant informed?

There are no documents that the NSAA would request as part of registration that would require translation. As previously mentioned, the NSAA does not assess educational credentials. This is handled by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB), based on the aforementioned national agreement.

Level 1 No indication of translation requirements

Available to applicants upon request

Level 2*

7(a)

* While NSAA does not need to deal with translated documents, NSAA should endeavor to ensure that its third party certifiers (CACB) provide specific requirements on what is an acceptable translation.


Information on CACB can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/welcome/

LLevel 22 Translation requirements indicated but not specific

Available to applicants

LLevel 3 Translation requirements documented with specific instruction

Available to applicants

7 Do you have a streamlined registration process for those applicants already registered in another Canadian jurisdiction (as per Chapter 7 Agreement on Internal Trade / Canada Free Trade Agreement)?

Yes All Canadian Architectural Licensing Authorities (CALA) have a reciprocal agreement that streamlines the process for application for Licensed Architect memberships. Information on this agreement can be found here: http://cala-roac.ca/canadian-reciprocity-agreement/?lang=en All registration applications as well as the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) processes have been developed and implemented with AIT compliance.

Level 1 Yes – process not documented

Level 2 Yes – process documented

Level 3 Yes – process documented and made public on website

Any additional requirements approved by government are explained on website

Level 3

3

8 Does your organization make accommodation for applicants with physical or

Yes

Level 1 Yes – process not documented

Level 2

Level 1

16(3)(h)


mental disability?

Yes – process documented

LLevel 3 Yes – process documented and available to applicant

9a Is any of your assessment process conducted by a third party (i.e. national bodies, credential assessment agencies, etc.)?

Yes

Level 1 Regulatory body assumes that the certifying organization meets FRPA standards

Level 2 Regulatory body has received documentation indicating that the certifying organization meets FRPA standards

Level 3 Regulatory body has influence with the certifying organization (e.g. membership) or has an agreement with the certifying organization

Level 1

16(3)(i)

9b If so, please specify the name of the organization and describe their role.

The Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB) assesses educational credentials in Canada. The CACB mandate can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/mandate/

9c Please indicate the types of activities that they assist with.

Data Collection, Credential Assessment, Verification of Documents, Recognition of Prior Learning

9d Can you describe how they adhere to the General Duties of the Regulatory Body as outlined in the Act, including transparency, objectivity, impartiality and procedural fairness?

MOU, Participation on Board, Other

9e Are you informed of all decisions made

No


by third parties on applicants?

9f Does the third party have an internal review process for unsuccessful applicants?

Yes Information on appeals and internal review through CACB can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/reassessment-appeal/ http://cacb.ca/wp-content/uploads/pdf/befa_program_appeal_process-Eng.pdf We received periodic updates on the status of BEFA candidates as well as the number of academic credentials and countries of origin for participants

10a What types of supports do you provide to applicants during the registration process?

Internet, Telephone, Print Material, and Other In addition to providing support via email/phone we also routinely invite applicants in to the NSAA to meet with staff and/or Board of Registration members in order to clarify the registration process when necessary and consider accommodations to specific situations.

LLevel 11 None

LLevel 2 Multiple types of supports exist but not well documented

Level 3 Multiple types of support exist, well defined and accessible

Level 3

7(e), 16(3)(k)

10b Have you had applicants who need support mechanisms that you can’t provide or are not available?

No

N/A

11 Where practical, do you provide unsuccessful applicants with information on programs and services they can participate

Yes When an individual does not meet the requirements for registration, the NSAA provides them with all possible resources and/or information to be able to comply with those requirements. The NSAA has also participated in stakeholder meetings with ISANS and various representatives from

Level 1 Only upon request

Not documented

Level 2 Yes – not documented

Level 3

8(d)


in to facilitate successful registration in the future?

within the NSAA who have completed the Internship in Architecture Program and the Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program to clarify and improve the entire process of making information available to potential applicants. Through this process, the NSAA held an information session for any ISANS client who has listed Architecture as their career to pursue in Nova Scotia. The ISANS pathway to licensure (developed with information and collaboration from the NSAA) can be found here: http://www.isans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Architects_July2015.pdf

LLevel 33 Yes – documented and available to applicant

Applicants are told what their competencies gaps are that need to be addressed

12 Do you have a reasonable timeframe to respond to inquiries from applicants?

The normal turnaround time to respond to questions from an applicant is usually within a day or two (often within the hour if it is information that we can provide easily without external research). If in person, the response is immediate.

LLevel 11 No policy

LLevel 2 Policy in Place

Level 3 Policy in place and accessible

Level 1

7(b), 8(a), 8(b), 8(c)

13a Do you provide written decisions, responses and reasons for acceptance or rejection of an application?

Yes

Level 1 No

Level 2 Yes – not documented

Level 3 Yes – Documented

Level 2

8(b), 8(c), 10

13ai

Do you have a formal policy for this process?

Yes

13aii

Do you have a standard timeline

Yes

Level 1 No

Level 2 Sometimes – not documented

Level 3 Always – clearly

Level 2


established timelines

13b Do you provide applicants who are not granted registration with information regarding an internal review process (including the opportunity to make submissions respecting such reviews?)

Yes

LLevel 11 Yes – upon request, limited documentation

LLevel 2 Yes – limited documentation

Level 3 Yes – well documented process

Level 3

13c Based on the previous questions, describe ways your organization could improve the timeliness of your decisions and/or how you could communicate the results.

Based on a 2015 internal review, processes have been streamlined and frequency of Board of Registration meetings has increased. All applications have the same timeline for approval. After a completed application is received in full by the NSAA it then goes through the following process: 1) Reviewed by NSAA Staff to ensure application is complete at time of submission. 2) Added to next Board of Registration meeting for review. (Board meets once per month, last Tuesday of the month). 3) Upon Board's recommendation, the application is then added to the next Council meeting for final review/approval (Council meets once per month, first Wednesday of the month). 4) Upon Council's decision, a letter of written notice is created, signed by the Registrar, and sent to the applicant (usually within 24 hours) via email. The new member's stamp is also ordered at this time. This process is given an average timeline of 4 to 8 weeks from date of a completed submission being received at the NSAA and final decision being communicated to the applicant

N/A

N/A


14a Do you provide information on what documentation of qualifications must accompany an application?

Yes

LLevel 11 Documents indicated and communicated verbally

LLevel 2 List of required documents indicated on website

Process to verify document authenticity

Level 3 N/A

Level 2

9(a), 16(3)(a), 16(3)(b), 16(3)(e)

14b Do you include a process for verification of documentation authenticity?

No Official educational credentials are reviewed by the Canadian Architectural Certification Board (CACB), but other documentation provided at time of application to the NSAA (Insurance, business registration, references, etc.) are taken as presented in the application. Information on CACB can be found here: http://cacb.ca/en/home/

15 Do you provide information on the steps in the registration process including supporting documentation required at the various steps?

Yes All required documentation is listed in the applications for membership as a checklist, and are reiterated if/when an applicant has questions about specific requirements.

Level 1 General information

Not broken into steps

Level 2 Step by step process indicate where applicant needs to supply information

Level 3 Step by step process indicate where applicant needs to supply information

Pathway to licensure

Level 3

7(c), 16(3)(a), 16(3)(b)


16 Do you accept alternative information if required documents cannot be obtained for reasons beyond the applicant’s control (i.e. a sworn statement in lieu of full documentation)?

No There are no types of documentation that the NSAA would ask for as part of the application process that the applicant should not be able to obtain (CACB certification, Certificate of Insurance, Business Registration documents, Personal/Professional Reference Forms, etc.)

LLevel 11 Yes – on a case by case basis

LLevel 2 Yes – examples documented

Process not clearly laid out or documented

Level 3 Yes – process clearly documented

Level 2*

9(b), 16(3)(c)

17 What difficulties or obstacles are faced by applicants who received their qualifications in a country other than Canada?

Obtaining original documents, verification of credentials, identifying and participating in gap training programs, language proficiency or professional technical language. The Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program (through the Canadian Architectural Certification Board) as previously mentioned deals with these situations, but we have heard from individuals in the past that these above issues have come up from time to time and that the Canadian Architectural Certification Board works with the individuals to address identified issues.

N/A

N/A

6, 9(b), 16(3)(c)

18a Do you have a process for which requests for access documentation related to registrations are considered?

No

Level 1 Not documented

Level 2 Documented

Level 3 Documented and made available to applicants

Level

12, 16(3)(j)

18b Is this made available to applicants?

No

18c Do you charge a fee?

No

* Regulators should endeavor to ensure that the practices of its third party assessors are FRPA-compliant. The CACB appears to accept alternative documentation in some cases, but no evidence of a clearly-defined process.


19 Does your Act include an authority to conduct an internal review of the registration decision?

Yes The Regulations (pursuant to the Act) describe a process for appeals to decisions or reviews of decisions. The listed review process can be found in sections 16 and 17 of the regulations.

LLevel 11 N/A

LLevel 2 N/A

Level 3 Yes

Level 3

7(a)

20 Do you have a regulation or by-law that defines the internal review process?

Yes The listed review process can be found in sections 16 and 17 of the regulations.

Level 1 N/A

Level 2 N/A

Level 3 Yes

Level 3

7(a), 10

21 When are unsuccessful candidates informed of their right to internal review of the registration decision?

Upon application, included with a registration decision, upon request, and other. The candidate would be informed by staff, the written decision respecting their initial application for membership, and should also be aware through the Regulations which they must read prior to applying. The listed review process can be found in sections 16 and 17 of the regulations.

Level 1 No specific timeline

Level 2 Specific timeline

Not documented

Level 3 Specific timeline

Documented and communicated

Level 3

7(a), 10(1)

22a Do you have an internal review process and procedures document (policy document)?

The listed review process in the regulations (Sections 16/17) detail the procedures and timeframe. This is also included on our registration process page on the website.

Level 1 Yes

Not documented

Level 2

Level 3**

7(a), 10(1)

** Regulators should endeavor to ensure that the practices of its third party assessors are FRPA-compliant. While the FRPA grants wide latitude for internal review bodies to establish their own review processes, the CACB’s appeal process for applicants under the BEFA program appears to be a new interview/examination instead of an internal review.


22b Does this include time frames for the internal review?

The listed review process in the regulations (Sections 16/17) detail the procedures and timeframe. This is also included on our registration process page on the website.

Yes

Documented

LLevel 3 Yes

Documented and available to applicant

23a With regards to the internal review process you make available to applicants that are not granted registration: summarize the process of the internal review.

1. Application is refused. 2. Applicant is given written decision, detailing the review process available to him/her. 3. Notice of Appeal may be submitted within next 30 days. 4. Licensing Appeal Committee sets date of hearing of appeal, serving written notice to applicant. 5. Prior to and during the hearing, evidence is shared between the applicant and the association, and then presented to the Appeal Committee. 6. The Licensing Appeal Committee rules on what it believes ought to have been the original decision by the Board of Registration, serving written decision to both the Association and the Applicant. This decision is final.

Level 1 Not documented

Level 2 Documented

Level 3 Documented and made available to applicant

Level 3***

7(a), 10, 16(3)(m)

23b Describe the opportunities made available to an applicant to make submissions respecting such review.

The NSAA would first give the applicant an opportunity to supply any additional documentation and comply with any outstanding requirements prior to the need of an official appeal process (at the time that staff review the application, prior to review by the Board of Registration). The only situation that would result in an outright refusal of an application is a situation where competency could place the public safety in jeopardy (i.e. not a member in good standing in applicant's home jurisdiction, or history of professional misconduct).

23c Specify the format for the

Written

*** While the NSAA’s internal review process is well-documented and accessible to the applicant, the documentation available on the CACB’s re-assessment and appeal processes are sparse. Regulators should endeavor to ensure that the practices of its third party assessors are FRPA-compliant.


internal review submission

23d What is the timeline for submitted supporting evidence?

Days - at least 10 days before the hearing. (Sections 16(4) and 16(5) of the regulations).

23e Do you believe this is enough time to receive supporting evidence from outside Canada?

Yes As previously mentioned, an application could not be considered from outside Canada as the applicant must first complete either the Broadly Experienced Foreign Architect Program (BEFA) or Internship in Architecture Program (IAP), if not accessing licensure through a mutual recognition agreement, either of which would require the applicant to already be in Canada. If the applicant has completed the BEFA or IAP program, and is complying with all other requirements of registration (such as insurance, dues, business registration, etc.) then there would be no need for an appeals process, as the application would be approved.

24a Are the results of the internal review made available to applicants in writing with reasons?

Yes

LLevel 11 Yes

LLevel 2 Yes

Specific timeline

Level 3 Yes

Specific timeline and communicated

Level 2

24b In what timeframe are the results of the internal review made available to applicants?

Less than 1 month

7(a), 10(3)

24c Are these timelines communicated?

No Though regulations 16 and 17 do not list a time frame to communicate the decision, the decision would be delivered immediately to all concerned parties.

25 Have individuals who make internal review

Yes As per the Regulations:

N/A

N/A

7(a), 11, 16(3)(p)


decisions received appropriate training?

Appointment and functions of Licensing Appeal Committee 15 (1) Council must appoint a Licensing Appeal Committee consisting of 1 non-member and 2 licensed architects. (2) The Council must appoint the chair of the Licensing Appeal Committee. (3) A majority of the Licensing Appeal Committee constitutes a quorum. (4) The Licensing Appeal Committee must perform the functions specified in Sections 16 and 17

26 Do you have a prohibition that states that ‘no one who acted as a decision-maker in respect of a registration decision acted as a decision-maker in an internal review?

Yes Committees, subcommittees, task forces, and other short term groups of the NSAA must agree to and sign a duties document that declares the individual will disclose any potential conflict of interest in matters relations to that group, and withdraw from that meeting and any discussion therein.

LLevel 11 N/A

LLevel 2 N/A

Level 3 Yes

Level 3

7(a), 10(5), 16(3)(n)

27 Do you have any international agreements (i.e. reciprocal recognition) endorsed by your regulatory body or national organization?

Yes There are: - Mutural Recognition Agreement with signatories to the Agreement of the USA. - Tri-National Mutual Recognition Agreement with the USA and Mexico. - APEC (Australia / New Zeland) - Ace (Europe), which is currently being developed Information of these agreement can be found here: http://cala-roac.ca/international-agreements/?lang=en

N/A

N/A

7

28 Has your organization experienced any unintended consequences—defined as an

No

N/A

N/A

3


unintended negative impact on labour market, economic, social or other condition—arising as a result of the implementation of Chapter 7 of the Agreement on Internal Trade?

29 Does your legislation and/or regulations include labour mobility provisions (i.e. the ability to accept applicants already certified in another Canadian jurisdiction regardless of the requirements in the previous jurisdiction?

Yes Section 11(a) of the Regulations specifies requirements for an individual who is applying from another jurisdiction.

N/A

N/A

Chapter 7, CFTA

30 Do you review the requirements of the other provincial regulatory bodies regularly?

Yes

N/A

N/A

3, Chapter 7, CFTA

31a Has your organization made any changes to the

No

N/A

N/A


occupational standards in your legislation, regulations and/or by-laws (i.e. entry to practice standards, continuing education requirements, codes of ethics) within the last two years?

31b If yes, did you work with the Labour Mobility Coordinator or a Provincial Government representative to complete an AIT notification (i.e. notification form sent prior to approval that informs other Canadian jurisdictions of the proposed change)?

N/A

N/A


FFRPA Action Plan In accordance with the Fair Registration Practices Code, the FRPA Action Plan outlines the measures that Nova Scotia Association of Architects has agreed to take before the commencement of the FRPA Compliance Progress Update in 2019.

# Action Questionnaire RReference

FRPA RReference

Outcome Timeline

1 Continue to enhance website to include:

updated links, answers to FAQs updated pathway to licensure, fee schedule of all costs to register (including links to third-party costs where available), use of plain language and web design guidelines, ability for applicants to track their application status, and ability to solicit user feedback and measure website analytics.

1, 2 16(3)(g) To be completed by regulatory body

To be completed by regulatory body

2 Ensure that the CACB is FRPA-compliant, including:

a policy for accommodating individuals with physical or mental disabilities, a policy for accepting alternative information, clarification on translation policy re acceptable translations,

9 (including aspects from questions 6, 8, 13, 16, 22, 24)

7(a), 9(b), 10, 16(3)(c), 16(3)(i), 16(3)(h)


policy providing written decisions with reasons for acceptance or rejection of an application, timelines for making appeal decisions, confirmation that an appeal decision-maker was not involved in the original decision, a comprehensive internal review process for the BEFA program that is transparent, objective, impartial, and procedurally fair, and a statement of fair registration practices in the biannual report.

Consider developing an MOU with the CACB that would establish service standards and procedures for monitoring the CACB assessment practices—i.e. formal policy re. assessing and updating assessment practices.

33 Amend regulations or create/formalize draft policies to address the following:

timelines for all aspects of the application process (including

8, 12, 13, 24 7(b), 8, 10(3), 12, 16(3)(h), 16(3)(j), 16(3)(l), 16(3)(m)


responding to inquiries), providing written decisions with reasons for acceptance or rejection of an application (including timelines), timelines for all aspects of the internal review process, accommodations for applicants with physical or mental disabilities, and providing access to internally-produced documentation regarding an applicant’s application.

44 Develop a plan to provide training to internal review decision-makers.

25 11, 16(3)(p)

55 Develop a template for rejection letters that includes reasons for rejection, information on internal review process, and information on resources to help applicants meet registration requirements.

11, 13, 21 8(c), 8(d), 10(1)


Disclaimer The Nova Scotia Association of Architects hereby declares that the information contained in this report is a true and accurate representation of current registration practices of their organization.

_________________________________________________ _______________________ Registrar Date


AAppendix A Nova Scotia regulatory bodies will provide the following documents for assessment:

copies of blank application form redacted rejection letter MOU with 3rd party assessor or an outline of the role of third-party assessor(s) –if applicable Policies and procedures related to the registration process

Report to CALA:

Trademark Protection as an Enforcement Tool

Since the last CALA meeting in Ottawa, the Working Group investigating whether it is feasible to trademark and, if so, how can it be done held a conference call to review the BHOLE IP LAW report.

After this conference call, Anil Bhole was contacted again to seek clarification on whether “architect” can be trademarked. He provided the following clarification:

There are certainly caveats, but a public authority (I believe your organizations would qualify, but the enacting legislation requires some sort of government oversight) can generally obtain any official mark, including "Architect", provided it has been made public (and it certainly has). For traditional trademarks and certification marks, it would be very difficult or impossible to obtain because there is a bar on descriptive marks.

An official mark:

can be sought by a provincial association; protect a descriptive mark; the scope of protection from a third party is so nearly resembling as to be likely to be mistaken for narrower than confusingly similar and covers any goods and services filing costs is $1500 infringement – enforcement is injunction.

The other two options (traditional trademarks and certification marks) were seen as more beneficial due to the various enforcement outcomes including punitive damages. However, based on the above clarification, it would seem that these two options are not possible.

This leaves the question, should individual provincial jurisdictions trademark an official marks help provincial jurisdictions in enforcing illegal practice? As some jurisdictions have already trademarked certain official marks such as OAA, OAQ, there is a benefit to individual jurisdictions to protect.

Based on the last conference call, the recommendation of the working group is that each jurisdiction investigate and pursue trademarking official marks such as acronym, logo, website as part of its self-protection.

Respectfully submitted by,

Gregory MacNeil, President, NSAA Nedra Brown, Registrar, OAA Margo Dauphinee, Executive Director, NSAA Jean Pierre Dumont, Executive Director, OAQ

Agenda Item 8.0

Memorandum



From: John Stephenson, President Date: October 4, 2017 Subject: 2017 Fall Society Workshop Objective: To provide Council with an update of current activities undertaken by the

Association to address issues raised during the September 2017 Local Societies Workshop.

Background: On September 15, 2017, the OAA hosted a workshop with Local Society Chairs and OAA Council members. This was the third annual workshop of its kind which have served as important opportunities for the OAA and Council to gather input and feedback from local societies on a number of key issues and initiatives. A copy of the session notes is attached for information. Action:

No Action Required

Fall Local Architectural Society Workshop

SEPTEMBER 15, 2017

September 15, 2017 FALL LOCAL ARCHITECTURAL SOCIETY WORKSHOP | Session Notes

2

CONTENTS

PPg. 3

Session OVERVIEW

Pg. 4 Procurement, RFP’s and Contracts

Pg. 6 OAA/ARIDO Joint Task Group

Pg. 8 OAA Building Renew + Refresh Project

Pg. 10 OAA Council Directions and Initiatives

Pg. 13 World Architecture Day at Queen’s Park

Pg. 14 Legislation and Policy File Updates/Status

Pg. 17 Closing Remarks


3

OOVERVIEW

Local Society Chairs and members of OAA Council met in the fall at the OAA offices for a one‐day workshop on September 15, 2017. This was the third annual fall event and has served an important role in terms of gathering feedback and input from local societies across the province with respect to current OAA initiatives and activities The full day session allows for feedback, consultation, and evaluation on a number of the OAA priorities and projects. Opportunities included regional viewpoints, a cross‐section of member points‐of‐view, as well as aligning OAA messaging with Society messaging. These were all shared and discussed in an open forum with the objective of affirming or completing the priorities and directions for the year. OAA Council hosted the workshop this year at the temporary OAA Headquarters with representatives from the 13 local architectural societies represented by the Society Chair or selected member designate. The purpose of the fall workshop was to build on the momentum around local outreach and consultation. This focus of the 2017 fall workshop was to gather feedback on a number of key OAA projects, World Architecture Day and updates on Government Legislation. Areas of discussion included the OAA approach for addressing unreasonable conditions and provisions that continue to appear in RFPs and contracts. OAA President, John Stephenson opened the session with updates from the previous year’s agenda on Procurement and RFP’s. He stressed the importance of updating the Societies on what the Council, Committees and OAA staff are doing and encouraged their active participation in the discussion. The following is a summary of the discussion and feedback gathered during the session. This report will be presented at the November Council meeting for information and will play a role in Council’s 2018 Priority Planning Session which will be held early in the New Year (February 2018). Society Chairs are encouraged to share this information with local members to ensure that two‐way communication continues and is further enhanced.


4

PProcurement, RFPs and Contracts

The OAA’s strategy and progress on this important file continues the previous year’s agenda and strategy with three areas of focus: CClient Groups‐ proactive engagement; CClient Groups‐ reactive, targeted in response to issues found; Members‐ professional responsibility and standards. We had over 30 RFP and Contract Alerts issued in the last two years. Client groups gave varied responses; some immediately respond to concern and remedy; some engage in longer discussions/meetings to discuss concerns; others ignored or refuted. An OAA Regulatory Notice was sent to members last fall highlighting the growing concerns around unreasonable RFP provisions, specifically those that require an architect to contract out of their professional obligations. Members were asked over the last two years to identify and review clauses and send their response to Practice Advisors without delay. The OAA President stressed the importance of members exercising their right to say “no” to RFPs that they are not comfortable with in addition to highlighting the value of members exercising this right in addressing these ongoing concerns. It was reiterated that the OAA focus is on professional liability, unreasonable risk transfer, and roles and responsibilities (not business decisions). The OAA has been tracking specific, recurring issues with the intent of issuing a list of ten clauses of concern. All Alerts have been consolidated and posted for easy reference on the OAA Website under Professional Resources. DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK Procurement, RFP review and Alerts

Architects are being marginalized when procuring work; project management roles are being outsourced to third parties.

Effective strategies need to be developed to accept reasonable risk and manage it.

TSA suggests OAA representatives be sent to Society meetings to inform and assist. A roundtable set up is considered an appropriate option.

ConEd Sessions to inform members is another route which may be pursued that are specific to dealing with these contract conditions, and managing risk

OAA Advisory re. IO VOR

OAA issued a detailed advisory and analysis of Infrastructure Ontario (IO) Supplementary Conditions (SC’s) to Document 600 with the recent refresh of the IO Vendor of Record (VOR)

Concerns over liability and insurance were strongly articulated, specifically clauses where availability of professional liability insurance is in question.


5

Followed by President’s letter to members – tough ‘go’ ‘no/go’ decisions are required.

Some OAA members publicly protested VOR refresh and SC’s in writing to IO MPP’s also engaged by members through letter writing and meetings.

Members continue to be concerned however as to the application of professional misconduct and the regulatory notice to the IO contract.

President reiterated that the OAA is concerned that Members agreeing to RFP conditions and entering into contracts that put the certainty of professional liability insurance in question. They may not meet the insurance requirements set out in our governing legislation and may become subject to the Complaints process.

What is of most concerning are that architects will have to be reminded they cannot contract out of their professional standards and responsibilities.

OOntario Bar Association

The Ontario Bar Association has reached out to OAA, recognizing the recent efforts of the OAA on this file and indicated their willingness to meet to discuss issues of common concern and interest.


6

OOAA/ ARIDO Joint Task Group

The President reported that in November 2016, the Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario (ARIDO) received a letter from the Attorney General (AG), Yasir Naqvi, responding to ARIDO’s request for self‐regulation of the profession of interior design. The letter outlined the AG’s proposal to “bring interior designers under the regulation of the OAA” in order to, “give ARIDO self‐regulation status under the umbrella of a broader profession.” In the context of our existing relationship with the AG, who is ultimately responsible for the Architects Act, the OAA was contacted by Ministry staff and made aware of the letter prior to its release. ARIDO and OAA have been meeting over the last eight months to consider a variety of models through which this might be achieved. The OAA and ARIDO identified three core principles that were deemed to be important throughout the discussions moving forward:

The maintenance of an identity for both architects and interior designers; Continued control for both OAA and ARIDO over the destiny of their respective

members which would include governance; and, That any model considered by both organizations should reflect a

“partnership” of the two organizations.

The President described the two models that are being considered in greater detail: MODEL ONE – DIRECT REGULATION OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS THROUGH OAA MEMBERSHIP AND OAA LICENSES WITH TERMS CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS

Scope of practice for interior design will be defined under the Architects Act – the current interiors exemption within the Architects Act will be restricted to Architects, Lic. Tech. OAA’s and Interior Designers.

ARIDO members become members of the OAA and the OAA issues licenses, manages complaints and discipline of Interior Designers with ARIDO involvement

OAA will issue Certificates of Practice to Interior Designer members of OAA

MODEL TWO – INDIRECT REGULATION THROUGH DELEGATION, TOGETHER WITH DEFINED ACCOUNTABILITY AND OVERSIGHT

Scope of practice for interior design will be defined under the Architects Act – the current interiors exemption within the Architects Act will be restricted to Architects, Lic. Tech. OAA’s and Interior Designers.

ARIDO will administer its own membership process and will manage complaints and discipline of their members with OAA oversight of ARIDO accountability to the Architects Act

OAA will permit ARIDO members to practice the scope of Interior Design regulated under the Architects Act


7

ARIDO will issue Certificates of Practice to ARIDO members

FEEDBACK: Membership & Designation

What will the designation for Interior Designers be? Registered Interior Design title under ARIDO would be maintained. There was some concern expressed regarding use of OAA by Interior Designers and also confusion with the public. OAA architect members will be largely unaffected in terms of scope of work, in fact they will be gaining additional protected scope. For architects working largely in Part 9, they would experience very little change. In addition, there would be less designers working in their area once it is restricted.

The OAA expects the inclusion of ARIDO under the Architects Act will strengthen regulatory outreach. With regulation, ARIDO can utilize legislation to rein in scope of practice (i.e. issue cease and desist letters) to all those who practice interior design but are not regulated.

OAA Members have the choice to use ARIDO membership to strengthen their own qualifications currently

Insurance‐ Pro‐Demnity

Model One: It has been suggested that Interior Designers will be required to purchase insurance as laid out in the Architects Act. Pro‐Demnity would have to provide a product for these members to which is outside of the current architects’ fund. ARIDO will experience a significant change in their insurance packages

Model Two: It is likely that ARIDO members would continue with their current regime of obtaining mandatory insurance from an outside provider.

It was suggested that the task group look at other regulator organizations with similar parallel professions working together (i.e. Dentist‐ Dental Hygienist)

There was a request for a list of benefits and detractions of either model for members in order to get a better understanding of the details of each.


8

OOAA Building Renew + Refresh Project

The President reported that OAA Council approved the final design and construction estimate for the building renovation in August. The total value of the project including construction and soft costs is approximately $8 million with almost $6 million for construction. The OAA offices will become an open environment with interaction spaces for teams and collaborative work. The group was reminded that Pro‐Demnity has permanently relocated to another office building just east of the OAA. Sustainability elements of the design are intended to achieve Net Zero Carbon Design and exceed the 2030 Challenge goals. It is anticipated that the renovation will be completed in 12 months noting that the OAA has leased the temporary office space for 18 months. This building refresh project is an important way for the OAA to demonstrate its leadership in sustainable design, energy efficiencies and how existing buildings can exceed the energy targets of the 2030 Challenge. FEEDBACK:

The Tender has been issued with anticipation of an award in October. Work will commence immediately thereafter. Four mid‐sized construction firms have been prequalified to bid.

One of the goals of the project is to have Society members engage in dialogue with respect to the 2030 Challenge within their communities and show leadership by architects in this important area of design. Society members may use the OAA Building renovation project as a resource for learning.

Messaging/content/communication:

Three streams of communication strategies has been planned: o Learning opportunities to members and students o Public awareness‐ the renovation showcased as s a model for small

office renovations. o Visuals‐ media exposure with tours, time‐lapse videography on the

Website to watch the construction in progress Content will be placed on the Website and incorporated in ConEd sessions. Weekly news reports will be sent to members Five hard‐hat tours are scheduled throughout the construction phase with the

contractor.

SBEC partnership with Societies

As presented to the Society Chairs at the May meeting, SBEC is willing to partner with Societies as a resource for their members to participate in advocacy.

Societies are asked to identify a champion in their local area to work with SBEC.


9

///MOVE Construction Party Society Chairs are invited by the Interns Committee to attend the construction

kick‐off party later in the evening. An installation competition was conducted with over 50 submissions received.

The jury has chosen 20 installations done by emerging and established practices; 4 of the 5 schools participated. The installations will be showcased that evening at the building.


10

OOAA Council Directions

The OAA Council 2017 Priority Planning Session has been one of ‘staying on course’ with a focus on Government Relations, Communications, Enforcement, Continuing Education and completion of current projects (i.e. RFPS issues and Alerts as well as addressing Intern Architect issues). The Building Project has been the number one priority project and continues to be for the 2017‐2018 cycle. FEEDBACK Starting an Architectural Practice Modules

The President advised that the three‐day series titled Starting an Architectural Practice has been pilot tested and will be offer later in the fall. This detailed course is the result of strong demand from members to have learning sessions available in regards to starting and running a practice.

Awards Program

Further to a review of the OAA’s Awards Program in 2016, a working group has been developing a plan for implementation of the recommendations which were approved by Council a year ago. The Awards Program will be moving to a 2‐year cycle, with the Design Awards being offered in even‐numbered years and a new Challenge Program offered in odd‐numbered years. The service and recognition awards will continue to be offered annually and awarded at the OAA AGM.

There was some concern raised about the fact that the design awards would only be presented in Toronto every other year given the current schedule of alternating conference locations.

The President noted that the traditional Celebration of Excellence event will be altered in 2018 to reflect a one hour awards ceremony/presentation with a Closing Party to follow immediately after.

The Landmark Designation award will be sunset noting that there are already many award programs that recognize heritage buildings. There was some disappointment expressed by a number of Society Chairs with this change who noted that when a building in their community had received the Landmark Award it had been a very positive local experience.

New under the Awards program will be the introduction of an “Inducement or Challenge Award” – details will not be available until Spring 2018, but the program will target a different societal issue in each 2‐year cycle (e.g., climate change, reconciliation) and challenge the profession to ‘look forward’ and design solutions that include an architectural perspective and engage the public.


11

o The Program will be open to CofP holders, interns, students, multi‐disciplinary teams, anyone within the profession bring design‐thinking

o The Program will be introduced for the 2019 cycle CERB

The Online Canadian Experience Record Book (CERB) is nearing completion and will be implemented in December this year. Interns will be able to log hours online versus the current physical paperwork. Mentors and employees will also do their reporting online and be linked to the interns electronic CERB.

Online Admission Course

The OAA Online Admission Course partnership with University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Education is also nearing completion and will be ready for interns to begin taking courses online in January. In class modules will still be offered in the fall of each year as well as within the ConEd offerings at Conference each year.

Other Areas

The President noted that during the Council’s 2017 Priority Planning Session there had been discussion relative to how architecture as a profession can work with indigenous communities to address issues of housing, etc. in their areas. There was no decision to develop a strategy, but rather it was recognized that the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) has a national task group devoted to addressing certain issues being faced within the Indigenous communities.

National Architectural Policy

There was some discussion as well around the development of a National Architectural Policy and noted that the President and Immediate Past President of the OAA are participating on a national sub‐committee on the future of the profession which is considering such a policy. There are in fact two focusses of the work of the sub‐committee: Strengthen the development of architects AND develop national architectural policy. These areas of focus are direct results of the 2014 National Validation Conference.

The development of the national policy is following the lead of work already done by OAQ

Project Management

Of considerable concern to OAA Council is the issues and challenges being faced by the profession relative to project management (PM) service providers.


12

Architects must do better in selling their PM services to clients. As a profession, architects have to show that they have the skills, knowledge and best practices.

Project Management can be a huge area of business for the profession. It was suggested that the OAA could do more to support members who do

PM as their line of business. Is there a way that we can make it apparent what the skill set is that is deep

within PM? There was some discussion regarding conflict of interest on projects and

noted that everyone needs to overcome the perception that you can’t be the project manager and the architect

PM has the ear of the client – that’s why we need to focus on this serious issue.

There was a question as to whether concern with actions of third party PM, some of whom may be crossing the line into architecture could be dealt with through their association. It was noted that this in fact is the issue, i.e. they are not regulated so there is no resource against their actions, or regulation of the services.


13

WWorld Architecture Day at Queen’s Park

OAA is hosting the 2nd annual World Architecture Day at Queen’s Park. MPPs were invited to nominate a building in their riding they believe to be of significant value to their local communities. OAA has received a record number of nominations this year with 36 in total. PACT has chosen eight buildings to highlight; however, recognition will be given to all the nominations. Society chairs are invited to attend the drop‐in lunch reception and to stay on for one‐on‐one meetings with local MPPs. 11 one‐on‐one meetings have been arranged. Members’ kits were sent to Society Chairs and they are encouraged to contact their MPPs to remind/encourage them to attend the lunch. Based on some feedback from the group about the purpose of the QP Day, the President explained that in addition to formal liaison and meetings, the OAA used to attend political events to engage with MPPs directly. MPPs can no longer participate in these events so the OAA created its own opportunity. The OAA has decided to engage MPPs like many other professional regulators and associations by hosting an ‘architecture day’ at Queen’s Park. The most logical day to align our event with is World Architecture Day. FEEDBACK:

Most of the nominations are heritage buildings or restoration/renovation projects.

Meetings are casual affairs; MPPs want to hear concerns from their local architects (i.e. a streamlined site approval process).

Local Society heads are encouraged to reach out to MPPs and ask for a meeting during the afternoon session

o As of the Workshop, ten meetings have been scheduled. The full schedule may be found in the Members’ kit

Require Society chairs to contact staff for hotel booking. Costs of travel are also covered


14

LLegislation and Policy File: Updates/Status

The OAA gave an update to ongoing legislative and policy changes, as well as the OAA’s responses to these proposals. All policy items listed are in progress. Further updates may occur at the February 2018 meeting. FEEDBACK: Construction Lien Act

OAA has been involved in most recent consultation over modernizing CLA (and Prompt Payment) since early 2014; various meetings and submissions

Proposed new legislation in response to report: “Striking the Balance: Expert Review of the Construction Lien Act”

OAA has requested that clarifying statements regarding four main Issues be included in the legislation:

o Substantial performance applies to architectural services o Performance bonds do not apply to architectural services o Mandatory phased release of holdback (for design services) o Applicability of the legislation during transition period

OAA has not been successful with including mandatory phased release of holdback but it is still included.

When asked, the President confirmed to the group that continuing education would be made available to members regarding the changes in order to ensure architects are ready to respond and understand the implications of the amended legislation. It will mean more work for architects, and they need to make sure they are pricing it accordingly.

In addition, OAA forms and documents will need to be updated to correspond to change to the legislation.

Fair Workplace: Better Jobs Act

Government commenced the Changing Workplaces Review in 2016 As a result of the review, Government intends to consult with OAA in

the fall regarding professional exemptions from various employment standards that relate to architects

The OAA has publicly supported the removal of the profession’s exemption from requirements of the Employment Standards Act (ESA), including student in training in architecture who are intern architects.

The President will be issuing a letter to the membership next week to suggest that firms uphold the employment standards set out in the ESA for all employees, including those that by law are exempt.


15

Government introduced legislation in June 2017 amending the Employment Standards Act (ESA) and Labour Relations Act (LRA)

This legislation also proposes to give architects (and others) the right to unionize. The OAA does not have an opinion on this item at this time.

Legislation is currently being debated at Queen’s Park OMB Reform

Legislation has been introduced which, if passed, would repeal the OMB, replacing it with the Local Planning and Appeal Tribunal and Support Centre.

OAA’s position has been and continues to be improving OMB and not its elimination. OAA submitted feedback to Government in July 2017

OPPI Private Member’s Bill

Ontario Professional Planners Institute (OPPI) worked with an MPP to introduce legislation at Queen’s Park. It currently has all party support.

OAA does not support legislation and concerns has been raised to OPPI o Self‐protection/promotion vs. public interest o Inappropriate drafting/assigning of authority o Introduction of a professional planning definition o Move from protected title towards scope of practice legislation

It is noted that the legislation does not specific include a scope of practice, however the wording is broad enough to be of concern to the OAA and how it will be applied/interpreted.

OALA Practice Legislation

Ontario Association of Landscape Architects (OALA) has interest in obtaining legislation to govern their profession and establish a restricted scope of practice.

OALA requests OAA support of this proposal however there were serious concerns with the first draft and the OAA provided formal, detailed comments.

While the legislative proposal has been drafted, No MPP or Minister has agreed to bring it forward. They are actively pursuing the Attorney General as a logical place for a government bill to reside. The Attorney General has asked that they provide evidence of the need as it relates to public safety and interest.

OALA has responded to the OAA’s concerns suggesting that they have been addressed.

OAA is now in the process of considering the OALA’s response to our concerns.


16

OOMB: City of Toronto’s Harmonized Zoning By‐law

The OAA’s intervention over the City of Toronto’s HZB extends back to 2012, formally appealed to OMB June 2013

While local, OAA appealing on grounds that other communities often watch and/or adopt Toronto’s practices.

Formal OMB hearing began on June 26; concluded early July Feedback from members and parties to the appeal was very positive Chair’s questioning of OAA lawyer and witnesses leads us to believe that he

respected their opinions OAA currently awaits decision.


17

CCLOSING DISCUSSION

At the close of the workshop, the President opened the floor to general feedback and open discussion. The key items listed below were highlighted for future consideration. FEEDBACK:

There was discussion regarding the process for a name change by a specific society. Others shared their experience who had also made a name change. OAA staff will provide the information to the Society and to assist with the procedures. It was note that a name change would need to be approved by OAA Council.

There was considerable discussion regarding illegal practice of architecture, enforcement by the OAA and work being done by BCIN holders. Can this scope of practice which is currently being performed by any designers with a BCIN as well as architects be regulated? Most Part 9 buildings are not regulated and architects working mostly with Part 9 are competing with those that are unregulated. Many cited situations where they are being asked to fix issues after a client has had a negative experience with a BCIN holder. There is true concern for the public interest. Concerns for public safety were cited ‐ BCIN holders who do not undergo rigorous training in the Building Code are designing houses in areas where architects do not have a strong presence. This continues to be a constant frustration across the province.

There was also concern that the Ministry is not enforcing the BCIN registry system as was promised.

It was noted that the proposal to regulate the practice of interior design under the Architects Act would increase the area of restricted scope of practice, however it would have little, if any, positive effect on smaller practices working in the Part 9, and residential fields.

There was some discussion as to whether changes could be made to reinstate a previous requirement in the Regulations that an architect and only be engaged by the Client or Owner. The history to this change was cited.

REPORT TO OAA COUNCIL October 24, 2017 Advanced Standing Policy November 9 is the next deadline for submission of applications by experienced candidates under the Advanced Standing Policy. Under the ASP, a candidate with the necessary academic credential and at least a nine year career can demonstrate they meet the work experience qualification by submitting information on projects they have done. The candidate is interviewed by a team of architects and Licensed Technologists OAA to confirm the experience. The process is challenging and only a handful of people have moved through the system since it was first introduced. In its upcoming deliberations, the ASP committee has agreed to consider the whole process to see if changes may be required and to review the questions asked of the candidate. Following this review, OAAAS will launch a marketing campaign to encourage more candidates to come forward. Building Show Seminar The first ever OAAAS continuing education event will take place in Toronto at the Buildings Show on November 29, 1:00 – 2:15pm (W106): “The OAAAS panel will discuss the important role technologists play in architecture and the new way technologists are being organized…. With speakers from across the architectural technology discipline, the panel will look at the state of the profession today, the relationship of technologists to architects, and explore the future of building sciences, highlighting innovative and creative technology solutions.” Upcoming OAAAS Meetings The Board of Directors held a very successful retreat on Septembers 20-21. Members considered a wide range of topics that have been under review for the past two years, and a consensus was reached on a number of these. There was a thorough review of others. But, as the terms of reference of the retreat included that it was not a decision-making meeting, all of the agreements will be referred to future meetings of the Board of Directors for further review and action.

2

It is anticipated that decisions on these issues will be made beginning with the next Board of Directors meeting on November 30. Matters requiring OAA Council approval will be put forward as appropriate in 2018. OAAAS 15th Anniversary Following discussions with OAA, it is anticipated that a celebration of our 15th Anniversary will be held in conjunction with the January OAA Council meeting. This is an appropriate time since it coincides with the annual report from the OAAAS President and will be the meeting at which the newly elected Lic.Tech.OAA member of Council will take office. Toronto area Licensed Technologists OAA will be invited to the celebration. Garry Neil Executive Director

VISION, MISSION & MANDATE Vision: highest levels and ... open-redu.pdf · Council Meeting of...

Documents

Transcript of VISION, MISSION & MANDATE Vision: highest levels and ... open-redu.pdf · Council Meeting of...